Got to love the humor of Jon Stewart, even if he show his bias and plays to his left leaning audience. For the fun of it I figure President Obama deserved a little bit of face time too and added (photoshopped) the little Al Green comparison … perhaps it is not as effective as the Gingrich and Romney comparisons (very funny) … but as an excuse to include the Daily Show’s graphics above (video below).

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart	Mon – Thurs 11p / 10c
Indecision 2012 – Jump on the Blandwagon
www.thedailyshow.com
Daily Show Full Episodes Political Humor & Satire Blog The Daily Show on Facebook

]]> http://mydesultoryblog.com/2012/02/comedians-are-having-too-much-fun-with-the-gop-primaries/feed/ 0 http://mydesultoryblog.com/2012/01/david-walker-is-as-poignant-as-anyone/ http://mydesultoryblog.com/2012/01/david-walker-is-as-poignant-as-anyone/#comments Mon, 23 Jan 2012 16:46:00 +0000 RichC http://mydesultoryblog.com/2012/01/david-walker-is-as-poignant-as-anyone/ David Walker is an idea man that speaks as clearly as any in stating our country’s issues and would be a great advisor to any administration lucky enough to add him. His ideas, that “I believe” the majority will agree on, could be a reasonable approach for most of America who elect moderate Democrats or reasonable Republicans. We’ve gone off the fiscal path over the past 10 years (if not more) and need leaders willing to address problems head on. Mr. Walker’s interview on CNBC’s Squawkbox this morning was excellent.

Walker: “…frankly i get tired of people trying to put one class against another. Why don’t we go back to the values under which the country was founded that it should apply to everybody.

• Limited but effective government.
• Individual liberty and opportunity.
• Personal responsibility and accountability.
• Rule of law and equal justice under the law.
• Fiscal responsibility and intergenerational equity.

The truth is we’re violating all five of those to differing degrees and we need the president, the current president as well as whoever the next president will be, whether he gets reelected or Romney or somebody else gets elected to tell us the truth and to talk to us about the tough choices that are going to be necessary in order to restore fiscal sanity.”

David Walker – CNBC Squawkbox on January 23, 2011

CNBC video below … and my previous comments about his book “Comback America.”

Still, she is my kind of breed and does a good job of patrolling our property, hunting for odds and end scraps including birds, rabbits, foxes, “old” coyotes and mink … AND she does a good job of protecting her family.

I don’t watch the BBCLife or NatGeo all that regularly, I do appreciate their fantastic documentaries and brilliant filming. In the above video a Killer Whale passes her unique skills to her calf in hunting elephant seals. The “low volume” audio in this clip describes the danger and intelligence required by these animals to navigate the shallow pools in order to hunt the young elephant seals.

[See post to watch Flash video]

While the CBNC anchors and guest host Ken Langone discuss what could have been done by the “do-nothing” congress to move the country forward even if it were a “token.” Santelli chastises the idea of giving the “knuckleheads in DC”  more money to spend … “no way” –  and his point is well supported by the evidence that our government can’t live within its means (borrowing more than 40 cents of every dollar they spend — crazy).

Besides being frustrated with congress, I also blame President Obama as he did … and does …  little in being a  leader in order to forge an agreement that will create jobs or improve the economy. Instead his rhetoric divides and splits the country even further apart. To Langone’s credit, his token idea of raising taxes on the wealthy, not to solve anything (not enough money), but in order to negotiate the real cuts that are needed in order to deal with the deficit and growing debt.

EDIT: Although I’m not in the Gov Rick Perry campaign camp, I am frustrated enough with congress and the lack of leadership from the Whitehouse to agree with his comments …

[See post to watch Flash video] ]]> http://mydesultoryblog.com/2011/11/deficit-and-debt-debacle-continues-to-drag-on-our-economy/feed/ 3 http://mydesultoryblog.com/2011/11/remembering-veterans-and-the-recent-passing-of-andy-rooney/ http://mydesultoryblog.com/2011/11/remembering-veterans-and-the-recent-passing-of-andy-rooney/#comments Sun, 13 Nov 2011 12:21:00 +0000 RichC http://mydesultoryblog.com/2011/11/remembering-veterans-and-the-recent-passing-of-andy-rooney/ A long time CBS journalist and 60 Minutes commentator Andy Rooney died this week after an iconic career in both reporting and “curmudgeon” commentary, or at least that’s the word I’ve heard bantered around this week. He commented after his last appearance that he was “lucky” in his career … and having noted that he retired only a month ago at age 92, I agree. What many forget or are too young to remember, was that he was a war correspondent for the U.S. Army in World War II … having reported on the D-Day Normandy landing. Perhaps veteran’s “weekend” is a good time to post a video of him remembering this back on the 35th anniversary of D-Day (below).

NEW YORK (AP) — Andy Rooney so dreaded the day he had to end his signature "60 Minutes" commentaries about life’s large and small absurdities that he kept going until he was 92 years old.
Even then, he said he wasn’t retiring. Writers never retire. But his life after the end of "A Few Minutes With Andy Rooney" was short: He died Friday night, according to CBS, only a month after delivering his 1,097th and final televised commentary.

Rooney had gone to the hospital for an undisclosed surgery, but major complications developed and he never recovered.
Rooney talked on "60 Minutes" about what was in the news, and his opinions occasionally got him in trouble. But he was just as likely to discuss the old clothes in his closet, why air travel had become unpleasant and why banks needed to have important sounding names.

He won one of his three Emmy Awards for a piece on whether there was a real Mrs. Smith who made Mrs. Smith’s Pies. As it turned out, there was no Mrs. Smith. "I obviously have a knack for getting on paper what a lot of people have thought and didn’t realize they thought," Rooney once said. "And they say, ‘Hey, yeah!’ And they like that."

Looking for something new to punctuate its weekly broadcast, "60 Minutes" aired its first Rooney commentary on July 2, 1987. He complained about people who keep track of how many people die in car accidents on holiday weekends. In fact, he said, the Fourth of July is "one of the safest weekends of the year to be going someplace."

More than three decades later, he was railing about how unpleasant air travel had become. "Let’s make a statement to the airlines just to get their attention," he said. "We’ll pick a week next year and we’ll all agree not to go anywhere for seven days."

In early 2009, as he was about to turn 90, Rooney looked ahead to President Barack Obama’s upcoming inauguration with a look at past inaugurations. He told viewers that Calvin Coolidge’s 1925 swearing-in was the first to be broadcast on radio, adding, "That may have been the most interesting thing Coolidge ever did."
For his final essay, Rooney said that he’d live a life luckier than most.

"I wish I could do this forever. I can’t, though," he said.
He said he probably hadn’t said anything on "60 Minutes" that most of his viewers didn’t already know or hadn’t thought. "That’s what a writer does," he said. "A writer’s job is to tell the truth."
True to his occasional crotchety nature, though, he complained about being famous or bothered by fans. His last wish from fans: If you see him in a restaurant, just let him eat his dinner.
Rooney wrote for CBS stars such as Arthur Godfrey and Garry Moore during the 1950s and early 1960s, before settling into a partnership with newsman Harry Reasoner. With Rooney as the writer, they collaborated on several news specials, including an Emmy-winning report on misrepresentations of black people in movies and history books. He wrote "An Essay on Doors" in 1964, and continued with contemplations on bridges, chairs and women.
"The best work I ever did," Rooney said. "But nobody knows I can do it or ever did it. Nobody knows that I’m a writer and producer. They think I’m this guy on television."

He became such a part of the culture that comic Joe Piscopo satirized Rooney’s squeaky voice with the refrain, "Did you ever wonder …" For many years, "60 Minutes" improbably was the most popular program on television and a dose of Rooney was what people came to expect for a knowing smile on the night before they had to go back to work.

Rooney left CBS in 1970 when it refused to air his angry essay about the Vietnam War. He went on TV for the first time, reading the essay on PBS and winning a Writers Guild of America award for it.
He returned to CBS three years later as a writer and producer of specials. Notable among them was the 1975 "Mr. Rooney Goes to Washington," whose lighthearted but serious look at government won him a Peabody Award for excellence in broadcasting.
His words sometimes landed Rooney in hot water. CBS suspended him for three months in 1990 for making racist remarks in an interview, which he denied. Gay rights groups were mad, during the AIDS epidemic, when Rooney mentioned homosexual unions in saying "many of the ills which kill us are self-induced." Indians protested when Rooney suggested Native Americans who made money from casinos weren’t doing enough to help their own people.
The Associated Press learned the danger of getting on Rooney’s cranky side. In 1996, AP Television Writer Frazier Moore wrote a column suggesting it was time for Rooney to retire. On Rooney’s next "60 Minutes" appearance, he invited those who disagreed to make their opinions known. The AP switchboard was flooded by some 7,000 phone calls and countless postcards were sent to the AP mail room.

"Your piece made me mad," Rooney told Moore two years later. "One of my major shortcomings — I’m vindictive. I don’t know why that is. Even in petty things in my life I tend to strike back. It’s a lot more pleasurable a sensation than feeling threatened."He was one of television’s few voices to strongly oppose the war in Iraq after the George W. Bush administration launched it in 2002. After the fall of Baghdad in April 2003, he said he was chastened by its quick fall but didn’t regret his "60 Minutes" commentaries.

"I’m in a position of feeling secure enough so that I can say what I think is right and if so many people think it’s wrong that I get fired, well, I’ve got enough to eat," Rooney said at the time.
Andrew Aitken Rooney was born on Jan. 14, 1919, in Albany, N.Y., and worked as a copy boy on the Albany Knickerbocker News while in high school. College at Colgate University was cut short by World War II, when Rooney worked for Stars and Stripes.

With another former Stars and Stripes staffer, Oram C. Hutton, Rooney wrote four books about the war. They included the 1947 book, "Their Conqueror’s Peace: A Report to the American Stockholders," documenting offenses against the Germans by occupying forces.

Rooney and his wife, Marguerite, were married for 62 years before she died of heart failure in 2004. They had four children and lived in Rowayton, Conn. Daughter Emily Rooney is a former executive producer of ABC’s "World News Tonight."

LINK

This brings me to another pet peeve … the government picking the preverbal winners and losers when it comes to energy. Why is it that clean and highly efficient gas and diesel cars aren’t eligible for tax credits, but EVs and hybrid models are? If it is efficiency and low emission we’re after, then a small diesel car is perfect for American highways … as buyers demonstrate. A recent white paper is pretty convincing and buyers are choosing diesels even though they have to pay a couple thousand more (particularly in suburbia and rural areas).  Why do only the EVs and hybrids that make good sense in cities get the tax credits – the power to charge them in most cases comes from burning something?

Let’s either be fair and offer tax incentives for all efficient vehicles … or just let the consumer and the markets decide and stop the credits all together.

Choice Favors Diesel
Despite such incentives for electric-drive vehicles, consumers are already favoring diesels as a way to increase their fuel economy, the paper argues. Mineta points out that sales data shows that for models that offer both clean-diesel and conventional gas versions, such as the Audi A3 hatchback (top) and Volkswagen Jetta SportWagen Diesel, almost 40 percent of  customers are choosing diesel.

LINK

 

After opining on the early part of this topic and sourcing the Wall Street Journal, I figured it only fair to add a PBS video news clip below.

[See post to watch Flash video]

A personal note: It was challenging enough to start a business and compete in 1987; doing the same thing today would be extremely risky “knowing” what an entrepreneur faces in 2011 … and doubly so “NOT knowing” what kind of tax structure and regulations (let alone economy) will be facing a small business in the next decade.

A week chart of the Dow Industrial – 9:30 open on far right.

I watched several interviews this morning with different congressmen and senators … few as hard hitting as the CNBC interview of Sen. Steny Hoyer by Becky Quick. If all are as obstinate as him, it is no wonder politicians can’t come to a compromise.

Joe: I’ll tell you what I see that you did in Indiana that’s bearing all this fruit now and you have a great approval rating but tough sledding at the beginning. I’m trying to draw those same parallels to what we’ve seen with Scott Walker or John Kasich or Rick Scott as they try to do the same thing, but I’m not sure we can say they will rebound. Are we in a different climate? Can they relax and having done the right things and that eventually joblessness will come down and businesses will come and they will stay to recover or do you have a totally different situation in Indiana?

Daniels: Because they are doing the right things they should relax. That’s all that matters. Approval ratings don’t matter. I can’t tell them joblessness will come down despite them doing the right things because we have a national policy that as anti-job than anything you can design. We’re all swimming upstream against very counter productive national decisions.

Joe: That doesn’t make any sense. The president wants to get re-elected. Does he not understand these policies are anti jobs or does have a bigger agenda longer term social agenda?

Daniels: I think the latter statement is probably true. Maybe he doesn’t understand where jobs come from or that his policies are incredibly destructive, piling on barriers, tax, regulations and threats of more. That’s what this administration has been doing since the minute they got there. I mean, look at the depth of this this recession, all of the historical evidence says we should have had a very sharp snap back from a drop that deep … and instead it’s the most pathetic recovery we’ve seen.

Just as most Americans were shocked by the verdict in the OJ Simpson case in 1995, most are once shaking their heads in the “much publicized” trial of Casey Anthony. Accused of the killing of her 2 year old daughter Caylee, the jury returned a not guilty verdict for all but charges of lying to law enforcement.

I’m probably not the only one questioning our justice system – flawed to say the least (non-scientific poll below).

As was mentioned by a couple reporters, “this kind of behavior by high level officials is eventually going to be used as blackmail and may impact our nation’s security.” Considering that risk … political parties aside … there should be little tolerance for this kind of lack of judgment. Maybe the answer is to elect more women?

EDIT 6/16/2011: It took a couple weeks, but the pressure from his party and the distraction Anthony Weiner has created (and perhaps the return of his wife from an overseas trip?) has triggered a public resignation. Personally I think doing it privately by letter to the House of Representatives would have been more appropriate, but another day in front of the cameras seems to be his thing? How long before he is a talking head with a soapbox?

Weiner Resigns –6/16/2011

He also endorsed the deficit cuts from Rep. Paul Ryan (R.-Wisc.) that have run into strong opposition due to targeting Medicare and Medicaid.

"If I had my own way, I like the Ryan budget in all respects and I think that essentially that sort of thing is what I would vote for if in fact we’re voting," he said. "But the problem essentially is that is not going to get a majority vote in Congress or be signed by the president of the United States. The question is, what’s my fallback position?"

I enjoyed re-listening and then catching NPR’s Ira Flatow interviews about the speech.

NPR: Science Friday on “We choose to go to the moon”

Since the President delivered his budget in a speech during mid-day, I didn’t get the chance to listen to President Obama unveil his ‘updated’ budget … after the one he submitted two months ago. I had thought he might get serious about taking a bipartisan leadership position in deficit reduction and realized that most Americans see their government as too big and inefficient. Unfortunately it looks like we’ll be heading back toward class warfare.

I won’t waste the bandwidth on the video or audio of the entire speech, but attached below is the text of Wednesday afternoon’s speech. I’m embarrassed to say, I only skimmed it, but if I would have been listening … I would have probably looked a lot like Vice President Biden.

Wednesday, April 13, 2011

Good afternoon. It’s great to be back at GW. I want you to know that one of the reasons I kept the government open was so I could be here today with all of you. I wanted to make sure you had one more excuse to skip class. You’re welcome.

Of course, what we’ve been debating here in Washington for the last few weeks will affect your lives in ways that are potentially profound. This debate over budgets and deficits is about more than just numbers on a page, more than just cutting and spending. It’s about the kind of future we want. It’s about the kind of country we believe in. And that’s what I want to talk about today.

From our first days as a nation, we have put our faith in free markets and free enterprise as the engine of America’s wealth and prosperity. More than citizens of any other country, we are rugged individualists, a self-reliant people with a healthy skepticism of too much government.

But there has always been another thread running throughout our history – a belief that we are all connected; and that there are some things we can only do together, as a nation. We believe, in the words of our first Republican president, Abraham Lincoln, that through government, we should do together what we cannot do as well for ourselves. And so we’ve built a strong military to keep us secure, and public schools and universities to educate our citizens. We’ve laid down railroads and highways to facilitate travel and commerce. We’ve supported the work of scientists and researchers whose discoveries have saved lives, unleashed repeated technological revolutions, and led to countless new jobs and entire industries. Each of us has benefitted from these investments, and we are a more prosperous country as a result.

Part of this American belief that we are all connected also expresses itself in a conviction that each one of us deserves some basic measure of security. We recognize that no matter how responsibly we live our lives, hard times or bad luck, a crippling illness or a layoff, may strike any one of us. “There but for the grace of God go I,” we say to ourselves, and so we contribute to programs like Medicare and Social Security, which guarantee us health care and a measure of basic income after a lifetime of hard work; unemployment insurance, which protects us against unexpected job loss; and Medicaid, which provides care for millions of seniors in nursing homes, poor children, and those with disabilities. We are a better country because of these commitments. I’ll go further – we would not be a great country without those commitments.

For much of the last century, our nation found a way to afford these investments and priorities with the taxes paid by its citizens. As a country that values fairness, wealthier individuals have traditionally born a greater share of this burden than the middle class or those less fortunate. This is not because we begrudge those who’ve done well – we rightly celebrate their success. Rather, it is a basic reflection of our belief that those who have benefitted most from our way of life can afford to give a bit more back. Moreover, this belief has not hindered the success of those at the top of the income scale, who continue to do better and better with each passing year.

Now, at certain times – particularly during periods of war or recession – our nation has had to borrow money to pay for some of our priorities. And as most families understand, a little credit card debt isn’t going to hurt if it’s temporary.

But as far back as the 1980s, America started amassing debt at more alarming levels, and our leaders began to realize that a larger challenge was on the horizon. They knew that eventually, the Baby Boom generation would retire, which meant a much bigger portion of our citizens would be relying on programs like Medicare, Social Security, and possibly Medicaid. Like parents with young children who know they have to start saving for the college years, America had to start borrowing less and saving more to prepare for the retirement of an entire generation.

To meet this challenge, our leaders came together three times during the 1990s to reduce our nation’s deficit. They forged historic agreements that required tough decisions made by the first President Bush and President Clinton; by Democratic Congresses and a Republican Congress. All three agreements asked for shared responsibility and shared sacrifice, but they largely protected the middle class, our commitments to seniors, and key investments in our future.

As a result of these bipartisan efforts, America’s finances were in great shape by the year 2000. We went from deficit to surplus. America was actually on track to becoming completely debt-free, and we were prepared for the retirement of the Baby Boomers.

But after Democrats and Republicans committed to fiscal discipline during the 1990s, we lost our way in the decade that followed. We increased spending dramatically for two wars and an expensive prescription drug program – but we didn’t pay for any of this new spending. Instead, we made the problem worse with trillions of dollars in unpaid-for tax cuts – tax cuts that went to every millionaire and billionaire in the country; tax cuts that will force us to borrow an average of $500 billion every year over the next decade.

To give you an idea of how much damage this caused to our national checkbook, consider this: in the last decade, if we had simply found a way to pay for the tax cuts and the prescription drug benefit, our deficit would currently be at low historical levels in the coming years.

Of course, that’s not what happened. And so, by the time I took office, we once again found ourselves deeply in debt and unprepared for a Baby Boom retirement that is now starting to take place. When I took office, our projected deficit was more than $1 trillion. On top of that, we faced a terrible financial crisis and a recession that, like most recessions, led us to temporarily borrow even more. In this case, we took a series of emergency steps that saved millions of jobs, kept credit flowing, and provided working families extra money in their pockets. It was the right thing to do, but these steps were expensive, and added to our deficits in the short term.

So that’s how our fiscal challenge was created. This is how we got here. And now that our economic recovery is gaining strength, Democrats and Republicans must come together and restore the fiscal responsibility that served us so well in the 1990s. We have to live within our means, reduce our deficit, and get back on a path that will allow us to pay down our debt. And we have to do it in a way that protects the recovery, and protects the investments we need to grow, create jobs, and win the future.

Now, before I get into how we can achieve this goal, some of you might be wondering, “Why is this so important? Why does this matter to me?”

Here’s why. Even after our economy recovers, our government will still be on track to spend more money than it takes in throughout this decade and beyond. That means we’ll have to keep borrowing more from countries like China. And that means more of your tax dollars will go toward paying off the interest on all the loans we keep taking out. By the end of this decade, the interest we owe on our debt could rise to nearly $1 trillion. Just the interest payments.

Then, as the Baby Boomers start to retire and health care costs continue to rise, the situation will get even worse. By 2025, the amount of taxes we currently pay will only be enough to finance our health care programs, Social Security, and the interest we owe on our debt. That’s it. Every other national priority – education, transportation, even national security – will have to be paid for with borrowed money.

Ultimately, all this rising debt will cost us jobs and damage our economy. It will prevent us from making the investments we need to win the future. We won’t be able to afford good schools, new research, or the repair of roads and bridges – all the things that will create new jobs and businesses here in America. Businesses will be less likely to invest and open up shop in a country that seems unwilling or unable to balance its books. And if our creditors start worrying that we may be unable to pay back our debts, it could drive up interest rates for everyone who borrows money – making it harder for businesses to expand and hire, or families to take out a mortgage.

The good news is, this doesn’t have to be our future. This doesn’t have to be the country we leave to our children. We can solve this problem. We came together as Democrats and Republicans to meet this challenge before, and we can do it again.

But that starts by being honest about what’s causing our deficit. You see, most Americans tend to dislike government spending in the abstract, but they like the stuff it buys. Most of us, regardless of party affiliation, believe that we should have a strong military and a strong defense. Most Americans believe we should invest in education and medical research. Most Americans think we should protect commitments like Social Security and Medicare. And without even looking at a poll, my finely honed political skills tell me that almost no one believes they should be paying higher taxes.

Because all this spending is popular with both Republicans and Democrats alike, and because nobody wants to pay higher taxes, politicians are often eager to feed the impression that solving the problem is just a matter of eliminating waste and abuse –that tackling the deficit issue won’t require tough choices. Or they suggest that we can somehow close our entire deficit by eliminating things like foreign aid, even though foreign aid makes up about 1% of our entire budget.

So here’s the truth. Around two-thirds of our budget is spent on Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, and national security. Programs like unemployment insurance, student loans, veterans’ benefits, and tax credits for working families take up another 20%. What’s left, after interest on the debt, is just 12 percent for everything else. That’s 12 percent for all of our other national priorities like education and clean energy; medical research and transportation; food safety and keeping our air and water clean.

Up until now, the cuts proposed by a lot of folks in Washington have focused almost exclusively on that 12%. But cuts to that 12% alone won’t solve the problem. So any serious plan to tackle our deficit will require us to put everything on the table, and take on excess spending wherever it exists in the budget. A serious plan doesn’t require us to balance our budget overnight – in fact, economists think that with the economy just starting to grow again, we will need a phased-in approach – but it does require tough decisions and support from leaders in both parties. And above all, it will require us to choose a vision of the America we want to see five and ten and twenty years down the road.

One vision has been championed by Republicans in the House of Representatives and embraced by several of their party’s presidential candidates. It’s a plan that aims to reduce our deficit by $4 trillion over the next ten years, and one that addresses the challenge of Medicare and Medicaid in the years after that.

Those are both worthy goals for us to achieve. But the way this plan achieves those goals would lead to a fundamentally different America than the one we’ve known throughout most of our history.

A 70% cut to clean energy. A 25% cut in education. A 30% cut in transportation. Cuts in college Pell Grants that will grow to more than $1,000 per year. That’s what they’re proposing. These aren’t the kind of cuts you make when you’re trying to get rid of some waste or find extra savings in the budget. These aren’t the kind of cuts that Republicans and Democrats on the Fiscal Commission proposed. These are the kind of cuts that tell us we can’t afford the America we believe in. And they paint a vision of our future that’s deeply pessimistic.

It’s a vision that says if our roads crumble and our bridges collapse, we can’t afford to fix them. If there are bright young Americans who have the drive and the will but not the money to go to college, we can’t afford to send them. Go to China and you’ll see businesses opening research labs and solar facilities. South Korean children are outpacing our kids in math and science. Brazil is investing billions in new infrastructure and can run half their cars not on high-priced gasoline, but biofuels. And yet, we are presented with a vision that says the United States of America – the greatest nation on Earth – can’t afford any of this.

It’s a vision that says America can’t afford to keep the promise we’ve made to care for our seniors. It says that ten years from now, if you’re a 65 year old who’s eligible for Medicare, you should have to pay nearly $6,400 more than you would today. It says instead of guaranteed health care, you will get a voucher. And if that voucher isn’t worth enough to buy insurance, tough luck – you’re on your own. Put simply, it ends Medicare as we know it.

This is a vision that says up to 50 million Americans have to lose their health insurance in order for us to reduce the deficit. And who are those 50 million Americans? Many are someone’s grandparents who wouldn’t be able afford nursing home care without Medicaid. Many are poor children. Some are middle-class families who have children with autism or Down’s syndrome. Some are kids with disabilities so severe that they require 24-hour care. These are the Americans we’d be telling to fend for themselves.

Worst of all, this is a vision that says even though America can’t afford to invest in education or clean energy; even though we can’t afford to care for seniors and poor children, we can somehow afford more than $1 trillion in new tax breaks for the wealthy. Think about it. In the last decade, the average income of the bottom 90% of all working Americans actually declined. The top 1% saw their income rise by an average of more than a quarter of a million dollars each. And that’s who needs to pay less taxes? They want to give people like me a two hundred thousand dollar tax cut that’s paid for by asking thirty three seniors to each pay six thousand dollars more in health costs? That’s not right, and it’s not going to happen as long as I’m President.

The fact is, their vision is less about reducing the deficit than it is about changing the basic social compact in America. As Ronald Reagan’s own budget director said, there’s nothing “serious” or “courageous” about this plan. There’s nothing serious about a plan that claims to reduce the deficit by spending a trillion dollars on tax cuts for millionaires and billionaires. There’s nothing courageous about asking for sacrifice from those who can least afford it and don’t have any clout on Capitol Hill. And this is not a vision of the America I know.

The America I know is generous and compassionate; a land of opportunity and optimism. We take responsibility for ourselves and each other; for the country we want and the future we share. We are the nation that built a railroad across a continent and brought light to communities shrouded in darkness. We sent a generation to college on the GI bill and saved millions of seniors from poverty with Social Security and Medicare. We have led the world in scientific research and technological breakthroughs that have transformed millions of lives.

This is who we are. This is the America I know. We don’t have to choose between a future of spiraling debt and one where we forfeit investments in our people and our country. To meet our fiscal challenge, we will need to make reforms. We will all need to make sacrifices. But we do not have to sacrifice the America we believe in. And as long as I’m President, we won’t.

Today, I’m proposing a more balanced approach to achieve $4 trillion in deficit reduction over twelve years. It’s an approach that borrows from the recommendations of the bipartisan Fiscal Commission I appointed last year, and builds on the roughly $1 trillion in deficit reduction I already proposed in my 2012 budget. It’s an approach that puts every kind of spending on the table, but one that protects the middle-class, our promise to seniors, and our investments in the future.

The first step in our approach is to keep annual domestic spending low by building on the savings that both parties agreed to last week – a step that will save us about $750 billion over twelve years. We will make the tough cuts necessary to achieve these savings, including in programs I care about, but I will not sacrifice the core investments we need to grow and create jobs. We’ll invest in medical research and clean energy technology. We’ll invest in new roads and airports and broadband access. We will invest in education and job training. We will do what we need to compete and we will win the future.

The second step in our approach is to find additional savings in our defense budget. As Commander-in-Chief, I have no greater responsibility than protecting our national security, and I will never accept cuts that compromise our ability to defend our homeland or America’s interests around the world. But as the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, Admiral Mullen, has said, the greatest long-term threat to America’s national security is America’s debt.

Just as we must find more savings in domestic programs, we must do the same in defense. Over the last two years, Secretary Gates has courageously taken on wasteful spending, saving $400 billion in current and future spending. I believe we can do that again. We need to not only eliminate waste and improve efficiency and effectiveness, but conduct a fundamental review of America’s missions, capabilities, and our role in a changing world. I intend to work with Secretary Gates and the Joint Chiefs on this review, and I will make specific decisions about spending after it’s complete.

The third step in our approach is to further reduce health care spending in our budget. Here, the difference with the House Republican plan could not be clearer: their plan lowers the government’s health care bills by asking seniors and poor families to pay them instead. Our approach lowers the government’s health care bills by reducing the cost of health care itself.

Already, the reforms we passed in the health care law will reduce our deficit by $1 trillion. My approach would build on these reforms. We will reduce wasteful subsidies and erroneous payments. We will cut spending on prescription drugs by using Medicare’s purchasing power to drive greater efficiency and speed generic brands of medicine onto the market. We will work with governors of both parties to demand more efficiency and accountability from Medicaid. We will change the way we pay for health care – not by procedure or the number of days spent in a hospital, but with new incentives for doctors and hospitals to prevent injuries and improve results. And we will slow the growth of Medicare costs by strengthening an independent commission of doctors, nurses, medical experts and consumers who will look at all the evidence and recommend the best ways to reduce unnecessary spending while protecting access to the services seniors need.

Now, we believe the reforms we’ve proposed to strengthen Medicare and Medicaid will enable us to keep these commitments to our citizens while saving us $500 billion by 2023, and an additional one trillion dollars in the decade after that. And if we’re wrong, and Medicare costs rise faster than we expect, this approach will give the independent commission the authority to make additional savings by further improving Medicare.

But let me be absolutely clear: I will preserve these health care programs as a promise we make to each other in this society. I will not allow Medicare to become a voucher program that leaves seniors at the mercy of the insurance industry, with a shrinking benefit to pay for rising costs. I will not tell families with children who have disabilities that they have to fend for themselves. We will reform these programs, but we will not abandon the fundamental commitment this country has kept for generations.

That includes, by the way, our commitment to Social Security. While Social Security is not the cause of our deficit, it faces real long-term challenges in a country that is growing older. As I said in the State of the Union, both parties should work together now to strengthen Social Security for future generations. But we must do it without putting at risk current retirees, the most vulnerable, or people with disabilities; without slashing benefits for future generations; and without subjecting Americans’ guaranteed retirement income to the whims of the stock market.

The fourth step in our approach is to reduce spending in the tax code. In December, I agreed to extend the tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans because it was the only way I could prevent a tax hike on middle-class Americans. But we cannot afford $1 trillion worth of tax cuts for every millionaire and billionaire in our society. And I refuse to renew them again.

Beyond that, the tax code is also loaded up with spending on things like itemized deductions. And while I agree with the goals of many of these deductions, like homeownership or charitable giving, we cannot ignore the fact that they provide millionaires an average tax break of $75,000 while doing nothing for the typical middle-class family that doesn’t itemize.

My budget calls for limiting itemized deductions for the wealthiest 2% of Americans – a reform that would reduce the deficit by $320 billion over ten years. But to reduce the deficit, I believe we should go further. That’s why I’m calling on Congress to reform our individual tax code so that it is fair and simple – so that the amount of taxes you pay isn’t determined by what kind of accountant you can afford. I believe reform should protect the middle class, promote economic growth, and build on the Fiscal Commission’s model of reducing tax expenditures so that there is enough savings to both lower rates and lower the deficit. And as I called for in the State of the Union, we should reform our corporate tax code as well, to make our businesses and our economy more competitive.

This is my approach to reduce the deficit by $4 trillion over the next twelve years. It’s an approach that achieves about $2 trillion in spending cuts across the budget. It will lower our interest payments on the debt by $1 trillion. It calls for tax reform to cut about $1 trillion in spending from the tax code. And it achieves these goals while protecting the middle class, our commitment to seniors, and our investments in the future.

In the coming years, if the recovery speeds up and our economy grows faster than our current projections, we can make even greater progress than I have pledged here. But just to hold Washington – and me – accountable and make sure that the debt burden continues to decline, my plan includes a debt failsafe. If, by 2014, our debt is not projected to fall as a share of the economy – or if Congress has failed to act – my plan will require us to come together and make up the additional savings with more spending cuts and more spending reductions in the tax code. That should be an incentive for us to act boldly now, instead of kicking our problems further down the road.

So this is our vision for America – a vision where we live within our means while still investing in our future; where everyone makes sacrifices but no one bears all the burden; where we provide a basic measure of security for our citizens and rising opportunity for our children.

Of course, there will be those who disagree with my approach. Some will argue we shouldn’t even consider raising taxes, even if only on the wealthiest Americans. It’s just an article of faith for them. I say that at a time when the tax burden on the wealthy is at its lowest level in half a century, the most fortunate among us can afford to pay a little more. I don’t need another tax cut. Warren Buffett doesn’t need another tax cut. Not if we have to pay for it by making seniors pay more for Medicare. Or by cutting kids from Head Start. Or by taking away college scholarships that I wouldn’t be here without. That some of you wouldn’t be here without. And I believe that most wealthy Americans would agree with me. They want to give back to the country that’s done so much for them. Washington just hasn’t asked them to.

Others will say that we shouldn’t even talk about cutting spending until the economy is fully recovered. I’m sympathetic to this view, which is one of the reasons I supported the payroll tax cuts we passed in December. It’s also why we have to use a scalpel and not a machete to reduce the deficit – so that we can keep making the investments that create jobs. But doing nothing on the deficit is just not an option. Our debt has grown so large that we could do real damage to the economy if we don’t begin a process now to get our fiscal house in order.

Finally, there are those who believe we shouldn’t make any reforms to Medicare, Medicaid, or Social Security out of a fear that any talk of change to these programs will usher in the sort of radical steps that House Republicans have proposed. I understand these fears. But I guarantee that if we don’t make any changes at all, we won’t be able to keep our commitments to a retiring generation that will live longer and face higher health care costs than those who came before.

Indeed, to those in my own party, I say that if we truly believe in a progressive vision of our society, we have the obligation to prove that we can afford our commitments. If we believe that government can make a difference in people’s lives, we have the obligation to prove that it works – by making government smarter, leaner and more effective.

Of course, there are those who will simply say that there’s no way we can come together and agree on a solution to this challenge. They’ll say the politics of this city are just too broken; that the choices are just too hard; that the parties are just too far apart. And after a few years in this job, I certainly have some sympathy for this view.

But I also know that we’ve come together and met big challenges before. Ronald Reagan and Tip O’Neill came together to save Social Security for future generations. The first President Bush and a Democratic Congress came together to reduce the deficit. President Clinton and a Republican Congress battled each other ferociously and still found a way to balance the budget. In the last few months, both parties have come together to pass historic tax relief and spending cuts. And I know there are Republicans and Democrats in Congress who want to see a balanced approach to deficit reduction.

I believe we can and must come together again. This morning, I met with Democratic and Republican leaders in Congress to discuss the approach I laid out today. And in early May, the Vice President will begin regular meetings with leaders in both parties with the aim of reaching a final agreement on a plan to reduce the deficit by the end of June.

I don’t expect the details in any final agreement to look exactly like the approach I laid out today. I’m eager to hear other ideas from all ends of the political spectrum. And though I’m sure the criticism of what I’ve said here today will be fierce in some quarters, and my critique of the House Republican approach has been strong, Americans deserve and will demand that we all bridge our differences, and find common ground.

This larger debate we’re having, about the size and role of government, has been with us since our founding days. And during moments of great challenge and change, like the one we’re living through now, the debate gets sharper and more vigorous. That’s a good thing. As a country that prizes both our individual freedom and our obligations to one another, this is one of the most important debates we can have.

But no matter what we argue or where we stand, we’ve always held certain beliefs as Americans. We believe that in order to preserve our own freedoms and pursue our own happiness, we can’t just think about ourselves. We have to think about the country that made those liberties possible. We have to think about our fellow citizens with whom we share a community. And we have to think about what’s required to preserve the American Dream for future generations.

This sense of responsibility – to each other and to our country – this isn’t a partisan feeling. It isn’t a Democratic or Republican idea. It’s patriotism.

The other day I received a letter from a man in Florida. He started off by telling me he didn’t vote for me and he hasn’t always agreed with me. But even though he’s worried about our economy and the state of our politics, he said,

“I still believe. I believe in that great country that my grandfather told me about. I believe that somewhere lost in this quagmire of petty bickering on every news station, the ‘American Dream’ is still alive…

We need to use our dollars here rebuilding, refurbishing and restoring all that our ancestors struggled to create and maintain…We as a people must do this together, no matter the color of the state one comes from or the side of the aisle one might sit on.”

I still believe as well. And I know that if we can come together, and uphold our responsibilities to one another and to this larger enterprise that is America, we will keep the dream of our founding alive in our time, and pass on to our children the country we believe in. Thank you, God bless you, and may God bless the United States of America.

If Rep. Paul Ryan is correct (video below), in saying that the whole economy crashes in 2037 since the Congressional Budget Office “can’t conceive of any way that the U.S. economy can continue” after that. We need to deal with this now because kicking the problem further down the road only makes matters worse. Proposing higher costs and cuts in benefits to those of us who have spent 30 years being taxed not working … along with borrowing trillions more to pay today’s expenses. It is a nearly impossible sell; it’s no wonder previous politician have avoided the elephant in the room. With the 2012 election around the corner, the majority in Washington DC will most likely delay and postpone dealing with it as usual.

*** Note bar on chart above (click for larger): Although entitlement spending will soon be largest chunk of our nation’s budget, the interest on our debt is growing even faster and by 2060 will surpass even CBO projected spending on entitlements. Deficit spending and borrowing to cover debt can’t continue if our nation’s economy is to survive.

Charts from http://budget.house.gov/UploadedFiles/marchlisteningsessions.pdf

Although this will probably show my age, today I’m highlighting one of my favorite TV programs and favorite actors — James Garner in The Rockford Files (imdb). I might have commented, "who doesn’t like the show," but since I live with that one person, I already know the answer.

About a year ago I added the 6 seasons to my streaming Netflix queue and because my better half refuses to watch ‘old’ TV programs, I haven’t found the time to re-watch any of the episodes.  BUT … because our Tivo has been upchucking on NetFlix content lately, it required a rebooting. Ah … the perfect test, the pilot episode of The Rockford Files. One down and 129 shows to go!

1: Mike Post and Pete Carpenter Rockford Files theme song

An impact of being a teenager and growing up with detective shows like the The Rockford Files, was that I use to imitate the driving style (a J-turn or a "Rockford") of James Garner (sorry Dad). I also may have picked up a few of the the more positive values that came out of the show; Garner’s character demostrated humility as well as respect for others … and in my opinion absorbing some of that outweighed the negatives — those values were certainly better than the popular detective/police shows on the air today (stated like an old-fogy).

For a while, there was news that NBC was planning to do a Rockford Files remake in 2011, fortunately or unfortunately the project is currently shelved according to entertainment news, but as they say, "stay tuned."