Most Americans must be financially illiterate. There's no other explanation for the lack of overwhelming outrage over the irresponsible rate of federal spending. Daniel Gross wrote a remarkably ill-informed article for Yahoo! Finance, blaming Congressional Republicans for our credit rating downgrade. The very people Gross chose to criticize are the only ones in Washington trying to introduce the federal government to fiscal responsibility. In stark contrast, Dave Ramsey did a beautiful job explaining our national spending crisis in terms anyone can understand.  Our growth of federal debt is unsustainable and requires drastic change immediately, which he made remarkably clear. At his website DaveRamsey.com, he wrote The federal government will take in $2.173 trillion in 2011. That’s their income, and it sounds pretty good. Until, that is, you factor in that the federal government will spend $3.818 trillion during the year. So, just like many families, the government’s outgo exceeds their income—to the tune of $1.645 trillion in overspending. That’s called the deficit. Altogether, the government has $14.2 trillion in debt. What would happen if John Q. Public and his wife called my show with these kinds of numbers? Here’s how their financial situation would stack up: If their household income was $55,000 per year, they’d actually be spending $96,500—$41,500 more than they made!That means they’re spending 175% of their annual income! So, in 2011 they’d add $41,500 of debt to their current credit card debt of $366,000! What’s the first step to get … [Read more...]

President Obama gave a speech last night about raising the debt limit. Having become quite accustomed to have any politician twist the meaning of words beyond comprehension, I naturally expected his narrative to deviate from the truth in no short order. According to a transcript of his speech, significant distortion of the truth began with his fifth sentence. One of the first four was, "Good evening." Maybe even that was debatable. Courtesy of the White House press secretary, here's the full transcript of his opening remarks. Good evening.  Tonight, I want to talk about the debate we’ve been having in Washington over the national debt -- a debate that directly affects the lives of all Americans. For the last decade, we’ve spent more money than we take in.  In the year 2000, the government had a budget surplus.  But instead of using it to pay off our debt, the money was spent on trillions of dollars in new tax cuts, while two wars and an expensive prescription drug program were simply added to our nation’s credit card. He was right about one thing : the prescription drug program is cost prohibitive.  Yet POTUS conveniently forgot to mention the "expensive" program Bush created was opposed by Democrats for being too stingy with taxpayer money. I cannot stress this idea enough. I'm tempted to "shout" in capital letters. A tax cut does NOT equal government spending. Government spending describes funding the military, our legal system, and yes, social programs like Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid. Plus student loans, research, and don't forget, … [Read more...]

Career criminal Vaughn Matthews thought an assault on a woman three months pregnant made for easy pickings. He punched Lindsey O’Brien in the face, snatched her laptop bag, and took off running. Surprised when she chased him down, he broke her wrist and punched her visibly pregnant belly using his forearm. With righteous indignation and an obviously powerful maternal instinct, Ms. O’Brien planted one foot and drove the other into his leg, snapping his tibia like a twig, in two places. The police didn’t need to chase Mr. Matthews down. He was still lying right where she left him, writhing on the ground in agony. Apparently most Philadelphia policemen are too busy hassling law abiding citizens to protect innocent victims. The arresting officer who arrived at the scene said, “She really did a number on his leg. I would never want to get kicked by this girl.” I’m mildly disappointed the reports did not include her taking an open shot on his defenseless testicles with that same enthusiasm before looking for the police, but I’m sure her arm hurt and she worried more about her unborn child than giving this man the beating he deserved. Too bad the judge would never allow something like that as part of his sentence. Thank God at least it’s still safe for pregnant women to defend themselves. Or can we be sure that the district attorney won’t charge her with assaulting Mr. Matthews? It is no longer obvious that sanity reigns supreme in our judicial system. … [Read more...]

Periodically, I argue with a lawyer friend of mine about application of the death penalty. He’s argued before the U.S. Supreme Court before, so I can’t pretend I've won our debate. I grudgingly concede we have reached an impasse. He contends the death penalty is too expensive to enforce and the punishment doesn’t deter future criminals. Au contraire, I reply. It certainly deters the criminal in question from committing future murders. Because he’s my friend, I can’t bring myself to tell him to his face the real problem with the death penalty are the hacks in his profession, making ridiculous arguments that waste the court's time and taxpayer money. Instead, I’ll publish this piece behind his back and wait like a coward for him to read my blog. You've been served notice, my friend, and we both know who you are. Here's an example that illustrates my better argument. Lawyers working on a current death penalty case have put forth a novel argument to defend their client. The Atlanta Journal Constitution reported that attorneys for a prisoner on Death Row are in court arguing about the safety of drugs used to execute their client. We're seriously asked to care whether or not a prisoner in the process of execution experiences any pain whatsoever? You’re worried about the safety involved with the manner of his death? Does this strike anyone else as unbelievably ridiculous? Your brothers of the bar are asking a judge from the same system that decreed it humane forcing death by starvation and dehydration for Terri Schiavo (who was innocent of … [Read more...]

Stephen Colbert is host of The Colbert Report, seen on The Comedy Channel. Colbert is a funny guy. His show satirizes conservatism as the liberal Colbert portrays a fake conservative. For whatever reason, people of otherwise normal to above-average intelligence frequently behave as if they mistake his show for a serious news report. It seems that some very bright people can be easily confused. Here's an example of what I mean. Grover Norquist leads Americans for Tax Reform, a group that solicits politicians to sign a written pledge not to raise taxes under any circumstances. Norquist signed his own pledge, of course. The following is a transcript of a brief exchange between the two men on the show. Colbert: I’m going to ask you a trick question. Norquist: Sure. Colbert: I hope you have the right answer. Is there any time and any circumstance under which raising taxes is the right thing to do? Norquist: No. Colbert: Good answer. Okay, now let’s amp it up a little bit. Terrorists have kidnapped all of our grandmothers. (Audience laughter.) They’re being kept in a subterranean burrow – which you know they have – (cut to smiling Norquist, going along with the joke) and all of the grandmothers have been slathered with honey. And they will release fire ants into this burrow to bite our grandmothers to death. (More audience laughter.) Their only demand is that we increase the marginal tax rate on the top 2 percent of Americans, and we will release them. Do we raise the tax rate or do we let our grandmothers die by ant bite? (Loud audience … [Read more...]