Monday, January 26, 2009

And these folks are in charge of the budget...

The following revelation from House Speaker Nancy Pelosi is stunning on a number of levels.

First of all, she is actually trying to argue that spending hundreds of millions of dollars is needed to save money. Has the woman ever lived in a normal household a day in her life? This is like arguing that the family needs to buy a Rolls Royce so we can drive to Sam's Club to save money over shopping at the local grocer. Typical Washingtonian idiocy.

Second, she is buying into the "culture of death" argument that the problem with the economy is children. Yep, it's the children. It's not compelling banks to loan to people who can't and won't pay the loan back, not banks taking risks they would not otherwise take because of government backing and the promise of "bailouts" if the risks don't pan out, not a governmental monetary policy of fiat currency and debt-based "wealth," not the failure of central economic planning over and against the free market, not years and years of deficit spending in Washington, not Washington-directed meddling in the private sector. No, the problem is... children. Typical Washingtonian arrogance.

Third, she seems to be utterly clueless that a huge part of the federal budget is Social Security and Medicare - which operate in the same manner as Madoff's Ponzi scheme. Current workers pay the entitlements of the retired workers. Hence, looking at this looming funding crisis in a purely utilitarian manner, (assuming that there is not going to be a needed overhaul of the entire system), we need people to have more children, not less. Typical Washingtonian cluelessness.

The baby boomers are called "baby boomers" because of the population boom following World War II. These boomers are now beginning to retire. The "boomers" are also the first generation to have widespread contraception in the form of "the pill." This means they had fewer children, as did their children. This means we have a bulge in population being supported by a sliver. This means the house of cards is being maintained by a fraction of the people who were once supporting it.

Having worked all these years in Washington, the land of pyramid schemes, you would think Mrs. Pelosi ought to know that a pyramid has to have a bigger base than top. But then again, Washington is an upside-down world where they have actually come to believe they can legislate anything and everything - even the laws of physics. Maybe Pelosi thinks Congress can make a two-legged stool that won't topple over or create prosperity through debt. Maybe she thinks she is a teapot and wears a straightjacket.

And they seem to think the problem of spending money we don't have can be solved by (what else?) spending money we don't have, which also means we can fix Social Security and Medicare by (what else?) aborting and preventing the births of those who would be paying into the system down the road. Even with contraception, how would the numbers have played out if the abortion holocaust of the last thirty-five years had not occurred? This is sheer madness.

One thing is for sure: the inmates are running the asylum - and their view of human life isn't that far off from "the final solution." In fact, maybe Mrs. Pelosi's credo is: "This would be a great country if it weren't for the people."


Dan @ Necessary Roughness said...

A lot less funny but along the same line as taxing smokers and then crying when quitters have reduced smoking tax revenue.

Peter said...

Too bad. Bush stood up, against the tide of public opinion, against stem-cell research. I miss that kind of heroic stand.

Father Hollywood said...

Dear Dan:

Indeed. There is also the problem of running out of money to support traffic cameras when they can't pay for the equipment because people aren't running the lights.

This is always the problem with "sin taxes" - the government becomes dependent upon the "sinners" to pay for everything, and when the "sins" decrease, it's bad for the government.

Which is the opposite of what government is *supposed* to be doing isn't it?

Father Hollywood said...

Dear Peter:

It is too bad that the GOP abandoned its stand against stem-cell research and ran John McCain. There were other GOP candidates who were consistently and vocally pro-life - but they were rejected in favor of Senator McCain.

This happens to the Republicans every time they start getting "pragmatic." In the end, their pragmatism isn't very practical.

Rev. Paul Beisel said...

Larry--this is just frightening. What is going to come of all this? It scares the crap out of me. Can it be reversed? Can the tide be turned? Will we ever recover?

Peter said...

Like I said, I appreciate and miss Bush's heroic stand.

Phil said...

I apologize but I do not agree about the statement regarding President Bush. I do not think it was truly heroic. It would have been heroic if he decided to show Christian charity by not declaring war on two different nations during his tenure. Or, by trying to remove government intervention in religion, so that religious matters such as marriage could be handled in the church, where it belongs.

My two-bits anyways, from an avowed non-aggressive anarchist, I guess. :)

Peter said...

Phil, you make interesting points. I was specifically praising Bush's stand against embryonic stem-cell research. I had nothing else in mind.

Father Hollywood said...

Dear Peter:

You are absolutely correct that President Bush stood up for life in the matter of stem cell research, and deserves praise and gratitude from the advocates of life for doing so. And it was nice to see that he got a much classier reception at the Baylor basketball game than he got from Obama partisans at the inauguration.

Father Hollywood said...

Dear Paul:

Our grandparents survived the great depression, and Germans survived the hyperinflation of the Weimar Republic. I think the outlook is grim - just how grim is anyone's guess. I think it depends on how stubborn the government will be in resisting the market forces that will have to flush out the bad money and restore the good.

But I think we owe it to our families to take precautions. Buying some gold and silver instead of taking a Disney vacation or a cruise might not be a bad idea right now. Being frugal and storing up some food might be wise. I would not keep dollars in a bank savings account - I think banks are risky, and you'll pay more in fees than you'll get in interest - and the dollar could collapse without warning. I certainly would not trust my savings in a Wall Street account - it just seems too speculative and risky.

Working aggressively to get out of consumer debt should probably be a high priority for all of us anyway.

But if we're all wrong and Obamanomics can work miracles, then we'll all have a laugh when the bailouts have worked and we're all buying plasma TVs at Best Buy and rolling in the dough after all those stimulus checks, well, that would be wonderful. I would not mind at all having some egg on my face, no credit card debt, and a few gold coins to sell. I just don't see how it's possible that bailouts and socialism can fix the problem that loose money and socialism created. Money doesn't grow on trees, and government can't turn debt into prosperity - at least not for long (Bernie Madoff agrees).

But just as we lock our doors at night and buy insurance to be prepared in the unlikely event of something bad happening, I think we need to be as prepared as we can for a worst-case scenario.

In any case, we have our salvation, our baptisms, the Word of God and the sacraments. I think the last stanza of A Mighty Fortress puts it all into perspective.

Phil said...

Agreed - Taking precautions is not to be disdained, after all, the Lord taught many parables involving the wisdom of being prudent. You are correct as well that the Lord is our rock and salvation. I think that everything I have is on loan from Him, and I desperately need to be a better steward. I dont think that I will be purchasing any plasa TV's though, since I think that the kids would probably destroy it anyways. Heh....