How to balance the budget in the age of exploding underwear

How do you win a war against an enemy that wears exploding underwear? This is just one of the seemingly unanswerable questions faced by President Obama after a turbulent first year in office.

While the deficit is expected to reach $1.6 trillion by 2011, the President's proposed budget would increase military spending next year to $750 billion, up from around $720 billion this year. To put this in perspective, military spending will be 26 times the outlay for humanitarian aid and development assistance and six times the outlay on education.

Government programs such as Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security, along with military spending, take up pretty much all the tax revenue of the Federal Government. That explains why we won't be returning to the moon anytime soon. While we can put off for a decade or two our need for a Starbucks on the moon, we can't discontinue most other spending, much of which is needed for national security or to keep the economy from collapsing. That is why we are in so much debt to the rest of the world, mostly China. Some things we can't cut: homeland security, unemployment compensation, infrastructure such as roads and bridges, environmental protection and conservation, emergency relief and reconstruction (from natural disasters like Hurricane Katrina), and the judicial and penal systems. Programs such as food stamps and other welfare programs are needed, even though some people would like them to go away.

The best example of gridlock in Washington is the battle for health care reform. Most of those who swept Obama into office were in favor of a major overhaul of the health care system. Even the public option was thought of favorably by a majority of Americans. Even most Republicans agree that the status quo is unsustainable, and others, like Sarah Palin, are just plain misinformed...or worse. She talks of government “death panels” as if she actually believes it. The sad part is that she probably does. Many Americans believe what they hear, especially when it comes from Palin, who is now more of a rock star than a politician. Palin is trying to position herself as the Republican nominee for the 2012 presidential election, but although she has a loyal following, it's not big enough to win.

Comedian/talk-show host Bill Maher has challenged Obama to “stand up for the 70% of Americans who aren't crazy”. I assume he's referring to the other 30% of Americans who support Sarah Palin or listen to Rush Limbaugh. And don't forget those who believe Dick Cheney knows what he's talking about. Maher, though, had harsh words for Obama. He called the current administration “cowards” for not fighting back hard enough against right-wing attacks on everything from end-of-life counseling (i.e. Palin's “death panels”) to Obama's speech to schoolchildren, which the far right warned was an indoctrination to socialism and a viral spread of liberal propaganda.

As for his criticism of Obama, Maher had a point. Obama has said he'd rather be a “really good one-term president than a mediocre two-term president." If that's really the case, Maher points out, why is Obama trying so hard to win over his “delusional” critics, the “sentient majority” as Maher calls it. Maher makes a lot of sense, but it is safe to assume it's easier being a comedian/talk-show host than president of the United States.

Obama is the first to agree that his first year in office wasn't a complete success. But even Bill Maher agrees that we would be in a lot worse shape had John McCain and his side-kick Sarah Palin been on the winning side. In this age of government bureaucracy and partisan political in-fighting, there is a lot that Obama has accomplished. The economy, for example, would be in much worse shape had Obama not stepped in with government stimulus money and help for the banking and auto industry. For example, did he move too quickly, not regulating bonuses for bailed out company's executives? As Sarah Palin would say, “You betcha!” But Obama averted something that could have been much worse – a depression, or at least a more severe recession.

A short-term and effective boost to the economy was Obama's $787 billion stimulus package, which included a $288 billion middle-class tax cut, $275 billion to bail out financially strapped states and a large-scale infrastructure plan. Addressing House Republicans at their annual policy caucus in Baltimore on January 29, the President noted: “A lot of you have gone to appear at ribbon cuttings for the same projects you voted against.” As Obama's approval rating declines, it's clear that much of the public isn't paying attention to the Republicans' obstructionism and hypocrisy.

Well into his second year in office, now is the time for Obama to reclaim his popularity. After all, as Bill Maher has said, there are 70% of Americans who aren't crazy. So how does Obama govern from here on?

First, we must answer the question: How do you reduce the deficit without raising taxes? The answer: Apparently you don't.

If Obama truly believes his statement about being a one-term president, he may need to take a cue from George H.W. Bush, who famously said, “Read my lips,” when declaring that he wouldn't raise taxes, and then changed course. Even if we immediately pulled our troops from Afghanistan and Iraq, we'd still be deeply in debt. Health care costs are still spiraling out of control, including Medicare and Medicaid, which could surely be made more efficient. But even in the area of health care reform, where doing nothing isn't really an option, we're fighting an uphill battle. How do you offset the rising bills that are inevitable, given our aging population? The good news is that because of medical advances and new technology, every child born today will have a 50% chance of reaching 100. The bad news is, what happens to Medicare, Social Security and other government services? Even if we reform the core entitlement programs, we're not going to be able to see any substantial savings. Eliminating the infamous earmarks would save less than 1% of the budget deficit.

Obama's campaign pledge of tax cuts for all households earning less than $250,000 per year got a lot of votes. That promise is not feasible if the government is going to bring back some form of fiscal responsibility. There is no way to close the budget deficit by merely cutting waste and taxing the wealthy.

America is living like my 18-year-old son. He's got a good part-time job for $8.00 an hour, but he hits me up for $20 a day for things like food, clothes, headphones and sneakers. He's living beyond his means. He's spending more than he's making, and he'll probably repay me someday when I'm 90 or 100. To complicate matters, he's planning to go to college, but doesn't quite know or care who's going to pay the $53,000 a year in tuition. The only way he can afford his lavish lifestyle is by still living at home. When he leaves for college, it will be a different matter. He'll have to take out student loans, guaranteeing that when he graduates, he'll owe $200,000 plus, and the only thing he'll be guaranteed is his $8.00 an hour job. I guess he won't have enough money to repay me when I'm 90 or 100, so I'm on my own. President Obama is in a better position than my son, however. Not only can he set this country on a path of fiscal responsibility, but he can help college students and the elderly, the two groups most impacted by our country's staggering financial inefficiency.

When our children are older, will they still be dealing with the financial burden of the previous generation? That's a tough question. Obama must make decisions that can somehow be explained to the American people so that they don't start believing the rants of people like Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck. If Sarah Palin can so eloquently explain the falsehood of “death panels”, why can't the Democrats expose the truth?

Still, the biggest question remains: Does it really take $750 billion to stop a bunch of fanatics who are trying to build a better underwear bomb?

Dan Rather Says Cheney Detests Obama

Because of my busy schedule, it wasn't until today that I came across an interesting Dan Rather interview which aired on Tuesday on MSNBC's "The Rachel Maddow Show." My DVR saved the day, because this was an interview worth watching, especially for a Dan Rather fan like myself. Although the former CBS anchor is known for his eccentric and sometimes biased reporting - he was forced off of the CBS anchor desk for reporting as news, then pathetically defending beyond all reason, clearly forged documents pertaining to George W. Bush - Rather sometimes speaks the truth. He spoke about his upcoming interview with a Guantanamo prisoner who says he was tortured for years before being released two weeks ago. The interview will air on "Dan Rather Reports" on HD Net next Tuesday. The prisoner, Lakhdar Boumediene, described how he was forced to run with shackles on his legs until they were bloody in order to soften him up. He told Rather he continued to be tortured even after Barack Obama became president. "They tortured me in the Obama time more than Bush," he said. Maddow asked Rather how credible he found Boumadiene's allegations. With Rather's spotty record as to what is true and what is not, that was a good question, especially when you're talking about a disgruntled ex-Guantanamo detainee. Rather told Maddow that "he seems believable," but he added, however, that the admiral in charge of Guantanamo for the last year denies the allegations. So whether the allegations are true or not, they keep the debate going as to what to do with the Guantanamo detainees. Maddow asked Rather whether he thinks the Bagram Air Base in Afghanistan is taking Guantanamo's place. Rather said there is "a school of thought which believes this to be the case." He pointed out that prisoners have been brought to Bagram from other countries and that "some of the contentions that were made about Guantanamo are starting to be made about Bagram." He went on to say: "The critical thing is, there is no transparency." Bagram or not, a recent USA/Gallup poll shows that 65% of Americans don't want Guantanamo closed. Rather calls it a "not in my neighborhood" mentality, as many Americans feel that terrorists would be released near them if not convicted of anything. "It gives Vice President Cheney some traction," he said. Dick Cheney is being joined by his daughter Liz on the "We Used Enhanced Interrogation Techniques Because They Worked" tour. Maddow asked Rather what he believes is motivating Cheney in his whirlwind torture tour. Rather cited four reasons, saying they were in no particular order. First, he cited Cheney's concern for the Bush Administration's legacy: "He knows the outlook as to how the Bush-Cheney Administration will be seen in history books is not good." Rather said the second thing was that "Cheney seeks to solidify and play to the Republican base, what some might call the most right-wing part of the Republican Party that stuck with him and President Bush all the way through." Rather continued: "Number three, I think he really believes what he's saying. I don't think he's posturing." Then Rather let out what is probably the most accurate assessment of the situation. "The fourth thing, and I could be wrong about this - I think he really detests President Obama, his policies, and everything he stands for." No, Dan, you've been wrong before, but this time you're not.

Michael Steele's Faint Voice

Rush Limbaugh, Dick Cheney, Newt Gingrich: Depending on who you talk to, one of them is the leader of the Republican Party. With Sarah Palin safely hidden just south of the Russian border, the discussions about who leads the GOP revolves around these three men. Where does that leave Michael Steele, chairman of the Republican National Committee, who continues to be losing the battle for media exposure to the big three? Last week, Steele excitedly trumpeted the GOP's prospects. "The two-party system is making a comeback," he said. "The Republican Party is again going to emerge as the party of new ideas." Although Steele says he's excited about the GOP's prospects, one thing has become clear: those ideas he refers to are in very short supply. And Steele and the Republicans face a far bigger problem. Whatever their message, nobody seems to be listening. The last voice of reason for the Republican Party, Colin Powell, has been openly mocked by Cheney and Limbaugh for endorsing Democrat Barack Obama over Republican John McCain in last year's presidential race. Limbaugh called Powell "just another liberal" and said he should become a Democrat. Limbaugh claims that Powell endorsed Obama because he's black. Powell shot back last week: "I may be out of their version of the Republican Party, but there's another version of the Republican Party waiting to emerge once again." As the Republican party seems to be shrinking, Gingrich, the former House speaker who's seen as a potential presidential candidate in 2012, agrees about the need to broaden the base, offering this advice: "I think Republicans are going to be very foolish if they run around deciding they're going to see how much they can purge us down to the smallest possible base." He's right about that, but the Republicans are still running around in circles. If you listen closely, you can hear Michael Steele's faint voice rallying for a comeback. His is the party of new ideas, after all. It's just that nobody can come up with any off the top of their heads.

My Fax Machine Is Out Of Ink

Today is Saturday, May 23, 2009. As my faithful readers know, and as announced in my May 9th blog, I'm taking the weekends off. This gives me time to practice my trumpet, wash the car, pay the bills, go out for brunch, watch Dick Cheney defending torture on my DVR of the previous week's newscasts, walk the dog, and spend some quality time with my family. Keep up to date on Arts, Entertainment and Politics in my Monday through Friday blog. Now I have to go and buy ink for my fax machine. I'm putting Dick Cheney on pause.

Cheney Says Torture Worked

Dick Cheney's "We Used Enhanced Interrogation Techniques Because They Worked" tour continues. He spoke Sunday on "Face the Nation", telling host Bob Schieffer that the Obama Administration's stance on enhanced interrogation techniques is "deeply disturbing." President Obama has repeatedly said that "the United States of America does not torture." Cheney takes great care not to use the word torture. That's because he doesn't consider some forms of torture such as waterboarding to actually be torture. Cheney said techniques such as waterboarding were successful, citing Khalid Sheikh Mohhammed, who "provided vast quantities of information about al Qaeda" after being waterboarded. Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, who was waterboarded six times a day for a month, admitted to: taking steroids, stealing sugar packets from Starbucks, driving a motorcycle without a helmet, being a witch, lying about getting a degree in economics from Cornell, and bowling without regulation bowling shoes.