A hockey player’s view over the fiscal cliff

So the other day, Cato Institute’s Ted DeHaven compared Treasury Secretary Timmy Geitner to NHL commissioner Gary Bettman. DeHaven pointed out that the Obama administration’s opening proposal to avert the so-called “fiscal cliff”  trotted out by Geitner was about as ridiculous and insulting to congressional Republicans as the NHL owners first offer to players in the continuing NHL lockout was.

Seems to me the analogy is pretty accurate.

Weeks after Bettman’s offer to settle, I’m still stuck watching Russian Premier League hockey. And after Geitner’s little speech, we are still hurtling toward that fiscal cliff at high speed.

But as a hockey player, I think we can take the analogy further.

We have Republicans acting like Sean “the Turtle” Avery, or for some of you long-time fans, maybe Claude Lemeiux. You know, running their yaps, taking the occasional cheap shot,  generally stirring things up. But refusing to drop the gloves and really fight it out. Let’s be real here – the Republicans don’t have any more intention of actually dealing with the spending problem in D.C. than the Democrats do.

What the American people need is a real enforcer. A Bob Probert or a Tie Domi. You know, somebody who will drop the gloves and actually stand toe-to-toe and fight. Admit it, you would love to see Domi pull Geitner into the penalty box with him like he did to that Philly fan a few years ago.


Republicans for Big Government?

by Judge Andrew Napolitano

Do you know anyone who voted Republican this past election in order to further President Obama’s big government agenda? Or is it more likely that Republican voters sought to advance a smaller version of the federal government? And if they did, why are Republican congressional leaders offering to help the president spend us into oblivion?

I suspected that those questions might be asked when Mitt Romney was nominated to oppose Obama. My view of his campaign then and now has been that he presented a choice to the voters of big government versus bigger government, and bigger government prevailed. Romney argued during the campaign that he was at a disadvantage because the president had distributed federal tax dollars to persons and groups critical to his re-election. He has since argued that he lost the election because nearly half of Americans – some by chance, some by choice and some by force – are dependent on government for much of their income or subsistence.

His argument sounds harsh, but it’s true. A formerly working and now retired couple in their mid-80s who are receiving monthly payments from the Social Security Administration into which they were forced to make payments while they were working can hardly be considered slackers. But they can be considered dupes. All of us who have fallen for the government’s nonsense about it holding our money for our future use have been duped. The government doesn’t hold anyone’s money for him. It spends whatever it collects as soon as it receives it. When its entitlement bills come due, it uses current tax revenue, or it borrows money in order to acquire the cash to make the payments.

The president knows this. Congress knows it. The courts have endorsed it. In endorsing it, the courts have held