First thing is first- raising the debt ceiling, and how to do it, is a Policy Debate. In academic debate, this means that a change in the status quo is being called for. It could be phrased as a resolution, as we call them: “We should raise the debt ceiling.” Obviously, Obama and the Democrats are the Affirmative Team.

So, what are the burdens of the Affirmative? First and most importantly, the Affirmative always has The Burden of Proof. This means that they have to prove, beyond a reasonable doubt that the resolution is the best choice.  But how do you prove which choice is the best choice? Well, according to philosopher Immanuel Kant, the only way to tell if something is a good idea, is to put it into practice, basically meaning- you have to have a plan.

This is Obama’s biggest mistake- he has been trying to debate the resolution without providing a plan to be voted on. This happens in academic debate as well, and the most common excuse our opponents will give is that we have time constraints (only 3o min. of prep time before each round) and therefore not enough time to research and devise a plan. Unfortunately for Obama, he cannot use this excuse- this showdown has been looming for months, and he has a huge staff of so-called experts at his disposal, and hundreds of lawmakers, who could have submitted at least ONE plan by this time, to be voted on in the House or Senate.

Instead he has decided to do what many of my opponents do- vague promises, with no real direction. An example of this: in a tournament’s final round, I had opponent whose whole “plan” was reform. One word. Nothing else. As if he was Harry Potter and “reform” was a magic word that would make everything perfect. How can you vote on something that is not definite?Its like saying let’s vote on Health Care Reform, and not letting the judges know if you are talking about Obama Care, or the Republican Bill- how do you know whether or not it is acceptable unless you know exactly what is going to be done?

As of right now the only plan on the table is the “Cut, Cap & Balance” which has widespread support from the American people. So assuming that somehow Obama decides to read this and needs to know what to do next, here is the rest of how to win a policy debate: If Obama wants any chance of winning this debate (or re-election) he needs to step up to the plate and write his own plan. But just any old plan is not enough, there are burdens that the plan has to meet.

1. Show a Need

He has to prove to law makers, and the American people that there is a genuine need for a raise in the debt ceiling. And this may be hard when one looks at his own arguments just a few years ago in regards to President Bush requesting a (small) raise:

The fact that we are here today to debate raising America’s debt limit is a sign of leadership failure. It is a sign that the U.S. Government can’t pay its own bills. It is a sign that we now depend on ongoing financial assistance from foreign countries to finance our Government’s reckless fiscal policies. Increasing America’s debt weakens us domestically and internationally. Leadership means that ‘the buck stops here. Instead, Washington is shifting the burden of bad choices today onto the backs of our children and grandchildren. America has a debt problem and a failure of leadership. Americans deserve better.

So far, it seems that his best argument in favor of the raise, is scaring old people about not getting their Social Security checks, even though his administration is in charge of the Treasury Department, and would decide what bills and obligations would and wouldn’t get paid. Surely Obama would never allow his Treasury Secretary to withhold Social Security checks? Or tell him that it was okay to not pay members of the military? One would hope that it would be lawmakers much more substantial checks that would be delayed until a deal was reached, as well as the “advisers” who got us into this mess.

2. Get an Actual Plan

Seriously, a real one. Not a “promise” to cut unknown things “later”, not an “agreement” to some “fair” cuts to entitlement programs at some point in the future, and certainly not any vague call for over a TRILLION dollars in new taxes without any way of knowing exactly what taxes you will be raising, by how much, and who they will affect. Think back to Kant- how can you put any of that into practice in order to determine its value? How can think tanks, research firms, or even governmental agencies take that and run the figures to determine their impact on the American people and economy? They cannot. That is why there needs to be a real plan, written down, with numbers and dates, and real and binding words defining what will be done and how it will happen. Otherwise, it is like trying to follow a GPS that only says “turn” but doesn’t say when or in what direction- completely useless and confusing.

3. Prove Solvency

Solvency just means that the plan in question actually has to solve for the problems in the status quo. This is exactly why a plan must be specific, so that you can clearly demonstrate how it will fix our current situation. But… Obama told us already that kicking the problem of our nation’s spending problem down the road is not going to solve anything. He said we deserve better leadership than that. I, for once, am inclined to agree with him.

4. Prove Advantages through Cost Benefit Analysis

In order for a plan to be considered a good idea, it must be able to survive a Cost Benefit Analysis, or a CBA. All a CBA does, is weigh the costs of implementing the plan, with the benefits that solvency has shown will come of the plan. If the costs are greater than the benefits, the plan is a failure. Usually the Negative provides the costs to the plan, although Obama has given us a few already:

a. leadership failure

b. reliance on foreign countries

c. continuance of irresponsible fiscal practices

d. pushing the burden onto our children and grandchildren

So it is his burden to prove that he can overcome those significant costs to raising the debt ceiling, along with the other costs that will have to be determined based on what his plan actually calls for as far as cuts and taxes.

I have a considerable amount of doubt that this is possible, and as a voter, and therefore his judge in this policy debate, I would not be able to vote Affirmative. Obama loses for failing to meet his burdens as a debater, and most importantly, as a leader.

“I can tell you it was an eye opener, learning the fiscal shape we are in,” Landry said.

With the fiscal 2012 budget looming, a debate has broken out between lawmakers like Pence who have urged the GOP to “pick a fight” on the 2011 funding, and others who argue the party needs to move on to next year’s budget, where the potential for much deeper cuts exists.

Read more: GOP freshman class faces its big shutdown decision: Fight or fall in line

NEW ORLEANS, La. – On account of immense fiscal pressure, some states are “simply not going to be able to honor their promises,” asserts John Hood, author of “The States in Crisis,” a report from the latest issue of National Affairs.

Hood is president of the John Locke Foundation, a North Carolina policy institute, and he cites an estimated $3 trillion in state and local unfunded liabilities and a combined projected deficit of $130 billion for the coming year. That equates to around 20 percent of their total spending, and nearer to 30 percent in the case of Louisiana. Hood also doubts whether federal officials, who have channeled $140 billion of relief to states over the past three fiscal years, will continue aid of that magnitude. (Article continues below.)

Reproduced with permission from National Affairs. Data Source: Center on Budget and Policy Priorities.

The latest recession brought lower state tax revenues – 8.4 percent less in 2009 than in 2008, and a further 3.1 percent less in 2010. However, the problem will not go away, he says, even in the event of an economic recovery. States have roughly doubled their spending over the past fifty years, as a proportion of the economy, and the “fiscal calamity is not simply a function of the recession.”

“Their shaky financial foundations were in fact set long ago – through unsustainable obligations like retirement benefits for public employees, excessive borrowing, and deferred maintenance for public buildings and infrastructure.”

Click here for the full article and an in-depth interview with John Hood

Fergus Hodgson is the capitol bureau reporter with the Pelican Institute for Public Policy. He can be contacted at fhodgson@pelicaninstitute.org, and one can follow him on twitter.

The federal government has accumulated more new debt–$3.22 trillion ($3,220,103,625,307.29)—during the tenure of the 111th Congress than it did during the first 100 Congresses combined, according to official debt figures published by the U.S. Treasury.

That equals $10,429.64 in new debt for each and every one of the 308,745,538 people counted in the United States by the 2010 Census.

Read more – 111th Congress Added More Debt Than First 100 Congresses Combined

At this time of year, it is traditional to look back on stories and actions that got our nation to where it is at the beginning of a new year. These five stories either changed the way we look at our government, or the world in such a way, that they will likely have a profound effect on our world in the years to come.

Read more – 5 Stories that Mattered in 2010

The Smarm Factor involved in the announcement of this grand gesture is off-putting as well.

“This is a difficult decision. Federal workers are hard-working and dedicated,” said Jeffrey Zients, deputy director of the White House’s Office of Management and Budget. “Today the president is clearly asking them to make a sacrifice. We believe it’s the first of many difficult steps ahead.”

Freezing pay for two years isn’t a sacrifice. You’re making double the market rate for your work, continuing to make that isn’t a sacrifice at all.

Cutting that pay would be a real sacrifice. No raise in the midst of a recession? Boo-friggin-hoo.

Or how about a bunch of layoffs in the federal workforce? That would be sacrifice.

Ed Morrisey at HotAir nails it at the link above:

We need a pay freeze a lot less than we need a reduction in the size of the federal workforce and a smaller, more effective government focused on areas of its actual jurisdiction.  We need a federal government able to account for its money more successfully than the one we have built to this point.  COLA freezes aren’t a solution’ they’re a way to look busy while business goes on as usual.

UPDATE: Sen. Vitter’s office just put out a release…

U.S. Sen. David Vitter today commented on President Obama’s decision to seek a freeze in federal employee pay, excluding pay for military personnel.  A federal pay freeze proposal is part of a larger debt-reduction package that Vitter intends to introduce as legislation on Wednesday.

“This proposal by President Obama takes a common-sense approach that I fully support, and I believe it should go even further.  Millions of Americans in the private sector have had their pay frozen – or worse – as we fight our way back through this recession, so it’s insulting to many taxpayers who see federal government employees continuing to get pay and benefit increases at this time.  A pay freeze provision, as well as other spending cuts, is part of a larger debt-reduction package I propose to introduce as legislation this week,” said Vitter.

Vitter’s plan incorporates the bipartisan debt commission’s recommendation of a three-year pay freeze, one year longer than the administration’s proposal.  On Wednesday, he will introduce a debt-reduction package that would trim the federal vehicle budget, reduce federal employee travel, cut the federal work force by 20 percent and reduce the congressional and White House budgets by 15 percent.

Vitter also co-authored language that was passed into law earlier this year to freeze automatic congressional pay raises for 2011, and he has long led the effort to permanently end the automatic pay increases for members of Congress.

Keeping Social Security benefits intact, making deep reductions at the Pentagon and raising corporate taxes to target profits and excessive pay for chief executives.

Schakowsky’s plan would omit the cap on the payroll tax for employers and lift the threshold above the current $106,800 for employees. And she would impose a “legacy tax” of as much as 4 percent on earnings above the cap.

Finally, Schakowsky’s plan calls for an additional $200 billion in economic stimulus over the next two years to create jobs and combat unemployment.

What we really need is a payroll tax holiday, not a payroll tax increase.  In terms of economic growth, a payroll tax holiday provides the 2nd highest bang-for-your-buck stimulus of any available tax policy option, trailing only the establishment of a job tax credit. Instead of proposing a productive policy to assist the economy, Schakowsky plans to enact a second stimulus spending package to incite economic growth.  Her proposal calls for the federal government to “create jobs and combat unemployment.”  Wasn’t that the exact goal of the first stimulus? And yet, here we sit with unemployment stagnant at 9.6%.  It shows no signs of dropping any time soon. 

Additionally, it bears repeating the Jan Schakowsky actually proposed an increase to our debilitating corporate tax rate.  There is no reasonable rationale supporting the ability of this tax increase to promote economic growth.  She also wants to end the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy and ratify cap and trade legislation.  Yes, she actually wants to sign cap and trade regulation into law,  establishing an emissions tax that would greatly reduce industrial efficiency.  She wants to pull us out of a recession by imposing stringent regulations on the corporations that provide job growth to our private sector, tax individuals who have been successful in industry, and increase government spending after an election that served as a referendum against government waste.

This proposal represents the distorted viewpoints of most progressive Democrats.  If the midterm elections proved anything, it was that the general populace is opposed to a left-wing agenda.  Obama and the Democrats have never understood this sentiment.   The policy has no chance to be implemented, thank god. But it is disturbing that it is actually being mentioned as a viable deficit reduction initiative, and it further emphasizes the need for a right of center government.

Click on the bad-ass image to donate!

However, it may be time to rethink the textbook economics of the day and input some measure of practical thinking into the equation.  Economics is an inexact science, and no policy decision is designated as the end-all-be-all for economic growth.  When The Left claims that government spending is necessary for economic stabilization and growth, it is really an opinion based on data provided by Keynesian theory.

Liberal and Conservative policy with respect to the economy represent two distinctly different means to the same end.  The stimulus package succeeded in stabilizing our economy.  However, the real question is not one of the success of the policy but of the cost/benefit analysis of the policy options available.  One could easily point to the tax breaks within the stimulus package and claim that these GOP influenced stipulations provided the key to economic stabilization, but one could also claim that infrastructure spending was a more influential factor.

So, in terms of weighing the ratio between the costs and benefits of stimulus spending, it becomes increasingly clear that the costs of  deficit spending outweigh the benefits.

The best case study in this regard is the current Japanese economy.  Once regarded as the paradigm for global industry, the Japanese economy fell hard in the 90s, and the government resorted to Obamaesque stimulus policy to address the issue.  The recession in Japan is still felt to this day, and the impetus for the recession mirrors that of the current situation in the United States. 

The Japanese use of stimulus spending over the long term created several detrimental results:

Despite massive stimulus, rapid growth hasn’t resumed two decades later. Although the Japanese reacted slowly, they adopted the advice of economics textbooks. They raised spending, cut taxes and let budget deficits balloon. Gross government debt soared from 63 percent of the economy (gross domestic product) in 1991 to 101 percent of GDP by 1997. It’s now around 200 percent. The Bank of Japan (their Federal Reserve) cut interest rates, going to zero in 1999 – a policy that, with some slight interruptions, endures.

These are the dangers facing our country due to Obama’s Keynesian economic stimulus.  While the result of the policy stabilized our economy to some extent, it is just as possible that conservative supply-side economics and a responsible energy policy would have accomplished the same result.  Now, the United States is experiencing gross debt in excess of 98% of GDP, and any continued expansion of government will result in an even greater loss of fiscal resources than Japan.  Furthermore, we will face a similar dilemma as Japan in terms of deciding when to end our fiscal policy of holding interest rates low. 

While the textbook says to spend, it seems that a practical application of this policy has costs that far outweigh the benefits.

Click on the bad-ass image to donate!

In any case, apparently there is a better way to spend our tax dollars.  As reported by CNS News, here is the most recent money pit the federal government has decided to explore:
 

The Environmental Protection Agency recently listed 76 community groups and government agencies that will share almost 2 million taxpayer dollars in the form of “environmental justice grants.” 

The grants – around $25,000 each — will fund projects that help people living in poor, minority communities increase recycling, avoid heat stroke, improve indoor air quality, “reduce carbon emissions through weatherization,” and participate in “green jobs” training programs. 

The federal government has decided to authorize the EPA to dump your money into the newest government garbage disposal: environmental justice grants. 

The name alone is comical.  Only, it’s not really funny when it’s your money funding it. To begin,  let me just resolve a few of these issues right off the bat: 

1. Question: Increase recycling? Answer: First of all who cares? I don’t want my money spent on that. Second, throw recyclables away in green barrels……
2. Question: Avoid heat stroke? Answer: Drink water. Stay in the shade. Get a portable fan…..
3. Question: Improve indoor air quality? Answer: Don’t smoke inside your house. (don’t smoke at all) Get a fan.  Open a window….

Does that require 2 million dollars? No, it requires absolutely nothing.  Now, what about the last two goals of these grants? 

1. Reduce carbon emissions through weatherization
2. Participate in “green jobs” training programs

I have absolutely no clue what number 1 means.  So, if you want to pay for something you don’t understand, I’d start by spending money on ”reducing carbon emissions through weatherization.”  Oh, wait, since we’re already paying for Obamacare, I guess that would actually be the second action one would take….. 

Now, number 2.  This stipulation is the most obvious source of funding catered directly to poor, minority communities.  Pardon my political incorrectness here, but doesn’t this country already have a welfare program?  And does that program not involve job training efforts?  The answer is yes, in case you didn’t know.  So, really, this fund is just an unofficial welfare grant.  All of these programs are geared toward that aim. This stipulation is simply the most blatant statement of these underlying purposes.  This welfare-like orientation is especially apparent given the rationale behind Environmental Justice Grants: 

 The EPA defines “environmental justice” as the notion that minority, low income and indigenous communities deserve the same degree of protection from environmental and health hazards, equal access to the decision-making process and a healthy environment in which to live, learn, and work as wealthier communities do. 

Ok.  That definition speaks volumes about the intensity of far-left influence behind the establishment of these grants. This definition essential provides an open-door policy for the EPA to distribute funding in any way they see fit to “bring equality” to the poor.  This definition does not simply imply wasteful spending, it legalizes the redistribution of wealth.  Money travelling from vast majority of Americans to, not just poor communities, but poor minority communities.  Oh, and of course, we don’t have a say in it whatsoever. 

Still need proof of the far, far left intentions of this mandate? There are 76 organizations receiving federal aid for “environmental justice.”  Here are a few:   

The Connecticut Coalition for Environmental Justice will use some of the grant money to train eight housing authority residents, who will then teach 900 people living in multi-family housing in Hartford how to recycle.

The West Harlem Environmental Action group will use its environmental justice grant to “identify and address the problems posed by climate change in Northern Manhattan” and to “develop a community-based climate change readiness plan.

The Women’s Health & Environmental Network in Philadelphia plans to educate senior citizens on climate change and how to lessen their carbon footprint. “Many seniors do not understand climate change and how they affect it or how to protect the environment,” the project summary says.

A migrant farm workers’ group in Lafayette County, Mo., will use its grant to “increase awareness about the dangers of sun and heat exposure” and to explain the “key words and symbols related to weather advisories broadcast via television, telephone, or in person.” The money also will be used to explain “the dangers of lead poisoning and poisoning prevention strategies, including how to evaluate toys and find out about toy recalls.”

As if we needed any more reason to question the motives behind this wasteful spending, right?  Unfortunately, this instance is not the first occurrence in Environmental Justice Grants.  Here is a brief history: 

Since 1994, the EPA’s Environmental Justice Small Grants program has provided more than $21 million in funding to community-based nonprofit organizations and local governments in more than 1,200 communities. The $1.9 million in fiscal 2010 grant funding announced on Oct. 5 is the largest amount awarded for environmental justice grants in more than a decade. 

But that 1.9 million is not the only sum dedicated to the EPA for “environmental” spending.  Shortly after this 1.9 million dollars was set aside for Environmental Justice Grants, an extra 1.5 million was marked for the purposes of funding ”environmental education efforts” for: 

14 organizations in 11 states and the District of Columbia to “inform the public of environmental issues and help them make educated choices on actions they can take to reduce negative environmental impacts.” 

Oh, and some of the money went toward “helping tribal communities set up leadership programs.”  Don’t want to spending money on “tribal communities?” Too bad, says the federal government. 

The federal government is spending millions of dollars to help the poor, minority communities in the United States in a welfare-like fashion through the EPA.  At the same time, that same government refuses to dedicate funds to thousands of citizens in Texas whose lives have been uprooted by a natural disaster.  The government seems extremely committed to providing for the poor minorities in our country, which begs the question posed by a Hayride reader commenting on my article about the Texas disaster: 

What is the Preferred Species head count in that area? If it doesn’t meet the required quota, there’s NO WAY FEMA will do anything for them. 

It does seem as though FEMA, the EPA, and the federal government favor some groups of people over others. Therein, lies the great hypocrisy of this government.  In advocated equality, what this administration really does is redistribute the hard earned wealth of most Americans to fund minorities and the poor.  Obama claims to be the champion of the middle class???????  Please, stop it.  Just stop it. 

Click on the bad-ass image to donate!