Obama and Tom Coburn: Soul Mates

Start off with this proposition: Is Tom Coburn willing to shut this government down over spending cuts NOW? If you anser is "no", then yoiu are being honest. Tom Cobun is just another establishment Republican Senator I have mentioned before (unfavorably) in this blog.--as is true of almost every Republlican Senator in office before 2020 (including "my" two Texas Senators).


This blog has propounde the Magic Wand Theory of Government. Maybe I should copyright or trademark the phrase. The concept is getting more prevalent all of the time. President Obama has made a career out of this tehory. Now Tom Coburn--a supposed conservative Republican--is trynig to give him a run for his money,.


Let us "cut" 15 TRILLION dollars from the Federal budget/spending, and use "that money" to BOTH pay for Obama's "infrastructure" union pork AND reduced taxes. How do e "cut" 15 TRILLION dollars from Federal spending? Easy. The same way Obama"cuts" 4 trillion. We simply SAY we will--teny years from now. No legally binding law. No Balanced Budget Amendment. Just SAY we are going to make the "cuts". It does not erally matter to Obama WHERE we say we are going to make the "cuts", so long as it does ot overly embarrass Democrats by suggesting even fictioinal future "cuts" in Medicare or Social Secruity. As long as we don't actually do something like restructure Medicare by LAW, which means it might actualy happen since the law would have to be replealed, Obama is perfectly willing to PROMMISE almost any futre "cuts' to government spending that do not seem to promise undercutting the Democrat campaign plan to scare seniors. That is why the media PROPAGANDA LIE is so absurd. You knw the lie: That Obama has "offered" 3 dollars in spending "cuts" for every one dollar in tax increases. Problem (even apart from Obama's reluctance to say where the "cuts" are coming from, since he does not care but does not want to even take the hit on propsoing fictional "cuts"): The tax increases, even if they SPRING into exitence at a future date, are REAL. The tax increases will be passed into LAW, where the only way to stop them will be REPEAlL. And they will occur BEFORE any spending "cuts". Obama has no intention that the spending "cuts" will ever take place. Besides, he will not be around by the time we get to the nitty gritty on the spending "cuts". All Obama does is "wave a magic wand", and say that the deficit problem is "solved", because Obama has PROMISED to "cut' 4 trillion dollars in the future--the far future--along with raising taxes much sooner. Obama is really being "clever" here. The reason he is so desperate for the "big deal" is not only that Obama wants to declare that his "magic wand" has "sovled" the problem so he can move on to MORE SPEDNING. That might be enough. But Obama is facing the EXPIRATION OF THE BUSH TAX CUTS in the election year of 2012. Obama desperately wants a "deal" that enables him to say that he kept his promise of not extending the Bush tax cuts for the"rich", while avoiding raising taxes for the "middle class".


Enter Tom Couburn, who has watched how Obama oprates. Coburn thinks: This is my SOUL MATE< except I can do this magic wand business better.". Therefore, today Coubrn is proposing 9TRILLION dollars in deficit reduction over ten eyars, with a 7 to 1 ratio of spending "cutss" to tases. I feel like cring. No, I would not vote for Coburn for dogctcher of Mt. Ida, Arkansas. Even if Coubrn does not know what he is doing (I don't believe it), Coburn is just actin as a sTALKING HORSE for the Obama "big deal". In fact, Coburn is quoted as saying: "Pick and choose 4.5 trillion out of my 9 trillion.". What Coburn, dishoenst that he is, does NOT say is how he si going to ENFROCE the "cuts". I told you above how the tax increases are enforced. Indeed, spending INCREASES are enforced the same way, as Medicare, Medicaid and ObamaCare roll on until repealed (ObamaCare) or reformed. But there is NO WAY to enforce spending "cuts", except with a Balanced Budget Amendment and/or structural reform of programs passed into law.


YHou thought I was being outrageous, in that first paragraph, didn't you? Now you know better. Why did Coburn not pick my number of 15 trillioni? He could have. His number, like Obama's, is arbitrary and meaningless. It is a scam. When you listen to Coburn, see if you hear him talk about the amount he will "cut' from this coming year's spending. How much will HIS deficit be for this coming year. How much would HE add to our debt in the next year? Next 2 years? Next three years? And exactly HOW does he intend to ENFROCE spendin g"cuts". I am sorry. You can tell me Coburn is a conservative Republican if you wnat. As fra s I am concerned, he is a dishonest soul mate of Obama. Yes, I WOULD be willling to say that to Coburn's face. I invite any supporter of Coburn to tell me where I am wrong.


This "bottom line' number business is STUPID--except that Obama and Coburn think it is a clever way to dECEIVE. Why should Obama care if there is a 3 to 1 ration of spending "cuts" to proposed tax increases, or a 10 to 1 ratio? The spendin g"cuts" are NOT REAL. Next year' spendin gis ALL this Congress can control, short of legally binding STRUCUTRAL changes in these lng-term programs. No, this Congress cannot even really control that future, but it would at least require REPEAL. Going back on these promises written in water does not even require that anything be repealed. Even is some "plan" is approved by Congress, a future Congress can ignore it unless there are specific laws that must be separately repealed (and not just brushed aside as part of the appropriations process). That is true of the tax increase bills. It is NOT true of the "spending cuts".


Nope. Forget it, Coburn. If Republicans adopt the magic wand theory of government, at the end of this "fight", then I WALK (walk away from the Republican Party FOREVER). What matters is THIS COMING YER'S SPENDING. If Republicans are not willng to "cut' that with real "cuts", then I certainly do't trust them to "cut" in the FAR FUTURE. It is only if threis an ENFROCEMENT mechanism (real, and not imaginary) that I would reconsider. A Balanced Budget Amendment has SOME potential in this regard, but--as this blog has shown--if will NOT "solve" our deficit/debt problem over the next five years, and is more than "iffy" in terms of ever getting a "real" (not fraudulent) Amendment passed in both houses of Congress and the states.


Have I disosed of Tom Coburn and the establishment Republicans in the Senate to your satisfaction? I hopee so. I have disosed of him to my satisfaction. By the way, the ONLY way I would regard a "ratioo" of spending "cuts" to tax increases as REAL (not saying it is desirable to go down this road anyway) is if the $7 in spending "cuts" (to ue the Coburn ficton) occurs BEFORE each dollar of tax increases, AND it is specifically in the law that no dollar of tax increase shall go into effect ntil $7 dollars in spending "cuts" have happened. You can see the absurdity of this entire approach by the difficulty in even formulating how to make sure tax increases do not occur without the spending "cuts" happening.


P.S. No proofreading or spell checking (bad eyesight). Rick Perry is having this prayer meeting down in Texas. Do you think that Cobrun, Obama andsimilar people who have FAITH in the "magic wand" of politicians will have some sort of similar meeting? Oh. I forgot. They ARE, as Senators like Mitch McConnell get together with Harry Redi to prduce another "last minute" magic wwand "solution" that we will be told HAS to be passed. Remember the TARP bill, which was not going to be a blank chec, but was AND used entirely diefferently than debated? Remember ObamaCare, where we had to have it passed before we knew what was in it? Remember the recent "governent shut down" deal, where the CBO said that the last minute bill CUT NOTHING. How many times do Republicans thik they can get away with this? And how many times can they say that they have "learned". before the public--peplelike me, anyway--decide that the PARTY is made up of nothing but sociopathic/patholgical liars (at least the politician branch of the party).