As of this moment, I'm with the editors of the Daily Caller on this "Fiscal Cliff" lunacy. It is once again clear the Empty Suit Known as Barack Hussein Obama has no intention of exercising any leadership over complex budget negotiations, nor does he have any interest in discussing the out-of-control-spending side of the equation. The only thing he wants to discuss is tax rate hikes that do practically nothing to offset the growth in spending, but will undoubtedly harm a slow growth economy showing signs it is poised to stop growing altogether. (The official four week average for new jobless claims hovers around the universally recognized tipping point of 400,000. The trend in this number has showed no improvement for over a year, as a matter of fact).
The Daily Caller makes a decent argument in support of taking the shock treatment of the Fiscal Cliff. The shock will be felt both politically and economically. But very differently in each case. The shock to the rotting, decrepit, political infrastructure could lead to a public awakening that might further lead to meaningful reform of the system. The shock to the naturally resilient free market - still free enough despite the best efforts of the Empty Suit's administration to socialize every aspect of it - will be profound, but not fatal.
The Caller's conclusion hits the nail on the head.
No matter what happens in Congress next month, regardless of what Obama tells audiences as he stumps for his plan around the country, the basic equation won’t change: Entities that spend more than they take in eventually go under. That is true for businesses, and ultimately it is true for governments, too, because math is immutable.==
...
In the long run, math is worth running on. Republicans don’t have a lot of good choices right now (politically). They might as well try it.
Ever on the leading edge of monitoring Leftist subterfuge, however, I will add another reason to the mix. Everything the Empty Suit has done in office with regard to spending, budgets, fiscal policy, entitlements, and taxes has convinced me he has been governing from the Cloward and Piven playbook all along. Put simply, he means to burn the village called 'capitalsim' to the ground in order to save it (by his lights). Once capitalism is reduced to a smoldering cinder, he will rebuild the village in the shining image of socialism (again, by his lights.)
Remember the Great Debt Ceiling Debacle of 2011? Speaker Boehner was on the verge of closing a so-called "Grand Bargain" with his caucus, when the Empty Suit scuttled the deal at the eleventh hour with ridiculously absurd new revenue demands. Then he proposed this very sequestration / fiscal cliff mouse trap, and the hapless GOP establishment leadership fell into it. Who would do that, a President with the nation's interest in mind, or a Saul Alinsky radical operating from the Cloward-Piven playbook?
Who would create a "new normal" with his first federal budget - trillion to trillion and a half dollar annual deficit - then ensure the persistence of this "new normal" by failing to perform his legal duty to pass a budget three years running? A President with a sense of duty, or a Saul Alinsky radical operating from the Cloward-Piven playbook?
Who would agree in December 2009 - when the GDP growth number was higher than it is today - that raising taxes is not something you do in a soft economy, yet dig in his heels on tax rate increases now? A President with consistent economic theories, or a Saul Alinsky radical doing what is politically expedient to further the Cloward-Piven agenda?
By the way, I'm not the only one who sees this connection. It might be time to start asking "Stupid or Treasonous?" again. The case is building.
