Partisans in the Media – Today’s Version

Gryphem readers:

I have been trying not to fly off into partisan politics.  Really, I have.  But this situation just begs to be shown for what it is.  We have to stop disinformation and fake outrage.  Sorry. 

If it helps, no matter how bad I think the political left is, I do not hate them.  We are all Americans.  I want to alert my fellow-Americans to the fact that some of us are behaving badly.

- - - - - - - - - -

In an attempt to put a positive spin on the failing campaign of President Obama, the illogic of the left-leaning media is on display once again.  I have found the latest example of partisan spin to be, frankly, kind of pathetic.

Immediately following Monday's second presidential debate, the reaction of the public was split.  Democrats tended to think the president had won; Republicans and conservatives tended to think Gov. Romney had won. 

The left-leaning media immediately jumped all over themselves trying to turn a mediocre performance by Obama (which was nevertheless an improvement over his terrible showing in the first debate) into a great victory.  A lot of people were going along with that at first.  But the next day, and the next, the fact-checkers did their work.  It became more and more clear that much of what Obama had said was exaggeration, or intentional misinterpretation, or simply not true.  To put it bluntly, when he wasn’t spinning the story he was spinning a yarn. 

A couple of days later moderator Candy Crowley, who had improperly injected herself into the debate to help the president, apologized and admitted that she had been wrong and Romney had been right about some statements the president had made in the wake of the recent attack in Libya.  That, I think, caused a lot of people to reexamine the debate, its coverage, and the race for president.

Today the Gallup Poll, most independent and reliable of the major polls, says Romney has moved ahead in the court of public opinion to the tune of six percentage points.  This is the first poll in a long time to show a result that is outside the margin of error... and the one clearly on top is the challenger.

The one right-leaning major media outlet, Fox News, celebrates with the headline "Romney by a Touchdown."  Fair enough.

The left-leaning media, on the other hand, just cannot seem to accept that despite their best effort and spin, their man is not ahead.  In the wake of a substantial jump in the polls by Romney, CNN asks "Did Romney undo gains with women?"  Well, CNN, apparently not, since more of them support him today than a week ago.  [Aside:  Never trust a news headline with a question mark at the end.]

CNN also features an opinion piece entitled, "How Obama aced comeback."  Really?  You're characterizing a debate in which the president was caught in falsehoods, a debate followed by a decline in the polls, as a comeback?  If this is an "ace" for Obama, it’s a pretty sad commentary on his lack of ability.  The closest CNN comes to being real about this is another opinion piece entitled, "Not the win Obama needed."  The implication - "still a win' - may be questionalbe... but the statement is yet true.

MSNBC, arguably the most left-leaning media source, seems incapable of finding a face-saving way to address the issue at all.  They feature stories on weather and a new conspiracy theory demonizing American business.  Perhaps it is a positive thing that they are staying away from presidential politics… for the most part… for the moment at least.

NPR, which seems to want to be even-handed even though they just can't manage it sometimes, also has chosen not to address presidential politics directly this morning.  Instead, they feature one story that focuses on the senate race in Maine, and another about climate change.  The sub-headline of the climate change story states that President Obama was "stymied" in his attempt to fix Earth's climate, whereas Gov. Romney "doesn't mention climate change."  No lies there, just innuendo, perhaps even subconsciously presented.

Devoid of anything of substance to criticize, left-wing extremists are trying to arouse outrage over the use of a certain phrase by Gov. Romney.  What has them raging in the streets, according to various media sources?  Gov. Romney stated that when he had been elected Governor of Massachusetts he asked his staff to find more qualified women to consider for senior positions in his administration.  He said they brought him "binders full of women," from which he was able to select several for positions of responsibility.

[Sarcasm Alert]  Don’t you see the seething prejudice in that phrase?  Well, trust us, it's there.  The villain had the audacity… doesn’t "binders full of women" conjure up visions of oppression, of sexual slavery, of masses of women in chains? Obviously, Romney hates women and thinks they should go back to their rightful roles as sex objects, housekeepers and servants.  [End Sarcasm] 

Of course, there really is nothing in this innocuous phrase that is remotely offensive.  This entire "outrage" episode is being faked by a few desperate, angry people and a left-wing media more interested in stoking the fires of hatred than in factual reporting.

Of all the (sometimes) left-leaning media, NPR had the healthiest response.  It was a small item off to the side, a link to a blog post entitled, “Out of the Binder, Into the Kitchen: Working Women and Cooking.”  All-in-all, it was a positive bit using the faux outrage to shine a light on a post that was a little bit humorous, a little bit serious about gender roles and cooking.  Leave it to NPR to find the calm around the storm.  I don’t care if they do sometimes fall off the left side of the wagon, I still like them.

As for the others…  The definition of psychosis (from the American Heritage Dictionary) is, "a severe mental disorder... characterized by deterioration of normal intellectual and social functioning and by partial or complete withdrawal from reality." 

If the shoe fits, wear it.  I, on the other hand, am going to celebrate the “touchdown,” and the hope of a massive turn away from this madness in a bit less than three weeks.

Gryphem

My Reasoned Opinion: Obama versus Romney 2012

Welcome, Gryphem Readers.  Recently two relatives, acting quite independently, motivated me to write this post.  One told me that my temporary hibernation from the Gryphem blog was poorly timed, as my observations about the current political situation should be written and posted.  Then another asked me to summarize the difference between candidates Obama and Romney.  After cringing at the thought of trying to summarize my thoughts into a blog-friendly size and format, I began.  This is the result.  I apologize for its length.  If you need the short version, you may skip straight to Part Three.  Of course, I hope you will read the whole thing. 

I also hope those of you who agree in general with my comments will share them, preferably before November 6th.  I hope that those of you who disagree with my comments will remember that we are all Americans, that political dialogue is our way and freedom of speech our right, and that you will choose to disagree without anger or hate.  Thank you for reading this very important post.
--------------------

You asked me to state, in a paragraph or two, the difference between President Obama and Governor Romney.  I read that request with the same feeling in the pit of my stomach that I felt when a professor announced an unexpected term paper, due in a few days.  I didn’t know how I could get it done.  But I have thought about this over the weekend, and I am going to give it a try.

PART ONE:  SCOPE AND LIMITATIONS

In the interest of full disclosure I must point out that I, who have prided myself on being a political moderate for many years, have come down firmly on one side of this election.  That is because one of these two candidates is a moderate, and the other one is an extremist.  I will try to be fair.

The first thing I must do is disavow all the hatred and nastiness that I see going on around me.  Ironically, I see it more in media personalities, PACS, and ordinary people than in the candidates themselves.  But the hatred on both extremes, left and right, is as poisonous to our nation as any specific political issue.

I will tell you that the extremists are right about one thing.  This is an election to determine the future of America, what our nation will look like a generation from now.  It is Important.

I cannot answer your question without analyzing, at least a little bit, the motives and machinations of some of the persons and parties involved in this campaign.  I will do that first, and then follow up with the compare and contrast that you asked for.  I actively restrain myself from getting too far into these issues because they tend to be divisive in the current toxic political environment… but they have to be mentioned.  These are things that I think are serious problems, things more Americans should be noticing.  They are things that affect the way this election is being perceived by the average guy on the street who doesn’t take time to inquire and think critically about issues and personalities, as you have.  Some are being used as points of distraction - issues which make people mad, get them to side firmly with one candidate and then, having chosen sides (whether or not wisely), to shut down all further thought.

The “problems’ that follow are things that I believe it’s important for voters to understand.  I do not repeat them to condemn, but to explain.  Because these things have colored my decisions, I feel the need to discuss them in some small way.   If you are sick of people pointing out problems with “the other guy,” then you have my permission (not that you need it) to skip ‘Part Two’ completely.  I’ll understand.

PART TWO: THE PROBLEMS

You will find that all the problems I choose to highlight here are primarily from one political camp.  That does not mean that I think the other guys are perfect.  Far from it.  In fact, two years ago I intentionally resigned my membership in the Republican Party for reasons I won’t go into here.  Let’s just say that I know both sides have issues to deal with.  Yet I believe it is more important to focus on what matters most Right Now.

Problem #1:  Media Bias.  I used to deny this, but I have come reluctantly to conclude that the allegations are true.   Our news sources are biased, mostly in favor of the political left.  None are impartial.  Three major networks are biased in favor of the political left, and one (established in response to the left-leaning media outlets) is biased in favor of the right.  At least three of the largest newspapers in the nation are strongly biased in favor of the left, and only one is modestly biased in favor of the political right.

Some time ago, the media forsook their rightful role as investigators and reporters, and took upon themselves to become active participants in American politics.  They are no longer a mirror on our government; they are partisans in a war to redefine the parameters of our political debate.  They seek to be the gatekeepers of our political choices and the arbitrators of our opinions.

This election has taken journalistic partisanship to new levels, and the extreme bias is getting worse.  What that means specifically in 2012 is that the left-leaning media are propping up what would otherwise be a failed presidency.  President Obama would never have gotten away with this kind of performance 20 or 30 years ago.  This blog post from April 2011 pertains: http://gryphem.blogspot.com/2011/04/real-motives-of-media.html.

Problem #2:  Dishonesty.   Politics is full of manipulation, but never before have I seen the amount of outright lying and propaganda that is on display this year.  The last time it was like this was probably 1898.  If you want to see how effective yellow journalism can be, check out the role of W.R. Hearst in the run-up to the Spanish-American War that year.

The dishonesty is not all on one side, but my perception is that the left is being far more aggressive in its disinformation campaign.  A few examples...

Example 1:  To call Gov. Romney’s comment that 47% of the American people pay no income tax “an attack on working Americans” is jingo journalism.  The 47% statistic is a fact.  Speaking truth, without prejudice or antagonism, should not be labeled an “attack.”  The “47%” comments upset some people, but that doesn’t make it an attack, nor does that make it untrue.

Example 2:  How is it in any way logical to argue that the citizen who paid no tax last year was a victim of circumstances, while at the same time alleging that a man who paid over $2 million dollars in income tax last year is not paying his fair share?  That is exactly what President Obama has been saying.

These two examples are only “spin” – putting the worst possible interpretation on a comment or event.  The Obama campaign and its allies have done worse than spin.  Until their story fell apart, they were accusing Mitt Romney of personally causing a woman’s death by cancer because he got her fired and made her lose her health insurance.  The trouble was, that story was full of falsehoods.  When the truth began to emerge in response, the slanderous ad was discontinued.  Other similar disinformation continues.

Here’s a point of law that most Americans don’t realize.  Short of committing slander (or libel), a political ad does not have to be true.  Unlike in commerce, where truth-in-advertising laws apply, lying in political ads is not illegal.  Of course, the political camps don’t want to be so obvious that ordinary citizens start to notice that they are lying; that would be bad for the campaign.  But neither do they worry about being scrupulously honest (to put it mildly)...

Problem #3:  Incompetence.  It’s a harsh word, I know.  But it fits.  Many of the people that President Obama has placed in positions of great responsibility are not qualified to fill those positions.

Case-in-Point #1:  The Secretary of the Treasury has been under investigation for tax evasion.

Case-in-Point #2:  The Attorney General lied to Congress.  (This has yet to be proven, but it is obvious to anyone remotely acquainted with the facts of the ‘Fast and Furious’ scandal.)

Case-in-Point #3:  The Secretary of State neglected to provide proper protection to a new embassy, in a country which had just experienced a violent coup.  The result was the assassination of the American Ambassador to Libya.  Then she (and the U.S. Ambassador to the U.N., and the president) denied that the incident had been the result of a plot organized by terrorists despite advance intelligence warning of an impending attack.

All this doesn’t even touch the lack of qualification, improper selection criteria, and inappropriate disposition of the extreme partisans he has appointed to the Supreme Court.  One of President Obama’s nominees was eventually confirmed despite having made the blatantly racial statement that a Latina woman (such as herself), “would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male.”  Another was confirmed despite demonstrable hostility toward the U.S. military, and despite having no experience whatsoever as a judge.

Even former president Bill Clinton privately has called Obama “incompetent."

Problem #4:  The Demonization of Success and Disingenuous Attitudes about Taxes.   It seems that about half the criticisms of Romney have something to do with the fact that he is a successful businessman.  As a historian, I recognize this pattern.  The demonization of wealth preceded many of the Communist revolutions of the early 20^th century, as well as the French Revolution.  It is dangerous to incite envy and class-based antagonism.  All the more so when the targets of the anger have committed no offense other than successfully using the existing system to building wealth or power.  Despite their desperate wish to find something incriminating to use against Governor Romney, no one has made any substantiated claim that he has done anything illegal in his business career.  That in itself is a remarkable situation which has been completely overlooked (or ignored) by the media.

I have a problem with those who would blame a law-abiding citizen for actions he took in compliance with the law.  Barring blatant immorality, it is the responsibility of a citizen to comply with the law that is in place, not to comply with some other person’s after-the-fact assessment of what they think should have been in place.

Although some of our laws pertaining to business and tax might be widely perceived to be flawed, they are not perceptibly lacking in morality.  In order to allege that, it would be necessary to condemn the entire capitalist economic system.  The ‘Occupy’ movement notwithstanding, that is something very few Americans are willing to do, even today.

Regarding the recurring allegations that Governor Romney didn’t pay enough tax, I wonder how many Americans of any income level have finished their annual tax preparation and thought, “I think this amount due is too little, so I am going to add some more money to my tax payment for the year.”  That seems to be what some expect Mr. Romney should’ve done.

If business or tax law is flawed, it is the responsibility of Congress to make sure the law is workable and just.   If there are problems with our tax codes, it is not the fault of Governor Romney but of the Congress which affirmed or put those laws into effect.If you really want to compare compassion, a sense of personal responsibility for one’s fellow citizens, and a willingness to make things better, looks at the percentage of income donated by each candidate to charity.  In 2011, Romney contributed about 19% of his income to charity (over $4 million).  The Obamas contributed a comparable percentage of their income.  Vice President Biden, on the other hand, contributed less 2% of his income to charity last year.  Note in addition that Mitt Romney took no salary in ten years of church leadership roles, as President of the 2002 Winter Olympic Committee, or as Governor of Massachusetts.
Problem #5:  Avoiding Responsibility.  This administration is still trying to blame President Bush for most of their shortcomings, even though they have had the full reins of power for nearly four years.  That would be laughable except that is seems to be working with a large percentage of Americans.

Point of fact:  Even though the Democrats controlled both Houses of Congress in 2009 and 2010, and continue to control the Senate, President Obama blames the lack of substantive progress on many of his political agenda issues on “obstruction” by Republicans.

I'll have more to say about this later.

Problem #6:  Ashamed of America?.  President Bush would never apologize, even when he was wrong.  In a classic case of overreaction, we elected a president who seems determined to apologize for everything America has ever done.  It was Michelle Obama rather than her husband who was politically inexperienced enough to say it out loud in 2008 when she admitted, at age 44, “…for the first time in my adult life, I am proud of my country.”  Really?   What more can I add to that?

PART THREE: THE CHOICE

You probably have noticed that a big part of my opinion has to do with honesty, integrity, and competence.  Enough said.  Now let’s focus on some very concrete, specific matters.  Here is my super-short synopsis of our choice this November.

There are four overriding matters on which the differences between Obama and Romney are profound.  These are (1) American Values, (2) the Economy (major domestic Issue), (3) America’s Role in the World (major foreign issue), and (4) National Debt.

On the matter of American Values:

The Role of Government.  President Obama and the political left believe that government should take the lead in solving the problems of our society.  Governor Romney and the political right believe that while government is necessary, its role should be restrained and most problems would be better solved without resort to the coercive power of government.  What this means practically is that Democrats want to expand the reach of government more and more.  This expansion of the role of government in our lives necessarily diminishes the personal control individuals have over their own lives.

Equality of Opportunity.  Governor Romney and Republicans believe that our U.S. Constitution guarantees equality under the law, equality of opportunity but not equality of outcome.  President Obama and the Democrats believe that inequalities of income are ‘de facto’ unfair.    They believe it is a good thing for government to intervene in the lives of individuals to ensure “fairness” (which to them means equality of outcomes).

American Exceptionalism.  President Obama believes that America is simply one nation among many, no better or worse than any other nation.  Governor Romney believes, as have at least 41 of the other 43 presidents, that America is an exceptional nation, forged in a new mold, dedicated as no nation before to inclusion and freedom.  “All men are created equal,” whether they live in the United States or not, but that is not true of all governments.  In fact, our nation was founded by people who thought they could devise a better way to govern than any government that had existed before.  And they did exactly that.  That, in my opinion, is exceptional.  I wish more of us in the United States of America still shared their values and wisdom.

On the matter of the Economy:

Believing that it is the function of government to ensure economic equality, the political left constantly seeks to take greater control of the economy.  This they do through manipulative tax laws which tax NOT to raise money for the operation of government (which is a legitimate function of government) but to redistribute wealth.  This is already being done under the guise of “Earned Income Credit,” and the current administration wants to “redistribute” even greater amounts.

Taking from one individual and giving to another to achieve a greater degree of financial equality is socialism.  What Obama and the Democrats want to do is impose socialism.  They will not say so because ‘socialism’ has a negative connotation to most Americans, but that is what it is.

I have traveled in Europe and have seen firsthand how moderate socialism can work, and I must be completely honest.  There are worse fates.  A properly tempered socialism of the kind now in place in Britain or Germany, for example, would not be the end of our nation.  But that is not how Americans have always chosen to operate.  We have always believed in individual responsibility, in taking care of ourselves and each other.  We have never before chosen to depend on the ‘Big Brother’ of government to take care of us.

There is another important consideration.  I am of the opinion that socialism only works when the economic situation is good.  When times are bad, wealth-creators are less able to fuel the engine of prosperity.  But those on the receiving end of government redistribution are notoriously unwilling to cooperate.  An illustration from “Fiddler on the Roof”:

Nahum: Alms for the poor.  Alms for the poor.
Lazar: Here, Reb Nahum, is one kopek.
Nahum: One kopek? Last week you gave me two kopeks.
Lazar: I had a bad week.
Nahum: So if you had a bad week, why should I suffer?

Humorous, yes, but things can go far awry.  Consider those riots in Greece over the past year.

On the matter of America’s Role in the World:

I believe all Americans are weary of our overseas involvement.  Almost no one wants to go back to the Bush-era foreign policy in which we inject ourselves into the affairs of nations throughout the world.  In particular, we are weary of military action in places like Iraq, Afghanistan, and Libya.  In this, I think both candidates agree.

However, the current President has begun to shrink our military force faster than our military obligations.  He has downsized the American military too fast, while failing to make corresponding reductions in our missions abroad.  Yes, we have (for the most part) left Iraq, but we have undertaken new missions in Libya, and against piracy in the Indian Ocean, and in the Pacific, and of course we are still quite active in Afghanistan.  This has led to a severely overworked military.  You won’t hear much complaining because it is not in the U.S. military culture to complain, but the forces-to-task ratio has been seriously degraded.

Going beyond military considerations, President Obama has presented our nation as embarrassingly servile at times.  Undoubtedly this is an overreaction to his predecessor, who never would have apologized for anything, even if his life had depended on it.  But this president goes out of his way to apologize, bows to Saudi princes, takes blame where none is warranted, and makes a point of telling others that America is not a special nation.  If our enemies were angry at the United States for interfering under the last administration, they despise the weakness they perceive in the current administration.

President Obama has ignored the security needs of some of our closest allies (Israel) and appears to have gone out of his way to weaken ties with others (Britain).

President Obama presents to the world an America that is embarrassed to be successful, that apologizes for itself at every turn.  A future President Romney would, without recreating the entanglements of the preceding administration, reassert an American that stands strong for freedom and in defense of her own interests and allies.

On the matter of National Debt:

If he could ever find a way adequately to communicate to the American people the crisis we are in, the issue of the national debt could be a political trump card for the Romney campaign.  If people understood just how much danger we are in because of financial irresponsibility, they would vote in droves for the fiscal conservative in this election.  Yet despite all the efforts by fiscal conservatives such as Congressman Ryan, most Americans just aren’t getting it.

Here’s the situation.  For several decades, our nation has been living beyond its means.  Even before President Obama took office, we were approaching a tipping point at which our government would be unable to sustain the services and benefits it had been providing.  This was due in part to the unfunded wars of the Bush era, in part to the raiding of Social Security coffers for decades, in part to the demographics of an aging population, and most of all to financial mismanagement by several iterations of Congress.

Of course no one in charge, of either party, in Congress or the Oval Office, has wanted to own the problem.  So they kept sweeping it under the rug.  They redirected money from one program to another.  They raised the debt limit and borrowed.  They played a shell game with the national budget.  Congress has never really able to control its deficit spending, and now the situation has become so serious that they are unable to continue with business as usual.  In order to disguise the economic situation (and their fiscal irresponsibility), for the past four years (ever since President Obama took office with his party in control) the Congress has not approved one single annual budget - even though they are constitutionally required to do so.

Mitt Romney has experience that is directly applicable to this dire situation.  He went into failing companies, increased efficiencies, cut costs, and usually enabled those companies to survive.  He took over a failing Olympics and turned it into a great public relations and financial success.  Over and over, he has turned around organizations that were failing.

The left is fond of pointing out that when Mr. Romney went into a company in trouble, his solutions were sometimes difficult to enact.  That is correct.  There is a price to pay for mismanagement, and sometimes recovery is painful.  The remedies may have been painful, but Mitt Romney enabled organizations to survive that otherwise would have failed.

The left is also fond of pointing out that he did not always succeed in saving the companies he tried to save, and that he got paid anyway.  True enough.  No one bats a thousand, and the doctor gets paid even when the operation is not a success.  But honestly, who would you trust with your finances?  The businessman who saved 80% of the troubled companies he dealt with, or the party that has been unable to get an annual budget through Congress for four years?

Our national situation is like a family which has had a decrease in income.  Perhaps as if one of two breadwinners lost his or her job.  Unwilling to modify their spending habits to align with the new income, the family begins dipping into retirement savings to maintain the lifestyle to which they are accustomed.  When the savings are gone, they begin borrowing and using credit cards to support their standard of living.  It works for a while - maybe for some years if they started with a sizeable retirement account and had good credit.  But sooner or later the day will arrive when the savings are gone, the credit accounts have reached their limits, and the mortgage is due.  What then?  The answer, as we know all too well from our collective experience of the past few years, is foreclosure and bankruptcy.

The United States today is a nation staring out into the distance at the possibility of bankruptcy.  The ultimate collapse may still be a few years down the road (we hope), but the threat is real.  If we take drastic measures now, it is probably still possible to regain our financial stability, in time.  But if we do nothing different, if we continue to deny the problem, if we only think about the short term, it will probably not be possible to recover.  If we choose the primrose path, four more years of deficit spending at President Obama’s rate, we will eventually default.  When that happens we no doubt will hear loud, anguished complaints from those who lose government services and handouts because the government itself will be bankrupt.  When the government goes bankrupt, programs and entitlements will be not ‘trimmed’ or ‘reduced,’ but cancelled outright.  Or conversely, the government will print money to hand out and we will experience hyperinflation that will make those handouts worthless.  Either way, it’s not a pretty prospect.

A Final Point: Obama Owns It.

This bears repeating:  Other than demonizing Governor Romney, the best play in the Democrat reelection book still is to blame George.  Almost four years into the Obama Presidency, he and his colleagues still blame President Bush for most of their problems, including some that he had nothing to do with.

The reason for problems, they continue to say, is that they inherited such a bad situation.  This transparent and worn-out strategy should not work in an informed electorate.  And yet they still blame George.  If they cannot find a way to blame him, they blame his conservative allies in Congress, or those troublemakers in the Tea Party.

As I wrote before, the idea of a President blaming his predecessor for all the problems of the nation at the end of an entire term would be laughable - if only so many Americans weren’t believing it.

The question should not be whether President Obama inherited a bad situation.  He did.  The question should be whether he did anything to make it better – or worse.

For all his spending  on the wars, President Bush ran up the national debt over $4 trillion in eight years.  President Obama has run up the national debt over $6 trillion in only four years.  Do the math... Under the Obama administration we have been racing toward the abyss of bankruptcy at three times the rate we did under his predecessor.*  Does that seem competent, or responsible?

CONCLUSION

I've presented my decidedly-partisan point of view fairly, I hope.  I am not a right-wing radical.  I find truth where I see it.  I have been a Democrat, a Republican, a registered Libertarian, and an Independent.  My comments, while making no attempt to be “objective,” were arrived at honestly and explained sensibly, I think.  I have presented them without hate.  I hope you’ll agree with my conclusions.  If not, then I have done my best, and we still are all Americans.  I’ll remember that if you will.

Gryphem

Postscript

* Correction:  In an earlier version of this post, I made the statement that the Obama Administration has increased the national debt at a rate ten times that of his predecessor.  I had fallen prey to some disinformation, which I have now corrected with the help of FactCheck.org.  Believing in the fundamental truth that one never strengthens an argument by overstating it, I now firmly assert that the Obama Administration is increasing the debt at “only” three times the rate of his predecessor.  My underlying assertion – that this administration is spending far too much – remains unchanged.