No one now seems to be particularly worried about our perennial deficit of over one trillion dollars and our staggering national debt of almost 16 trillion.

Nancy Pelosi on February 11th, “We do not have a spending problem”.  Obama in  that same week, “I do not believe our federal government is too big.”  Another prominent Democrat senator, “We do not have a spending problem.  We have a problem of not raising enough revenue.”  This is the theme of the tax hungry Democrats.  After the Republicans caved and agreed to “tax the rich” by increasing their taxes by hundreds of billions of dollars, the war cry from these loonies is “we have only just begun.”

            National pollsters’ results seem to disagree with these tax, spend and borrow liberal leaders.  In January of this year 84 percent of Americans believe we have a spending problem and 82 percent believe the federal government is too big.  The reaction from the Democrats – first simply ignore beliefs by citizens, and if this doesn’t work, just refers to these poll results as insignificant details.

            No one now seems to be particularly worried about our perennial deficit of over one trillion dollars and our staggering national debt of almost 16 ½  trillion.  To put this in perspective – using even conservative projections for the next four years when Obama leaves office, he will have added more to the national debt than all the previous presidents added together.  That is worth a repeat – add the additions to the national debt from George Washington to George W. Bush and it still won’t total more than the gift Obama is giving to our children, grandchildren and great grandchildren.

            So how did we get in this disgusting fiscal mess?  The answer – a number of major and minor actions brought about by the belief that not only the federal government can provide for all our needs but that there is an obligation to do so.

            Let’s be specific.  Start with the recent boondoggle to provide free cell phones for the needy.  For the mindset of providing everything it was argued that poor people need them to assist in emergencies and to help find jobs.  No one seems to ask the question, how did any of us handle emergencies or find employment before cell phones?

            Even if you concede their silly arguments, audits of this program that cost us 2.2 billion in 2012 found that 46 percent of the recipients obtained these phones fraudulently or questionably.  Simply fill out a form by yourself with no outside or independent review of the factual information.

            Another program that Obama wants to expand is to provide a pre-school program for all four year olds.  The federal government is currently spending about 9 billion annually and this expansion would add up to another 15 billion each year.  Some studies have shown these types of programs have a very small positive advantage in the education process while more recent studies indicate there is no advantage and even if it makes a temporary difference initially, by the time the students arrive in the 4th or 5th grade any small benefit disappears.

            And here is the logic that makes you want to pull your hair out.  White House Domestic Council Director Cecilia Munoz says, “None of this adds a nickel to the deficit.  We’ve figured out a way to pay for it.”  How do they rationalize this investment?  Now pay attention – The White House says the plan would save taxpayers money at a rate of 7 dollars to every dollar spent through results such as less crime and more jobs opportunities.

            These are only two small examples of how the liberal mind thinks as to the fiscal effects on government spending.  Use this same approach to our large galloping increases in food stamps, Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security disability and unemployment benefits and you have the answer to our fiscal mess.



            Some of my critics and yes, some friends question if it is necessary to refer to greenies as environmental wackos.  Please note that my references are only to those who carry environmentalism to the absolute extreme.  All of us are interested in the basic idea keeping our world clean and using our resources wisely.

            Why call these extremists wackos?  Here’s why.  On February 15th  a meteor described with A-bomb force exploded and landed in the Siberia area of Russia.  A reported 1,100 people were injured.  Our eager friends at CNN were “johnny on the spot” and sent one of their fabled reporterettes to interview an expert in this field.  Her first penetrating question was, “Could this dangerous meteor entering our atmosphere be caused by global warming?” Now I ask you, can you find another word more descriptive than ‘wacko’ to describe this type of wayward thinking?

            We could all laugh at this type of stupidity if that was the end of this type of nonsense.  It isn’t.  These extremists are costing us billions every day.  Look at all the money we are spending to promote “clean” energy defined usually as wind and sun.  To accentuate this lunacy some cities (take Boulder, Colorado) and states like California have already passed laws requiring a certain percentage of energy produced by utilities come from wind and sun.

            This means we are paying doubly for this find of nonsense.  First, our tax monies by the billions are being spent to subsidize these non-competitive projects.  Secondly, we are all paying higher utility rates as these additional non-productive costs are being borne by you, me and all industrial users of energy.

(Jerry Jackson of Heber Springs writes his “conservative viewpoint” column each Wednesday)