All Four Super Bowl Previews VII

Seven years and counting! I look forward to this week every year! I enjoy the anticipation of what should be the best two NFL games of the season and I get to sit down and write my favorite post of the year! (In case you are new to JMO, this post is where I break down all four possible Super Bowls, discuss who will win, which one I'd like to see, which one the league and the networks are pulling for, and who the losers are for each game.)

If you'd like to see how I've done in the past, you can read my previous versions here (I'll list them with the year the Super Bowl happened along with the actual teams that faced off):

2007, Colts over Bears;
Game Predicted: Saints over Colts.
Predicted Winner of the Eventual Super Bowl: Colts;

2008, Giants over Patriots;
Game Predicted: Accurately predicted the Giants vs the Patriots.
Predicted Winner of the Eventual Super Bowl: Patriots;

2009, Steelers over Cardinals;
Game Predicted: Steelers over Eagles.
Predicted Winner of the Eventual Super Bowl: Steelers;

2010, Saints over Colts;
Game Predicted: Purposeful lack of prediction.
Predicted Winner of the Eventual Super Bowl: Colts;

2011, Packers over Steelers;
Game Predicted: Packers and Steelers
Predicted Winner of the Eventual Super Bowl: Steelers;

2012, Giants over Patriots;
Game Predicted: Giants over Ravens.
Predicted Winner of the Eventual Super Bowl: Patriots

So far I'm 10 for 18 (if I get 1 point for each team in the game and 1 point for the winner of the teams that actually played each other). I had a 100% for 2011 and a premonition pick of 2010's game way back in 2007 (With the Saints winning too!). To maintain my 55% I'll need to get at least 2 correct this year.

Alright, enough about previous years! On to this year's potential Super Bowls from least compelling to most:

Patriots vs Falcons
Let's be honest, nobody really wants to see this match-up. The Falcons are stuck with the perception that they didn't play anyone decent to get to the playoffs this year, and people not from New England are so sick of the success of the Patriots that they'd rather see the Ravens in the Super Bowl than Belichick and company! Not even the fans of the teams want to see this game! The Falcons would rather face Flacco as their defense isn't exactly tailor-made to stop Brady's fast-paced offense. On the other side of the coin, Patriot fans see this game as "too easy" which means it would be really bad if they lost! Matt Ryan has flown under the radar too much for this to be a story about the reigning king of the NFL vs a usurper to his crown. There's just so little for the average fan to get excited about.
Winner: Patriots
Losers: Companies who spend $1 Billion for a 15 second advertisement. Nobody's watching!

Ravens vs Falcons
The Battle of the Birds! Fight of the Fowl! The best thing this game as going for it is the retiree story-line. Both teams have an icon of the game who will be calling it quits after this year: The Falcons have TE Tony Gonzalez who, despite his record breaking career, won his first playoff game last week. The Ravens have LB Ray Lewis who has one ring already (over the Giants in 2000) but would like to end his career winning the big game! That and the pairing of Flacco vs Ryan has some appeal as well: both are considered second tier Quarterbacks. Both are struggling to solidify their name in the annals of NFL lore. This match-up would ensure a victory for one of them.
Winner: Ravens
Loser: The Fantasy Owners who pick the winning QB in next year's league because he won the Super Bowl.

Patriots vs 49ers
Now this would be a good game! With Kaepernick's read option, Gore's running game, and the threat of Crabtree and Davis it would be amazing to watch Belichick's defensive brilliance attempt to slow them down. And that's just half of the game! The other half is watching Brady, Welker, Hernandez, Vereen, Ridley, Lloyd, and Woodhead attempt to surgically dismantle the 49er's D. Other underlying stories: Gronk out. Harbaugh's decision to bench starter Alex Smith in favor of Kaepernick. This is the game I want to see, and this is the game I'm predicting. Now if Hollywood were writing this, Kaepernick would get hurt in the 1st Quarter and Smith would come off the bench and lead his team to victory. In past Super Bowls the Patriots have done well against the animals (Defeating the Rams, Panthers, and Eagles [hence my prediction of a Patriot win over the Falcons]) but have fared poorly against the human(oid) teams (the Giants). This pattern will unfortunately continue.
Winner: 49ers
Loser: Doesn't matter who wins, the loser is Joe Montana

Ravens vs 49ers
And now we've come to the game that everybody wants to see! Ray Lewis with a chance to close out his career with a ring, Kaepernick's unique offense versus the Ravens stingy defense, top all of that off with the fact that the head coaches for these teams are brothers and you've got yourself one exciting football game! In the end, though, I believe the 49ers have more weapons on both sides of the ball. Besides, it's more important to the younger brother that he defeat the older brother (trust me on this one, I know!).
Winner: 49ers
Loser: Mr and Mrs. Harbaugh

There you have it. My predictions for this year's "Big Dance." One major reason I don't think the Ravens will make it is that you get one miracle win per year and they wasted theirs in Denver. Many pundits bringing up two previous Patriot/Raven games. They are saying that the Ravens should have beaten the Patriots in the AFC Championship game last year (despite an expertly defended TD pass that many incorrectly refer to as "dropped" and a missed FG that would have merely tied the game, not won it.) and they are bringing up the Ravens victory over the Patriots earlier this year under the replacement refs! I believe the Patriots will overcome Fluke-o and the Raven to go to their 6th Super Bowl in the Brady era.

One final note: if the 49ers defeat the Falcons, the Patriots will have had three rematches from this season in their quest for a fourth Championship (and it didn't matter who won the the game between the Ravens and Broncos because the Patriots played them both!)

Those are my thoughts, what are yours?

Two New England States to Learn From

During the election, President Obama was fond of using a small New England state to display why his Healthcare plan would be successful. I hope that the President takes a close look at another small New England state as a barometer for his plan to increase taxes, rather than cut spending.

That state is none other than Connecticut. Like much of America, Connecticut's economic woes have mirrored those of the Federal Government. What makes Connecticut special is that the state legislature has enacted the very measures that the President is fighting for on the national level: increasing taxes on the highest wage earners without cutting spending. Though there was (and remains) a predictable result of these actions, those predictions were ignored (as they are being ignored on the national level) and the plan went forward.

Needless to say, the predictions became reality. While this is unfortunate for the people of Connecticut, this is a great opportunity for the rest of the country. Political pundits no longer have to predict what will happen when the Federal Government increases taxes without sufficiently cutting spending, they can simply observe what has occurred in Connecticut. Here is the step by step account, complete with corresponding news articles, chronicling the attempts the politicians in Connecticut took to attempt to avert financial disaster; the very steps the Democrats in Washington are campaigning for; the very steps that did not avert, limit, or even stall Connecticut's financial pangs. But rather worsened them:

Step 1: Tax increases.
Facing a $3.5 Billion budget deficit, Governor Malloy instituted a budget which did not cut a significant amount of spending but increased taxes. However, seeing that these actions were insufficient, in May of 2011 the Governor asked for, and the legislature approved a retroactive tax hike for the majority of Connecticut residents, the lion's share of which fell on the wealthy. These increases took effect in August of 2011 and appeared to be massive as they were retroactive all the way back to January. The politicians responsible for this barely Constitutional act attempted to alleviate the concerns of the middle class who saw their pay plummet by assuring them the taxes would decrease in January 2012. The truth of their statements is that the tax rate would remain the same, but the amount withheld would decrease as it would be only for that pay period, not for that and previous pay periods as they'd experienced during the second half of 2011.

Step 2: A balanced budget.
Good news! The initial increase in the original budget combined with the secondary and retroactive increase and a modest union concession package was sufficient for economists to project that Connecticut had finally balanced its budget and was no longer operating on a deficit. This, of course, was based on the anticipation that such an unprecedented tax increase would not have an impact on those factors on which tax revenue depends: employment, consumer spending, citizens relying on the social safety net to name a few.

Step 3: An "unforeseen" shortfall.
Beginning in the second quarter of 2012, it became apparent that the state's budget was not going to finish the year balanced, as had previously been projected. And, as the year progressed, the shortfall became greater and greater. $1 Million, $25 Million, $80 Million. Before long, Connecticut was facing a $365 Million dollar budget deficit for 2012 and an even greater shortfall in 2013. 2013 was shaping up to be close to a $2 Billion deficit. $365 Million for 2012 wouldn't be so terrible if we hadn't been told earlier in the year that the massive impact to our wallets was enough to balance the budget. And to add insult to injury the deficit for next year is inching closer and closer to the original figure that the tax increase was designed to eliminate!

Step 4: Uncovering why the budget wasn't balanced.
While Connecticut Democrats were surprised at the "shortfall," fiscal conservatives pointed to the pre-tax increase expectations that predicted the inability of a tax increase to solve the states fiscal problems. The primary reason for the shortfall is the state collected less tax than originally anticipated. This includes lower income, sales, corporate, cigarette, cigar, alcohol, gas, and estate taxes. What could be the systemic cause of this? It is two fold: When consumers see more coming out of their paychecks, and they take less home, they are intentional about spending less. This means less in retail sales. They travel less, or group necessary trips together: less gas tax. They cut back on items that are expensive due to their high taxation: cigars, cigarettes, alcohol.

The second cause was just as foreseeable: Companies (most of which are small and subject to the personal income tax level) go under, or layoff workers: lower income and corporate taxes. Look at the unemployment level in Connecticut following the institution of the tax increase. The increase in taxes lead to a spike in unemployment. This spike, in turn, lead to a decrease in consumer spending, and an increase on residents relying on the social safety net. From beginning to end: the increase in taxes started a completely foreseeable chain-reaction that lead to an increase in government spending in the realm of social services.

Step 5: A new solution
The state of Connecticut is now wrestling with what should have been the original solution: cutting spending. One of the major difficulties to this endeavor is that in negotiating with the unions, Governor Malloy promised that he would not seek any further concessions for the next three years. Personnel and payroll easily make up one third of the state budget. At least, now they are taking the right action. The only question is, will they be able to cut enough to undo the damage they've done with their tax increase?

As we move ever closer to the (temporarily delayed) fiscal cliff, I ask President Obama to examine the microcosm of his plans to increase national taxes on the rich. I ask him to observe the scientific experiment that is Connecticut's economy. I ask him to, at the very least, balance his attempt to right the US Economy with at least as much in spending cuts as anticipated revenue increase. As we've seen from Connecticut, a tax increase has additional consequences which means we cannot simply assume revenue based on current tax income. You were reelected to be responsible. You took a cue from Connecticut's neighbor to the north, now take one from Connecticut herself!

2012-2013 NFL Playoff Preview

It is difficult to believe that the NFL season is already over. It feels like it just began four weeks ago. It also seems that, once again, the only topic that brings me back to my blog is sports. (There's more politics waiting in the wings) I didn't even have a chance to do my traditional pre-season predictions! But here's how I would have done:

AFC:
East: Prediction: New England. Actual: New England. No surprises there.
West: Prediction: Denver. Actual: Denver. When Manning joins your team, how can anyone bet against you?
North: Prediction: Pittsburgh. Actual: Baltimore. The Ravens would have done it to me again, coming out on top when I picked the Steelers.
South: Prediction: Houston. Actual: Houston. Really no other options here.
Wild Card: Predictions: Baltimore and San Diego. Actual: Cincinnati and Indianapolis

NFC:
East: Prediction: Dallas. Actual: Washington (would have correctly predicted that the Super Bowl Champions would NOT make it back to the playoffs.)
West: Prediction: San Fransisco. Actual: San Fransisco. Seattle was a surprise, wouldn't have seen any competition here.
North: Prediction: Detroit. Actual: Green Bay. I know. Detroit. I get it.
South: Prediction: New Orleans. Actual: Atlanta.
Wild Card: Prediction: Green Bay and Washington. Actual: Seattle and Minnesota.

Without further ado. JMO's Playoff Predictions

AFC
Wild Card Round:
Colts at Ravens
To be honest, I'm not really confident about any of the games this week. The underdogs have some great match-ups, but the favorites could easily walk into the next round. I'm going to pick the Colts in this one. I just don't think Flaco has what it takes to overcome the Colts.
Winner: Colts

Bengals at Texans
A rematch of last year's wild card game. Houston came out on top last time and, despite their recent losing streak, they'll emerge victorious this time too.
Winner: Texans

Divisional Round:
Houston at Patriots
We've seen this game already this year. And a win over the Bengals won't be enough to lift the confidence of the Texans enough to elevate them over New England. Brady is hard to beat with his passing game, he's nearly undefeatable with a powerful running game, like they've had this year. It won't be as lop sided as it was during the regular season, but the Texans will be heading home from Foxboro.
Winner: Patriots

Colts at Broncos
Payton vs his replacement. And the Master will triumph over the learner. Denver easily wins over the Colts.
Winner: Broncos

Championship Round:
Patriots at Broncos
Historically, the Patriots haven't done well against the Broncos. They knocked the Patriots out of the playoffs on a famous pick six that was fumbled out of the end zone, but called out on the 1. Historically, Payton doesn't do well against the Patriots. Which trend will continue? Belichick is in Manning's head.
Winner: Patriots

NFC
Wild Card Round:
Vikings at Packers
This game is so difficult to predict. AP ran for over 200 yards against the Pack last week, but it was in Minnesota. AR (Rodgers) didn't look like himself. I don't think both of these will happen again, even though I'm rooting for the Vikings.
Winner: Packers

Seahawks at Redskins
Another great match-up. Here are two teams that are mirror images of each other. Rookie QBs, Run first, stop the run teams. The Redskins run game and run D are both better than Seattle's. Despite their record braking scoring run, Seattle loses.
Winner: Redskins

Divisional Round:
Packers at 49ers
The 49ers surprised a lot of people with the amount of success they had this year, particularly with their new QB. This game will depend on which Aaron Rodgers shows up. I think that the less-than-stellar version flies into Candlestick park and the Packers pack it up and head home.
Winner: 49ers

Redskins at Falcons
Bad news for the #1 seed. Ignoring the fact that they achieved their first seed by facing the fewest teams that finished the season by heading to the playoffs, they aren't really that good. And the Redskins are on a roll. The #1 seed loses.
Winner: Redskins

Championship Round:
Redskins at 49ers
Another battle of someone inexperienced QBs. The difference? The 49ers have been here before. Their experience (particularly in returning punts) elevates them over the Cinderella-Skins.
Winner: 49ers

Super Bowl
49ers vs Patriots
The Patriots played all three of the teams they met in the playoffs in the regular season. and they should have defeated all three of them. The unfortunate scenario for the 49ers this time is that the ball won't be covered in ice. With the Patriots keeping possession of the ball, Brady achieves his fourth Super Bowl victory. And Wes Welker is awarded Super Bowl MVP, effectively erasing the criticism he received last year.
Winner: Patriots

There you have it. So now it's likely that the Super Bowl will be a battle of Rookies with RGIII going against Andrew Luck because I predicted something other than that. Feel free to provide your predictions. What a great time of year!

2012 Voting Booth Vol. IV

It likely is surprising to most faithful JMO readers that I've been holding my tongue with such a close, contentious, and convoluted campaign season. Well, with only three more days until we know who will take the oath of office in January it is time for me to share my thoughts.

My purpose for the following multi-post adventure is two-fold: Primarily, if there are any "undecided" voters reading this, I hope to provide you with well thought-out, reasoned, logical, and persuasive arguments to cast your vote for any candidate other than Barack Obama. Secondarily, I hope that the opinions and facts that I will be sharing would cause some voters who consider themselves supporters of the President to actually consider changing their minds regarding the candidate for whom they will vote. I believe the latter to be less likely, but a blogger can dream, can't he?

Table of Contents:
Why We Voted for President Obama
Things Said During the 2008 Campaign
Scare Tactics
Time's Up
Unity and Disunity
Questionable Definitions
Obama's Record
Michelle's Spending
Lawn Signs

Why We Voted for President Obama

I'd like to direct the first portion of this post to those of my readers who voted for Barack Obama in 2008. In 2008, we were looking at unemployment at completely unacceptable levels, rising gas prices, a weak housing market, a stock market that was struggling, an economy headed in the wrong direction, and we could point to specific policies put in place by the party in power and reasoned that they neeed to go. The reason I mention is this: We have the exact same reasons to vote Barack Obama out of office.

Things Said During the 2008 Campaign

The truth of the matter is that, in the past, President Obama has said some very true things. Particularly while campaigning for, and early in his term as, President in 2008 and 2009. In the speech he gave accepting the Democratic nomination for President he said this, "If you don't have any fresh ideas, then you use stale tactics to scare voters. If you don't have a record to run on, then you paint your opponent as someone people should run from." Does this resonate with anyone? Does this not sound like nearly every strategy eminating from the Obama campaign since day one of this election season?

Scare Tactics

All I've heard from Obama is scare tactics regarding his opponent. "A $5 Trillion dollar tax cut for the wealthy." "No real plan." "He won't deal harshly with China." "He'll ship our jobs overseas." "He's a Mormon." "He'll end Medicare as we know it." "He'll outlaw abortion." etc etc etc. Barack Obama doesn't have a record to run on, so he's trying to frighten people away from voting for Mitt Romney. He's trying to create a scenario where staying with the person who hasn't done the job as well as we'd hoped is still better than someone who will really foul things up. But this is completely illogical. "The devil we know..." We know that the President has been unable to right the economy in a reasonable amount of time; so, clearly, it makes more sense to bring in someone new. The chance of improvement is better than the guarantee of status quo. Bringing this full circle back to my first point: Obama's philosophy behind his original election campaign is the exact philosophy that should unseat him on Tuesday. The sitting party couldn't get us out of this mess, we need a change.

Look, if Mitt is elected, doesn't live up to his campaign promises, and ends up doing all of the things that Obama is claiming he's going to do, then I'll vote him out of office myself.

Time's Up

Which is exactly what President Obama predicted very early in his tenure as President. He admitted that he had three years to turn this ship around and if he was unable to do so, this would be a "one term proposition." Well, let's hold him accountable to that. Four years is more than enough time to turn an economy around. Even if it isn't back to where it started, the trending should be upward. Which it's not.

Let's take this out of the policital realm for a moment. The Boston Red Sox recently fired Manager Bobby Valentine after just one season. They said the following regarding their decision: "Bobby was dealt a difficult hand. He did the best he could under seriously adverse circumstances... He was dealt with a lot of difficult issues and things happened outside of his control. But we are where we are, and the results weren't good and we are looking to move forward." Even the Red Sox understood that, regardless the hand that was dealt ("It's Bush's Fault"), it is appropriate to expect a certain level of results in a certain amount of time. Bobby didn't meet the Red Sox expectations and the President hasn't met ours.

And for those who like to point the finger at the Republicans in the House for standing in the President's way, don't forget he had two years of complete control. The Democrats had a filibuster proof majority and they did next to nothing.

2012 Voting Booth Vol. V

Unity and Disunity

In 2008 President Obama achieved votes through a message of unity. "Change we can believe in." I find it very telling that the only way President Obama can achieve votes this time around is by creating disunity among the American electorate. He declares that there is a "war against women" by the Republicans. He pits the lower, and middle class against the "super rich." He squares "The working man" against evil "huge corporations." And then he declares that "Voting is the best revenge." Revenge against what? Against your fellow American's who see things differently than you?! Nothing like bringing the country together by tearing it apart to stay in office.

The disunity that he is projecting is so great it permeates other public arenas. Following Hurricane Sandy a reporter asked the utilities representative if they were dragging their feet regarding the restoration of power to a major Connecticut city because they were focusing more on the wealthier areas of the state (What liberal media?). This doesn't even make any sense! Cities are more densely populated. Restoring power to a city block brings in much more income from kilowatt hours than restoring power to a single big house. But this class warfare is what the country's "leadership" is spouting and it trickles down to all areas.

Questionable Definitions

One tactic that the Democrats are exercising to create this disunity is by using familiar words with unique definitions. A prime example is the term "access." President Obama and his liberal friends have been fond of phrase "The Republicans want to take away your access to birth control." Bing defines "access" (as it applies in this sentence) as "opportunity to use." The President defines "access" in this sentence as "paid for by the Federal Government." No Republican is going to remove birth control from the shelves of CVS and Walgreens around the country. That's removing our access. No Republican is going to prevent hospitals from offering emergency contraceptives to rape victims. That's removing access. Not paying for it is not removing access. It's removing government funded access.

Another unique definition was used by the President during the first speech when he was discussing his grandmother. He said of her, "[My grandmother] was fiercely independent. She worked her way up, only had a high school education, started as a secretary, ended up being the vice president of a local bank. And she ended up living alone by choice. And the reason she could be independent was because of Social Security and Medicare." Apparently, according to liberals. "Fierce independence" means complete dependence on the Federal Government. If his grandmother truly were independent, she would not have had to rely on anyone (or any program) because of her own responsible planning and saving while she was the VP of the bank. And this is the end goal of the Democrats. Complete and utter dependence on the Federal Government. They believe this is the answer to our country's issues. The problem is: dependence does not breed opportunity.

These are just a few examples of how President Obama is using questionable definitions (basically lying to the American public) in a attempt to cling to power.

2012 Voting Booth Vol. VI

President Obama's Record

President Obama has four major "accomplishments" on which he's attempting to rest his laurels:

First: the stimulus package. President Obama theorized that the stimulus package would halt unemployment and bring it back down to a more reasonable level much faster than without a stimulus. Here is a graph showing what unemployment would have done without the stimulus, what President Obama told the American public would happen with his stimulus, and what actually happened.

This isn't something to be proud of. It's something to shy away from. What can we expect if reelected? Another stimulus.

Second: President Obama clearly enjoys stating that he saved GM from bankruptcy while Mitt Romney would have allowed them to go through bankruptcy. Here's the difficulty with that. GM was not saved from bankruptcy; it was merely delayed for a while. GM is headed back into bankruptcy. I hope Obama liked giving a bailout to GM, because if he's reelected, he'll likely do it again.

Third: President Obama brought down Osama Bin Laden. Whomever created the following analogy hit the nail right on the head: "Barak Obama taking credit for killing Bin Laden is like Richard Nixon taking credit for the moon landing." Yes, this happened on your watch, no you can't take credit for it. Just like Grant couldn't take credit for the transcontinental railroad just because he was sitting in the Oval Office when they drove in the golden spike. If Obama wants to run for reelection on those laurels he might as well add "Kentucky is the NCAA Final Four Champion." It happened, and you watched it, but you didn't have a whole lot to do with it.

Fourth: Obamacare. First it's not a tax. Then the only way it's Constitutional is by being a tax. Not only that, but a tax with no fewer than 20 tax increases. And as if that weren't enough. American's don't want it.

The four legs on which President Obama has built his reelection record are either splintered, weak, or missing.

Of course, for some reason I don't hear much from the "non-liberal" media regarding the President's failures. One of the most egregious being the issue in Libya. Report after report expose that the security forces asked for more support and were flatly denied. And because of this four American citizens were killed on American soil by terrorists. And when asked about this travesty and tragedy in regards to the overall "Arab Spring" the President referred to these murders as "Bumps in the road." He has allowed his Secretary of State Hilary Clinton to end her own Presidential aspirations by "taking responsibility" for the Libyan failure. Of course, no one has been fired or relieved of command. So while she may be "taking responsibility." No one is being held accountable.

2012 Voting Booth Vol. VII

My final two thoughts are admittedly not as crucial, but still interesting.

Michelle's Spending

The President's irresponsible spending doesn't end with him and his policies. It extends to his wife. She has spent over $10 million of public money on vacations. And her spending doesn't end there. She has more assistants than any other First Lady in history. To top it all off, the salaries of those assistants is notably higher than any previous administration. You can compare Michelle Obama's staffs' salaries to those of Laura Bush's here.

Lawn Signs

Finally, I find it curious as I drive around all areas of Connecticut that the businesses brave enough to display political lawn signs on their property are nearly unanimously for Romney/Ryan (and Linda McMahon, the Republican running for Senate). These are small businesses run by middle class people. Why is it that the people who know how to run a business, and who know a thing or two about money and finances are not supporting the President?

We gave him a chance, and he gave it the "ole college try." His best wasn't good enough and it's time for new leadership.

Honestly, I'd be amazed if anyone has joined me for this entire adventure. You've read my opinions. What are yours?

2012 Voting Booth Vol. III

"It's like somebody goes to a restaurant, orders a big steak dinner, martini all that stuff ... And then, just as you're sitting down ... they leave ... and accuse you of running up the tab."
        ~President Barak Obama on the National Debt.

This is a very good analogy, but he didn't finish it. Here's the rest of the analogy:

"As soon as they stand up you realize that you don't have your wallet! You can't pay for your meal, let alone what this irresponsible person who just left ordered. So what do you do? You order a lobster, caviar, and the house specialty. And to wash it all down? A 100 year old bottle of brandy. Then when the tab comes in, you point to the person who ordered the steak and say, 'Well, he started it.'"

The premise of his original analogy is that the irresponsibility of the first party excuses the irresponsibility of the second. And not just similar irresponsibility, but excessive and boarder-line obscene irresponsibility on the part of the second party.

On the right is a graph of the National debt from 1940 through 2011. Take a look at how this president has exponentially increased the national debt in his single term! (click on the image for a larger view)

What can we see from this graph? We borrowed for WWII. Then Carter and Reagan started the modern practice of over spending. Bush I continued it. Clinton leveled it off. Bush II built a skyscraper. And Obama sent it to the moon!

Perhaps this is an easier way to understand the situation:
There are lots of things that this country needs to be worried about right now: The environment, Equal Rights, Terrorism, and Healthcare to name a few. But the most pressing, the most important, the one that needs to take top billing is the massive budget deficit and the monstrous national debt. We cannot continue to exist borrowing 43 cents of every dollar that the US Government spends!

If Obama wants to be taken seriously, he needs to stop trying to justify is adolescent-like spending by continuing to blame the previous administration and do the responsible thing with the national budget. I know the old saying goes "Dance with the one that brought you" and the "Blame Bush" mantra got him into the White House but now it's old, stale, and worn out. Let's try something new.

Who Runs America?

Consider this: A politician runs for office promising to balance the budget without raising taxes. Impossible. Some might be reluctant to even cast a vote for this optimistic statesman considering his questionable touch on reality. If he were to be elected, he'd get a pass from most voters if he wasn't completely able to fulfill this campaign promise provided he gave it the ole 'college try.'

Now imagine that he was able to follow through on this promise! A year into his first term he has a balanced budget and has not raised taxes! What do the citizens do? A week of parades in his honor? Rename the capitol after him? Alter the constitution so he can serve more than two terms?

Force a recall election to try to get him out of office?
You didn't misread that. Wisconsin residents were the recipients of a balanced budget without an increase in taxes (which proves it can be done, by the way) and they thanked their Governor Scott Walker by trying to vote him out of office.

Their biggest beef with Gov. Walker is that he encouraged a bill be passed that limited the most government employee union's collective bargaining ability (not including Police or Fire Fighters). According to Gov. Walker, this was necessary in order to balance the budget so that some of the overly inflated salaries of public workers could be brought back in line with the national average. (Teachers were fairly heavily hit in this budget).

Does this make Wisconsin the only state in the union where public employees are not allowed to bargain collectively? (This does not mean that individual unions are not allowed to collectively bargain, just that employees of the DMV cannot bargain along side those who work for the department of children and families. The teacher's union, for example, can still go on strike.) Hardly. In fact there are 5 states where collective bargaining is illegal and 11 where it is merely permissible. Wisconsin joins 32% of states that do not require collective bargaining. (This is likely as much for the state as it is for the employees. Who wants to bargain with every union individually?)

Now, the government employees of Wisconsin claim that they had already agreed to all of the proposed cuts that Gov. Walker wanted to make in order to balance the budget. It is their contention that the removal of the collective bargaining rights of the state's employees was not a budgetary move, but rather a political one. Of course, if that is indeed the case, then the very thing they are shaming the governor for is the exact thing those that desire to recall him are doing: making a boldly political act.

Of course, this brings up a very important question: Just who runs the government? The voters who elected Scott Walker or the members of the unions who didn't like his solution to their state's budget crisis? The fact that they were even able to get sufficient signatures to hold a recall election is fairly troubling. I find it interesting that Gov Walker's opponents were able to get over 1 million signatures in order to force this recall election and yet with just about 80% of the votes counted, Gov Walker's challenger has only managed to get just over 800 thousand votes.

This may be an encouraging turn of events for those hoping to see a change in the White House in November. President Obama campaigned (albeit somewhat passively as he didn't even visit the state much to the chagrin of his Democratic teammates) for the challenger Tom Barrett. Hopefully, this means that the citizens of Wisconsin value economic responsibility in the face of governmental entitlement.

As I conclude this post, I'm happy to say that it appears as though Gov Walker will be the first sitting governor in US history to win a recall election. I looks like the answer to the most important question raised by this political wrangling is that the voters of Wisconsin run their government, and they've made it known that it's gonna stay that way for a while.

2012 Voting Booth Vol. II

It's election time and you know what that means: 'Tis the season for quippy and annoying bumper stickers! And this will be the focus of the second installment of the Voting Booth for the 2012 election season. We're going to look at one bumper sticker that the Obama campaign is using, and two that are incredibly more accurate regarding some of their campaign strategies and platforms. Here is the first:

When I first saw this bumper sticker I had three separate thoughts. First: If that's all the President has to show for his first four years then, boy, is he in trouble! Second: (And I can't take credit for this idea, nor can I credit the original analogy creator as my research has turned up several people saying it) Whomever created the following analogy hit the nail right on the head: "Barak Obama taking credit for killing Bin Laden is like Richard Nixon taking credit for the moon landing." Yes, this happened on your watch, no you can't take credit for it. Just like Grant couldn't take credit for the transcontinental railroad just because he was sitting in the Oval Office when they drove in the golden spike. If Obama wants to run for reelection on those laurels he might as well add "Kentucky is the NCAA Final Four Champion." It happened, and you watched it, but you didn't have a whole lot to do with it. Third: Why is President Obama celebrating a massive bailout of a huge corporation? Aren't some of his staunchest supporters the members of the "Occupy" movement who are constantly pontificating about the evil of giant corporations? Seems to me this should enrage his base supporters, not energize them!

Here is a bumper sticker that is much closer to the truth regarding what will happen if the President gets reelected:

The country is trillions of dollars in debt with no end in sight to the rampant spending! There will come a day in the very near future where we are borrowing more than we take in each year! And what's the President's solution? Raise taxes! And he claims that Romney will cost the government money by extending the "Bush-era" tax cuts. I believe that Philip Klein at The Examiner succinctly responded to this fuzzy math when he wrote: "to portray any tax cut as a cost to government is to assume that the government is the rightful owner of 100 percent of the wealth created in society, and that every dollar that isn't spent by government is somehow a giveaway." If Obamacare is not repealed (or at the very least made impotent through the availability of state level waivers) this country will be bankrupt by the end of Obama's second term. Recession? You ain't seen nothin' yet!

Here is a bumper sticker that exposes the bizarre thinking of some of the more religious citizens who are concerned about the faith of the President:

Today is the fourth National Day of Prayer for which Obama has been President. It also marks the fourth National Day of Prayer where the Executive Branch of the government was the only branch not to send a representative to "stand in the gap" at Washington D.C.'s Day of Prayer Assembly. The Legislative and Judicial Branches each sent someone to represent them and be prayed over. The Military sent someone to represent the armed forces. I believe the accusations that he is a Muslim are fear based and false, but people would rather support a man who is evasive (at best) about his faith because "at least he isn't a Mormon!"

When all is said and done, I'm sure President Obama would like to use this next bumper sticker but I'm afraid it won't get him into the White House this time: