When Tax and Spend Liberalism Meets Bankruptcy

The One has advised us that we’re to have trillion dollar deficits for at least some years. Only one thing wrong with that – we don’t have that much money, and as the rest of the world slides into recession, there will be no one to loan us that much money Additionally, there are practical difficulties of getting Obama’s plan passed:

The forecast Wednesday of a jaw-dropping $1.2 trillion one-year federal budget deficit will make it harder for President-elect Barack Obama to win broad support for a massive stimulus package that would add even more to the red ink.

With his party controlling both the House of Representatives and the Senate, Obama’s still likely to get the OK for spending and tax cuts that cost $1 trillion or more over two years and are designed to jump-start the economy and create or save 3 million jobs.

However, while many economists, business groups and politicians agree on the need for something dramatic, Obama now concedes that he’ll have to wait until February to get a bill to sign. He’ll probably find conservative “blue dog” Democrats as well as Republicans balking at the idea of borrowing another $1 trillion on top of this new annual deficit.

They could deny Obama the kind of broad, bipartisan approval that he hopes will signal not only that he’s changed the political culture of a divided Washington but also that he’s put forward a plan that’s widely popular. Such approval is crucial as he moves to rebuild trust in the government and the economy.

We conservatives will find it endlessly amusing that the liberal Democrat plan to allow people who can’t afford a home to get loans is what triggered the de-facto national bankruptcy which will, in turn, defeat the liberals’ plans to remake America now that they’ve regained full power. Bankruptcy? Yeah – I understand that the total liability of the federal government – including unfunded mandates like Social Security (which you liberals prevented us from fixing and which will now add to our amusement as you stare in slack-jawed disbelief at the result of your own purblind idiocy) – exceeds the total wealth of the American people. Part of this imbalance is caused by the collapse in home values, but the inflated home values were probably just masking reality for a while. Essentially – and make no mistake about it, President Bush and plenty of Republicans share blame on this, including yours, truly who didn’t fight hard enough against spending – we’ve spent ourselves into oblivion. And Obama wants to spend an extra trillion or so per year to fix America!

It is now time for retrenchment and reform – we need to drastically cut spending and completely overhaul the way we do government business. Curiously enough, if Obama would put himself at the head of such a reform movement, he’d probably be able to carry it off – and secure for himself not only re-election in 2012, but a high place in American history, alongside the likes of Lincoln and Reagan. The problem is that Obama has just created the post of “chief performance officer“, as if adding one more bureaucrat to the mix will suddenly get our government working efficiently for the good of the American people. I mean, I do admire the spirit there, Barry, but I’m sorry that I’m suppressing convulsions of laughter…its like someone is writing a comedy script to satirize the Obama Administration…but this is for real. We need bold, new initiatives – we’re getting window dressing. What’s next? Bureau of Hope within the Department of Change?

We can’t tax more money, we can’t borrow more money – we can print money, and I’ll bet that Obama will try a bit of that, thus bringing us into a replay of the 1970’s “stagflation” (for you youngsters, this is the “impossible” situation where you have both a stagnant economy and high inflation). If only the blinders would come off – and I pray they do. After all, FDR ran as a tax-cutting, budget balancer and wound up the big spender…perhaps Obama’s run as a big spender will wind up as a tax-cutting, budget balancing Administration?

We can hope – and that would, indeed, be a change.