Opinion> Ben Shapiro> Obama Plays Chicken

	23 May 2012 First, They Came for Cory Booker Cory Booker is, by most accounts, a reasonable man. He went to Stanford and Oxford, as well as Yale Law … Read More.
	16 May 2012 President Diva According to President Obama, he's a historic figure. That's no figure of speech. This week, journalist Seth … Read More.
	9 May 2012 Obama Evolves, Politics Devolves This week, Vice President Joe Biden and Secretary of Education Arne Duncan essentially endorsed same-sex marriage.… Read More.

Obama Plays Chicken

There is a climactic scene in the movie "Rebel Without a Cause," in which two enemies play chicken. The sullen hero, Jim (James Dean), races toward a cliff against the bully Buzz (Corey Allen). Whoever jumps out first is deemed a "chicken."

This week, President Obama decided to play chicken. He's so committed to tax hikes that he's willing to drive over a political cliff to get them. Unwilling to compromise on spending and unwilling to cut his beloved stimulus to pay our creditors, President Obama threatened on Tuesday to prevent Social Security checks from going out on Aug. 3. "There may simply not be the money in the coffers to do it," Obama said. That wasn't it, Obama continued. "This is not just a matter of Social Security checks. These are veterans' checks, these are folks on disability and their checks. There are about 70 million checks that go out."

First off, that statistic alone tells us that something is wrong with the country. There are a grand total of 300 million people in the country. If each person receives one check, that means that nearly a quarter of the American population is being paid by the government — which means they're being paid by fellow taxpayers. And yet Democrats think that statistic isn't high enough — they want to spend more to up both the size and scope of those checks.

More importantly, however, President Obama's statements that he may have to stop Social Security checks, veterans' checks and disability checks shows just how bankrupt our country is. If we literally don't have the cash to pay those checks out of our current stockpiles, how is borrowing more money going to cure the problem?

There's another problem for Obama, too. By tacitly admitting that government benefit schemes are month-to-month, he's admitting that the underlying structure of these systems is not self-sustaining. That's a major shift for a man who, in August 2010, proclaimed, "Social Security is not in crisis ... We're going to have to make some modest adjustments in order to strengthen it." More than modest adjustments are in order if Social Security recipients are one congressional vote from going without their checks.

Seniors should also realize at this point that the growth of government has bankrupted them.

The money they gave the government over the course of their lives to be put in some mythical lockbox somewhere, some misnamed "trust fund," is gone. That magical "trust fund" is nothing of the kind — it is a financial structure full of IOUs. The cash was raided long ago, distributed to other seniors, other unemployed people, other government dependants. America's benefits system is no longer self-funded. It is China-funded.

President Obama has now embraced a binary choice: either he can screw current taxpayers or he can screw past taxpayers. Those who depend on their Social Security check to pay the rent are now being asked to suffer a double burden: The burden of paying their original Social Security tax as well as the burden of forgoing their expected return. The alternative is asking those who currently pay taxes to suffer a double burden: paying a higher tax rate and then forgoing their check somewhere down the road. Or, of course, President Obama can elide the choice altogether by placing the burden on future generations.

He'd like to choose the third option. But dastardly Republicans are stopping him from dumping fiscal insolvency on our children and grandchildren. Unwilling to fundamentally rethink his governmental approach, Obama has now been forced into this game of chicken. And he has made his choice: seniors, who are more conservative than younger voters and who donate less money to political campaigns, will pay the price.

There's only one problem for President Obama: Those seniors have children and grandchildren. And we don't like to see our grandparents paying the price for President Obama's fiscal irresponsibility. The answer here is simple: cut government and pay what is owed, both to our foreign creditors and to those citizens who paid into the system — and free Americans to pursue their own business in the process.

Unfortunately for Buzz, his jacket ends up looped around the car door handle. Then he ends up plummeting over the cliff. Boom. President Obama's current position, in which he has handcuffed himself to his high-spending agenda, means that he will meet Buzz's fate politically.

Ben Shapiro, 27, is a graduate of UCLA and Harvard Law School. He is the three-time bestselling author of the book "Primetime Propaganda," and host of "The Ben Shapiro Show" on 810 AM in Orlando, FL. To find out more about Ben Shapiro and read features by other Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate website at www.creators.com.

Comments

3 Comments | Post Comment

This is silly column is an exercise in saying black is white, and white is black, and playing the sport of seeing whether you can get away with it. The game of chicken is whether the U.S. defaults. Right wing dingbats like Shapiro are supporting a position that threatens not extending the U.S. debt ceiling to prove a point.

That is a true game of chicken. They are willing to drive the U.S. off a fiscal cliff in order to prove a point. What is the point? No new taxes. That's about it, as far as any of us with a functioning brain can tell.

So in order to promote a historical first, no new taxes, even if it destroys us, these right wing nut cases are willing to drive the whole country off a cliff by blocking the ability of the country to pay its debts to the rest of the planet.

That, of course, will ruin the stellar credit rating of the U.S. for a long time to come, and idiots like Shapiro will get to feel like they proved some kind of point. Still not sure what the point is, except they are hoppin mad.

Now that's a game of chicken.

Comment: #1
Posted by: Masako
Tue Jul 12, 2011 6:48 PM

Report this post

Re: Masako

How conveniently this poster misses the entire point of the original article - the country is bankrupt! Current spending is not sustainable. Raising the borrowing limit merely digs the hole deeper. We can't tax our way out of the dilemma - there aren't enough "rich" to fill the gap. Whether or not taxes go up, no solution is possible until spending gets cut. Mr. Obama and his supporters don't want to be the ones responsible for telling the baby boomers that their Social Security has evaporated like water on a hot skillet.

This is NOT a "Democratic Party" problem. Every Representative and Senator of any party for the past 50 years has indulged in criminal behavior by their looting of the Social Security fund. There is blame aplenty to go around.

To avoid ultimate bankruptcy, stringent changes must be made in entitlement programs. People who did not contribute to the funds must have their entitlements revoked. People who did contribute should receive what they (and their employers) put in (plus interest) and no more. Great numbers of Medicare and Medicaid recipients must be weaned from their unearned entitlements.

Additionally, the U.S. military must be curbed. The USA can no longer afford to be the world's policeman. The constitutional mandate to declare war rests solely with the Congressional branch of government, not the Administrative. U.S. troops should be withdrawn immediately from any foreign conflict where there is no declaration of war by Congress. Additionally, the four-service structure of the US military must be cut to no more than two branches. The savings would be significant.

While on the topic of foreign wars, it is not the American taxpayer's responsibility to rebuild foreign countries. We have our own infrastructure to rebuild and our own borders to secure.

Perhaps it will be for the best to "ruin the stellar credit rating of the U.S. for a long time to come." Those without credit are forced to then live within their means.

Comment: #2
Posted by: Glenn Young
Fri Jul 15, 2011 7:58 PM

Report this post

For the first time I disagree, and strongly, with Ben Shapiro's views expressed in his column on the Casey Anthony verdict and jusries in general. On the verdict, there simply was not enough evidence to convict Casey of a capital crime "beyond a reasonable doubt". There were no finderprints, no DNA, no witnesses, no physical evidence which could be clearly tied to Casey. There were alternative explanations for the known facts. The most damnining evidence was her behaviour after the crime, enough to cause me and a lot of other people to believe she did it. But believing and knowing are two different things. The proof just wasn't there. As to juries I have found them to consist of very intelligent people who spend tireless hours and days sifting over every scrap ov evidence, and that is based on 33 years of being around tiral lawyers and being myself a lawyer (thought not a trial lawyer). Every person I have ever met who served on a jury --- every single one --- who offered comment, has been very impressed by the diligence and care taken by juries. There may always be a few rotten apples in the barrel but Mr. Shapiro's application of the word "stupid" is an outrage. He doesn't know what he's talking about in this case.

Comment: #3
Posted by: Richard W. Metz
Mon Jul 18, 2011 8:36 AM

Report this post

Already have an account? Log in.