It’s Tuesday

There’s something lost in all the discussion of tax hikes, tax holidays, sequestration, entitlements, quantitative easing, and the fiscal cliff.

As a nation, we’re broke. 

That’s a simple fact.  Democrats ignore that.  A lot of Republicans seem to be ignoring it, too.  The general population doesn’t seem to grasp it either.  Nobody wants to pay higher taxes, but everybody wants more and richer benefits.  You can’t have both.  You can’t keep pretending that everything’s going to be peachy-keen if we simply ignore the obvious.   

So I’ll repeat the obvious once again:  We’re broke.  We have no money.  We can’t afford to pay our current bills.  We keep sinking deeper in debt every day; we’re borrowing 40 cents of every dollar we spend.  We can’t even cover the interest payments on what we are borrowing. 

There's no new revenue coming in.  We’ve already robbed Social Security and replaced those funds with IOUs.  We’re kiting checks by printing more money.  Yet we keep spending like nothing’s wrong.  In fact, we keep increasing our spending every year and can’t find anything we’re willing to give up to staunch the flow of red ink. 

Who is running this show?  Wimpy?   We keep telling our creditors we’d gladly pay you Tuesday for a hamburger today, but guess what – it’s Tuesday. 

And we have no way of paying.  We don’t have the money now.  Unless we drastically change things, we won’t have the money to pay our debts anytime in the near future.

That’s why I think my head’s going to explode every time I hear someone in Congress, or the Administration, talk about the need to preserve and expand entitlements while extending tax cuts.  Or how we need to front another round of stimulus money.  Or how we need to provide over $60 billion in funding to help those affected by Super Storm Sandy – and also include money to help Alaska fisheries .  Plus extend unemployment comp even further at the same time. 

Where is the money for all this going to come from? 

Higher taxes on the rich?  Nice political talking point, but that’s a drop in the bucket and everyone knows it.  At best that brings in $89 billion a year; nothing to sneeze at but not even a rounding error when you’re talking about increasing our debt by a trillion dollars or more each year. 

Somebody needs to stand up and tell everyone that this is insane.  No one – not even the United States of America – can continue on this path and survive.

While politicians blather on about what Americans want, and what Americans voted for, someone has to have the balls to tell Americans that you can’t always get what you want.

Personally, I’d like to have $100,000 a month – tax-free – deposited into my checking account for the rest of my life.  While we’re at it, I’d also like to have all my hair back.

Is that going to happen simply because I want it?  If I elect the right Representative, Senator or President, is that going to make it all happen?

Nope. 

I know those are unrealistic dreams.  However, a lot of Americans don’t understand that pulling a voting lever doesn’t grant anyone magic powers to fulfill their every wish either.   

The simple truth is we have to stop this nonsense.  We have to make cuts in social programs.  We have to trim back on entitlements.  We can’t afford to be patrons of the arts or every seemingly worthy cause that comes down the pike.  We can’t afford to spend billions to maintain vacant government buildings, or to waste even more billions on specious defense projects the Pentagon doesn’t even want.  We can’t afford to pay for projects in some elected official’s backyard to help them get re-elected. 

And even after we’ve made all those cuts, we’re all going to have to pay higher taxes either because we reduce or eliminate deductions, tax credits, and subsidies – for people and businesses alike – or through higher tax rates for everyone.  And yes, those who pay no Federal taxes now will have to pay something. 

Everybody’s got to chip in.  Nobody can be spared.  It’s a harsh reality, for certain. 

Unfortunately, I don’t see anyone in public office today who has the willpower, the courage, or the balls to tell the American public the truth.  Someone has to.  This can’t continue. 

Doing essentially nothing, or kicking the can down the road, is unacceptable.  Talking about how everyone can still have whatever they want, and keep whatever they have now, is ridiculous and insulting.  It may be politics as usual; that doesn’t make it right. 

Congress and the President know we don’t have any money.  We’re living on borrowed dollars and borrowed time before it all comes crashing down.  Why they keep avoiding the issue is unfathomable. 

Maybe we need to go over the fiscal cliff.  Maybe we need to refuse to raise the debt ceiling and watch our credit rating sink even lower. 

Maybe it will take the first time the Chinese decide to sit out one of our bond auctions.

Maybe when we see that no one is willing to loan our government more money it will finally sink in.  Or when inflation starts zooming up because we're printing too much money and everything now costs more, while wages remain stagnant, the light will go on.    

Only then will Americans understand the gravity of the problem.  We’re broke.  And things have to change. 

Harry Reid …

In the pantheon of BS artists, Harry Reid is at or near the top.  Only Nancy Pelosi – another top- shelf BS artist – comes close. 

The difference is that Nancy’s crazy and doesn’t know it.  Harry’s disingenuous and hypocritical, and does know it. 

He’s also one of those rare people whose remarks look better in print than on video clips.  In print, he seems bold and aggressive; in video clips he looks like a wispy ghost and sounds like an agitated, whining old man. 

He’s clearly a dim-witted little weasel prone to saying stupid things – such as that he knew that Mitt Romney hadn’t paid any taxes in 10 years – and other crackpot nonsense, yet the media treats him like a respected, noble statesman.  Given his persona, and his propensity for spouting silliness, it’s hard to see how the media could take him seriously.   But they do.   

In case you didn’t know, Harry – this erstwhile noble statesman – happens to be the Senate Majority Leader who single-handedly has prevented almost every House bill from coming up for a vote in the Senate.  Under his leadership – if you can call it that – the Senate also hasn’t passed a budget in almost four years.  Nor are they likely to, as long as he’s in charge. 

Yet he routinely accuses House Republicans of being obstructionists – which might be the height of hypocrisy given his record.  And yesterday, he called Boehner’s management of the House a ”dictatorship” – another incredibly hypocritical statement.  He claimed Boehner refused to bring up the Senate’s bill on the Bush-era tax cuts because if House members had a chance, they’d approve the Senate bill.  Meanwhile, he won’t let the House bill passed in August come to the floor of the Senate, probably because he fears it might pass there. 

It’s simply amazing that whatever the Democrats in the White House and Senate want is apparently good, while anything the Republican House wants is beneath contempt.  As Harry said a while ago, anything from the House is DOA in the Senate.

That’s statesmanship at its finest.  Really?

The media spin is predictable.  Once again the Democrats and Obama are trying as hard as they can to get things done – and save us all from rising taxes – while the Republican-controlled House blocks everything the Senate and Obama propose on our behalf.   And when we lurch over the fiscal cliff, it will be entirely because of obstructionist Republicans who are pandering to the rich at the expense of the poor and middle class. 

There are a couple of problems with that.   

The Democrats and Obama are the ones holding things up.   There are a lot of legislative tools they could use to buy time.  However, it's clear they don’t want to compromise at all, even though it would seem that the two sides aren’t that far apart.   

The bill passed by the Senate in July raises taxes on the wealthy (HHI over $250,000), lets the estate tax rise, and extends and expands some tax credits.  And, of course, has no spending cuts, which is what the House is clamoring for.   The bill the House passed in August is not that much different, except that the House bill would extend the Bush-era tax cuts for just about everyone, keep estate taxes where they are and close loopholes and limit deductions for the ultra-rich, instead of raising their tax rates.  Revenue goals are about the same; details differ.        

But the House also passed a bill to limit some of the harshest budget cuts that would happen through the sequestration process.  That’s something the Senate didn’t do. 

The net/net is that the House bills would increase revenue to roughly the same level as Obama’s plan to raise tax rates on the rich, and gently cut spending.  Together, both House bills would appear to be sure-fire winners even to Democrats in the Senate, accustomed as they are to making sure almost nobody feels any pain from anything anymore. 

But Harry won’t bring the House bills to the Senate floor.  Nor is he willing to engage in any dialogue on coming up with a compromise version.  Republicans in the House have said they’d be willing to compromise more on the tax cuts for the wealthy and other items, but would like some commitments on spending cuts in return. 

So there would seem to be room for reasonable compromise.  Not with Harry – the spokespuppet for Obama – who has ruled out any rational give and take.    

With Harry in charge, and Obama pulling the strings, a compromise is not going to happen, and neither of them apparently wants one.  Harry and Obama know that a great way of ensuring a stalemate, and diminishing any hope of compromise, is to demonize the people with whom you need to reach agreement.  That’s his strategy.  Obama’s as well.   They are both doing their best to make sure no agreement is reached.     

Honestly, I believe Harry and Obama want us to go over the cliff.  Harry, because he’s in a snit; Obama because he wants to pound the Republicans at any cost.  Seriously, they are eager to have everybody’s taxes go up, and widespread budget cuts to happen, while they keep their hands clean of it all.  That’s the reason for all the posturing about the Republicans being intransigent and as such being solely responsible for taking the country over the cliff.   

That’s not to say the Republicans are totally blameless.  Letting the House shut down while this is going on appears petty and churlish.  Going tit for tat on accusations with Harry is childish.  And Boehner has stepped in it a few times by trying to whip his caucus in line and failing, which makes him look weak to the Democrats. 

With all the Republican dithering, they’ve also allowed Harry and Obama to reframe the argument.  It’s no longer how best to balance the budget though cuts in spending while increasing revenues.  Harry and Obama have successfully recast it as something resembling class warfare – a battleground more familiar and favorable to Democrats – where the rich need to pay more so the poor and middle class don’t have to.    

Harry is not the only reason we’re headed over the cliff.  He is part of the reason, but he’s just a self-righteous little toady, without the backbone to do the right thing. 

The right thing is to either pass the House bill in the Senate now and amend it later, or pass something to extend the deadline while the House and Senate bills go to conference committee to hammer out compromise legislation.  Harry knows that how it’s supposed to work. All tax legislation has to originate in the House, under the Constitution; the Senate cannot initiate tax legislation.  The Senate can make wholesale changes to a House tax bill, or reject it outright, but it can't simply create its own bill and expect the House to pass it.  That’s the way legislation gets finalized and passed, and has been for generations.  

Maybe he knows it’s all a waste of time.  Obama’s already said that he will veto the House bills.

Meanwhile Harry is doing his best to keep up the attacks on Boehner and House Republicans to ensure that there’s no compromise.  And when all Hell breaks loose on January 1, Republicans get all the blame.

Nice job, Harry.  Real statesmanship at work.      

A special place in Hell … Ho, Ho, Ho

I know it’s the holidays.  I know we should all be thinking happy thoughts.

But there are some people and things that just tick me off.  So here’s my wish list for the coming year:

Westboro Baptist – These smacked asses protest at soldiers’ funerals, and now plan to protest at the Connecticut massacre victims’ funerals.  They claim these deaths are God’s wrath because of homosexuality in general and gay marriage in particular.   

I don’t even know where to begin in condemning these bigoted, insensitive, ignorant clods who add misery and pain to grieving parents and loved ones at a time when they are already devastated.  They are no better than Muslim extremists who wrap themselves in bombs and twisted interpretations of Islam to justify wreaking havoc on the innocent.  

I don’t know who they think their God is, but I hope the God I worship takes a page out of the Old Testament and delivers some well-deserved Biblical-style wrath on them this year. 

Or maybe they could take up poisonous-snake-handling as part of their worship.  Let’s see how strong their relationship with God is then. 

Handicap parking abusers – Those decals and spaces are reserved for people with real handicaps, not for lazy, thoughtless bastards gaming the system just so they can park closer to the front door or escape paying for parking. 

This is more than just a pet peeve – it’s an insult to decent people everywhere who try to do the right thing, while some jackass thinks it’s all a game.  These morons believe there’s nothing wrong with it unless they get caught.  In fact, they’ll tell you everybody does it, like that’s a justification.

Maybe they think being stupid, selfish and insensitive is a true handicap.  It’s not.  So what I wish for this year is that people have to prove – in person -- they are truly physically handicapped to get that decal or license plate renewed.  If you have a real disability that’s documented, you should be fine.  But just being old or lazy doesn’t count – you need to have a real doctor’s note, or be walking with a cane, in a wheelchair, or on a walker to get approved. 

I’d also like to see a crackdown by police on the abusers and fines actually being enforced.  All police have to do is stake out any handicap spot and see who sprints from their car with nary a care, and who appears to be legitimate.  If there’s any question, police should ask for proof.  Barring proof, the offender should have their car towed and be fined on the spot. 

Big-ass SUVs – It’s not the vehicles themselves that offend me, it’s their drivers and their lame excuses.  Unless you're planning an expedition to the North Pole or the Amazon wilds, why anyone needs one of these cruise ships with wheels escapes me.  

Please note that I'm not including so-called crossovers and the smaller SUVs -- just the road monsters, like the Expedition and Excursion.   

Okay, I get that you have a dog.  Okay, you’ve got a couple of kids.  But really, do you need a vehicle with the cargo capacity of a U-Haul truck and the seating capacity of an airport shuttle?  I mean, seriously, how big are your freaking dogs and kids – do they take up that much space?   And do you know how to maneuver and park something approaching the size of a small RV?

Based on what I’ve seen, no to all of the above. 

But hey, it’s your right to own whatever you want.  I’ll defend that right at all times. 

Just don’t whine and bellyache about high gas prices.  Or tell me how you feel so much “safer” in your SUV, while you are bullying and terrorizing all the other drivers on the road. 

And for Christ’s sake, learn how to park your behemoth.  When you practiced the three-point-turn in Driver’s Ed, it didn’t mean that you should also take 3-5 attempts to dock your land yacht in a space at Walmart.   For the record, you’re only supposed to park in one space at a time, BTW; the lines are there to give you an angle reference, too.    

I personally think any vehicle that seats more than six adults should be painted yellow, have to stop at all railroad crossings, and require a special bus license.  But that’s just me.      

Texting while driving – We all know when someone is texting while driving because the car is swerving all over the road.  People who do this might as well be drunk or blindfolded – the effect on driving is the same.  They are a menace to themselves – and frankly that’s of little concern to others – but they are a menace to all the rest of us, which is of concern.

It’s another one of those “it’s not wrong unless I get caught” kind of things that makes a lot of us nuts.  It’s on par with “what’s the big deal?”  It’s maddening. 

 I’d like to see some enforcement on this.  And if someone is caught texting while driving, they should be treated like anyone else driving under the influence or charged with reckless driving.  Because that’s what they’re doing.  Maybe they lose their license for a spell; maybe have to attend a driver safety course, or better still have to do some jail time. 

It’s that serious.  We’ve all been behind some airhead texting and trying to drive at the same time. 

Maybe it’s vitally important to them to tell their friends on Twitter or Facebook that Sally’s a slut, Timmy’s a bastard, Cindy’s posted naked pictures, or that Mom’s a jerk.  The rest of us don’t give a rat’s ass what they’re tweeting, texting or sending; we’re just worried about them careening all over the road and possibly hitting us.   

It’s only a matter of time before they crash into something.  Or someone. 

If we can’t get them off the road permanently, then let’s take repeat offenders’ cars and remove the seatbelts and airbags.  Maybe a little practical Darwinism will do the job for us.   

Well, that’s my holiday wish list. 

Assuming the world doesn’t end on 12/21/12, have a wonderful 2013. 

The elephant in the room

The tragedy in Connecticut horrifies us all. 

Even the toughest among us struggles to hold back tears when we see the pictures of those innocent children, teachers and staff gunned down for no reason at all. 

The stories of their young lives, cut down by a madman, break our hearts.  These were just kids – most 6 or 7 years old, and teachers and staff that lost their lives trying to protect them. 

They did nothing wrong.  They didn’t deserve this.  No one does, especially not children.

Now the soul searching begins.

Some will blame too-easy access to guns and ammo.  Some will blame the failure of schools to have better security.  Others will say we need to do a better job on mental health issues.

A few brave souls will address our culture that increasingly glorifies violence through movies, video games, music, and television.  As older adults, we may be somewhat out of touch with what today’s children, teens and 20-somethings are bombarded with.  Or the desensitizing effect all this might be having on them.      

And that’s certainly an important discussion to have. 

But the elephant in the room – the one that everyone apparently tries to ignore – is the role of the parents of monsters in all this. 

That’s right, parents.  Especially parents who seem to be asleep at the switch when it comes to seeing their offspring careening toward disturbing behavior, and do nothing.  Or worse, ignore all the warning signs and pretend that they don’t know something is desperately wrong. 

Now not everybody is equipped to be a good role model.  Or has the skills to raise children properly so they don’t become murderers, rapists or other violent offenders.  Or has the willpower to admit that their offspring is mentally damaged and needs help, and gets that help.     

That’s crystal clear. 

In fact, in this latest massacre the shooter’s mother bought all the weapons he used, and trained him how to use them.  She also knew he was mentally ill.  He’d been declared mentally incompetent by some court already.  Yet she enabled him – what was she thinking?

We’ll never know.  He murdered her as well. 

The Columbine mass murderers’ parents claimed they had no idea what their kids were up to.  That’s disingenuous at best, given what we now know.  They had to know something was wrong – why on Earth did they ignore the clear signs?  Why didn’t they tell authorities? 

I’m so tired of hearing parents of killers claim that their son or daughter “was a good kid.”  And that they were ignorant of their kids’ tendency toward violence.   

I’m equally tired of hearing that schools and counselors told these parents their children had serious emotional and mental problems, and the parents did nothing. 

Look, as a parent your job is to raise your kid right.  Do your job.  Use diligence.  Know what your kids are doing at all times.  Go ahead and impose on their “freedom”; it’s your right – nay, your obligation as a parent – to be aware of what they are doing, what they are buying, what they are watching, and who they are associating with. 

If you see a problem, address it.  Don’t think because they are looking for recipes online to build pipe bombs that “it’s just a phase.”  Or that the padlock they put on their bedroom door is just to insure their “right to privacy.”

And for Christ’s sake, if they are buying body armor, call the police now. 

Better that you put your foot down before they put the hammer down and kill someone. 

Before we pass another gun law, or increase the numbers of counselors in schools, we should pass a law that holds parents responsible for raising their kids properly. 

It’s time to stop ignoring the elephant in the living room.  We need to make “Reckless Parenting” a serious crime with significant jail time for repeat offenses. 

My heart goes out to all the parents and families of those slaughtered in Connecticut.  I simply cannot imagine the pain and anguish you are going through.  America mourns with you. 

I only hope this event’s a wakeup call for other parents everywhere to start taking their job more seriously. 

Cold, calculating and dishonest

You expect a certain amount of lying from politicians, and Machiavellian maneuvering.  But you don’t expect the media to aid and abet such misrepresentations and naked attempts to seize power; you expect the media to do their job and expose such things. 

For some reason, Obama is immune from being exposed for bald-faced lies.  He’s also touted as the second coming by the media, when the truth is he’s more like Hugo Chavez than any of his predecessors, save perhaps Richard Nixon. 

Yet even Nixon – and his imperial presidency – would have blanched at some of the things Obama’s trying to pull off.   And in the end, the media did do its job on Nixon and exposed him for his reckless disregard for the law, for using the power of the government to attack his enemies, and for lying to the American people.

That’s apparently not going to happen to Obama.  He gets a pass.  And a pat on the back.

Probably like many, I can hardly listen to the news or read the daily paper anymore without being astonished that he gets away with so much. 

He makes statements that are absolutely false, and nobody challenges them.  He engages in petty, ad hominem attacks on his opponents and he’s praised for his leadership.  He ignores and stops enforcement of duly-passed laws and regulations he doesn’t agree with, for purely political purposes, and nobody sees anything wrong with that.  He bypasses Congress and the courts time and again with Presidential Orders and the media lauds him for “doing the right thing.”  He refuses to accept any responsibility for errors and he’s held up as a victim of past Administrations.  He can’t do anything wrong. 

The Democrat-controlled Senate is equally Teflon coated.  They haven’t passed a budget in years.  They’ve killed practically every Republican House bill – on jobs, the economy, whatever – on arrival.  Still, the media buys their claim that the real problem is obstructionists in the Republican-controlled House. 

It’s incredible.  Seriously, in the true meaning of the word – it’s not credible.  Nobody in the media seems to care.

For example, the other day Obama was railing against a measure in Michigan to make it a right-to-work state.  Which means only that you couldn’t be forced to pay union dues or join a union if you didn’t want to, as a condition of employment. That sounds like a pretty fair arrangement to most and over 20 other states are already right-to-work states. 

But what did Obama say?  He told the audience of union workers that he was opposed to laws like this that eliminated collective-bargaining rights, and that laws like this were designed to give workers the “right to work – for less.”    

Of course the union folks erupted in cheers.  He’s their man, right or wrong. 

In this case, he was wrong.  Dead wrong.   There’s nothing in the Michigan law that has anything to do with collective-bargaining rights.  Nor is there anything in it that has anything to do with wages.  Obama knew that.  So obviously he lied, blatantly and effortlessly. 

The news reporters covering the event knew he was wrong.  So did the network anchors that ran a clip of the event.  They all knew he lied.  Nobody said a peep.    

This isn’t an isolated event.  It’s a pattern.    

When he promised that families making less than $200,000 a year wouldn’t see their taxes go up, he lied.  Now he’s upped that to $250,000, and that’s still a lie.  Taxes are certainly going up for everyone and he knows that. 

When he promised that nobody’s premiums would go up under ObamaCare, and in fact would go down, that was a lie; premiums have soared since the bill passed. 

He said that if he were allowed to spend close to a trillion dollars in stimulus money, most of that would go to improving our infrastructure.  That too was lie.  Most of the stimulus money went to keep public workers employed and had almost no discernible effect on the economy.

When he claimed to have “saved” the auto industry and kept the car companies out of bankruptcy, that’s a laughable lie.  GM and Chrysler went into bankruptcy anyway, still owe taxpayers billions, and the only people “saved” in the auto industry were the unions – they got a big chunk of ownership for nothing while stock and bond holders were shafted.  (By the way, Ford didn’t need saving, didn’t take any government money, and is still doing just fine without government support.)

When he pledged that he wouldn’t have lobbyists in his Administration, he lied. 

When he pledged to have the most open and transparent Administration in history, he lied.

And it's not as if he was simply mistaken at the time and didn't know things wouldn't turn out the way he planned.  Or that he was taken out of context.  He knew upfront he was lying in every case.  Plain and simple.  So that makes it a conscious decision -- a premeditated lie.

It just goes on and on.  It’s so obvious.  Yet nobody – save Fox News and the WSJ – ever takes him to task on stuff like this. 

Now we are faced with the fiscal cliff.  The media generally keeps positioning this as a battle between Republicans who want to preserve tax cuts for "the rich," and Obama who wants the rich to pay higher taxes while extending the middle-class tax cuts from the Bush era.  However, it's not that simple.

But it serves Obama's interests to appear as if it's that black and white -- good guys versus greedy bad guys.   And if it serves Obama's interests, then the media is all on board.

The reality is that Republicans want to balance tax cuts with cuts in spending.  They want to extend the middle-class tax cuts but also start to tackle runaway spending on entitlements.  And instead of raising rates on the rich, they want to start limiting deductions.  Net/net, they will come up with about the same new revenues from the well-off as Obama is seeking, but in a more nuanced way.  Yes the truly rich will pay more under Republican plans -- a point the media ignores because it doesn't serve Obama's narrative.  But spending should also be on the table.

Seems like there would be room to compromise.

Yet is Obama really trying to come to some compromise?  Of course not, and publicly he's holding to the media's line that the stalemate is all about taxing the rich: he simply wants to increase taxes on households making more than $250,000 a year and Republicans are blocking him.  But as you now know, Republicans are caving on that already; only the mechanism for doing that is up for debate.

Meanwhile, he’s added to the negotiations that he wants the ability to raise the debt ceiling at will, without Congress’ approval – which he knows is a non-starter.  He refuses to deal with entitlement reform in particular, and spending in general.  And he wants to preserve the payroll tax deduction for employees, which takes money from Social Security -- the reason why many Republicans think that's a bad idea.    

In short, he’s not willing to give in on anything.  In fact, he’s made it even more unlikely to get a deal in time. 

He knows that taxing the rich more is pretty much a done deal.  The only quibbling is how it's done.  So that's not a sticking point -- he's going to get the money from them and appease his supporters.

If that's not the hold up in getting to a deal, what is?  Why add a bunch of extra baggage when you've already gotten the big issue you claimed was critical to reaching a deal?  

I think it's intentional – he wants us to go over the cliff.  And he wants to do that for purely political reasons. 

If the economy craters under higher taxes on everyone and unemployment zooms because of cuts to defense spending, he’ll claim it’s not his fault – it’s the Republicans who refused to “compromise” by not accepting all of his demands.   

By creating a new economic disaster and dropping it at the feet of Republicans, he won’t have to worry about being accountable for his past 4 years of economic mismanagement and out of control spending.   It’s a win/win for him.   He gets the sympathy; Republicans get the blame. 

Then he can come back in a role he feels fully suited for – savior.  He’ll push to keep some of the defense cuts – because the Democrats want to cut defense spending anyway.  He’ll push to restore the Bush tax cuts for everybody but the wealthy – only now he’ll take credit since they will be “Obama Tax Cuts.”  And he’ll end up getting almost everything he wanted anyway, while the public will blame the Republicans for any fallout. 

The bizarre part of it is that he will get away with it.  Again.    

And almost no one in the media will expose how callous, cold, and dishonest Obama’s been throughout the entire process.  They haven't done it in the past 4 years.  There's no reason to believe that will change.   

Extending unemployment benefits again?  Really?

Honestly, Obama and the Democrats must be joking. 

There’s no other explanation.  Faced with the coming fiscal cliff – caused in large part by profligate spending without counterbalancing tax revenues, the Democrats want to extend unemployment benefits again.  Plus they are talking about some kind of additional payroll tax deduction.  And yes, expanded public works programs. 

In short, they want to drive us even deeper into the fiscal hole.  And reward people for not working for up to two years. 

In some kind of demented logic, they think that spending more on people not working, reducing tax revenues more, and squandering money on projects that won’t happen will help the economy bounce back.   

Umm, folks … we tried all that already.  Didn’t work then.  Won’t work now. 

Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result.  Well folks, then Obama and the Democrats are clearly insane. 

Not that I ever thought otherwise.  This is simply more proof. 

The holiday special of course is extending unemployment benefits – after all, only Scrooge could be opposed.  As one Democrat said, the unemployed need that money to buy gifts for their families and friends and celebrate the holidays. 

Nice thought, but really?  What’s next?  Special holiday bonus checks to the unemployed for being such good non-workers for the past two years?    

This is getting crazy.  Extending unemployment benefits AGAIN makes no economic sense, whether it’s Christmas or not.  People knew they were facing the cut-off months in advance; what did they think – that Santa was going to bring an extension? 

I’m not trying to be a heartless bastard here, but there are way too many studies that show that a lot of people don’t really start to look for a job until their UC runs out.  The longer you extend their benefits, the longer they’ll wait. 

Then there are the anecdotal stories we all know – not “friend-of-a-friend” stuff, or some Internet chain e-mail, but real experience with people you know first-hand who used two years of UC as a way of taking a paid time out.  Or how they are making more now than ever before by working off the books AND collecting UC as well.  What’s surprising is how open they are about it.   

Maybe they used that time to take care of a sick relative, spend more quality time with their loved ones, or start a new business, which is all fine and good on your own dime. 

But that’s NOT what UC is for.  UC is to tide you over between jobs.   Not  instead of a job, or to finance a two-year sabbatical, or your startup.      

We all have unemployed friends aggressively looking for a job.  They are decent, honest, talented people who lost their jobs through no fault of their own.  And my heart goes out to them.  I try to do whatever I can to help, because they want to work again.  My guess is they won’t be out of work that long, not because they worry about when their UC runs out, but because they’d much rather have a job than collect UC. 

They want another job not just for the money, but for their own self-respect. 

Clearly, that’s not the case for all the long-term unemployed.      

I’m sorry, but if you’re able-bodied and been collecting UC for two years already, there’s something else wrong.  You need to get off your ass and do something different.  Maybe it won’t be your dream job – or like the one you had before – but you need to get some kind of real job. 

And get off the public teat.  I mean, after two freaking years don’t you have even the teensiest bit of self-respect left? 

Do you not see anything wrong with sitting on your butt waiting for something better than UC and food stamps to magically appear?  Do you really think –after two years – that people feel sorry for you anymore, when they are going to their jobs and you’re going to your couch?  Do you not think that maybe, just maybe, you need to re-examine your career goals?    

How long are you going to blame Bush, the bad economy, evil bankers and big corporations for the simple fact that you really haven’t tried to get a regular job of any kind?  Or that your degree in 16^th Century French Poetry doesn’t mean much to employers?  Or that you’re still out of work because you’re not willing to “compromise” and accept something less than ideal?   

Yes, it’s not a great economy.  Yes, some employers will take advantage of that to keep wages down as much as they can.  Yes, a lot of businesses are on shaky ground.  So it may not be the best time to change jobs. 

But if your current “job” is watching daytime TV and collecting UC until things get a lot better you’re fooling yourself.  It is time for you to change jobs.  Things may not get much better anytime soon.  Meanwhile, there are jobs out there.  Maybe not the perfect job, maybe not with as many benefits as you had before, or at a salary level you’re accustomed to, but jobs do exist.

And here’s another tip for you:

The longer you stay unemployed the less attractive you are to an employer.   

That’s politically incorrect to say, but it’s true. 

If you’ve done essentially nothing in two years – like trying to upgrade your skills, getting more education, taking courses, or working part time – they have a right to question your work ethic. 

It may be unfair, but it’s reality.

Extending unemployment benefits only postpones the inevitable.  It acts as a disincentive to looking for a job for a significant number of recipients.  And frankly we can’t afford it financially or as a society.