"Forget the deficit, It is now the role of government to soak the undeserving rich'. Let me fix this for you: It is now the role of government to soak the (even moderately) successful. Who are the 'far more deserving'? This is outright war against the middle class, the savers, the prudent, the taxpayers. those who work and save and defer rewards so their children will have a 'better life' through the old ideals of education to make them better prepared to face the future. Education is failing, jobs are increasingly rare for the young and all we get from this administration is crony corporatism and clown economics. Shame on this administration.

According to the California Teacher's Union and Ed Ashner, the rich are peeing on the middle class and poor. Wonder if they are playing this tape in schools filled with future "low information voters" only?

He does and says the things he does and says because he is a committed progressive. Ideology trumps everything else. Anyway, he could care less about anyone who espouses conservatism.

We've disabled shame. We'll need something more effective.

Corruption, nope. Fraud, nope. Criminality, nope. All disabled by the fraud-in-chief.

The only thing left is a noose and I don't think we want to go there. When morals/ethics no longer mean anything, they can mean anything.

"This is outright war against the middle class, the savers, the prudent, the taxpayers"
Right. Going back to Clinton-era tax rates, when the economy boomed and the debt declined would be ever so horrible. Get a grip.

You should get a grip! Do your homework before spouting nonsense. Clinton was the heir to the collapse of the USSR and declining defense spending (thank you repubs and RR), no immediate military conflicts other than KOSOVO (he ignored Bin Laden), the dot com boom and the credit expansion leading to the housing boom (thank you Barney, CBC, and the corrupt Dem operatives who ran Fannie Mae (Johnson, Raines, Gorelick and their enablers Frank, et al) and finally and most importantly the Republican House from the midterms in his first term that put him and the other free spending collectivist dems on a diet, plus squashed Hillarycare. Man, he was one lucky SOB, but still a disgrace to the office. One more great pick by the dems.

This is the kind of magic fairy dust thinking that the White House supposedly disdains. The fact that there was prosperity during the Clinton years under a particular tax rate regime says nothing about cause and effect. Why not return to the Reagan tax rates? Or the Eisenhower ones? We had prosperity in both the 50s and 80s, so why wouldn't those work just as well? Because circumstances have changed, and specific tax rates don't cause prosperity–they may create the conditions where it can happen under particular historical circumstances, but it still takes citizens willing to take risks to make it happen.

One should also point out that if we're going to try to re-create the Clinton era, we had better do so in its entirety, rather than just in terms of the tax rates levied on a relative handful of people. Go back to the Clinton budgets, the percentage of GDP taken in taxes by all level of government, etc. Then maybe you'd be on to something. Given the impossibility of re-creating an entire era of economic factors, I'd say you're likely to still wind up in fairy dust land.

The thing that helped Clinton the most was the dot.com boom. When it went BUST, the house of cards came tumbling down. There was never any real improvement. As later years have proven, everything was a mirage, nothing substantial to back up the fairy tale of the great Clinton Era.

As long as we're reaching to the past, in addition to returning to the good ol' days of Bill and Monica, lets fire all the gov't workers at all levels, who weren't part of that era. Certainly that would reduce the deficit. What those employee would do, who knows? But what do they do now?

Are we going to bring back the tech boom that started in the '80's ... And Newt Gingrich?

We can't undo the wars, but I for one, would certainly undo Part D!

As the man said, if you can just add Clinton-era budget cuts and a fresh Internet bubble, maybe we can get somewhere.

Are all liberals as unserious as you? I fear so, because the President sure is.

For the first time, we have a President who actually listens to the fundamentally unserious, dishonest and hateful liberal base. Cry, the beloved country.

Well, Bill raped the military, which I'm certain you hate (until you need them!), and the tech boom took place. It also collapsed on his watch and many people NEVER recovered the damage and loss. But you bolsheviks won't admit that. Marxism prevails!

To be fair, the military was not a particular or unique rape victim of Clint Billton.

They talk out of both sides of their mouths. They call it war against the middle class, but read their comments when I point out that there are some really hard-working, really poor farm workers: "Hey, they have it great here compared to where they come from!"

They do. Maybe you should spend more time in Haiti and in Africa.

Things are worth what somebody will pay for them. If you think the Western Date agricultural workers' labor is worth more than they are now paid - do you know how much they're paid, by the way? - then feel free to hire them and pay them whatever you like. Let me know if you have any trouble getting your offer out to them. They're just down the road from me.

“A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largesse from the public
treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates
promising the most benefits from the public treasury with the result that a
democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy, always followed by a
dictatorship. The average age of the world’s greatest civilizations has been
200 years.”― Alexis de Tocqueville

Terrific quote & apposite. It is also sad beyond description.

I'm coming to believe that the best thing the advocates of liberty and responsible govt can do is to drive the current fed govt into insolvency, so just like a corporation, we can re-organize. We should take Rahm Emanuel's admonition to "never let a crisis go to waste" to heart. We will only have the opportunity to really change the govt entitlement state, the labor laws that provide privilege to unions and to stop funding the states, localities and NGOs that are the feeder system of Progresssive careers in a crisis.

What would that look like? Well first, the Republicans need to be much more serious in their commentary. Hanson's article is more like the tone that Boehner et al should be taking. They should make clear that we are NOW at the point of no return. They should cite studies of countries that have 100% debt to gdp ratios. The should use OECD data to show how progressive our tax system is already. They should cite the millionaire exoduse from the U.K. in which their higher tax rates have resulted much lower revenues from millionaires, or how the same phenomena is taking place in France.

They should have a serious conversation with the American people about our unfunded liabilities. If the U.S. was a corporation, the proper reserves required would demand a total of 8 trillion in federal revenue this year. They should start and maintain a conversation on the costs and impact of the welfare state, citing the fact that half of poverty program spending goes to folks who aren't below the poverty line.

But they don't. They just throw around soundbites and act like kids who are stuck in an "unfair" game, bemoaning Obama but never getting on offense. An example of what I'm thinking would be say a weekly YouTube video series on the absurdities of federal welfare. I wonder how many people know that 1/3 of all federal welfare spending goes to California, and much of that to illegal immigrants.

I don't think the Republicans are up to the challenge. I don't believe the "new crop" is either. Rubio and Ryan leave me feeling like I'm talking to man-children, sorry, they have no grit. You can tell they've lived their entire lives in politics and govt, and are consummate "insiders" already. Ted Cruz may be a little better but then you also have the challenges of distancing the Republicans from the religious right a bit, as we'll never have more credibility if we keep letting the yahoos who still think Sarah Palin is a great candidate or spokesperson for anything drive this bus.

None of the above will happen. We'll still be treated to Boehner's sonorous, measured tones. Something much more alarmist is what's called for. I'd love to see him ask, "Mr. President, do you want to run the country insolvent?" Last point, we ain't seen nothin' yet from Obama. His "offer" was his first salvo in a term that promises to offer Progressive programs in droves that will cost a mint. There is no compromise available with someone so disconnected from fiscal and economic reality.

Well put, Glenn. I, too, am of the exact mindset, and have been saying that about my state, the economic disaster that is RI. I do believe insolvency is the only cure left. Those that live by the government at all levels will soon be learning about the hard facts that Dr. Hanson outlined so well, and that includes the so-called Republican party.

Been thinking the same for some time now. Bankruptcy is the only reasonable way out of this quagmire other than secession of red states,

Could stiff China.

The problem with insolvency/reorganizing is that I think the Leftists would also like the opportunity to reorganize the country in the way they would prefer. I'm not sure it will come out well at the other end.

The $250,000 is not index to inflation. The next step is to inflate the economy and wait. Eventually, $250,000 hits many more.

Easy Peasy

And given the impending Obamacare tax hike, inflation may be ignited without significant growth. Let me see, what did we call that back in the day? Wasn't it stagflation? Ask Jimmy Carter.

I'll use terms that EVERYBODY can understand;
The American People are being mugged by the Obama Regime. And the mugging will continue until the prosperity stops.

Democratic policies haven't worked to bring people up from poverty, so this president's solution is to "level the playing field" by bringing the middle and upper-middle class down.

Exactly, gloria100.
ClowardPivenStragegy and Rules for Radicals = Obama.

It's like gun control. If the muggers know that there are no guns and no one will fight back, then the muggings continue. If the muggers think people will fight back - and are armed, the muggings will cease.

Right now, Obama knows we are unarmed.

We aren't unarmed, we've got Boehner and the RINOs! Something about a knife at a gunfight...

Are you certain we're not already there?

No worries here. Oh, wait. Obama care. Higher prices for necessities such as food, gas, clothing and other necessary services. Taxes on things one might have purchased in the past but will choose not to in the future because the costs will "have necessarily skyrocketed." This isn't going to have an effect on just the above $250,000 crowd. The boney fingers of this administration's policies will get every living soul.

Yup. I believe Howard Dean said everybody has to pay. And we all will. We must thank John Roberts - NOT. (What a turn-coat!)

I guess Mr. Roberts had more faith in the American people than he should have. If his intention was to save the Supreme Court the agony of having to decide thus saving themselves from vilification, he miscalculated. When the implimentation of OC begins to be felt across the "fruited plain", we will recall what he did and when books are written about this time in our history, his name will appear. It will not be a positive assessment.

Printing has consequences? Reality influences our lives? Yes, the poor will pay our debt off, unless Obama promotes voter approval for spending. I still don’t know what he wants.

In truth, I don't know what he wants either, but I know what he's going to experience: widespread and severe discontent as cost and regulation make roadkill of recovery and prosperity.

That's the ultimate plan. Read up on Cloward-Piven. It's a primer on how to bring a country down. I'm sure Obama read it nightly along with Alinsky.

Oh! I just mentioned that a couple of times. You'd dead on with "Rules for Radicals" and ClowardPivenStrategy! - I'm surprise no
commentator has ever mentioned CPStragegy.

Yep. We need a Spending Czar. Someone required to cut spending until it equals revenue. Democracy has its limits.

No! No more czars! In fact, get rid of all the ones there now. They do nothing, answer to nobody and cost us tons of money.

I say we close down one department, bureau or agency of government every single day until spending equals revenue. We'll start with the President's cabinet.

We'd get a lot more bang for the buck by shutting down the Department of Education.

Grover the Terrible.

How much should we spend on the Spending Czar and his staff, office buildings, cars, helos, jets, etc. ?

Zero! & we should have zero czars!

Amen to that. My grandfather had a Czar back in Russia. Didn't much like it, came here.

I dunno. We need a realistic way to curb spending, otherwise we are in a lot of trouble. That’s the best that I’ve got at the moment. But I post publicly, in a reputable forum, for the brainstorming effect. Got any better ideas?