Category Archives: fiscal cliff

by Barry Kelly | September 30, 2013 · 8:23 am

EIGHT DECADES OF INSIGHTS-77 THE ADVISOR

OBAMA’S WAY

The Advisor was shaken. It was after 2:00 AM and the Secret Service just called to say the Boss was on his way down. He turned the coffee pot on and got himself together. He could go to sleep most nights rather quickly but, after 82 years it took a while to wake up and function. Sometimes he wished for a schedule. It would never happen. The Journals told the story. Presidents seek advice where and whenever they like. That’s partially why the institution of the Advisors had lasted so long.

I think I must be the least effective of all the Advisors, he thought as he found two coffee mugs. The President listens but never takes my advice. I have no agenda. Protecting this bastion of liberty from all attackers is my agenda. Now for the first time an Advisor knows that the President has his own unique agenda that requires, in his words, “The transformation of America.” After five years the ugly shape of the transformation is becoming visible. That transformation if successful will mean the end of individual liberty in the world. Can I and should I help him to accomplish this goal?

The advisor paused. I have to. It’s my mission. I took the oath of office willingly and he was elected twice by the people. The question is if the people elect a man to be their leader, is that enough? I would argue that freedom can be lost through the tyranny of the majority. We fought for the right to establish a free Republic of the people, for the people, and by the people. We have now or soon will have a majority of voters who seem to favor a Democracy over a Republic. These are very different concepts. The President’s core supporters are the people who believe in an elite leadership of the masses who will lead the nation toward a managed equality and world government.

The Advisor was pouring coffee when the heavy steel door swung open and the President came in wearing a warm-up suit. He looked trim and healthy but very tired. Rather than his usual civil greeting, he said, “I’m pissed. Everywhere I go people are trying to tell me what to do. Even my own staff. At least down here nothing I say gets discussed the next day by some pompous talking head. I hate them. Especially those of the left. They should know better. This mess with Iran, Syria, and Russia has everyone chasing their tails or trying to step on mine. Damnit, on top of that the right wing radicals in the Congress are fighting ‘The Affordable Care Act and raising the debt limit. Obamacare is the damn law. I like to put them all in the Gitmo place they love so much.”

“Mr. President, how can I serve you?”

“I’m tired of talking. I want to ask you questions and just listen.”

“I’ll answer as if I was burdened with the same issues, which in my way I am. Okay?”

“Yes. My first question is how would you handle Iran’s nuclear weapons program?”

“I would not focus my entire efforts on stopping Iran from becoming a nuclear power. The issue is greater and has more points of danger. Iran’s unshakeable commitment to developing nuclear weapons is driven by their goal to dominate the Middle East in one Muslim Shia state ruled by Iran. Nothing the West can do will change this national goal. The best weapon against Iran is to motivate the Sunnis to actively provide an roadblock to Iran’s aggression. Syria is a pawn in that struggle. Assist the Sunnis in their effort to secure Syria for the Sunni sphere of influence. Hamas, Hezbollah, and a large part of the Jihadist movement would be weakened. Yes, I know al Qaeda is basically Sunni. But Iran is far more dangerous than the stateless organization of al Qaeda. No effort of yours to diplomatically stop Iran’s messianic drive to acquire nuclear weapons will do anything but give Iran more time to weaponize. Negotiation with them with the goal of exposing their treachery and rallying the Sunnis …in the end a military strike will be necessary. But get the Sunnis actively on your side first.”

“What about the budget issues and The Affordable Care Act?”

“That is an easier problem. You can solve that because you are the problem. Never mind the Alinsky theology about using every issue to diminish the opposition. Alinsky was never president. You are. Some issues must be solved. The American people do not trust a president that cannot solve important problems. You, yourself, have delayed and modified parts of The Affordable Act several times. Because it needed fixing. You stretched and maybe broke the law doing so. But that is another issue. Your problem is, do you want to give Americans better health care or do you want to use control of the health/medical industry as a big step toward socializing America? You can’t have it both ways. Negotiate health care with the Congress, both Houses. There are good things in Obamacare. Keep the good and modify the rest. Your ratings will soar and the budget crisis will disappear. The choice is yours.”

“That’s enough for me. I need to get some sleep. I’m not finished. I’ll work up to listening to more of your analysis. It helps me deal with my Republican enemies.”

The President took a last drag on his cigarette and walked out the door with an almost imperceptible over the shoulder wave to The Advisor.

The above is a fictional account of a meeting that never took place. Too bad.

The author has 27 years of Government service, including two years serving President Ronald Reagan in the 1980s as an

advisor. Considering today’s volatile political situation, you are encouraged to share this on Facebook and to click the “like” button below. Comments and dialogue are welcome.

Historic phone call between Obama, Rouhani caps Iran’s big week at UN (csmonitor.com)
Syria Crisis Yet to Derail Iran Nuclear Talks (ipsnews.net)

2 Comments

Filed under Alinsky, Conservative views, Eight Decades of Insights, fiscal cliff, foreign policy, Intelligence & Politics, Obama, political solutions

Tagged as Iran, Obama, Obamacare, politics

by Barry Kelly | February 26, 2013 · 1:49 pm

EIGHT DECADES OF INSIGHTS 37

OBAMA‘S SEQUESTRATION

Sequestration is as dumb as GOING OVER THE CLIFF. Can you even remember what that was about? We’re talking about 2% of the annual budget. Of course we don’t have a budget even though an annual budget is required by law. So sequestration is 2% of what the president might spend. I’m sure he will try to exceed his past record of overspending one trillion plus. Two percent wouldn’t even be noticed in the final accounting. Government spending will still be more this year than last. How is that for fiscal discipline? Oh, don’t overlook that the 2% is only to be applied to discretionary spending. Mandatory spending where we really spend money won’t be touched. We will still spend one trillion plus more

English: President Barack Obama signs the Budget Control Act of 2011 in the Oval Office, Aug. 2, 2011. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

than we take in. Taxing all the rich people in America at the 100% rate will not pay down our $17 trillion debt so you could notice the difference. Only drastic spending cuts, inflation and growth can make real inroads on our national debt. What combination appeals to you?

Where did sequestration come from? It seems very clear that this is one of those Alinsky issues where the issue is never the issue. How else can you explain President Obama being on both sides of sequestration? The idea, according to the Democratic chairman of the Senate Finance committee, came from President Obama. Some White House staffers said the same thing when the White House backed sequestration. Author Robert Woodward also reports the idea came from the president. It was the president who used sequestration to force a Republican House to come up with a balanced plan. In Obama terminology debt reduction is done through revenue (disguised word for taxes) and investment (another disguise for increased government spending). There would also be token cuts in the rate government spending increases. Isn’t it strange the Congressional Super Committee failed to reach agreement? Without further deep cuts in federal spending, sequestration cuts will have a marginal effect.

When the failure of the super committee was apparent, President Obama said he would veto any bill to change sequestration. Now when sequestration is imminent, it is now longer the president’s child. He claims it was a Republican idea. It is now an issue to be used to blame the hapless Republicans, who are outgunned when it comes to explaining their views with a message they don’t have. The really stupid part of sequestration is that it is an across the board cut with no discretion for the executive to cut marginal programs and not vital ones. This is a power President Obama doesn’t want for if sequestration hurts no one, he cannot use it to diminish the opposition party. The far left, where Obama lives, is salivating at the chance to cut the defense budget. In the grand scheme of deficit reduction, sequestration is much ado about nothing. Watch the president’s actions. Pay no attention to his words. Like the weather, if you don’t like them just wait a few days.

By the author of the Jack Brandon thriller series. www.factsandfictions.com

Senator Baucus: Sequestration Was Obama’s Idea (nationalreview.com)
LAMBRO: Sequestration was Obama’s idea in the first place (washingtontimes.com)
President Obama’s Sequestration Lie (independentsentinel.com)
Exposed: Obama’s Hysterical Reaction to “Sequestration” (townhall.com)

2 Comments

Filed under Alinsky, Conservative views, fiscal cliff, Intelligence & Politics

Tagged as Barack Obama, Budget, Government spending, Obama, politics, Republicans, Sequestration, United States, White House

by Barry Kelly | December 12, 2012 · 5:19 pm

EIGHT DECADES OF INSIGHTS 30

FISCAL

CLIFF

Are you tired of the term, ‘GOING OVER THE FISCAL CLIFF’? I am. I wish all the politicians in Washington would join a pack of lemmings and go over the nearest cliff. Then we could start over and get a real agreement. One that is good for the nation, not just good for radicals.

Why is it so hard to reach an agreement? The problem is simple and fundamental. Our two parties have very different objectives. Let’s start with the Progressives of the Obama party. Can you believe that a president who hasn’t had a Congressionally approved budget in all of his first term is interested in budgets, deficits, and future financing for entitlement programs or defense of the nation? His last “budget” was rejected unanimously by members of both parties in the Senate. Using my yardstick of what a president should do, this man is a total failure. But if you use a different measuring system, one crafted over the years by foreign and domestic Progressives, he has an outstanding record. He said he would transform America and he has and he still is. In another four years, America will be a very different place. What my generation and previous generations strived and fought for will be gone. Collectivism, not individualism, will be the banner. There maybe freedom but it will be a very different freedom.

From the president’s perspective, what does he say he wants before he can agree on action to avoid the cliff issues? He wants to raise taxes on the rich (people making more than $250,000 per year.) He wants the power to raise the debt limit whenever he thinks an increase is required. He does not want any cuts or changes to entitlement programs. He wants more money to spend on stimulus packages. He wants real revenue now and maybe, spending cuts sometime in the future. That is the package the Republicans think they are trying to negotiate. They are trying to find agreement on a fiscal and deficit problem. That is not the real battle. No matter how much they comprise or capitulate there is no fiscally sound path in these negotiations. Not now. Not later.

This cliff thing is another phase in the transforming of America. Keep your eye on the power game. Achieving a one-party system is part of the transformation process. The two-party system is an obstacle to the collectivist goals of the Progressives. The major goal is to marginalize the Republican Party. The president has proven his ability to out-message his opponents. His mandate, truly won, is for a far superior numbers game in getting out the vote and in defining his opponents in populist terms by endlessly repeating simplistic slogans. Accuracy and truth were not front and center. Instead it was the use of 21st century mass appeal campaigning, appealing to the fears and desires of targeted interest groups, not presenting plans or programs for the good of the nation. The election did not provide a mandate on ideas or national requirements. Neither the president nor the speaker should talk about mandates.

Rhetoric about going over the cliff is only the fog generated to conceal the real objectives of the ruling Progressives.

http://www.factsandfictions.com By the author of the Jack Brandon Thriller Series.

3 Comments

Filed under Alinsky, centralization, class warfare, Conservative views, Eight Decades of Insights, fiscal cliff, Intelligence & Politics, Obama, political solutions, Politics, Progressives

Tagged as current-events, deficit problem, government, politics

by Barry Kelly | November 28, 2012 · 2:06 pm

EIGHT DECADES OF INSIGHTS 28

politics (Photo credit: Asoka G M)

LEADERSHIP, NOT NOW

The nation is in trouble. Trouble, that is not the fault of either political party. We are all to blame. The problem is identifying and fixing the tax code, Government spending, social programs, allocation of resources and regulations. The problem can be fixed. Beginning to correct what needs corrected is not hard. What is hard is finding the leaders who can move us toward the required results. Leadership is sometimes defined as a person who can influence a group of people toward a specific result. If you have found that kind of leadership in our political system, you are either very kind or a lot smarter than I am. I’m from the school that believes leaders and managers are not necessarily the same thing. Managers are born out of experience. Leaders are born. Governor Romney is an example of a very good manager. The people were looking for a leader and he didn’t convince them he was that person. President Obama is neither a leader nor a manager, except of campaigning. There have been few equals of the President when it comes to winning election against formidable odds. He wasn’t born a leader and he didn’t have the opportunities or desire to learn management skills. And they must be learned in a crucible where results and progress are harshly measured. My examples of Presidential leaders are Washington, Lincoln and Reagan. Every major American industry has produced scores of good managers. Even the Government has had a few.

Don’t blame the President for seeming like he is always campaigning. He has mastered that skill and with David Axelrod in his corner, he is a winner. One of my rules of life is that no matter what the problem, people do what they know how to do. Our President knows how to win elections. Don’t fault him for talking to the people. He won on a successful campaign of dividing the populace. Don’t expect him to now work to bring the people together to solve our common problem. He can’t and he won’t. Why change when you are winning? He promised to transform America and he is making progress. To transform anything you must destroy the existing system. Is he a champion of Capitalism, the free market, individual freedoms or the belief that economic growth is the answer to overall prosperity? Off the basketball court, I don’t believe he sees winners and those who don’t. His fair shot rhetoric means to lessen the gap between those who have too little material goods and those who have more than enough, by handicapping our best achievers.

On the other side of our political spectrum are those who lost a political campaign when all odds were in their favor. Until they figure out who they are and that the goal of political life is more than getting re-elected, don’t expect much help from them. Fiscal cliff or not, go over it or not, is not the issue. Getting the Democrats to move back toward the center and the Republicans to move into the 21st century and both recognizing the crisis is at least half their fault, must come before a responsible solution is even remotely possible. Expect instead more kicking the oil drum down the street. Oil drums don’t kick very far, especially uphill.