By Richard Larsen

Published – Idaho State Journal, 08/21/11

The Old Testament prophet Amos promised that there would someday be a “famine in the land, not a famine of bread, nor a thirst for water, but of hearing the words of the Lord.” There seems to be another famine in the land that may or may not be related to Amos’ prophecy: that’s a famine of common sense.

Roughly defined as “good sense and sound judgment in practical matters,” its dearth seems to indicate that it is far from common, and perhaps is more elusive than ever.

To illustrate, let’s take a simple analogy of men digging a pit. As they dig deeper and deeper, the walls to the pit rise higher making escape increasingly unlikely. What if an observer refused to participate in the digging and rather alerted them to the threats of their incessant digging, and admonished them to quit digging until they devised an escape plan? It seems to me the observer was being astute and prudent by not expanding the threat and by bringing attention to the potential risks the diggers were creating for themselves. The last thing I would think of accusing them of is being a “terrorist.” It would be illogical to do so, for they are warning of impending self-imposed danger to the diggers.

Yet that’s precisely how some in the media and even prominent national leaders have characterized the “Tea Party” congressmen who refused to simply raise the debt ceiling which would allow the debt diggers to dig deeper and more inextricably. Rather than buckling to pressure from the White House and even their own leadership, they raised the specter of our national debt exceeding the nations’ GDP, and at least got some agreement to reduce spending slightly over the next ten years, even though future Congresses may not honor it.

For being conscientious objectors to the otherwise perfunctory act of raising the debt ceiling, do they get praised for causing Congress some introspection on spending priorities? No, they get aspersions, accusations, and insults hurled at them. MSNBC pundit Chris Matthews refers to them as the “scary Wahhabis of American government.” Bob Beckel, a USA Today columnist and a fixture representing the left on Fox News calls them the “TEA Terrorist Party.” And Vice President Joe Biden was said by members of the Senate Democrat caucus to have declared that they “acted like terrorists,” through the debt-ceiling debacle. And Rep. Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.) labels them as “unfit to govern.”

Military Veteran Bill Wavering illustrated the deeper humor in these appellations last week when he wrote, “Such rhetoric is actually laughable when you consider the fact that these ad hominem attacks are all originating from people who cannot ever identify an ACTUAL terrorist as a terrorist. ‘The Taliban are actually freedom fighters! If we could just talk with al Qaeda, we could reach a mutual understanding.’ Really?”

The only way they can come close to making such nefarious monikers and characterizations valid is if they base their argument on false premises, which they did. The first false premise is that by failing to acquiesce on the debt limit, default (failure to make payments) was inevitable. As I pointed out two weeks ago, we had hit the debt limit in mid May and didn’t default. The Treasury Secretary can juggle a lot of payments without ever being forced to default.

The second false premise was that if we didn’t raise the debt limit, U.S. debt would be downgraded which would have multiple pejorative effects on the debt, the deficit, interest paid to service the debt, and perhaps fewer buyers of our bonds. Well, that happened anyway, even with a debt-ceiling raise. The reason? Too much debt and a lack of political resolve in Washington to address it. Reading the S&P downgrade report, it appears the only ones who could’ve prevented the downgrade were the Tea Party “Wahhabis” in Congress. They were the ones with serious recommendations on the table for reducing spending.

Now contrast that with how Obama comported himself during the debate. Did you notice who Obama threatened when he wasn't getting his way on raising the debt ceiling? He threatened to not pay Social Security benefits. He didn’t threaten to not pay foreign aid, food stamp recipients, or funding for Obamacare. He didn’t threaten to defund the EPA, the Education Department or the Energy Department. He didn’t threaten to curtail his golf outings or lavish vacations. No, he threatened Social Security recipients. Frankly, that sounds more like terrorist blackmail than what congressional conservatives did in attempting to reduce the debt.

I understand politicians and establishment media applying such terms to their opponents. They have to make them out to be the bad guys. But shame on us if we fall for their specious allegations based on fallacious logic!

By Richard Larsen

Published – Idaho State Journal, 08/14/11

Usually good humor works because it’s based on a modicum of truth. Sometimes attempts at humor are funny because they’re so far removed from the truth. Such was the case with the Journal’s editorial cartoon in the Friday paper. It depicted Barack Obama attempting to resuscitate a persona labeled “Economy” extricated from waters where it was apparently on the verge of drowning, while the GOP sat comfortably on a lounge sipping a beverage of undisclosed composition. The cartoon was obviously drawn either by an Obama ideologue (one of those believers in the elusive “hope and change” mantra) or someone just ignorant to fact and oblivious to history.

Put in accurate contemporary perspective, the cartoon may have needed several frames. The first, starting with Obama’s election, would have had him dunking the economy in the water (sea of debt) with his first round of spending increases (modified bailout). The second frame would have had him nearly drowning the economy with a failed trillion dollar (with interest payments) “stimulus,” that was more political payback than it was economic stimulus.

The next few frames would have been repeated attempts at drowning the economy in the sea of debt with FinReg, ObamaCare, significantly expanded EPA job-destroying regulations, “Cash for Clunkers,” and another 608 regulations imposed in July alone by the administration. All the while, the Pelosi and Reid congress was helping him dunk the economy, attempting to hold it under the sea of debt, and cheering Obama on from the bank.

For accuracy, the cartoon should’ve shown congressional conservatives attempting to save the economy by preventing Obama from dunking it again, and striving to find the drain plug to the sea of debt, and looking for buckets to lower the debt level.

Every policy, initiative, and regulation that I can think of instigated by this administration has been a threat to the economy they claim to be helping. The only exception, one that gave the economy another gasp of air between Obama’s dunks, was agreeing to retain the Bush tax cuts. And yet, instead of accepting responsibility for his actions, he ascribes blame for the nearly drowned economy to the “Tea Partiers” in congress who were trying to save it! Somehow we’re to believe that more debt and more taxes are going to save the economy and create jobs? It’s never worked before, why should we expect a different outcome just because “The One” is doing it?

I was impressed this past week with Art Cashlin of UBS when CNBC interviewed him on the floor of the New York Stock Exchange. He cited Albert Einstein’s definition of insanity of doing the same thing over and over again while expecting a different outcome in reference to the possibility of the Federal Reserve printing more money to monetize the debt through a “QE3,” or a third phase of Quantitative Easing. The same principle should be applied to Obama’s economic solutions: more spending is not the solution, either to stimulating an economy and job growth, or to reducing the deficit and the national debt. More of the same exacerbates the problem, not solving it.

These issues have been brought more to light this past week since Standard and Poor’s downgraded the nation’s sea of debt. As S&P stated, “Elected officials remain wary of tackling the structural issues required to effectively address the rising U.S. public debt burden in a manner consistent with a 'AAA' rating," and further indicated that the recent effort at addressing the national spending addiction through the debt ceiling debate did nothing in “putting the U.S.'s finances on a sustainable footing."

S&P added that the nation's credit rating could be lowered even further if serious attempts to reduce the debt and deficit are not successful. They further asserted that $4 trillion in spending reduction would be a good start towards rebuilding our credit rating, yet the only proposal that even came close to that figure was instigated by conservatives in Congress. Obama and congressional Democrats’ only solution was to increase the debt limit and keep on dunking.

According to Investor’s Business Daily, the downgrade of U.S. debt will likely add another $100 to $150 billion to the deficit in higher interest costs as new issues of our sovereign debt (bonds, notes, and bills) will have to promise higher rates to reflect the increased risk represented by the downgrade.

It’s difficult to think of any policies and regulation that would be more destructive to our economy and our national fiscal condition than what Obama and his facilitators in Congress have wreaked on the nation the past few years. Was this by design to destroy the nation so he could “fundamentally transform” it, or was it through sheer ignorance of the laws of economics? That’s the $14 trillion, actually, now the $17 trillion question.

By Richard Larsen

Published – Idaho State Journal, 08/09/11

This past week we’ve seen played out in the pages of the Idaho State Journal the modus operandi of the left in reframing and reshaping fundamental issues regarding cultural and societal standards, by denigrating and disparaging those who believe differently. Lynda Eggimann, an intelligent, affable woman of exceptional courage and moral clarity brought to readers’ attention two local events. One is an attempt to further disenfranchise the all too reticent majority’s freedom of speech and freedom of religion, and the other a further degradation of our cultural mores.

She didn’t seek to silence the self-proclaimed “Thinkers, Atheists, and Agnostics for Religious Tolerance.” nor did she advocate disallowing them their rights of expression and free exercise of their beliefs. She rather lamented that due to their intolerance, they were prohibiting people of faith from exercising their inalienable rights.

Lynda was right on in questioning where we’re heading as a society when fundamental First Amendment rights are being deprived for the majority of the population by a small vocal group of intolerant extremists, who ironically have “Tolerance” in the name of their group.

To these individuals, freedom of religion can only be exercised by those who conform with their concept of religion, or lack thereof. Freedom of speech can only be exercised if it conforms with their ideology, and all other voices are to be proscribed. Adherents to this perverted logic reject the fundamental right of all Americans to express their faith freely and publicly, and rather advance a fascistic concept of tyranny of the minority by imposing their views on all others.

Her second point of contention was not against homosexuals, contrary to what her antagonists imputed to her. It was against the “in-your-face,” “ram down society’s throat” tactics of the radical advocates of homosexual normalcy. There are societal and cultural mores, or standards that vary by community. The mores of Pocatello and Eastern Idaho, however, are significantly different than San Francisco, where Lynda’s from, or from Amsterdam’s Red Light District, or New Orlean’s Bourbon Street or Sodom and Gomorrah.

Yet the events surrounding Pocatello’s homosexual pride event sound like they belong in any of those places, much more than they belong here. The very spectacle of a transgender hip hop “artist”, Katastrophe, leading a parade down Main Street seems incongruous with Pocatello’s cultural mores. Also disconcerting is the nature of his art form and his lyrics, and what he stands for. After all, his debut album as a producer was “Let's F***, Then Talk About My Problems.” Participants at the event are warned five times in the rules and regulations that there is to be no public nudity. Do you think there just might be a threat of that? What kind of a debacle of debauchery has our mayor and city council authorized, even granting public alcohol consumption privileges to them? It would appear they are equally bereft of community standards of decency.

Alan Sears and Craig Osten in their book The Homosexual Agenda, identified the four stages that the movement has gone through to reshape the issue. It’s now in the fourth stage of legitimization where, with the full backing of the American Psychiatric Association, Hollywood, the mainstream media, and the education establishment, the issue has been taken from a treatable psychological disorder to normal, if not preferred, “lifestyle” in less than 40 years. If the practice is so “normal,” how long would civilization last if we were all that way?

Most of the movement’s success can be linked to reshaping the argument from a moral and logical debate to one of “human rights.” As such, all who question the movement and the practice are labeled as “homophobic,” “hateful,” or “intolerant” toward those who are merely “different.” And as we saw this last week, they do so with all the acrimony, animus, and vitriol they can muster and get away with in print.

Society has been reprogrammed to assume they’re victims, even with all the laws on the books preventing discrimination and in the Equal Opportunity Employment protections while seeking employment. With the passage of “hate crime” legislation, they now have super protection where opponents can and are literally deprived of their freedom of speech for expressing opposition to their agenda. In England and Canada ministers have been arrested for referring to it as a moral issue. With our hate crimes legislation on the books, it won’t be long before the same occurs here.

There is a sharp distinction that needs to be drawn between accepting and loving those of different persuasions and accepting the militant, extremist tactics of the movement purportedly advancing their cause. If anything, we need more Lynda Eggimanns who can make that distinction, loving the person, but willing to stand against the erosion of our cultural standards of public decency.

With the proliferation of apocalyptic threats in the mainstream media regarding the August 2 “deadline” for raising the debt limit, it’s important to realize why we have a debt limit. It’s designed to prevent Congress from limitlessly adding to the nation’s credit cards, by providing a device whereby Congress assesses their level of spending and to make necessary adjustments. The debt limit has been raised 78 times by my count, since 1917.

As the Congressional Research Service states, “The debt limit imposes a form of fiscal accountability, which compels Congress and the President to take visible action to allow further federal borrowing when the federal government spends more than it collects in revenues.” In other words, it’s a self-imposed statutory spending restriction designed to work like a school-zone speed limit. If the nation had a balanced budget amendment on the books, there would be no need for a debt limit.

Regrettably, it appears that the only branch of government serious about reducing the nations’ debt and deficit spending is the House of Representatives. The Obama administration and the Senate majority seem to think that the only way to address our spending issue is by allowing us to spend more, facilitated by raising the debt limit!

As I’ve pointed out before, the scare tactics being promulgated by the White House and the profligate spendthrifts on The Hill, are nothing short of astounding. Obama threatens that seniors may not get their Social Security checks, while Treasury Secretary Geithner now warns of a financial Armageddon if the debt ceiling is not raised by August 2. The threats are bogus, unless they intentionally choose to make them real. We hit the debt ceiling in mid May, and the sky didn’t fall, the nation didn’t collapse, and the government hasn’t defaulted on its debt and interest payments. They’ve been juggling payments to stay at the ceiling, and they can do so after the artificial deadline as well, unless Obama and Geithner willfully choose to punish the nation for not acquiescing to their demands for more credit.

Donald Boudreaux, a professor of economics at George Mason University explains, "If President Obama follows through on his threat to withhold paying August’s Social Security obligations of $49.2 billion, it will be because he chose not to send them out. But the federal government can pay in full its $49.2 billion in Social Security obligations and its $28.6 billion in Medicare obligations — in addition to paying all of its creditors — and still have $10 billion remaining."

"The problem is that $10 billion in August isn’t sufficient to pay for all of the other programs. An un-raised debt ceiling, therefore, will oblige Washington politicians to do what they’ve refused to do for generations: make tough choices instead of shifting the costs of today’s spending onto tomorrow’s taxpayers and continuing to spend wildly."

It’s painfully obvious that as a nation we continually elect leaders who are more concerned about reelection assured by ingratiating themselves to the electorate by the “goodies” they send home, rather than exercising fiscal prudence to assure the perpetuity of the republic.

Let’s break this down in even simpler terms. The nation won’t default on its obligatory interest payments on the national debt on August 2 unless Obama and Treasury Secretary Geithner decide to. Secondly, interest rates are headed upward. Unless Congress gets the Senate and the Obama administration onboard with legitimate reductions in spending, not just reduced rates of growth of spending, the amount of interest the nation spends for new debt issuance will spike 35 to 50 basis points (.35 to .50%) as we face the prospect of a credit downgrade by the major rating agencies, Standard & Poors and Moody’s. They will be following the lead of Egan-Jones ratings analysts who have already downgraded U.S. debt AA+. S&P has indicated a 50/50 probability of downgrade regardless of what happens with the debt ceiling. Explaining their downgrade two weeks ago, Egan-Jones cited “the high level of debt and the difficulty in significantly cutting spending” as the reasons. This will make all interest rates go up, in spite of all the Federal Reserve has done to keep them artificially low.

This will further devalue the dollar, making imports more expensive, including oil, since the dollar is the reserve currency used for global trade. Inflation will be even more problematic at the consumer and the producer level, as the purchasing strength of the dollar continues to erode.

The only solution is serious debt and deficit reduction, which the White House and the Senate obviously have no intention of addressing. For that to occur it’s obvious that we must replace Obama and all the profligate spenders of both parties with men and women of common sense and a commitment to exercise fiscal prudence. They have created a crisis that we will pay for: now in inflationary prices, and for generations paying for their debt.