The Super Committee is supposed to find a path to $1.2 trillion in “deficit reduction.”   But committee Democrats seem to believe it best to achieve deficit reduction through increased spending.  One of their proposals is to log “savings” each year from 2013 through 2022 from ending military operations in Iraq this year and in Afghanistan in, as now planned, in 2014.

Consider this exchange between Fox News Sunday host Chris Wallace and Democratic Congressman James Clyburn, a member of the Super Committee:

WALLACE: “The Democratic plan would count hundreds of billions of dollars in savings from winding down the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan that would be applied to entitlements, things like that. Isn’t that a classic Washington budget gimmick, to count savings on money that wasn’t going to be spent anyway?

CLYBURN: We believe and the CBO believes that there is around $917 billion to be saved over the next 10 years from the overseas contingency account. And we ought to count that.  We ought to use that savings to plow it back in to fix Social Security, that will allow it to be solvent for another 75 years, to plow it into job creation programs that would get people back to work…

• The latest estimates from the Administration and the Congressional Budget Office are that the 2012 deficit will come in at just below $1 Trillion.
• Clyburn and the Democrats want to enact Obama’s “jobs bill” that would increase 2012 spending by about by $450 billion.
• To offset the extra spending Democrats propose no cuts in other programs.  They don’t even propose tax increases.  They would simply run a larger deficit – about $1.5 Trillion – in 2012.  This would be the largest  deficit in US history.
• Democrats want the Super Committee on Deficit Reduction to propose to Congress that it increase the 2012 deficit over the already bloated level, AND give the committee credit for “deficit reduction” by reporting “savings” in the years 2013 – 2022 from the end of operations in Iraq and Afghanistan.

In his Tonight Show monologue Jay Leno might respond: “My question is why not count 66 years of savings since the end of World War II?  Then we could just give every American a million dollars and still run a budget surplus!”

The political-media establishment often cites Medicare as a “popular” example of the benefits of activist government, unrestrained by Constitutional limits.  But in a rational world Medicare would be seen as a monument to progressive myths, deceptions and failures.
In 1965 President Lyndon Johnson traveled to the Missouri home of former President Harry Truman for an emotional media event celebrating enactment of Medicare.  The two of them repeated some of the preposterous talking points that had helped sell the Medicare scheme to the Congress and the public.

Truman was first to speak:

This is an important hour for the Nation, for those of our citizens who have completed their tour of duty and have moved to the sidelines…These people are entitled, among other benefits, to the best medical protection available.

Then Johnson took over:

…through this new law, every citizen will be able, in his productive years when he is earning, to insure himself against the ravages of illness in his old age….

The genius of Medicare – from the point of view of progressives – is how quickly and irrevocably it ensnared the generations in government dependency.  The elderly immediately began receiving subsidized health care and were immediately grateful to Democrats.  Those who were working and paying the bill might have been more resistant except they were told they were buying “insurance” that would care for them in retirement – and it was amazingly cheap insurance.  More from Johnson’s speech of 1965

During your working years, the people of America–you–will contribute through the social security program a small amount each payday for Medicare insurance protection.  For example, the average worker in 1966 will contribute about $1.50 per month. The employer will contribute a similar amount…And through this new law every citizen will be able, in his productive years when he is earning, to insure himself against the ravages of illness in his old age.

Adjusted for inflation, Johnson’s $1.50 per month would be about $10.00 now.  So today, the Johnson promise, adjusted for inflation, would be a combined employer-employee Medicare cost of $20 per month for the “average worker.”  But, with the current Medicare payroll tax rate, and today’s average salary of  about $50,000,  the cost is $121 per month, six times what Johnson promised.

But it gets worse.  Johnson lied.   In no way does Medicare resemble insurance.  It’s just another welfare program that transfers income from workers to retirees.  Beginning on the first day in 1966 all revenue from the payroll tax was immediately spent on medical services for current retirees.  When each American reaches retirement age the taxes collected from those who are still working pay for his/her Medicare benefits.

As the chart shows Medicare revenue, from the payroll tax plus “insurance premiums” taken from seniors, isn’t nearly enough to support the program.  Deficits are projected to continue growing without end.

Because Medicare exists most Americans believe they are paying for and will be entitled to health care in retirement and do not invest in a genuine insurance program.  Few if any politicians are honorable enough to tell them the truth, that Medicare is a fraud.

Medicare is Unconstitutional and based entirely on lies.  But it cannot be undone without denying millions of people part or all of the health care they have been promised in exchange for their tax dollars. But it can not be sustained in its present form either.  So, a few courageous Congressmen, led by Budget Chairman Paul Ryan have presented a relatively simple and workable change that would stop the bleeding.

We’ll discuss the Ryan proposal in our next Medicare article.

The response from all the Democrats, some Republicans and most of the media has been an attempt to use the Medicare crisis to strengthen the liberal/progressive grip on government by claiming that Ryan’s intent is to leave seniors with no medical care at all.  This response is utterly devoid of honesty or concern for the future of Medicare.  It’s calculated to achieve one goal: scare and deceive voters, especially seniors, so they’ll re-elect Barack Obama and Senate Democrats.

Democrats support their position by pointing to polls that show majorities would rather continue Medicare as it is than accept major changes.  But these polls are dishonest.  They’re like asking a man who lost his job and then exhausted his savings if he would rather maintain his current life style without any income or find another job.

Continuing Medicare in its current form is not an option.  Major change is required to prevent draconian cuts in medical services in the future.  Treacherous, unprincipled politicians who recklessly fire up fear and emotion instead of dealing with the Medicare crisis deserve to be voted out of office at the earliest possible opportunity.

The Labor Department released it’s monthly Jobs report on April 1.  The chart, tracks the results of the response by Presidents Bush and Obama to the current, deep recession Vs President Reagan’s response to an even worse recession 30 years ago.

In March employers added 216,000 jobs and the unemployment rate ticked down from 8.9% to 8.8%.  The White House and friendly media hailed these statistics as “good news.”  And compared to the past three years it was.

March was the best month of the Obama Administration – except for last spring when the government artificially inflated the numbers for a couple of months by hiring 600,000 temporary, part time census workers.  But compared to past recoveries from recession, and compared to the kind of job growth America needs, March was anemic.  Austan Goolsbee, chairman of President Obama’s Council of Economic Advisors came forward Friday morning with some positive spin:

…we are seeing signs that the initiatives put in place by this Administration…are creating the conditions for sustained growth and job creation.”

As the chart shows their largest initiative, the “stimulus,” enacted with frantic urgency on Obama’s 24th day in office – based on the promise that borrowing and spending $814 billion would create 3.7 million additional jobs by the end of 2010 – utterly failed.  Instead, there were 2.6 million fewer jobs.

As the chart shows the number of jobs declined relentlessly as Obama and the Democratic Congress enacted a tsunami of spending and government intervention into the private sector.  In December, 2010 they finally agreed to postpone the threatened tax increase on small business owners and investors for two years.

Goolsbee continued:

…private sector payrolls increased by 230,000 in March, marking 13 consecutive months of private employment growth.

Why would Goolsbee, representing an Administration that clearly considers government more important emphasize private sector growth?   Because one of the Administration’s key initiatives, massive federal subsidies to preserve public sector jobs in State and local governments has failed.  Since October state and local governments have laid off 141,000 employees.

More from Goolsbee:

The unemployment rate fell for the fourth straight month to 8.8 percent. The full percentage point drop in the unemployment rate over the past four months is the largest such decline since 1984…

The largest since 1984?  What was happening in 1984?

In 1984 Americans were reaping the benefits of President Reagan’s successful response to a severe recession, tax cuts and deregulation.  Compare this year with 1984:

• Over these past four months that Goolsbee is so proud of,  job growth averaged 158,000.
• In 1984 employers added an average of 322,000 jobs per month.
  
• Because of population growth today’s workforce is 35% larger than in 1984.  Thus, to match the 1984 rate of job growth today’s employers would have to add 436,000 jobs every month.

As the chart shows, under the Bush-Obama policies of government bail outs, massive deficit spending, new regulations, and threatened tax increases we’re still 7.3 million jobs below the previous employment peak in December, 2007.

But, by this time in the Reagan recovery, November, 1984, there were 4.4 million more jobs than at the previous employment peak, just before the 1980s recession began.  Reagan rode his successful economic recovery to a reelection blowout that month, winning 49 states and the most electoral votes of any Presidential candidate in US history.

If job growth continues at the pace of the past four months, the best four months of his term so far, Obama will run for reelection in November, 2012 with fewer jobs than on the day he was sworn in, after spending trillions on bailouts and so-called “stimulus” largely justified by promises of job creation and prosperity.

The Bottom Line

Government doesn’t create jobs but, as President Reagan demonstrated, it can help create an economic environment that encourages investment in job creating enterprises.  Or, as President Obama has demonstrated, it can discourage private sector risk-taking, causing employers to invest in fewer jobs.

We can’t afford another so-called economic “expansion” like the one from the last decade –- what some call the “lost decade” -– where jobs grew more slowly than during any prior expansion…

The chart compares the effect on employment of two, fundamentally opposite, government strategies, the Obama stimulus of 2009, and the Bush tax cuts of 2003.   Both were enacted after an extended period of job losses.

The last economic downturn, initially caused by the bursting dot-com bubble began in late 2000, with job losses starting in January, 2001 and accelerating after the terrorist attacks of 9-11-01 deepened the recession.  Congress enacted a “stimulus” in the form of small tax rebates and a five-year schedule of tiny, incremental tax rate reductions that began in 2002. These measures proved ineffective and job losses continued.

A Stimulus Based on Liberty: In 2003 President Bush persuaded Congress to abandon the five-year, incremental schedule, and enact large, sweeping tax rate cuts for individuals and small business.  Rates were reduced across the board for all income brackets and for capital gains and stock dividends.  This was the “stimulus” of 2003, a stimulus based on greater liberty.  Tax rate reduction, was a strategy that had proved successful when implemented by Presidents Kennedy and Reagan.

Over the next 52 months of continuous growth private sector employers added 7.3 million jobs.

Throughout those four plus years then Senator Obama, the Democrats and the establishment media continuously claimed that President Bush’s tax cuts had created a “jobless recovery.”

A Stimulus Based on Government Power: The original promise of the Obama stimulus was that it would, in Obama’s words “immediately jumpstart job creation.”  Instead job losses continued for ten more months and the job recovery has been tragically slow.

Business expansion and the job creation that goes with it have been curtailed by:

• Unprecedented government borrowing, spending and debt;
• Continuous threats of tax increases;
  
• A massive new government regulatory superstructure, including ObamaCare, financial regulation and restrictions on energy production;
  
• Subsidies to politically connected banks, Wall Street firms, unionized auto companies, and “green” industries.
  

The Bottom Line

Robust job growth is unlikely until Congress makes major progress on reducing the cost and regulatory burden of the federal government.  We must contact Congressmen and Senators and demand immediate action.

HR1 would reduce the 2011 deficit 3.7% from 1,645,119,000,000 to $1,585,119,000,000.

On March 9, HR1 was defeated in the Senate. All Senate Democrats voted “no,” because they thought the cuts were too deep.  Three Republican Senators, Jim DeMint (S.C.), Rand Paul (Ky.), and Mike Lee (Utah) also voted no because they thought the cuts were not deep enough.

An alternative from the Democrats’ that would have reduced the deficit by a microscopic $5 billion or one-third of one percent was also defeated.

On february 20 The Republican House of Representatives passed a bill that would cut a mere $61 Billion from the Obama’s $3.5 Trillion spending plan for 2011. My first reaction was disappointment after such big talk during the campaign.  

I was considering a scornful critique of the GOP when the Democrats distracted me with hysterical language that was even more out of touch with reality than the the GOP’s timorous spending cuts.  Senator John Kerry was typical.  Appearing on Face the Nation he bellowed:

I don’t believe what we have from the House is a serious economic plan. I think it’s a ideological extremist reckless statement. If– if that were to be in fact, put in place, it would– it would contribute to the reversal of our recovery. It might even destroy our recovery. It will certainly deny us the competitiveness that we need to go– to– to move with China, India and other countries into the future. I think it’s a very dangerous plan.

On the floor of the Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid called the trifling cuts mean-spirited and actually defended an annual appropriation for the “Cowboy Poetry Festival” in his home state of Nevada.

President Obama and Senate Democrats placed a counter offer on the table: $6 billion in cuts, a number so small it must have been meant as a joke.

To reduce the government’s fiscal position to more easily grasped numbers imagine a family with an income of $6,000 per month after taxes.  Imagine that by continuously borrowing they have managed to spend

$10,000 every month for years.  Finally Mom & Dad begin to think maybe they should cut back a little.

Mom suggests they cut one of dinners the family eats in fine restaurants each month, saving about $160 or 1.6% of their spending, as the Republicans proposed.  They would still be borrowing $3,840 every month.

But Dad says that’s just too much to handle right now.  He would rather commit to one less family outing to the ice cream store each month, saving $20 or 0.2% as the Democrats propose.

Congress is no less absurd and irresponsible than this family.  It’s time for mass emailing.

CBO’s projections are based on, quoting from the report:

…the assumption that current laws governing taxes and spending will remain unchanged.

The government’s fiscal year began on October 1, so the first quarter of fiscal 2011 is already behind us. Astoundingly, even in the face of an unprecedented debt crisis the government spent 3% MORE than in the first quarter of fiscal 2010! (Source: Monthly Treasury Statement: December, 2010)

The new Republican majority in the House of Representatives was was sworn in January 5 but so far has not held a vote on spending cuts.   The GOP should adopt the same sense of urgency that drove the Democrats’ in 2009 when both houses of Congress passed Obama’s trillion dollar stimulus act on his 24th day in office.

In his State of the Union address President Obama proposed not to cut spending but to “freeze” spending at the current level, the highest in US history, which would ensure that the CBO estimates become reality.

• The government is borrowing 40¢ of every dollar it spends.
• The government is borrowing $4.1 billion dollars every day, seven days a week.
• Because of compound interest the debt is growing at the rate of $5.3 billion every day.
• To put that in perspective, the IRS collects an average of $3 billion per day in individual and corporate income tax combined.

The political-media establishment predicts a major, budget “fight” in Congress in the coming weeks over spending.  We The People must participate with a deluge of emails, phone calls, and faxes demanding swift, deep spending cuts.

The State of the Union speech was long and as usual, was bland after expectations were built by weeks of media hype.  For the most part President Obama dug in his heels and avoided any concessions to his Republican/Tea Party adversaries.  He still sees government rather than The People as morally superior, supreme, and in charge.

But, there was one very positive proposal that could well have come from Ronald Reagan or Milton Friedman.  The GOP should pounce upon it, declare their bi-partisan support and write the enabling legislation, with all possible haste:

Over the years, a parade of lobbyists has rigged the tax code to benefit particular companies and industries. Those with accountants or lawyers to work the system can end up paying no taxes at all. But all the rest are hit with one of the highest corporate tax rates in the world. It makes no sense, and it has to change.

So tonight, I’m asking Democrats and Republicans to simplify the system. Get rid of the loopholes. Level the playing field. And use the savings to lower the corporate tax rate for the first time in 25 years – without adding to our deficit.

Bravo!

There should be only one purpose for taxation: funding government.  The tax code should not be used to reward some and punish others.

At 39.3% America’s top corporate tax rate is third highest in the world.  Yet because of thousands of pages of loopholes and special preferences it doesn’t produce much revenue.

• The corporate income tax generated $370 billion in 2007, the most of any year ever.  Yet it was only 14% of total federal tax revenue.
• In 2010 the recession cut into corporate profits and revenue fell to $191 billion, or 8% of all federal tax revenue.

So, the corporate income tax has become the worst possible government boondoggle.  While generating little revenue it nevertheless:

• Is a barrier to companies locating in America when most other nations have lower rates;
• Corrupts the government as a horde of lobbyists continuously bribes Congress with campaign contributions in exchange for special tax breaks for politically connected companies and industries;
• Forces companies to spend billions on lawyers and accountants just to interpret and comply with its thousands of pages of arcane provisions
• Drives corporations out of the US to more business friendly nations.
  

Obviously Congress could attract more corporations to America by dramatically reducing the tax rate and by simplifying the code to cut compliance costs.   Additional corporations generating additional profits would likely generate more tax revenue than the high rate status quo, while creating thousands of new jobs.

The Republicans should make it their mission to transform America into the best nation on the planet to open or expand a business. Since the President is already on board why not start with corporate income tax?  If Congress can lower the rate and simplify the tax code by removing all special-interest preferences and penalties (thousands of pages) it’s likely revenue would increase as corporations start up or expand in America rather than elsewhere.

This is a no-brainer!  Let’s urge the GOP to act swiftly before the so-called “progressives” demagogue the idea to death with their usual, anti-business hysterics.

(The song starts after a 15 second ad.)

Speaker Pelosi says there is no time left for taxes. But there was plenty of time – hours – for speeches on resolutions that are not laws and merely express the opinions of the Representatives, but apparently could not wait until Congress reconvenes next year.  Included were:

• A resolution calling for someone, anyone to protect religious cites and artifacts in Turkish occupied areas of Cyprus.  Turkey invaded the Greek island of Cyprus 35 years ago, has occupied parts of it since then, and according to the resolution most of the religious cites and artifacts in question were desecrated or stolen long ago.
• A resolution “expressing support” for the 33 miners who are trapped in their mine in Chile.
• A resolution to tell the world of the politicians’ “Support for the goals and ideas of the The Inaugural USA Science and Engineering Festival,” to be held in Washington in October.
• A resolution to “recognize” the 40th anniversary of the aborted Apollo 13 Moon Mission

We first posted the table below last week.  It illustrates what taxpayers will face if Congress does not act, the Bush tax cuts expire, and all tax rates revert to their previous, higher levels.  While the President and Democrats claim this is a top priority issue they have had no time to deal with it, even though they’ve known the deadline was approaching for almost seven years.

On Thursday, President Obama delivered a speech on immigration that was an obvious attempt to turn a crisis into an opportunity for Democrats and progressives.

It’s impossible to  know how many illegal aliens reside in the US.  But government estimates – for whatever they’re worth – have ranged over the last decade from 10 to 15 million.

Democrats have long seen the large population of illegals as a potential opportunity to increase the number of reliable Democratic voters, if they could be transformed into citizens.

The matters of border security and illegal immigration are currently perceived as a crisis by most Americans.  At least half of California’s staggering $21 Billion dollar state deficit can be traced to the cost of illegal immigration, including the $9 Billion dollar cost of housing 3 million illegals in California prisons.

Arizona is suffering a wave of violent crime committed by illegal aliens.   The Arizona legislature passed a law that empowers local law enforcement to determine the immigration status of persons they engage in the course of traffic stops or criminal investigations.  If those persons turn out to be in the US illegally they are to be turned over to Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) for deportation.

The actual text of the Arizona law is a word for word copy of the federal law that empowers federal authorities to identify, arrest and deport illegals.

The Obama Administration helped propel the Arizona law into a perceived crisis by denouncing it as “racist” and announcing plans to launch a suit against Arizona to nullify it.

In his speech President Obama criticized Americans who demand border enforcement and called on Congress to enact so-called “comprehensive” immigration reform. He called the Arizona law “unenforceable,” in spite of the fact that it exactly mirrors US law that his Administration is charged with enforcing!

Throughout the speech was the implicit and explicit assumption that part of “comprehensive reform” was a “path to citizenship” for the illegal population.  It’s obvious from his remarks that he will not commit to securing the border as a stand-alone goal.  He will commit only to “comprehensive” reform that he promises will include some improvement to border security.  And, he blamed Republicans in Congress for the failure of his huge Democrat majority to enact any reform.

He is right that the “immigration system” is dysfunctional.  It’s probably the most dysfunctional bureaucracy in America.  But changes in immigration policy can be implemented and enforced only if the border is secure.

Immigration policy is after all about permitting some foreigners to enter and keeping others out.  If the border is not secure the policy is meaningless.

The Bottom Line:

Article 4 Section 4 of the U.S. Constitution requires the federal government to secure the border.  By refusing to improve border security unless Republicans support his so-called comprehensive reform, President Obma stands in defiance of the Constitution.  Closing the border to illegal entry  should be a lead election year issue.

Does he want them to promise to resurrect government run health care?  NO!

Does he advise them to promote other programs from the President’s agenda, including:

• big tax increases on small businesses?
• Cap and trade, an artificial energy shortage imposed by government regulation, coupled with a new energy tax?
• new laws that will coerce employers and their employees into union contracts they don’t want?

NO!

Mr. Menendez advises Democrats to try to stir up conflict between Republican candidates and tea party activists.  He urges Democrats to force Republican candidates to publicly answer what he believes will be divisive questions. Here’s an example,

Do you think programs like Social Security and Medicare represent socialism and should never have been created in the first place?

The honest answer is obvious.  Of course they should never have been created.  Not because they “represent socialism,” but because they exceed the authority granted to Congress under the Constitution, because they have proven to be financially unworkable, and because they will cause a lot of misery in the future.

Social Security was sold to the voters of the 1930s with a lie that it was a retirement savings program and there would be a “trust fund.”  Today, most Americans realize there never was any savings, and the trust fund is and always was an accounting fiction.

In reality, Social Security is a payroll tax that collects cash from wage earners and small business owners and immediately pays it out to retirees.  Since 1984 the payroll tax has collected more than was needed to pay retirees.  According to the continuing political lie, the surplus was “borrowed,” from the “trust fund,” and spent on other government expenses.   The so-called trust fund now consists entirely of IOUs, signifying the fiction that the government owes itself about $4.4 Trillion.  Beginning in 2014 payroll tax revenue will be less than benefit payouts and Congress will have to choose either benefit cuts or tax increases because the “trust fund” is worthless.

When the payroll tax began in 1937 it was 2% of the first $3,000 in wages, half paid by the employer and half paid by the employee.  Voters tolerated the new tax because it was small and the promises were big.  Adjusted for inflation, $3,000 would be about $45,000 today.  At 2%, today’s Social Security payroll tax on $45,000 would be $450 each on employer and employee, for the whole year.

But after a dozen tax rate increases, the tax on a $45,000 salary is now $2,800 each, on employer and employee.  By the way, $2,800 dos not include the additional payroll taxes that were added to fund Medicare and SSI.  Those add-ons raise the total to $3,442 each on employer and employee.  Even after all those increases the current tax rate is not nearly enough to fund baby boomer retirement benefits.  Government has done nothing to prepare for the boomers even though the benefits have been promised and scheduled for 50 – 64 years.

Republican candidates should demonstrate honesty by openly stating what most voters already know, that Social Security is looming train wreck.   There will be no clever, painless, political adjustment that keeps everyone happy.  The only responsible course of action is to gradually phase out this dishonest program.  A phase-out will entail a lot of pain, but it has to be done.  Social Security is simply unsustainable.

Mendenez and the Democrats seem to think voters will, as they did in the past, turn against a candidate who is honest about the looming, painful, Social Security/Medicare crisis.  But in 2010 we’ve embarked on a new era when voters are loath to trust Utopian promises from the Left, including the usual promise to sustain Social Security without causing any pain, except maybe to “the rich.”  Voters in Massachusetts elected Scott Brown who vowed, unconditionally, to kill ObamaCare even though the President and the Democrats had promised it would improve medical care and lower costs for everyone.

If the Republicans nominate strong honest candidates, 2010 will be remembered as the beginning of a new era when brutal honesty became the winning political strategy in America

Seventeenth Century military scholar Carl Von Clausewitz, author of an exhaustive treatise on the philosophy of war, wrote:

War is a mere continuation of politics by other means

Clausewitz also observed that war and politics are a “fascinating trinity.” National War College Scholar Christopher Bassford summarized Clausewitz’s trinity.  Politics and war are:

…a dynamic, inherently unstable interaction of the forces of violent emotion, chance, and rational calculation.

Barack Obama’s emotion driven campaign, aided by chance in the form of the sudden, unanticipated economic crisis, succeeded in electing a President with virtually no relevant experience, whose intentions were not understood by the voters.

Obama’s “rational calculation” was to use the crisis as a pretext for an immediate, overwhelming, legislative attack, on several fronts all at once.  He used Chicago style, hard-ball, political tactics to drive a sweeping agenda of authoritarian government control over health care, energy production, and allocation of economic resources.

His first assault, the so-called “stimulus” turned out to be the tactical miscalculation of a rookie.  In a departure from typical big-government hype Obama’s stimulus sales pitch promised immediate, measurable results that were impossible to achieve.  When the unemployment rate sailed past his guaranteed maximum 8%, Obama claimed, unconvincingly, that his stimulus had spared us from even worse misery and had begun to turn things around.

Stimulus failure became the on-going reminder that use of force by government, in service of the Utopian dreams of the political elite, never delivers the promised results and always brings on negative, unanticipated conditions and consequences.

When chance struck, and  Senator Kennedy died, rational calculation led Democrats to proceed based on the assumption that a Senate seat the bluest state in the union would, out of emotional reverence for Kennedy if nothing else, remain in the Democrat column, preserving the 60 vote majority required to drive health care.

But keeping ObamaCare legislation alive with an accelerating series of blatantly corrupt political payoffs, the latest being a special exemption only for union members, from an onerous new health insurance tax, triggered the national gag reflex.  The spectacle of raw power and corruption in Washington generated intense negative emotion, expressed visibly in nation-wide tea party protests and raucous town hall meetings that flummoxed those stupefied Senators and Congressmen.

Voters began to show they had transitioned away from the woozy emotion of hope and unspecified change to their own rational calculation by electing anti-establishment Republicans to the governor’s offices of New Jersey and Virginia, even after Obama swooped in to campaign for their opponents.

Then, last night came what Democrats considered an unthinkable combination of violent emotion and rational calculation:  Scott Brown, the candidate who vowed forcefully and unambiguously to be the 41^st vote that would derail ObamaCare won a decisive victory, transforming the Kennedy Seat into The People’s Seat.

In the health care political battle, as in military battles, the losing side kept fighting with full fury until the very moment it was forced to retreat.  Thus Nancy Pelosi told reporters as she left her office at 11:30 Tuesday night that passing ObamaCare was still on track and still imminent.

But early signals of surrender were evident Wednesday morning as high-profile health care zealots in the House and Senate openly accepted the possibility of failure.

The media and blogs are overflowing with predictions.  But this is a moment of maximum instability in the interaction of Clausewitz’s trinity of political forces. We won’t know for several weeks how the political-media establishment plans to counterattack.  But counterattack they will.  You can take it to the bank.

Secretary Napolitano now claims the media took her comment out of context.  But a review of the transcript reveals that “system worked” was only one of several stunningly dishonest, and incompetent statements in the same interview, conducted by Candy Crowley of CNN.

Crowley opened the interview by asking if the attack was part of a larger plot, or a lone wolf.  Napolitano anssered:

Well, right now, we have no indication that it’s part of anything larger, but obviously the investigation continues…But the traveling public is very, very safe in this air environment. And while we continue to investigate the source of this incident, I think the traveling public should be confident in what we are doing now.

Really?  Why should travelers be confident?  How could she claim travelers were “very, very safe” when the investigation hadn’t yet determined if there was a larger plot?

Crowley then asked if there were any evidence of the Al Qaida ties that the suspect claimed

Right now, that is part of the criminal justice investigation that is ongoing, and I think it would be inappropriate to speculate as to whether or not he has such ties.

Of course!  Initiate a civilian criminal investigation instead of treating an enemy combatant as an enemy combatant.  Then use the investigation as a pretext for not disclosing any relevant information to “the traveling public,” except that they should be “confident.”  Ms. Napolitano continued…

What we are focused on is making sure that the air environment remains safe, that people are confident when they travel.

That was the second time in 60 seconds she called for confidence.

Next came the system-worked part that made so much news.  You can decide for yourself if the media quoted her out of context:

And one thing I’d like to point out is that the system worked. Everybody played an important role here. The passengers and crew of the flight took appropriate action.

“Appropriate action?”  What choice did they have?  Even though they submitted to all the petty and annoying rules, and took off their shoes in the airport, a man known to American Intelligence to be aligned with Al Qaeda, with a one-way ticket and no luggage, somehow manage to bring explosives onto the plane!  Passengers and crew did what they had to do to survive.  Now, they have to suffer the insult being patted on the head for their role in Napolitano’s dysfunctional “system.”

Within literally an hour to 90 minutes of the incident occurring, all 128 flights in the air had been notified to take some special measures in light of what had occurred on the Northwest Airlines flight…So the whole process of making sure that we respond properly, correctly and effectively went very smoothly.

In his comments from Hawaii on Monday President Obama also claimed that “we made sure all flights in the air were secure and could land safely.”  But it turns out there were approximately 3,500 flights in the air over America at the time, and only 128 that were inbound from Europe received any communication.  Through their unions and associations pilots are now complaining, and federal officials now admit, that the remaining 3,371 weren’t even notified.

When asked how the terrorist could have brought explosives on the plane when passengers are forbidden to carry more than 3.4 ounces of liquid Napolitano answered:

Well, we are asking the same questions, looking at what happened in Amsterdam as he transferred flights to a flight that was U.S.-bound….We have no suggestion that he was improperly screened…

She wanted travelers to be “confident” yet she couldn’t answer the question and she claimed there was “no suggestion” that a terrorist who boarded the plane with explosives was improperly screened!  Why weren’t the explosives in his underwear a “suggestion”?

Crowley pointed out that it would not make people feel safe to hear that he was properly screened.  Napolitano’s astounding response:

Well, you know, it should. This was one individual literally of thousands that fly and thousands of flights every year. And he was stopped before any damage could be done.

He was stopped by passengers!  Is she taking credit for stopping him?  She claimed he passed “proper” screening while carrying explosives! And travelers should feel safe?  She sounded like a bureaucrat

And now the forensics are analyzing, well, what actually could have been done with whatever substance he had and whatever amount. Those are all undetermined issues right now.

Translation:  You should feel safe traveling while we try to figure out what explosive he had in his knickers and how he passed through appropriate screening.

When asked about the watch lists and no-fly lists and why the terrorist wasn’t scrutinized after his father, an educated, Nigerian government official, had warned the CIA about his connections with Al Qaeda, Napolitano continued her nearly incoherent babbling:

Well, there is no suggestion that — he was on what’s called a tied list, which has half-a-million-plus names on it. And there is no suggestion that that was not shared information. The issue was, was there enough information to move him to the more specific lists, which would require additional examination or indeed being on no-fly status. And to date, it does not appear that there was any such information to move him from that tied list, which was shared and everybody had it, but to a more specific list which would require different types of screening at the airport…

Why does the tied list exist if no action is taken when someone’s name is on it?

Now, one of the things I think we will be doing over the next weeks is really looking at those watch lists procedures in light of this occurring and saying, OK, do those need to be changed? They have been in place for a number of years…

We are always dealing with a changing environment. But we do it and we do it really very, very quickly and very thoroughly across the entire air environment, through airports both domestically and internationally. And that has happened over this weekend.

So even though she appears to admit the list system has not been revised for “a number of years” she also claims to be dealing very quickly with a changing environment!  How can the Obama Administration tolerate such a high official so openly contradicting herself?

When asked if her Department “looked forward” to anticipate emerging threats as well as reacting after the fact to terrorist attacks Napolatino brushed aside the question and for the third time defended her system with a claim we now know was a lie, that all flights were notified:

Oh, absolutely. And that work is ongoing all the time. But we also recognize that it is important that we anticipate that someone could indeed get on a plane with intent to do harm, regardless of everything that we do. And that requires, then, everybody to know what to do when that occurs, which is what happened here, and the ability to immediately get information out to flights that are already in the air, as well as flights that are on the ground. And we exercised that.

The most charitable thing we can say about Ms. Napolitano is that she irresponsibly appeared on TV without first doing her homework to prepare for easily anticipated questions.  A more realistic assessment is that she is utterly inept, that after a year in office she knows little more about airline security than anyone who occasionally takes a flight.

On Christmas Day, Northwest Airlines Flight 253 was en route from Amsterdam, Netherlands, to Detroit. As the plane made its final approach to Detroit Metropolitan Airport, a passenger allegedly tried to ignite an explosive device on his body, setting off a fire.

Allegedly? With dozens of eye-witnesses why must the President be so politically correct?  Does it have to be proven in court before he can admit something actually happened?

Thanks to the quick and heroic actions of passengers and crew, the suspect was immediately subdued, the fire was put out, and the plane landed safely.

Apparently the passengers and crew were the “system” Homeland Secretary Janet Napolitano said “worked” during a Sunday TV interview.

The suspect is now in custody and has been charged with attempting to destroy an aircraft.  A full investigation has been launched into this attempted act of terrorism, and we will not rest until we find all who were involved and hold them accountable.

If only I had a dime for every time I’ve heard a political promise of a “full investigation.”

Since I was first notified of this incident, I’ve ordered the following actions to be taken to protect the American people and to secure air travel.First, I directed that we take immediate steps to ensure the safety of the traveling public.

If there are steps to take, shouldn’t they have been taken already?

We made sure that all flights still in the air were secure and could land safely.

If “we” means Obama, his administration, the federal bureaucracy, the how could “we” possibly do that?  How can anyone on the ground ensure the security and safety of a plane in the air?  The President just admitted it was untrained, volunteer passengers and cabin crew who secured plane this terrorist tried to blow up!

I’ve directed my national security team to keep up the pressure on those who would attack our country.

What does this mean?  We’re they about to curtail “the pressure?”

We will continue to use every element of our national power to disrupt, to dismantle and defeat the violent extremists who threaten us, whether they are from Afghanistan or Pakistan, Yemen or Somalia, or anywhere where they are plotting attacks against the U.S. homeland.

But this President has already reduced or eliminated key “elements,” resulting in this terrorist being handled in the least effective way possible.  There is no Constituitonal or legal requirement to treat this terrorist as a civilian “suspect” of a civilian crime rather than a foreign, enemy combatant, taken prisoner as he was engaged in an act of war.  An enemy combatant can be interrogated immediately and for as long as it takes to draw out useful information.  A civilian “suspect” has the right to an attorney, who has the right to terminate interrogation.  The “suspect” has already lawyered up.

Following 9-11 the most useful intelligence our agencies acquired, intelligence that enabled them to prevent additional attacks, came from interrogation of captured enemy combatants.

Finally, the American people should remain vigilant, but also be confident. Those plotting against us seek not only to undermine our security, but also the open society and the values that we cherish as Americans. This incident, like several that have preceded it, demonstrates that an alert and courageous citizenry are far more resilient than an isolated extremist.

The word “resilient” doesn’t really fit.  It seems to be an attempt to sell us on the notion that because some of the passengers and cabin crew had the strength and quick reactions to disable the terrorist before he could successfully detonate his bomb the rest of us should be resilient and “confident.”

The Bottom Line

It’s hard to shake the perception that President Obama is out of touch with reality.