I'm revisiting a question I asked hereon vis-a-vis Barack Obama during the campaign, i.e., Who put that turtle atop that fencepost?  It's not that the President isn't bright, isn't literate.  Certainly, he's not undereducated.  And he is eloquent.  It's not that the themes of this administration are inconsistent with the themes he's had for a long time.  President Obama just seems to be lacking in the savvy and moxey, along with the analytical competence, to create the puzzle with which we are presented. 

He can put the puzzle together for us . . . but, only with the teleprompter at his sides.  His public persona has been ubiquitous, and we've seen him in campaign mode for more than two years now, but despite all of that, I cannot picture his chairing a meeting with a six-pack of expert advisors, then raising his hand and putting forth his palm to indicate that he's heard enough and has made his decision.

The crises fell into place as if choreographed.  Chuck Schumer brought down one bank with his loose lips as if on cue . . .  in the critical pre-election days.   The legislation roll-out, both deep and wide, frenetic of pace, both sweeping and lengthier than Atlas Shrugged and War and Peace.  We're coming to know who hasn't read the 1,000-plus-page bills, but who knows who wrote them?

The shortage of cabinet-type nominees who must be confirmed by the Senate; that along side the plethora of czar appointments, all of whom report directly to the prexy, none of whom require Senate approval . . . or any scrutiny or public exposure.  The vacation to Martha's Vineyard, announced only at the very-last minute, when the prexy was on a roll with daily gaffes, almost ala Veep Biden.  The Kennedy permanent-dirt-nap inaugural, timed perfectly to fill the news-cycle gap while the prexy was officially out-of-pocket.

I think it arguable that this Turtle-in-Chief was selected by an oligarchy as many as 5-to-6 years ago, that the chosen one (TIC) was then put through finishing school for grooming.  It may have been relatively late in the game that the TOTUS (teleprompter-in-chief) was added to the team.

Remember the Wellstone Memorial?  He was lionized by one liberal-leftist flack after another, who then went on the rail against then President George W. Bush and Vice-President Richard Cheney.  Cheney was there as and in courtesy and representing the White House.  He was driven from the hall.  Class act, those liberal-leftist-statists  The line, not from the Memorial, that I most remember is that Senator Paul Wellsone "was one of the most-generous persons I've ever met . . . with other people's money."

Will we get the same with a Kennedy Memorial?  This "Lion of the Senate", I remember for having walked away and left Mary Jo Kopechne to drown at Chapaquiddick, for inventing the verb "Bork", for impugning then President Ronald Reagan personally and with malice aforethought, for "borking" Clarence Thomas and every other Republican-President Supreme nominee for the last 48 years.  I also remember Ted Kennedy for his chutzpah in being even more generous than Paul Wellstone . . . as with liberal-leftist-statists in general . . . with other people's money.  In addition, the youngest of the Kennedy brothers is absolutely legendary -- save for in the leftist news media, aka "mainstream" -- for his outlandish transgressions of decency and the law, and against women.  Lots of hush money has been used to "spread the wealth".

George W. Bush regularly gave more than 10% of his gross income to charity.  Cheney, while veep, gave 77%.  Leftists excoriated Cheney for just trying to get a tax deduction.  Liberal-leftist-socialist-statist icon, Franklin Delano Roosevelt, a hero to Democrats, gave 3%.  Jesse Jackson -- bilker-in-chief -- who claimed to live a life of compassion gave less than 1%.  Robert Reich, champion of a "living wage", was so compassionate that his charitable contributions have averaged 0.2%.  As Junior Massachusetts Senator, John Kerry gave all of $175 in 1993, then tapered to $zero in 2005.  Hopefully, his new status as Senior Senator will perk that up.  Of course, on the way to running for POTUS in 1998, then veep Al Gore forked out a spread-the-wealth $353.  President Obama, who made $1.7 million just before moving into the Oval Office, stepped up with 1%.  Getting back to the subject at hand, the late Senator Kennedy got a bigger tax deduction for his sailboat (entertaining) than for his charity, usually a bit less than 1%.

All of the above can be categorized as "anecdotal" evidence if one wishes to generalize to liberal-leftist-statists in general, but that's not to whom I was generalizing.  I was talking about the population liberal-leftist-socialist-statists-high-profile "leaders".  As to the liberal-leftist-statists in general,just because someone will still accuse me of cooking the numbers, heads of conservative households contribute 30% more than liberal ones.

My next-door neighbor has his flag at half-staff.  I have never seen one moment or one example wherein I thought Ted Kennedy had one iota of redeeming social value.  As worthless as armpit hair.  With a forty-eight-year career in the U.S. Senate, it's hard for me to think of a human being alive who's had a more-devastating effect on America. 

I'll have to mute the radio every 30 minutes for the news breaks, avoid the newspapers, and any tv news coverage (including FNC) until this fawning "Camelot Sunset" show is over.  Otherwise, I'll just puke.  I'll leave all the "news"-media hoopla to the nation's dumb masses (Read that aloud quickly three times), that in honor of the TH censoring system which will not allow me to properly use former Vice President Cheney's first name, as he liked to be called and known.  This "news" "story" should be shovel-ready.

While playing golf -- badly, as always -- today, though surely I shoulda been mourning, my sister-in-law, Bonnie had my line of the day.  We saw while lunching at the turn Fox News with a scroller saying that Kennedy would be buried at Arlington National Cemetery.

That seems to me a slap and an insult to all of our soldiers buried there.  And I so quipped.  Bonnie said that he should be buried at sea . . .  no casket, just tossed off a bridge.  Gets my vote.

Glenn Fowers commented on my last column and recommended my reading the transcript of a speech from 2004 at Hillsdale College.  Glenn found this at fellow-Townhall-blogger Jim Cathcart's site.  It's not short, but immensely informative and inciteful.  I recommend it to all of you.  With what we are facing as a nation, it's a must-read.  It describes New Zealand's rebound from the brink we now have.

Though Cathcart's piece doesn't, if I properly recall, say so, I'm guessing that the source of the transcript is  Imprimis, a publication of Hillsdale College.  You can subscribe at no cost.  Excellent stuff.

Over the course of my last two columns I posited that the United States has so overspent and is so indebted that it is beyond salvation.  Even, I showed, if we sold all of the national parks and even all of our nuclear weapons, we wouldn't make a dent in the nation's debt.  Given our "entitlement" programs -- all of which continue and grow in perpetuity -- I stated that debt at $63,000,000,000,000 (That's trillion).  For a real-time-up-to-the-nanosecond  perusal of the nation's financial picture, visit here.

I closed my last column with the following question:  "Is there any case to be made at all for weaning Americans off of Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, SCHIP, the unearned income tax credit, government schools, the religion of environmentalism; of individual, overseas and corporate welfare; of "nation-building" and "promoting democracy" around the globe?"

In responding to a comment from the always-insightful Gray Ghost, I said, "In my almost-always-humble opinion, the USA has no options, just a single course, and one we will NOT take. It involves the federal government SHRINKING in mission and budget by 30% in 2009-10, and by 80% by 2015."

BrianR noted in a comment on my last column that average life expectancy for democracies is about 200 years, and I responded that the USA, then, has gotten a bonus 20 years.  Unsaid in our exchange was that these democracies are usually followed by dictatorships.

The United States, however, was founded not as a democracy, but as a republic; a republic based on the rule of law, not either the rule or whim of men.  The U.S. Constitution was the supreme law of the land.  That Constitution has been abused and trash-canned by almost every POTUS and a majority of congressmen and senators for the past two centuries, with an all-out assault since the 1920s.  America can be saved by, and only by, restoring the lost Constitution . . . now.   For an absolute hoot -- and affirmation of my point -- watch this!

A problem I've perceived with "Dr. No", Texas U.S. Congressman Ron Paul, is that he argues that we should follow the Constitution, but doesn't suggest how we undo the some eighty percent of what's already on the books and being done which is unconstitutional.  It does little -- not nothing, but little -- as I see it, to vote against, say, increasing funding for the Department of Education or for Social Security or Medicare or the Department of Housing and Urban Development or for the execution of our military actions in Iraq and Afghanistan; all of that when what's needed is to fund the elimination of all of the above . . . and much more.

Saving America will require, I contend, restoring the lost Constitution (phrase lifted from the title of a great book by Professor Randy Barnett) and in short order.  After a century of disregard -- indeed of elected officials taking oaths of office with crossed fingers and while having Pinocchio moments -- I question, no I doubt, no I don't believe that the same ilk under the same system can, or wishes to, accomplish the task.

Saving America, I believe, will require a benevolent dictator, leader of an oligarchy of patriots, who will quickly sunset the 80% to restore the lost Constitution, repeal its 16th and 17th amendments, repeal lots of laws, eliminate wholesale most federal departments and almost anything known by an acronym; then supervise elections, assuring that those voting are both alive and eligible; then step down and head for the sunset or the barn.

Just as one example of what I mean by "sunset", were I the benevolent dictator, I'd dictate ('cause that's what dictators do) that for those age 60 and above, Social Security benefits would remain as currently in place for the duration of their lives.  For those age 50 through 59 Social Security benefits would remain as above, less 5% for each year or part thereof, that they are less than 60.  For those under 50, there would be no Social Security.

A final note:  One shouldn't propose something this radical unless willing to step up to the plate.  Though I'd rather enjoy our home here on the Tennessee River and our boat, interspersed with golfing badly, I hereby volunteer to git'r dunn.  As alternative, we can continue to just print money and have a side-order of hashbrowns at Waffle House cost $20,000,000 (That's million) and a couple-mil extra if you wannem scattered or lathered or slathered or whatever.

In my last column, among much else, I posed the following question, asking what would be your strategy going forward?

If your household is average, typical, garden variety, everyday, run-of-the-mill, and thus grosses, I'm guessing, say, $70,000 per year and nets after current taxes -- federal, state, local, on income, sales, property -- say, $50,000, what would your strategy going forward be if you had ($572,000 [because of government fiscal irresponsibility] +$115,000 [because of your own inability to control your shopping addiction]) $687,000 in debt and current assets of, say, $80,000, thus net worth of negative $607,000?  That's where we are today, this day, and there's no bailout 'cause the bailer of record is already in your knickers and Zimbabwe says that it has its own problems.

I intentionally misstated the dilemma you'd face, by using flawed accounting.  There's good news and bad, but please either review the previous column so that you have the context either here (to click back and forward between this and the prior column) or or here (if you'd rather be able to scroll up and down the same page for both columns).

The personal financial dilemma I painted was a metaphor for where the country is, and I assigned to you your share of the government's $63,000,000,000,000 (That's trillion) indebtedness as one of about 120,000,000 (That's million) households.  That came out to $572,000.  Now for the flawed accounting, the intentional misstatement.  What I didn't assign to you was your share (120 millionth) of the government's assets.

From an accounting standpoint, this situation wouldn't show up on an "income" or "earnings" statement, but rather a "statement of financial position" or "balance sheet".  Indeed, we through our government could sell assets to pay down those $63,000,000,000,000, and bring us back to financial solvency.  The metaphor presented in the last column and restated above was to show you that we're toast.  There's would be no hope.  It's just not feasible, not possible, to dig out of that hole.

The federal government owns land, lots of it; indeed, more than half of all the land in the USA.  There are just under 400 national parks.  There are some 79,000 "historic places".  The Great Smoky Mountain National Park is the most-visited and is in my backyard.  Beautiful!  I visited the Grand Canyon last spring.  Beautiful!  We could hold a global "absolute auction"  Smoky Mountain is almost 521,000 acres while the Grand Canyon Park is about 1.2 million acres.  Let's say that auction gets $1,000 per acre.  Right there in one sitting we'd haul in about 1.75 billion bucks.  If we just had another 360,000 equivalent places rather than under 400, we'd have the job done.

I've never been to the Alaska Natural Wildlife Refuge, that place of about 19,000,000 (That's million) acres and home to the porcupine caribou.  Most of us know it as "ANWAR".  A buyer might choose to buy just the 1,500,000 acres, known as "area 1002" wherein lies somewhere around 15,000,000,000 (That's billion) barrels of oil.  At auction might we get, say, $300,000,000,000 (That's billion)?  Geeez!  Selling "area 1002" of ANWAR alone could get us maybe 1/2 of 1% of the way back to solvency.  PETA likely wouldn't hold sway with the new owners, so the porcupine caribou would have to be dancin the aztec two-step to have much hope of continuing the specie.

So, I have the Great Smoky Mountain National Park in my backyard.  In my "front" yard, then, I have Oak Ridge and the Oak Ridge National Laboratory.  Here, we know it as "ORNL".  When the Soviet Union imploded, that was good news.  When we realized that Soviet nukes were outa control, that was bad news.  Right now USA nukes are in control and by and at ORNL, the most secured and secure site in America.  So, if by selling all of our national parks and our retrievable crude oil, we only solve, say, 1% of our debt problem, now what?  Let's call it a debt "crisis" and not let it go to waste.  How 'bout we auction our nukes?  Let's say we have 5,000 of them and at auction they go on average for $100,000,000 (That's million) per. Even with volume discounts for big buyers, we could raise about $500,000,000,000 (That's billion).

Okay, to sum up so far, if we sold all of the federal lands, not just those two parks, maybe we'd haul in half a tril.  ANWAR itself get us a third of a tril.  The whole nuke stockpile adds another half a tril.  So, we're already at better than 2% outa hock. 

I've gotta cut this short and bring this column to a close, 'cause I have towels to fold, a bit of yardwork to complete, a few honey-do's, and I've schedule golf for tomorrow, so lemme leave it to y'all to come up with some more money-raising schemes.  Okay, sorry, just a little bit more.

I and other conservatives for years argued that you cut the deficit by cutting spending, and you reduce the debt by growing the economy.  Between 2001 and 2008 the federal budget grew by 60% or 6.9% per year.  With the growth of GDP during that same period, the budget would have been balanced (i.e., no deficit) if annual spending growth had been held to 4.4% versus the 6.9%.  Right now GDP has been shrinking slightly and may soon be merely flat.  Both economic and fiscal policies of the congress and the radical-liberal-fascist-statist oligarchy are, and will continue for the foreseeable future to be, to devastate the American economy . . . by design.  The largest federal budget deficit ever recorded was 6%.  For 2009, the CBO thinks that it will top 10%.  Over the next half-century, deficits in Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security alone will likely exceed $50,000,000,000,000 (That's trillion).  Meanwhile, as wasteful as it undoubtedly is, the defense budget has shrunk to just 4% of GDP.

Is there any case to be made at all for weaning Americans off of Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, SCHIP, the unearned income tax credit, government schools, the religion of environmentalism; of individual, overseas and corporate welfare; of "nation-building" and "promoting democracy" around the globe?

Not that it matters in this big picture, but yesterday Kathleen Sebelius, Health & Human Services Secretary, said that the "public option" was not an essential element of the President's healthcare program.  They would consider "co-ops" as a compromise, that to provide "competition" for those evil, nasty private insurance companies.  Republicans are stumbling over each other to jump aboard the bi-partisanship bandwagon.

What should we take from the Sebelius message?  The White House has determined that HR 3200 or anything like it is a lost cause right now, and the best "foot-in-the-door" move on the road toward the goal of single-payer is the play-the-stupid-Republicans "compromise".  Right now, conservatives should be taking the Sebelius stated rationale and turning it on her.  The way to get competition for those insurance companies is to undue the myriad rules and regulations in place by government which prevents competition.  Now that there is no bill written which reflects what the liberal-fascist-statist oligarchy is actually proposing, it will muffle the townhall meetings substantially.

Democrat Congressman Gene Green of Texas' 29th district in Houston is 61 years of age.  He spent 26 years in government schools -- pre-k through law -- and 37 1/2 split among the Texas state house and senate and the U.S. Congress.  Taxpayers have, thus, been paying much of his way virtually his entire tenure on the planet.  He is, if not the, certainly one of the most-generous persons in Houston . . . with other peoples' money.  He's been outspoken for years in opposition to any requirement that voters be required to show picture identification to demonstrate eligibility to participate in elections, saying that it would be undue burden.

Congressman Green has also been spectator recently to happenings at colleagues' townhall meetings.  Yesterday Green announced that at his upcoming events those wishing admission would be required to show picture i.d., proving that they were residents of the 29th district, to gain entry.

Comment:  No.  I report; you decide.

Democrat Missouri (the "Show Me" state) Senator Claire McCaskill had a townhall meeting yesterday.  Therein, she chastised questioners, saying that what they claimed was in the "healthcare reform" bill wasn't.  When they cited and read from the text, she said that she was speaking not of the House bill, but of the Senate bill.  Problem:  There is no Senate bill.  Then McCaskill asked for a show of hands from those on Medicare.  Then for another show of those who wanted to drop out of Medicare.  There were no takers.  Problem:  There is no alternative in the marketplace to Medicare . . . unless you retired from Congress.  Problem:  The Senator made no mention of the fact that Medicare will be bankrupt by 2015. 

Comment:  McCaskill lies, yes, but not as blatantly or frequently as TOTUS.

USA Today recently reported that this year (as of the end of May) taxpayers are on the hook for an additional $55,000 per household in government debt.  Continuing apace through mid-August, add another $25,000 for a year-to-date $80,000.  That makes the U.S. government in the hole for $63,900,000,000,000 (Yes, that's trillion) or about $572,000 per household.  Just for some context here -- bigger or smaller than a breadbox -- United States GDP (gross domestic product) is holding at about $14,000,000,000,000 (Yes, that's trillion) per annum or $115,000 per household.  During the next decade -- the one that begins in a tad over four months -- the federal government will cease to be able to pay Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, Veterans' pensions, and everything else.  The U.S. Government and, therefore, the United States of America will be broke, bankrupt, absent cash and absent credit.

Comment:  The rant shoulda been, "Bush spent and people lent."
Comment:  Why is Bernie Madoff in prison?  Heck, given the "healthcare reform" bill, why is Charles Manson in prison?

The American people have not been savers and investors, spending more each year than they make.  Personal debt at the end of the first quarter of 2009 was about $13,100,000,000,000 (Yes, that's trillion) or $117,000 per household.  When I graduated from high school 50 years ago with a 2.1 gpa and in the bottom half of the class, but with SAT scores placing me in the top 1/2 of 1% in the country, a college admissions counselor looked at me and queried, "So, you must have had a really fun time in high school?"

Comment:  C'mon, it was a helluva fun ride, no?

Well, I gotta idea.  We just gotta raise taxes and tighten our belts.  Half of Americans pay less than 4% of income taxes and a third pay less than zero.  Shall we go after them?  Oh, that's right, they're "poor".  The Laffer Curve shows indisputably what happens when government increases tax rates on the "evil rich" . . . and it's neither pretty nor does it help.

Comment:  Willie Sutton was asked why he robbed banks.  He replied, "That's where the money is."  Please review the above numbers just for a moment.  Who would Willie rob now?

More numbers.  Sorry.  Facts don't lie.  "U6" (those we read about usually [U3] plus those working part-time because they cannot find full-time, those who've given up looking because it's "hopeless") unemployment statistics for June 1, 2009 show: that the unemployment rate for black teens is 56%, U.S.-born Hispanic teens is 47%, black young adults with a high school degree is 44%, black high school dropouts of all ages is 41%, U.S.-born Hispanic young adults with only a high school degree is 35%, all teens (16-17) is 32%, young adults with only a high school degree (18-29) is 30%, and all Americans 15.9%.  In Michigan, California, and a few other states these percentages are much higher yet.

Comment:  Was increasing the "minimum wage" a bunch amid this supposed to help?  Worst hurt are young black males.
Comment:  "Cash for Clunkers" takes low-price used cars -- excuse me that's "pre-owned" -- out of the marketplace by destroying them; that to increase America's vehicle fuel efficiency, thereby throwing a bone to the environmental whackos, and to support the UAW as payback for all the help during the 2008 election cycle.  Who was hurt by CfC?  Peruse any of those folks above-listed in the U6 list, whether employed or not.  I remember my first car . . . and my second.  Back then, it was clunker or walk.

If your household is average, typical, garden variety, everyday, run-of-the-mill, and thus grosses, I'm guessing, say, $70,000 per year and nets after current taxes -- federal, state, local, on income, sales, property -- say, $50,000, what would your strategy going forward be if you had ($572,000 [because of government fiscal irresponsibility] +$115,000 [because of your own inability to control your shopping addiction]) $687,000 in debt and current assets of, say, $80,000, thus net worth of negative $607,000?  That's where we are today, this day, and there's no bailout 'cause the bailer of record is already in your knickers and Zimbabwe says that it has its own problems.

Polonius counseled his son Laertes in Act 1 Scene 3 of Shakespeare's Hamlet, "Neither a borrower nor a lender be; For a loan often loses both itself and a friend . . . "  As a child, you like I, when check-mated in a game -- whether tag or wrestling or hide-and-seek or whatever -- may have asked for a do-over.  Those, after all, were games.  What you and I, and America, have played here is not a game.  Behaviors have consequences.  So, now it's truth and consequences.  Our "allies" were such when we were giving, lending, supporting and defending.  They won't be when it is we with hat in hand.

Comment:  When -- in addition to being unable to pay Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, Veterans' pensions, etc. -- our federal government cannot buy artillery or ammo, bombers or bombs . . . missiles or munitions . . . satellites or submarines, tanks or troops; when, indeed, America cannot defend itself, will the world's thug dictators and the Islamofascist terrorists morph into moderates, "play fair" by not kicking us when we're down, become suddenly enamored of our "diplomacy"?

America's "greatest generation" was told, growing up, to "save a little for a rainy day."  It's raining cats and dogs, folks, and all of the animal kingdom is lined up in pairs.  America's people in just the last few months have begun to save more, but immeasurably too little and decades too late.  Meanwhile, congress so far this year has increased, just for example, the budget for:  Commerce, State and Justice by 11.7%; Agriculture 11.9%; Interior-Environment 17%; State Department's foreign operations 33.4%; Transportation and HUD (Housing and Urban Development) 25.1%.  Heck, Homeland Security has spent $248 million on new furniture.  (Special thanks to my TN-2 Congressman John J. [Jimmy] Duncan for these details.)