Those of us in the current events “business” spend a lot of time pointing to the disaster-in-waiting with the national debt. Maybe we should more clearly show how one state is running ahead of the curve, providing a cautionary tale for those at the national level. California, once rescued from financial embarrassment by Ronald Reagan when he was governor, has reverted to its old ways. Of course, that’s no surprise, seeing as how the voters in the state chose to place Jerry Brown back in the governor’s mansion. This is the same Jerry Brown who followed Reagan’s tenure and who undid all the positive progress.

The state is billions of dollars in debt, yet keeps on spending as if there’s no problem. When Gov. Brown called for higher taxes, opinion polls showed the voters approved of that remedy. The old maxim remains true: the government is merely a reflection of the people who vote it into power. They are getting what they deserve. Unfortunately, those who voted for real change and lost are suffering along with those who are trying to pretend there’s a bright tomorrow via the taxing and spending route.

The debt is growing and there’s no end in sight due to the foolish policies the politicians are pushing. If this sounds familiar, it should:

Individual cities are suffering as well from their bloated promises to their citizens. Some have taken steps to reverse the trend, but most remain blind to the sinking ship:

One city in particular, Stockton, has decided to declare bankruptcy. Has this ever happened before? I’m not sure, but it’s another indicator of the mess that’s been created:

All the governor’s horses and all the governor’s men . . .

The latest fantasy is that the state can afford to spend billions on a new rail system, while ignoring fiscal reality:

It’s sad to witness a once-thriving people fall into ruin, but it’s happened time and again throughout history:

As California goes, so goes the nation? No, it doesn’t have to be that way. It’s not inevitable. We the People still have the opportunity to make wise choices. We can start being wiser again this November.

It appears the president dug a pretty deep hole with his comment about how the private sector is doing fine. It always takes a few days for the cartoonists to catch up to events, but they’ve done so now. In one respect, President Obama is correct about the state of the private sector. These private sector cartoonists are doing quite well. Here’s a sampling:

Of course, the president tried to “walk it back” a few hours later, but wasn’t too successful:

Maybe that will teach him not to wing it. He definitely needs those teleprompters. The other theme he keeps stressing is that he’s not responsible for all the deficit spending the last three and one half years. He’s still blaming former President Bush. When does the statute of limitations run out on blaming others? For this president, apparently never.

President Obama’s press conference last week didn’t go as well as he had hoped. When asked about the economy, he stated, “the private sector is doing fine.” That brought such a barrage of incredulity that he had to go before the cameras once more and walk back those remarks. But the damage was done. The Romney campaign already has an ad running touting how out of touch the president is. The ad is accurate.

Yet there was another part of his statement that was even more revealing than his knowledge deficit on the status of the private sector. He remarked that the “real” problem we face is the loss of jobs in state and local governments. That, he believes, is the true indicator of our economic woes. In other words, cutting back on government spending is the culprit. If only governments at all levels would spend more, this economy would be booming. You know, like it did after his stimulus package. Right.

These comments showcase the Obama worldview: it’s a world where government is the engine for prosperity, not private business. Only more government spending and more government control over the choices of individuals, families, churches, and businesses will create the type of society where all are happy.

Well, he’s had three years to test that hypothesis. His administration touted the summer of 2010 as “Recovery Summer.” Does anyone recall that recovery? Where do we stand this summer?

Recovery Summer III is a sequel that has lost its glitter.

That press conference was only the last of a series of awful events for this White House in the past few weeks. Here’s a short list of what has gone wrong for the Obama team:

• Key Democrats have criticized the Obama campaign’s attacks on Bain Capital, Romney’s old firm. Newark, New Jersey, mayor Cory Booker called the attacks “nauseating.” He’s no longer on the president’s short list for a cabinet post. Bill Clinton keeps going rogue as well, first saying that Romney did a fine job at Bain, then advocating the extension of the Bush tax cuts for everyone, even the wealthy. He was called to task on that last one and did his own walkback. Some are seriously wondering if he’s secretly hoping to torpedo Obama’s reelection. They’ve never been the best of friends.
• The jobs report a week and a half ago was dismal. Even with more people dropping out of the workforce, the unemployment rate still went up.
• National security leaks have outraged both Republicans and Democrats in the Congress. Some of these leaks could only have come from individuals in the inner circle of the White House due to the nature of the knowledge leaked. Accusations that the Obama campaign is orchestrating the leaks to bolster Obama’s “tough guy” image are increasing.
• Scott Walker’s solid victory in the Wisconsin recall election does not bode well for Obama either. It means Wisconsin is probably in play for the Republicans. Obama studiously avoided being seen or heard anywhere near Wisconsin in the days leading up to the election. He knew defeat was looming.
• Attorney General Eric Holder is on the edge of receiving a contempt of Congress slap in the face for his continued stonewalling on the Fast and Furious investigation. Holder’s arrogance and stubbornness mirror that of his boss.

But of course we know none of this is Obama’s fault. How do we know? He has said so repeatedly. When his portrait is eventually placed in the White House next to George Bush’s [sooner rather than later, one hopes], I think it may be one of the most original of all the portraits:

There has been criticism lately from both Left and Right over President Obama’s policy of selecting terrorists to kill in drone strikes. I may surprise some of you by offering a qualified endorsement of that policy. We are at war against terrorism, even if some in the administration would like to have us believe that war is over. A president does have the responsibility as commander in chief during a war to take out the enemy. Yes, I know we haven’t made an official declaration of war; that should be done. But Americans’ safety is the overall concern.

The critique from the Right, though, has been the manner in which this is carried out, along with the loss of valuable intelligence. If we kill all terrorists, we don’t have the opportunity to interrogate them for what they know. That has proven invaluable in recent years. The Obama approach wipes out not only the terrorist, but any chance of extracting more significant information that could lead to taking down an entire network. Also, his method of micromanaging the so-called “kill list” is eerily reminiscent of LBJ’s handling of Vietnam. That went well, didn’t it? And then there’s the collateral damage of relying almost exclusively on drone strikes—the innocent may die along with the guilty. I’m not saying the drones shouldn’t be used, but there are other factors this president apparently isn’t taking into consideration.

By the way, I got a sneak peak at the new Obama Kill List. You may find this fascinating:

By this standard, he’s been remarkably successful. If you don’t think so, let him explain:

That’s a pretty optimistic self-assessment. Here’s another one closer to reality:

Many Democrats are nervous. They have spoken out against Obama’s attacks on genuine capitalism that creates jobs. Meanwhile, his own policies have led to the highest unemployment and lowest productivity at a sustained pace since the Great Depression. Yet you don’t find any in his party willing to say he should step aside in favor of his vice president, now do you? Wonder why?

The last four years have been a national nightmare. Perhaps in five months we’ll awaken once again.

In the past week, President Obama, on the campaign trail, has tried to convince his audiences—and us as well—that he has been the most responsible spender in recent presidential history. He used as his proof an article written by someone who drew all his information from a presentation by Nancy Pelosi. Now there’s a solid source. In order to believe this spin, one has to place all 2009 spending on former President Bush. How can anyone do that? Well, since 2009 spending started under a Bush budget that began in 2008, surely it all belongs to him, right? Not when you actually look at the facts, which somehow elude our current leader. Bush never signed that budget: Obama did later. The faulty analysis also throws the stimulus bill onto Bush, even though it was an Obama enterprise from the start.

Don’t believe everything you hear from this president. In fact, don’t believe most of what you hear, especially now that the campaign is in full throttle. Let me be very clear [as Obama often says]: Obama and the Congress have added more than $5 trillion to the budget in less than four years. Bush added $4 trillion in eight years. As unadmirable as Bush’s record may be, it is the epitome of fiscal control when compared to Obama’s.

Every time Obama has sent his version of a budget to the Congress, it has been rejected unanimously—in other words, by both Republicans and Democrats:

Of course, one of the reasons the Democrat leadership has rejected Obama budgets is that it hasn’t been stellar at even considering budgets. The Senate, under Harry Reid’s leadership [?], hasn’t put forward a budget for a vote in over three years, despite a law requiring it.

So much for the concept of the rule of law.

How bad is the current fiscal situation? Here’s one way of understanding it that may bring it closer to home:

Yet what we are told about the deficit doesn’t take into account a deficit that is officially off-budget. We try to pretend it isn’t there, but it’s the biggest fiscal headache of all:

Unless something is done to deal with the root of the problem, we will become a financial basket-case. But every time someone—usually Republican—attempts to offer a plan to deal with it, Republicans are accused of wanting to throw granny off a cliff. That type of political demagoguery is not new, but at the critical juncture at which we now stand, it is particularly irresponsible.

If you’ve been a reader of my blog for some time, you know Mitt Romney was not my preferred candidate, but I now have to hope, work, and pray for his election, if for no other reason than to remove the White House’s current temporary occupant. These last four years have been a disaster in more ways than I can take the time to enumerate today. Maybe someone who understands better how economics works can make a difference.

Let’s just have a few meditations on the economy today, and how it’s affecting the race for the presidency. What better way to accomplish this than to allow the cartoonists to carry the meditation? I know most of what I write about is national, but we can start with one state’s economy:

Of course, if that happens, the rest of the country will be affected also. Did you hear that California governor Jerry Brown just announced that the state debt is far worse than he anticipated? Gee, I wonder if his policies might have something to do with that? Why is it that we think we’re immune to an economic Armageddon?

This mentality can be found at the top as well:

One of my concerns is that a slightly lower unemployment rate will fool voters into thinking things are turning around. Anyone thinking that way is overlooking one significant factor:

In other words, the number of people looking for jobs keeps dropping because they’ve given up. A shrinking unemployment rate masks a shrinking labor force. That’s not progress. All it does is put more citizens on the government dole. Remember Julia?

How widespread is that outlook on life? The more it becomes the norm, the closer we are to utter collapse. Yet the Obama campaign continues to make job creators into villains. That’s bad enough, but the hypocrisy of it only adds to the reprehensible nature of the attack:

Keep in mind the president himself is also part of the so-called 1%. He’s not exactly suffering.

I wrote a post a few days ago about the Obama campaign’s new slogan, “Forward.” It’s so ripe for parody, it’s almost too easy to do. Examples abound, many with the same theme:

What were they thinking by promoting this slogan? The cartoonist Michael Ramirez may have figured it out:

Obamacare is nowhere to be found in any current Obama ads. Wonder why? What does he have that he can tout? Well, one thing:

Maybe you can get the T-shirt:

I realize some have criticized the president for overplaying his hand in this matter. Well, to be honest, I have criticized the president for putting himself front and center and seemingly taking all credit. Perception is the key in campaigns. Perhaps we’ll be seeing this soon:

Try not to get too ill before election day.