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?

Save the Economy, Legalize Marijuana

As California's economy goes up in smoke, Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger has said it's time to study the possibility of legalizing and taxing marijuana. About four weeks ago, he brought up the subject, and since that time, there has been talk in the media about legalizing pot on a national scale, since the country is having serious financial problems of its own. When President Obama was asked in March about the subject, he wasn't interested. "No, I don't think that is a good strategy to grow our economy," he said. Schwarzenegger sparked the debate in California, and the nation is joining in. A Zogby poll, commissioned a month ago by the conservative O'Leary Report, showed that 52% of Americans favor legalization of marijuana, with only 37% opposed. The other 11% were too stoned to comment. Legalizing marijuana not only allows for the regulation and taxation of marijuana, similar to cigarettes and alcohol, but it removes the criminal element, freeing up our legal system and making medical marijuana available without all the obstacles. Like any substance, the potential for abuse is there, but studies have shown that not only is marijuana safer than most drugs, users don't get symptoms similar to what some have called "Starbucks head," commonly known as headaches associated with caffeine withdrawal. Marijuana hasn't always been illegal. Because of sensationalistic stories of murder and mayhem associated with marijuana use, it was criminalized federally in 1937 by the newly formed Bureau of Narcotics. Up until that time it had been used as a household drug treating headaches, toothaches, depression, menstrual cramps and of course just plain stress, and drug companies were working on developing a stronger strain. In 1938, the mayor of New York, Fiorello LaGuardia, who it was rumored would light up a joint before important meetings, formed a committee to study the actual effects of marijuana. It found, despite the governments claims, that there was no scientific reason to criminalize marijuana. The study found that it did not cause insanity or act as a gateway drug. It did not cause people to go on killing sprees, and it did not cause other types of deviant criminal behavior. Further studies showed that marijuana use actually cuts down on crime, even when used by criminals, because it makes them more mellow. Even President Nixon took up the debate. In 1972, his Shafer Commission also concluded that marijuana should be legalized. Speculation that Nixon used to get high before giving major speeches has never been proven, but many experts site the famous "Checkers speech," when the then-Senator and Vice Presidential candidate got emotional before millions of viewers, as an example of an obviously high politician. Jerry Brown, the current California Attorney General, was known for his eccentric behavior when as governor of California from 1975 to 1983 he was referred to as "Governor Moonbeam," and although there were rumors of marijuana use by Brown in the governor's mansion, it was never proven. Brown did, during his tenure, however, propose the establishment of a state space academy and the purchasing of a satellite that would be launched into orbit. Interestingly, a similar program was later adopted by the state, as a satellite was launched to provide emergency communications. Supposedly the cost of this venture, and other liberal expenditures by California politicians are what got us into this mess in the first place. In any case, billions of dollars have been spent over the years on marijuana enforcement nationwide. A 2007 report, "Lost Revenues and Other Costs of Marijuana Laws," by Jon Gettman estimated that law enforcement costs relating to marijuana comes to 10.7 billion annually. Taxing marijuana use in California alone would bring in $1 billion a year to the state, according to Assemblyman Tom Ammiano (D-San Francisco). Ammiano introduced a bill in February to legalize marijuana for recreational use in California, and is urging the Obama Administration to look at the issue nationally. It's not Obama's priority, but Schwarzenegger and California might not have any other choice. California is on the brink of bankruptcy, and decriminalizing marijuana is a logical solution. A recent study showed that cigars are a much worse health threat than cigarettes. Schwarzenegger would be wise to give up his cigars in favor of marijuana. It's healthier.

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.