Yesterday, I declined to go into any depth regarding the president’s State of the Union Address. Today, though, I’ve decided it does require some commentary, but I’ve figured out how to be concise. Since nothing has really changed in any of his speeches for the past five years, all you need to know are the following few words:

Tax:

Spend:

Delusions:

Disaster:

That was ridiculously easy.

Less than one month from now, unless Congress does something substantive, taxes will rise for everyone. If that occurs, the economy will suffer another major hit. Economists are worried that history will repeat itself: during the Great Depression, FDR’s policies never really worked, and at the start of his second term, the country fell into a recession within the Depression. Currently, we have a president in FDR’s mold—only worse—whose policies haven’t worked, and now we’re poised to have a recession that has never gone away suddenly get worse.

President Obama says the problem is not enough revenue. I beg to differ. Here’s the proper perspective on the real problem:

You see, there really aren’t enough rich people to make up the difference. You could confiscate all their wealth and not make a serious dent in our fiscal black hole. The problem is spending. Beneath that spending problem is the ideology that constitutional limitations mean nothing.

Of course, Obama talks a good talk. If you listen to him, he’s a real deficit hawk. Is that why he’s added nearly $6 trillion to the national debt? The claim that he’s fiscally responsible is balderdash on its face, but there seems to be no end to the number of people who will fall for his line. He sounds so reasonable when he promises a “balanced” approach to our financial woes. Maybe people would understand him better if they could see a visual representation of what he means:

He and his party are all about bringing everything to the table for the negotiations. But again, their understanding of what that means differs from how the Republicans view it:

Treasury Secretary Geithner last week revealed what the Democrats are bringing to the table: $1.6 trillion in new revenue from tax hikes; a “promise” of $400 billion in savings in entitlement programs, but talks on that will be put off until next year; another stimulus bill, this one in the range of $50 billion; no limit on the debt ceiling—in other words, we can add debt upon debt without ever saying “enough.”

This is a plan? Where’s the compromise? This reminds me of a recurring image I have from my younger years, found in the comics pages of the newspaper:

Here’s another vivid illustration of what the current negotiations look like:

Obama thinks he can get away with this intransigence because he just won reelection, and he’s well practiced in blaming others for any impasse. Conversely, Republicans are not too good at getting out their message that the president and Democrats are the ones holding up the talks. Republicans fear being demagogued to death and having the American people think they’re the ones responsible for pushing us over the cliff.

The big thing Obama has going for him is that he’s not really concerned about the cliff; his ideology comes first: punish the wealthy and carve out more territory for the government to take over.

Obama is already blaming Republicans for wanting to raise taxes on the middle class. He says the only thing stopping the rise is the GOP’s insistence that the wealthy not pay more. In fact, Republicans are already proposing closing loopholes that would add to the taxes the wealthy will pay. And they are the ones who want everyone to keep their lower tax rates. Yet they are being cast as the evil party that wants to take more of your money. This would make an excellent situation comedy.

What should Republicans do? First, get a spine. Second, since they control the House, go ahead and call the president’s bluff. Pass their own bill that will show the American people they favor giving everyone lower tax rates while dealing seriously with the spending mania, particularly with entitlements. Third, learn how to communicate their policies so it will be clear to all but the most deluded Obamaites that the Republican approach is the only way out of our mess.

Put Obama on the defensive for a change. Take control of the message. Time is short.

Normally, I would be pleased for a president to attend a prayer breakfast, as President Obama did yesterday. But it would have been better if he had just been an attendee listening to someone with a genuine Biblical message. Instead, he was the speaker, and he used the occasion to say Jesus would approve of his policies, specifically his proposal to raise taxes on the wealthy.

He used the Scripture that says more is required from someone who has been given much. Well, let’s look at that Scripture in context. It’s found in Luke 12 beginning in verse 42:

And the Lord said, “Who then is the faithful and sensible steward, whom his master will put in charge of his servants, to give them their rations at the proper time? Blessed is that slave whom his master finds so doing when he comes. Truly I say to you that he will put him in charge of all his possessions.

“But if that slave says in his heart, ‘My master will be a long time in coming,’ and begins to beat the slaves, both men and women, and to eat and drink and get drunk, the master of that slave will come on a day when he does not expect him and at an hour he does not know, and will cut him in pieces, and assign him a place with the unbelievers. And that slave who knew his master’s will and did not get ready or act in accord with his will, will receive many lashes, but the one who did not know it, and committed deeds worthy of a flogging, will receive but few. From everyone who has been given much, much will be required; and to whom they entrusted much, of him they will ask all the more.“

Where to begin?

First, the larger context of the passage has to do with the Second Coming. Jesus had just told a parable about those who were not ready. He then further explained that parable by telling this story. So far, there is nothing about the government taking more taxes.

Second, He emphasizes stewardship of whatever God gives us. The steward had a responsibility to carry out his particular tasks, and he needed to do so faithfully. One of those tasks was to provide rations to the master’s servants, but this is not a government endeavor. It’s simply using the master’s money to pay for services rendered.

Third, it’s an exhortation to stay focused and not allow oneself to turn to sin. He’s speaking of man’s propensity to follow his own selfish desires when he thinks the master [God] isn’t around to rebuke him.

Fourth, it offers a theology of divine punishment for those who don’t follow the will of God, but instead give themselves over to personal pleasures and desires.

Finally, we get to the line Obama used. It is a general principle that states the obvious: if you have been entrusted with much, you will be judged with a more stringent judgment. It actually places on emphasis on knowledge: those who know more, i.e., have a greater understanding of God’s will, and then disobey, will receive a stiffer penalty.

Nothing in the entire passage offers a hint of any government action, and certainly has nothing to do with sanctioning higher taxes on the wealthy.

Using Scripture for one’s own purposes by twisting it out of its context is deplorable. Mr. President, what you said at the prayer breakfast qualifies as deplorable.

I don’t think I’ve ever used eight cartoons in one blog. Let’s set the record today. Why so many at one time? Well, when have we ever had a president who has declared war on wealth and wealth creators as avidly as this one? His continuing adventures in socialism/financial incompetence provide excellent fodder for the cartoonists. Many consider his actions a new warfare:

Obama, naturally, doesn’t see it that way:

His concept for how to make the math add up follows a traditional approach—one that has been tried in countless countries from the old Soviet Union to the “new” Europe:

One may ask a legitimate question with respect to this approach:

Meanwhile, those who are trying to be rich are also being affected by our economic woes:

Obama’s deficit-reduction plan has some unique twists to it. He’s counting the discontinuation of the war in Afghanistan as part of it; you see, that’s money we were going to spend, but won’t in the future, so it’s part of deficit reduction. On that basis, you could throw in all kinds of possibilities for deficit reduction:

The only real barrier to genuine deficit reduction is one’s imagination, apparently. Yet programs that will remain on the books and will continue to mushroom don’t seem to find a spot in his plan:

To be fair, though, there is one segment of the population that likes what it sees:

I say it’s well past time to believe in something else.

President Obama yesterday unveiled what he called his deficit reduction plan. Part of it was the usual smoke and mirrors—a supposed one trillion saved by pulling out of Iraq and Afghanistan. Another one and a half trillion is supposed to be reduced by taxing the rich. Here we go again.

The mantra that never seems to end is that the rich aren’t paying their fair share. Never mind that the top 10% of earners pay about 70% of all income taxes. Never mind that nearly 50% of our citizens pay no income taxes at all. And never mind that even if you took all the money from millionaires and billionaires, you still wouldn’t come anywhere close to eliminating the national debt. You see, those are facts, and Mr. Obama doesn’t want to be bothered by facts—they’re a nuisance and get in the way of his plans.

Most analysts worth their laptops could see this coming:

Let’s be honest. Obama doesn’t really expect this to pass the Congress. He knows, without any doubt, that it will fail in the House; even his erstwhile Senate allies are not very allied with him this time around. So what’s the reason for this tax bombshell? It’s part of his reelection strategy: say you had a great plan to take care of the debt, complain that the do-nothing Republicans stopped it cold, and accuse them of catering to rich people. A nice, neat package.

Will the majority see through this? Stay tuned.

I think President Obama’s Monday evening address was an attempt to make it seem like he’s still the key person in the debt debate, when in fact he has been left in the dust. He has never laid out a specific plan, yet castigates those who do, all the while blaming them for an impending crisis. His character seems to be pretty fixed—blame everyone but himself for problems. I’ve often commented that he lives in a fantasy world; he isn’t doing anything to change my impression.

He’s been abandoned by his Democrat colleagues on the issue of revenues. Let’s call them what they really are—tax increases. Even the flawed Reid bill doesn’t add any new taxes. On that issue, he’s standing alone now. Of course, that doesn’t mean his political friends don’t want to raise taxes anymore. They just know it won’t fly with the electorate, and they desperately desire reelection. Obama, though, hasn’t gotten the message.

Unless he wakes up, he’s going to earn a new title:

The last two days I’ve pretty much displayed my lack of faith in the American electorate. I won’t belabor that today, but I did find some political cartoons that express well a number of things on my mind presently:

In case you missed the reference in that last panel, Obama, in one of his dreary press conferences this past week, actually maintained that 80% of citizens agree with him that taxes have to be raised. In this case, I’m siding with the people: there’s no way that many believe that. The president is hoping that if he is brazen enough in his assertions, they will become reality. Of course, he always has the media to prop him up. If you’re wondering how he can stay as high as he does in the polls, there’s an easily identifiable reason:

That only works when the electorate is willing to suspend disbelief.

I wish the press would press a little more:

Are Congress and the president doing their jobs in the debt ceiling debate?

Why has it come to this again? What has led us to this precipice?

And yet the media proclaim him as the “reasonable” one in the debate, as opposed to those “extremist” Republicans who seek to lower the debt, cap spending, and mandate a balanced budget. In real life, those goals are laudable. In government, they pass for ludicrous, apparently. The world has turned upside down.