President’s economic mandate

By Jim Killebrew

[May 09, 2014]  Listening to the President the other day talking about our economy and his ideas of the budget and comparing it to the Republican budget proposal, it seems evident there are two different philosophies at play regarding how a budget should be formulated and implemented.

The Administration makes no mistake about clearly wanting to drive the US economy into a European-style socialist welfare state. Redistribution and equalization of wealth by taxing more and more of the "wealthy" wage earners, business owners and corporations will drive the government to grow at exponential rates, while at the same time stifle the growth of the private sector of business. As the rate of government grows at greater speeds it will take more agencies to be created with more policies and regulations to implement more and more programs. The case in point is what we are experiencing right now as the newly implemented health care services known as Obamacare. The outcome of that venture will surely lead to a single point of service for health delivery that will be overseen by the government. It is essentially a plan for the government to take over one-sixth of the American economy.

The Republican budget proposal by contrast, is based on the reduction of the huge debt looming over our collective heads projecting well into the next two generations. The Republican budget significantly pays down that debt over the next ten years as well as delivers a balanced budget to actually reduce the spending. It is based on pro-growth, market-style free enterprise practices with fairness in the taxing revisions leading to lower taxes for everyone and with the more wealthy Americans paying a higher rate. It also proposes about a three and one-half percent growth during the ten-year period. The Republican proposal also presupposes the appeal of the Obamacare plan.
 

The question I have is what makes the European-style socialist welfare system so attractive that so many of the more liberal Americans and the Administration wants to move in that direction? When the world media allows a glimpse into the inner workings of the countries like Spain and Greece, we have seen nothing as positive as the American free enterprise system. In fact, we have been witnessing the destruction of those economies; they are going bankrupt, credit ratings falling, value of the monetary systems plummeting, joblessness increasing, the ranks of the poor increasing and people even rioting in the streets due to the austerity measures that must be taken because these governments have run out of money. Many of those same countries are counting on others to provide their security against foreign invasions because they have reduced their military protection in favor of social welfare programs, they no longer have the means to protect themselves.

Would someone who really knows the details of the economy systems explain why the President wants to fundamentally change the free market system of growth practiced in the United States since the beginning in favor of the European model?

Perhaps we can catch a glimpse into the President’s thinking by examining his political mentors and recent political roots in his home city and state, Chicago, Illinois.

This was sent to me by a friend; I wonder what they say about doing the same thing over and over, but expecting different results. It seems Chicago, and Illinois, has proven over the years that the policies being espoused by our current national Administration is not really the best way to go.

“There are more people on Welfare in Illinois than there are people working.

Chicago pays the highest wages to teachers than anywhere else in the U.S. averaging $110,000/year.

Their pensions average 80-90% of their income. You can't blame that on republicans because there aren't any.

Body count: In one six-month period 292 were killed (murdered) in Chicago.

During the same period 221 had been killed in Iraq AND Chicago has one of the strictest gun laws in the entire US.

Here's the Chicago chain of command:

President: Barack Hussein Obama, Democrat
Senator: Dick Durbin, Democrat
Former House Representative: Jesse Jackson Jr., Democrat
Governor: Pat Quinn, Democrat
House leader: Mike Madigan, Democrat
Atty. Gen.: Lisa Madigan, Democrat (daughter of Mike)
Mayor: Rahm Emanuel, Democrat (Former Chief-of-Staff to President Obama)
The leadership in Illinois currently is all Democrats.

Thank you for the combat zone in Chicago. Of course, they're all blaming each other.
Can't blame Republicans; there aren't any!

Chicago school system rated one of the worst in the country.

State pension fund $78 Billion in debt, worst in country.

Cook County (Chicago) sales tax 10.25% highest in country.”

President Obama is the former Senator from Illinois who was catapulted in short time to the office of President of the United States. He went from community organizer to state senator, to US senator, to President. His experience lies in the politics of Chicago, Illinois.

“This is the political culture that Obama comes from in Illinois. And he is going to 'fix' Washington politics for us? His mentors and models for leadership include Illinois’ finest: George Ryan, Republican Former Governor, Rob Blajegovitch, Democrat Former Governor, both of whom were sent to prison for corruption. Representative Jesse Jackson Jr. resigned in disgrace because he was fighting corruption charges that would eventually send him to prison.

Now, the current Governor is running for re-election with his campaign promise to raise the taxes of citizens of Illinois. His idea of “fixing” the problems relies on the tried and failed democrat methods of spending beyond our means, then taxing the citizens and business more, not to get out of debt, but to remain in the spending cycle until the entire state is in economic default.
 

One last thought…a quote from Adrian Rogers who was a prominent American Pastor:

“Friend, you cannot legislate the poor into freedom by legislating the wealthy out of freedom. And what one person receives without working for, another person must work for without receiving. The government can’t give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody. And when half of the people get the idea they don’t have to work because the other half’s going to take care of them, and when the other half get the idea it does no good to work because somebody’s going to get what I work for. That, dear friend, is about the end of any nation.” (Adrian Rogers)

[By JIM KILLEBREW]