Author: Mark Noonan

The Immorality of Government Debt

Mark Noonan18 Comments

At Wednesday’s debate Mitt Romney said something I never thought I’d hear him say – or, indeed, hear anyone in government say:

LEHRER: … Governor Romney, you — you go first because the president went first on segment one. And the question is this, what are the differences between the two of you as to how you would go about tackling the deficit problem in this country?

ROMNEY: Good. I’m glad you raised that, and it’s a — it’s a critical issue. I think it’s not just an economic issue, I think it’s a moral issue. I think it’s, frankly, not moral for my generation to keep spending massively more than we take in, knowing those burdens are going to be passed on to the next generation and they’re going to be paying the interest and the principal all their lives.

And the amount of debt we’re adding, at a trillion a year, is simply not moral…

One could almost leap and shout for joy.

It has been growing on my mind – for some time now – that it is not right for any government agency to have debt.  You see, when the government creates debt what it does is deny to future generations the right to make their own decisions.  As a true democrat, I refuse to bow to the tyranny of those who merely happen to be walking around at the time – I pay heed to those who are dead (ie, I revere tradition) as well as have consideration for those who are yet to be born (I won’t, if I can help it, make things more difficult for them by engaging in idiocy today).  Many of those who are walking around right now want all sorts of things which we cannot afford; and even those who want higher taxes still want even more spending than even the higher taxes would cover.  Anyone who wants anything which cannot be paid for out of current accounts is reaching in to the future and acting as a most tyrannical dictator.  People not yet born may want to expend their collective tax dollars on Project X but they won’t be able to because we, before they were born, spent their tax dollars on Project Y.  Is that in any way fair?

You can try to dress it up and say “well, true we’re mortgaging their future but we’re also providing them this wonderful thing”.  But suppose when the future arrives they don’t consider it all that wonderful?  Suppose even if it were wonderful they’d yet rather have something else?  Who are you, current person, to deny them their choice?

The future does not belong to us – the day after you vote to increase the debt on persons yet unborn you may well die.  You’re not there – you can’t convince anyone tomorrow, you can only deal with today.  Today we may have X amount of dollars to spend and it is up to us, by applying our wisdom, to figure out how to spend them and once we run out, that is the end of the matter.  You can try to hike taxes to get a bit more but everyone knows that after a while high tax rates have a diminishing return (even liberals know this – so ultra-liberal Governor Jerry Brown just extended lower tax rates for Hollywood…because he knows that if Hollywood were hit with a higher tax rate, Hollywood would move out of California and so California would get nothing…the pity, though, is that liberals won’t apply this to all spheres of economic activity…guess it helps if you can throw a swank, Beverly Hills party).  But no matter how you slice it, there isn’t an endless supply of money – there is just so much and then there is no more.  And there is the additional fact that no matter what we do there will never be enough money to satisfy all the wants – some will have to be set aside.  To borrow to meet wants is just criminal cruelty – and an undemocratic assault upon future generations.

Right now we are so jammed up with debt that we won’t be able to get out of it for quite a while but it is to be hoped that we are learning our lesson – and Mitt Romney’s statement at the debate shows that he, at least, is far ahead on the learning curve.  Much further ahead than Obama and his Democrats.  We have to balance our budget, pay our debt off and then never borrow another red cent.

Want a social program?  Pay for it out of current accounts.  Want a new road?  Pay for it out of current accounts.  Want to fight a war?  Pay for it out of current accounts.  And if there isn’t enough money for it, then  you’d just better not do it.  Its the only moral thing to do.

Can Democracy Survive?

Mark Noonan45 Comments

First we begin with a bit of a quote:

…There is no basis for democracy except in a dogma about the divine origin of man…
– G. K. Chesterton, “What I Saw in America”, 1922

There are some words to infuriate our liberals – and even some of our libertarians:  “dogma” and “divine”!  Did he really just say that if we want to have democracy we must have divine dogmas?  You bet I did, because it is true.

When it comes down to it – as Thomas Jefferson, Deist though he was, clearly saw – if our rights are not given to us by God then they are not rights.  If we are not all created equal then there is no justification for democracy because democracy’s justification is the moral equivalence of all people.  It is the only equality there is or can be – because it is obvious that we are not physically and mentally equal to each other.

It there were nothing but blind evolution which accounts for our being here – if there is no God, that is – then any assertion of an absolute human right is absurd.  It will fall victim to the first person who comes along and says “I don’t agree” and who has the power to enforce it.  If you want to be free the first thing you must do – hard as it will be for many – is believe in God.  Don’t believe in God and, eventually, you won’t be free simply because you’ll have no defense against someone who doesn’t want freedom to exist for whatever reason.  Whether it is a national socialist who wants to base  things upon race or an international socialist who wants to base things upon class is a matter of perfect indifference:  you cannot say that the national or international socialist (and they come in all sorts of different guises) is wrong unless you have an absolute truth – God – to point to.

That right there is enough to stick in any liberal (and most libertarian) craw – but I’m about to get much worse about it.

Continue reading →

The Last 30 Days

Mark Noonan60 Comments

I was reading today to gauge reactions to Romney’s smashing debate victory last night and I came across three interesting data points:

1.  The GOP is doing exceptionally well in early voting in Ohio.  This is quite stunning – keep in mind that McCain won Ohio among voters who voted on election day, but got so badly clobbered among early voters that he couldn’t make up the difference.  That the GOP is surging in early voting indicates two things – Democrats are lackluster in their support for Obama and Republicans are very enthusiastic…and that enthusiasm will only rise to a fever pitch after last night.

2.  In a certain suburban Chicago House district that Obama won by 23 points in 2008, recent polling shows Obama only leading by 2 over Romney and Obama is under 50%.

3.  Gasoline in Los Angeles is $4.34 a gallon and de-facto rationing is in effect as refinery outages drastically reduce gasoline supplies on the west coast.

The combination of waning Democrat support, surging GOP enthusiasm and the growing evidence of economic collapse opens up a new prospect for Mitt Romney – not just to win the White House, but to run a truly national campaign where he really presents to the entirety of the American people the stark choice facing our nation.  In my view Mitt Romney – while still pouring it on in the “battleground States” – should start to make time and resources available for the “blue” parts of the country.  A campaign swing through California is in order – and perhaps a bit of time in Illinois and Oregon, as well.

This would not be done with a mind towards actually winning those States – they are likely out of reach unless Romney winds up winning by some miraculous, 1932-like landslide.  But you do it because you want to tell all of the American people that you understand the trouble we’re in.  A trip through California would allow Romney to point out – in the example of California – just where Obama is leading us and what four more years will mean.  Do you want more cities filing for bankruptcy?  Do you want more tax hikes?  Do you want gasoline shortages to come to your part of the country?  Then re-elect Barack Obama – in California Democrats are entirely in control (as they are in rapidly disintegrating Illinois) and this is where they want us to go.  Not that they are wicked, but that they are simply fools to keep following the failed polices of Big Government liberalism and disaster is always at the end of that road.

It would also force Obama to follow Romney – Obama would either have to follow Romney to California (thus taking time and resources from the battlegrounds) or duplicate Romney by going to Texas and South Carolina (thus also taking time and resources away from battlegrounds).  It would take the battle straight to the liberals and force them away from trying to attack Romney in the battlegrounds and back on to a defense of liberalism in the blue States, something no Democrat wants anyone to notice until after November 6th.

This is an election about contrasts – the false promises of liberalism and their disastrous reality contrasted with a message of American renewal.  In that kind of a debate, we win – any time liberals have to defend liberalism, they lose.  They can only possibly win if they make the fight about what a mean, nasty person Romney is in liberal talking points.  Going to California forces Obama and the Democrats to defend liberalism.

And, who knows?, things are so absolutely catastrophic in California that maybe a political miracle will happen?

What Media Bias? Part 193

Mark Noonan9 Comments

Walter Russel Mead lays it out:

…The news from Afghanistan is grim. With the latest round of deaths, we pass a milestone: 2,000 US combatants have died in what is now the longest war in American history. The milestone has been reached just as the surge in troops has come to an end without achieving the goals of pacifying the country or even launching peace talks with the Taliban. Our Afghan “allies” remain as corrupt and ineffectual as ever, with the added wrinkle that the most dangerous place in Afghanistan for US troops these days seems to be the neighborhood of US-armed and trained Afghan forces, who are shooting and blowing up their nominal allies faster than the Taliban can do it.

This is all bad news and very disturbing, but there is a crumb of comfort to be had. Because these failures happened on President Obama’s watch, the mainstream press isn’t particularly interested in relentless, non-stop scrutiny of the unpleasant news. If George W. Bush were president now, and had ordered the surge and was responsible for the strategic decisions taken and not taken in Afghanistan over the last four years, the mainstream press would be rubbing our noses in his miserable failures and inexcusable blunders 24/7…

And every last one of you reading this – especially your liberals – knows this is true.  You can say all you want that the war started on Bush’s watch; you can say this, that and the other thing to excuse Obama – but you all know darn well that if a Republican were President right now, the stories about the collapse in Afghanistan would lead the news day after day after day.  Just think for a moment what it would be like if McCain had won in 2008 and Obama was just now taking his second shot at the Presidency.  The MSM would never let this pass, not for a second…and we’d have days of news reports marking the 2,000th American death in Afghanistan.

I really do think I have to retire the title of this post – as you can see, its been going on for a long time.  But a more correct title these days would be “What Venal and Corrupt Press?”.  Because this has gone beyond bias.  This is far more than just a willingness to soften the blows for liberals and turn up the heat on conservatives – this is a disgusting failure to do the very basics of journalism:  at least attempt to bring the truth to the people.

Continue reading →

Citizens Pay Taxes

Mark Noonan77 Comments

And if you don’t pay taxes then you are honestly not fully a citizen.  This Fox News poll indicates that a massive majority of people instinctively grasp this fact:

A large majority of likely voters believes all Americans should pay some federal income tax — even if it is as little as one percent of what they make.

Seventy-nine percent say everyone should pay something, according to a Fox News poll released Thursday.  That includes 85 percent of Republicans, 83 percent of independents and 71 percent of Democrats.

According to the IRS, last year approximately 41 percent of tax filers did not pay federal income tax.  The Tax Policy Center estimates that will increase to 46 percent this year…

It is just being part of a self-governing nation – every adult who is physically capable of contributing should contribute, even if its only in a tiny, symbolic manner.  The fact that tens of millions of people pay no federal income tax is a scandal – unless you starved to death last year, you had some sort of income and you should have paid some part of it in to the common fund.  Citizenship is only secondarily about the exercise of rights – it is primarily about the exercise of responsibilities.  And this, indeed, is what scares people about it – especially liberals:  that every man shall be a king (and every woman a queen).  It is frightening to think that you are personally responsible for yourself and even more frightening to think if yourself as responsible for everyone else.  And so it has always been easy for frightened people to prefer a tyrant who will take responsibility for the group and the individual.

I’m heartened by this poll – I had thought that only about 60% of Americans still got what it means to be a citizen.  This poll indicates that nearly 80% still do.

UPDATE:  Off topic here but since you liberals are considering polls to be holy writ:

Rasmussen polled voters to find out which candidate is trusted more to handle the US economy. Mitt Romney leads Obama by seven points, 51-44.

Bloomberg polled the question of which candidate do Americans trust more on terrorism. The Obama administration is rapidly becoming engulfed in charges that it has attempted a cover-up after the terrorist attacks in Libya and Egypt left four Americans dead. President Obama had expected, prior to the attacks, that authorizing the mission that ultimately killed Osama bin Laden would allow him a cushion on foreign policy and especially on terrorism. Bloomberg found that there is no such cushion. In fact, Mitt Romney leads Obama on trust on terrorism by six points, 48-42.

Monday Morning Open Thread

Mark Noonan174 Comments

Really doing this because there are several things I want to shine our tiny spotlight on:

Andrew Sullivan actually writes and article entitled “President Obama:  the Democrats Reagan“.  Here’s the challenge – I had to stop at the end of the second paragraph because going any further would have brought on fits of laughter so extreme as to be health-threatening.  So, how far can you get in to it before you have to stop?

There is a poll for Pennsylvania showing Obama only up by 2 and under 50%.  My prediction?  Obama will win Pennsylvania…but if you do see the State called for Romney then we’re in for a Reagan-style, 1980 landslide.  And it could happen.

Now, just why would people turn to Romney in such large numbers?  Perhaps it is because our President is a complete fool?  Calling what has happened in Libya a “bump in the road” is an idiot’s statement.  Seriously – I see your “47%” Democrats and raise you this.

Or maybe its because our President lives in a fantasy world?

Why Wisconsin is in Play.  More important for me is the fact that Wisconsin is in play.  Obama won the State by 14 points in 2008.  It should be a walkover for him.  It isn’t – in fact, its probably no better than 50/50 that Obama will win it.  So, going from 14 point lead to zero point lead in a blue State and yet we’re supposed to believe that Obama’s on an easy track for re-election?  Sure, whatever you say…

Camden, NJ (Obama by 34.8 in 2008) our poorest and most crime-ridden city is looking to disband its police force because of budget constraints.  I haven’t been able to find the information so I will place a bet with anyone who asks:  I bet it has been at least 40 years since Republicans ran the place.  Any takers?  I’m sure of winning because it is only liberal Democrats who can take a prosperous American city and turn it in to a crime-ridden, impoverished pest hole.  And what liberals have done for Detroit, Camden, Los Angeles, etc, etc, etc, is precisely what they want to do to the rest of America.  Oh, do I hear a liberal whine of “no, we don’t”?  Ok, fine – then you explain to me why when you gain exclusive political control things always work out like Camden?

In Regard to the Muslim World, What Do We Do Now?

Mark Noonan99 Comments

The key take-away of the recent events in the middle east, for me, is that whatever we were trying to do in the Muslim world, it is now in shambles.  Whether one wants to take the leftwing/Islamist view that Islam is angered by our wrongdoing or if one wishes to point out that Islam has been the aggressor for more than a thousand years is immaterial – whether it is war or the olive branch we were trying to bring to the Muslim world, both our war and peace policies have failed.  We have no victorious war while also having no peace.  However we go forward, we should go forward as a blank slate.  The first thing for us to do, then, is to figure out what we want.

The Muslim world is a billion people sitting on a strategic crossroads and also containing a very large amount of the exceptionally valuable substance, oil.  This reality is just there – it can’t be argued with.  Whatever we might want, our policy has to take in to consideration that it is there and has to be dealt with.  So, the first thing we can dispose of is any concept that we can just entirely walk away and pretend it doesn’t matter.  For good or ill, the United States will be involved in the affairs of the Muslim world.  That said, we still have to define what we want our involvement to be.

Continue reading →

Excellent Polling Analysis

Mark Noonan53 Comments

Geraghty quoting GOP pollster McLaughlin over at NRO:

…How campaigns try to sway polling results: “In a close race, the operatives are trying to manipulate the turnout through their paid and earned media. The earned media includes lobbying and trying to skew the public polls. Historically the most egregious case was the 2000 Gore campaign’s lobbying the networks’ exit pollsters for an early, and wrong, call in Florida. This suppressed the Florida Panhandle and Western state turnout.” (Polls close at different times in different parts of the state, because the state stretches into two time zones.) “In our post-election Florida poll, we found that thousands of Panhandle Floridians heard the call and although their polls were still open for an hour in a close national race decided not to vote. Panhandle voters went two-to-one for Bush. The CBS early wrong call nearly triggered a national crisis.”

On what a realistic partisan breakdown would look like: “The 2004 national exit polls showed an even partisan turnout and Bush won 51–48. Had it been the +4 Democratic edge of 2000, John Kerry would have been president. 2008 was a Democratic wave that gave them a +7 partisan advantage. 2010 was a Republican edge. There’s no wave right now. There are about a dozen swing states where in total millions of voters who voted in 2008 for Obama are gone or have not voted since. There are also hundreds of thousands of voters in each of several swing states like Ohio, Florida, Virginia, North Carolina, Colorado, and others who voted from rural, exurban or suburban areas in 2004 for Bush who did not vote in 2008, because they were not excited by McCain or thought he would lose. They are currently planning to vote mainly as a vote against President Obama.”

What Obama and his allies are doing now: “The Democrats want to convince [these anti-Obama voters] falsely that Romney will lose to discourage them from voting. So they lobby the pollsters to weight their surveys to emulate the 2008 Democrat-heavy models…

Given that our venal MSM is entirely in the tank for Obama it wouldn’t take much lobbying or pressure to get an MSM poll – or a poll done independently for an MSM outfit – to skew their polling to advantage Obama.  Good to remind everyone at this time that back before the primaries were even over I was saying that the polling will show Obama in good shape right through election day no matter who we nominated.  First off this is because polling – for a variety of reasons – almost invariably over-states Democrat strength.  Secondly because the MSM believes it is their moral duty to have our first African-American President re-elected.  Their whole worldview is at stake here – if Obama loses, then they will feel it as a bitter, personal loss.  They also must know, by now, that they are destroying their credibility with all non-liberal Americans and they clearly don’t care…saving Obama trumps all for 90% of the MSMers (which includes, by the way, a very large number – perhaps a majority – of those who work at Fox News; maybe not the on-camera talent, but the people who select and write the stories).

Continue reading →