House Speaker John Boehner and President Barack Obama

Barack Obama wants Congress to raise the debt ceiling again. Democrats love spending and will vote for any increase he wants, while Republicans will fight any increase without major spending cuts. That just about sums up the argument, on a very simple, superficial level.

The National Debt is a growing problem which needs to be addressed. Unfortunately, the President and Congressional leaders don’t see it as a problem. They say they do, but they don’t

Barack Obama has done a horrendous job as President. Federal spending is out of control and the National Debt is growing rapidly. John Boehner and the Republicans have every right to demand major spending cuts. Unfortunately, there are two problems. First, they should have started acting as the debt ceiling police years ago when George W. Bush and his predecessors were President. They also need to propose meaningful cuts, not just token cuts to appeal to the base.

As for the Democrats, they’re even worse. Are there any in Congress who have a fiscally responsible bone in their body? Do they have any plan to address the National Debt? If they do, I’m not seeing it.

We need to balance the budget

immediately

. There is no reason, other than a lack of poitical courage and common sense, that the budget can’t be balanced in a single year. Sure, the draconian cuts would make some people angry, but if you’re afraid to make the big decisions, you shouldn’t run for office.

I’m hoping Barack Obama is a one-term President for a variety of reasons that I won’t regurgitate in this post. Defeating him is important, but I’m hoping the Republican nominee won’t use pie-in-the-sky predictions to gain favor with voters. Eventually, such tall tales will catch-up to him and undermine his credibility. The first potential pitfall to come to mind are promises to lower gas prices.

Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich has often said that gas prices would fall below $2.49 per gallon if he were elected. He points out that such a fall would put money into the pockets of consumers, which would be pumped into the economy, corporate profits would be increased, fueling growth, and tax receipts would climb. These positive events would likely follow lower gas prices. The problem is that Gingrich thinks he can single-handedly bring down prices in the span of a single administration. This isn’t likely.

Gasoline prices depend on a myriad of factors, such as OPEC’s decisions, refining capacity, demand, and a host of geopolitical factors. A President is important, but when it comes to these disparate factors, their hands will be tied.

Decreasing prices is simple in theory: Increase supply and decrease demand. Of course, the devil is in the details. Some solutions are unpalatable, and would create other problems. For example, you could institute a tax on all cars that average less than 40 miles per gallon. I’d personally be opposed to this solution, but in the grand scheme of things, it wouldn’t be meaningful. Even though American cars consume a great deal of fossil fuel, it’s a small percentage of the overall global output.

On the supply side, we could ramp up drilling, which would probably take a decade to bring more oil to market. Of course, if we did attempt to increase the global oil supply, wouldn’t OPEC just cut production to maintain a higher price? Let’s not forget that OPEC is a cartel.

Some would argue that domestic oil production would increase U.S. Security by assuring that portion of our energy is produce in the U.S. This is a noble goal, but will all of this new oil be sold in the United States? Will we forbid the sake of crude to foreign countries? These are questions that need to be asked.

The next time you hear a politician talk about lowering energy prices, please keep in mind that their mouths are bigger than their influence.

Everyone in Washington will be seeing dollar signs this fall.

It looks like we might will be heading toward another fight over the debt limit. According to Senator Rob Portman, the current limit will likely be reached before Election Day, making it a big topic of debates and news coverage.

Here’s a preview of what we have to expect, courtesy of Senator Portman:

“Following the contentious debt ceiling last August, President Obama promised that he would take action to address the country’s fiscal crisis. He has failed to do that,” Portman said. “In fact, his new budget increases spending and projects that Washington will be hitting the debt ceiling again in mid-October – burning through a $2.1 trillion debt limit increase in just over 14 months.”

For those on the fence, pointing out how the Obama Administration blew through a $2.1 trillion debt limit increase should be damaging. My guess is that as Election Day draws near, Barack Obama will again blame George W. Bush for everything, talk about how another increase is necessary, and vow to become more fiscally conservative, which for him, will involve raising taxes. You read it here first!

Should people be allowed to by cupcakes with food stamps?

A Florida legislator is sponsoring a bill which would prevent individuals from purchasing junk food with food stamps. As you can imagine, liberals and the poverty pimps are up in arms. Not surprisingly, food stamps are one of the few things Democrats don’t want to regulate.

I’m against government interference in the personal lives of its citizens, but I strongly favor this legislation. Why? Because the government pays for the food! If individuals who receive food stamps don’t agree with the government restricting their choices, then they are free to stop receiving food stamps, and have full freedom to purchase what they want. Of course, they could also buy healthy food with food stamps and Twinkies with their own money, but I guess they don’t taste as good when they’re not government subsidized.

We need to face facts: The federal government is not only encouraging dependence, but it is also subsidizing obesity.

The obverse of the Eisenhower Dollar, which was minted from 1971 to 1978.

Lately, there has been a lot of talk about making changes to U.S. coinage. Some think making changes to the standard line-up of pennies, nickels, dimes, and quarters is unfathomable, but I think it’s long over-due, and certainly not without precedence. Let’s not forget that at one time, we had 3 cent and 20 cent coins.

I’ve heard several proposals, so I figured I would throw out my own. First, I would get rid of the penny. Inflation has increased prices exponentially over the past several decades, yet we still cling to this miniscule denomination that is a drain on mint resources, and normally ignored by the typical consumer. Think about it: Do you really value a penny?

Many proposals suggest getting rid of the nickel, since it costs so much to make in relation to its face value. I’d actually suggest eliminating the dime before the nickel, since two nickels can substitute for the dime. With that said, this isn’t one of the important changes we need to make. No, the most important change we can make is to get rid of the $1 bill.

Replacing the $1 bill with circulating coins would save money, since the coins last much longer than paper money. Some complain that $1 coins are cumbersome, but I’d argue that the opposite is true. Have you ever spent a day running errands, then suddenly end up with a stack of $1 bills? Good luck closing your wallet!

My only problem with the $1 coin is the manner in which the mint has handled them. Rather than seeing Presidential Dollars that change annually with five different portraits each year, I’d prefer a return to the Eisenhower or Susan B. Anthony Dollars (or something similar), which stayed the same from year to year, and didn’t vary in design.

This makes a lot of sense. It would save the United States money and simplify the currency. Unfortunately, making sense (or cents) essentially guarantees that it will never happen.

Rep. Eric Cantor leads talks to raise the debt ceiling.

Republican negotiators have walked out of talks to increase the debt ceiling. Why? Let me summarize: Democrats don’t want to cut spending, and Republicans don’t want to raise taxes. To this point, some cuts have been agreed on, but no tax increases are being considered by the Republicans.

These talks are taking place because the debt ceiling needs to be raised in order to avoid a bond default on August 2nd. Ideally, both sides would develop some common sense and use this as an opportunity to set the budget straight, to truly fix it, rather than just make temporary repairs.

If I had my way, I would eliminate the income tax and shrink the size of government. Unfortunately, this can’t be done responsibly until we eliminate the deficit, then the National Debt. Once those two things occur, then proponents of small government can accomplish some truly great things. The problem is that such a solution would require a multifaceted approach that both sides are too incompetent to see.

Democrats need to realize that we need drastic spending cuts, and a fundamental change in how we view government and its responsibility to its citizens. Republicans need to realize that they too helped raid the piggy bank over the years, and now it’s time to buckle down and get the bills paid. It’s probably possible to eliminate the deficit and debt with just spending cuts or tax increases, but it certainly isn’t easier. A combined approach is necessary.

If our elected leaders would start thinking past the next election and were afraid to make a tough decision, perhaps they would grasp the opportunity at hand, avoiding this problem in the future. Unfortunately, I don’t think any of them have the ability or courage to work toward such a solution.

Increased borrowing, here we come!

To me, there’s nothing worse than having taxes taken out of your income before you even receive it. Fortunately, there’s a movement to pass the Fair Tax. Check out the video above to learn more.

American Silver Eagle

In the past two or three years, there have been a lot of events that should have served as wake-up calls for politicians and public officials. Another one of these events happened recently when Utah passed a law to encourage individuals to accept U.S. gold and silver bullion coins for their weights, rather than their nominal value. For example, the American Silver Eagle is a one dollar coin, but with the current spot price of silver at $38 per ounce, it is also worth $38.

There are a lot of people concerned about the economy, from survivalists who are waiting for a complete economic collapse, to those expecting slightly greater than usual inflation. Personally, I’m not expecting a massive collapse, but I am expecting increasing inflation and an erosion of the dollar’s value as the presses keep rolling. Making it more convenient to use gold and silver is a good thing which might encourages individuals to diversify their wealth.

Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner wants the United States to keep borrowing.

Let’s say you have an individual that is in deep financial trouble. This person constantly uses their credit cards, spends their money as soon as they get it, and are generally irresponsible. If this person is having trouble paying their mortgage, electric, and grocery bill, what should they do? If you have common sense, you would probably suggest that this person stop nonessential purchases. By doing this, they’ll have enough for their bills, and hopefully, some left over to pay off their credit card balances, which will increase their monthly cash flow.

That solution makes sense, but I have another suggestion. What if the person called up the credit card companies and asked for a credit limit increase? If the banks agreed, they could keep spending lots of money, then use the borrowed funds to take care of their monthly expenses. Eventually, they would reach their credit limit, but they could just make more calls to the credit card companies, and continue to have their credit limit increased. Problem solved!

Does this sound like a stupid idea? I think so, but the U.S. Government seems to think it’s a great idea. After reaching the $14.3 trillion debt ceiling, the Obama Administration and many in Congress are trying to get the limit increased, so they can borrow more to spend more.

Proponents of an increase paint a gloom and doom scenario and insist it must be increased to avoid fiscal armageddon. Many Republicans are insisting on spending cuts in return for increasing the debt ceiling. Here’s what I don’t understand: If failing to raise the debt ceiling would be such a catastrophe, then why don’t the Democrats agree to the cuts that would ensure passage of a debt ceiling increase?

I’m also wondering why both parties approved a budget that relied on a level of borrowing that wasn’t legally permissible at the time. Is is because most members of Congress love to buy votes with the pet projects and programs their constituents, supporters, and donors want, without regard for the big picture?

I’m extremely pessimistic about things being “fixed” any time soon. All we are going to see are some short-term fixes that will get us through a few months, or a few years, if we’re lucky. The can will be kicked down the road to become someone else’s problem. This is what happens when people without courage common sense are elected.

Many of those who are protesting Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker’s attempt to reign in state spending should be ashamed of themselves.

So many teachers have called in sick, that several cities and towns had to close their schools. Since there are tens of thousands of union protesters complaining outside the state capital, it’s pretty easy to figure out where those teachers are spending their days. Ideally, these teachers would be fired. Of course, they won’t be. As a matter of fact, there’s allegedly a doctor outside the capital giving teacher’s notes to excuse them for being out of work due to their “illnesses.”

Throughout this spectacle, we’ve heard a lot of talk about the hard working labor unions, and calls for democracy. These calls are rather inconsistent with the situation being created by organized labor and their supporters. After all, many members are calling out of work to protest. That doesn’t seem like someone with a strong work ethic, or someone who cares about their students. As for Senate Democrats, they left Wisconsin. How can Democracy work if the people elected to do a job refuse to do it? Voters chose the Senators and Representatives they wanted in November. Ladies and gentleman, democracy will occur if the Democrats get back to the work they swore they would do.

The union members and Democrats won’t accomplish anything of note. All they are doing is delaying the inevitable. If they come back the bill will be introduced. If they don’t, the legislative process will grind to a halt and nothing at all will be accomplished. That just goes to show how much power the unions have in Wisconsin.

Finally, fire the teachers, recall the Senators, and take the doctor’s licenses away.