"You lie!" - um, You misstate...

Back in September of 2009, Representative Joe Wilson of South Carolina shouted "You lie!" during a speech by President Obama about his proposed health care law. Oh, the uproar, the hand-wringing, the shocked audience. This was indeed a very rude breach of protocol.

But then, protocol seems to be a one-way street for Obama. He has now lectured the Supreme Court, an equal third branch of government, twice, the first time during a State of the Union speech at which the SC judges were sitting in obligatory silence in front of Obama.

Protocol requires that a Congressional audience not holler out an accusation of lying at the President. Protocol should not protect the president from questions about the veracity of claims he makes during campaign speeches. At the beginning of Obama's term in office, it seemed that people tiptoed around any criticism of him for
   1. fear of accusations of racism ("The problem is SOUTHERN Congressmen are still fighting the "War of the South" and refuse to accept directions from a BLACK man. That is the crux of the core of the issue here. And,that's exactly why it's so important for them to be forced to accept the authority of a BLACK president." - RosanneofTennessee blogger in response to Joe Wilson's apology,) and
   2. fear of blowback for being "rude" to a president because of partisan disagreement.

At this point, in the 2012 campaign season, the American public needs to vet Obama's various statements and claims for veracity because he has demonstrated a pattern of prevarication in his efforts to damage his opponents. If he lies, the public has the right to know it and to say it.

Ethelred the Unconstitutional

Why is no one who is in a position to push back, challenging Obama on his extra-Constitutional actions? Should he be impeached? Can the House enforce the laws he refuses to enforce?What mechanism does our Constitutional structure provide to prevent a president's dictatorial behavior?

Obama recently declared that young illegal immigrants will receive a 2-year moratorium during which they will not be deported and will be given work permits for employment in the United States. Mind you, these are illegal immigrants, so by definition, Obama is contravening a law passed by the US Congress.

Before that, Obama declared his Justice Department would not enforce the Defense of Marriage Act that was duly passed by the US Congress.

Before that, Obama declared that all employee health insurance plans, including religious organizations (for example, the Catholic Church), "must provide no-cost birth control coverage to employees" [David Gibson on June 18, 2012 in the National Catholic Reporter], covering his dictatorial fiat by claiming it was merely a regulation from the HHS Department. In May, "43 Catholic institutions filed a dozen lawsuits in federal courts across the country." [Warren Richey on May 21, 2012 in the Christian Science Monitor]

Before that, Obama "attempted to unilaterally appoint three people to seats on the National Labor Relations Board and Richard Cordray to head the new Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (after the Senate blocked action on his nomination)" [Edwin Meese on Jan. 5, 2012 in the Washington Post]. "Senate Republicans are joining a lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of some of President Barack Obama's recess appointments in January, when Congress may not have technically been in recess, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) announced" in April, 2012. [Jennifer Bendery on April 17, 2012 in the Huffington Post].

Obama has admitted he wishes he could bypass Congress to get things he wants done. Since the Constitution does not give the president royal, dictatorial or unilateral power to pass or nullify laws, Obama is defying the Constitution.

There oughtta be a law.

Otherwise His Opinion Would Count For Little

As far as I can tell, Obama has no knowledge of economic theory. He is saturated with opinions he apparently absorbed in his prior life from whatever influences informed his development. But I see no evidence that he has an espalier of theory and data on which to structure his analysis (if you can call it that) of the causes of and solutions to the problems in the U.S. If you extrapolate his prescription for solving the current severe unemployment in the U.S. to its logical end, the foolishness of his recommendations becomes clear. Hire more public sector (i.e. government) workers - this is his solution. Okay, let's do that.

Let us hypothesize an unemployment rate of 100%, to take the logic to its extreme conclusion. Now give all the unemployed citizens government jobs.Now pay these people their salaries. Where do you get the money to pay them? From taxes, the government's only source of revenue (as opposed to borrowing, which is not revenue because it has to be paid back).

Okay, now, where do we source tax revenue? From taxpayers. But if everyone is unemployed, the government will be collecting no taxes from these folks. Now, if the government employs them, it will pay 100% of their salaries and receive back a percentage of their income in taxes. Let's say 30% (way too high, realistically, but let's just say...). So now the government pays $100 in salary and recoups $30 in taxes. How long can that go on? The government loses on every transaction.

Bottom line, you cannot take a pool of money (that the government collects as income tax from employees), pay employees from the pool and replenish it with a percentage of what you paid out and EVER come out ahead. Of course it is more complicated than this. The employees will spend their income and create jobs in the private sector. But even that will not result in a net gain. Spend $10 on a shirt. Employee at shirt store gets $1 in salary, store makes $3 profit, material supplier receives the other $6 and keeps some as profit. The government taxes the profit and the salary. Still just a percentage of the original spending.

Revenue and profit must be generated outside of government because government only uses money. It does not produce profit.

To Do List? Is Obama Now a Nagging Spouse to Congress?

"To Do List?" "To Do List?" Is that sort of like a "Honey-Do" list a wife maintains for her husband to make sure he takes care of all the little chores and repairs around the house? It sounds small-bore, bossy and condescending. Hardly the tone of persuasion that a President of the United States needs in dealing with his political and ideological opponents. A To-Do List, indeed.