Amid the flurry of inanity brought upon this nation by Barack Obama, Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid, it is important to stop and smell the roses of triumph.  One arrived today when the Senate blocked, at least for now, the DISCLOSE Act. 

That act would violate the First Amendment rights of free speech and free association in its attempt to reverse the Supreme Court’s correct Citizens United v. FEC decision, while effectively exempting politically powerful labor unions.   Obama, Pelosi and Reid will surely follow with their usual bromides about “the people versus the powerful,” but the fact is that the DISCLOSE Act is nothing more than a scheme to enable the powerful, namely partisan Big Labor, at the expense of everyday citizens.  It’s a welcome victory for free speech and freedom of association, and a stinging defeat for an Obama Administration that manages to pioneer new realms of cynical partisanship on a daily basis.

Remember when Barack Obama preposterously claimed that ObamaCare would reduce the deficit, rather than exacerbate it?  Last week, in admitting that this year’s total budget deficit will exceed last year’s, the Obama Administration included a noteworthy admission.  Namely, that ObamaCare is already adding to his unsustainable deficits.  As reported by The Wall Street Journal:

The White House said the health-care law, heralded as a powerful deficit-tamer in the long term, is expected to add $51 billion of debt between now and fiscal 2012. Those increases more than offset modest savings through 2020.”

Reasonable people knew it was just a matter of time until even Obama admitted that ObamaCare compounds the nation’s deficit.  But who knew that would only take four months?

The Obama Administration now acknowledges that this year’s budget deficit will exceed last year’s.  Their 2010 $1.5 trillion deficit constitutes 10% of gross domestic product (GDP), up from 9.9% last year.   The administration also raised its 2011 deficit forecast to $1.4 trillion, up from its previous $1.267 trillion projection.

Barack Obama repeatedly – and falsely – seeks to escape blame by scapegoating his predecessor for last year’s $1.4 trillion deficit.  He promised as a candidate to address the deficit, but instead more than tripled it in his first year with such things as his failed $1 trillion “stimulus.”  So what will be his alibi for this year’s deficit?  And for 2011’s?

Is there no expiration date on “Blame Bush?”

Another falsehood that Obama advances is that he and Congressional Democrats were simply handed this deficit on January 20, 2009.  The truth, however, is that Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid and Democrats recaptured Congress (which controls spending under the Constitution) in November 2006, when the deficit was merely $248 billion.  In just four years, they’ve managed to multiply that number by six.

Senate Majority Leader (for the time being, at least)  Harry Reid (D – Nevada) mistakenly believes that he’s got a winning card with his scheduled vote today on yet another unemployment benefit extension.  Reid, along with co-conspirators Nancy Pelosi and President Obama, predictably mischaracterize Republican opposition to the vote that will immediately follow the introduction of replacement West Virginia Senator Carte Goodwin.

But here are some facts.  First, Senate Republicans only request that unemployment benefit extensions be offset with cuts in other forms of runaway federal spending.  Second, Harry Reid’s proposed extension will add $30 billion to this year’s projected $1.4 trillion deficit.  Third, unemployment benefits already stretch for 99 weeks – almost two full years.  Fourth, there have already been seven extensions in unemployment benefits during the period in which Obama’s $1 trillion “stimulus” spending has instead managed to stifle what should be a robust cyclical rebound by this point.  Fifth, even Obama’s own economic advisers have proclaimed that jobless benefits actually perpetuate and exacerbate unemployment itself.

Here’s the better policy prescription:  prevent upcoming tax increases, slow the federal government’s breakneck spending expansion and reduce the threat of anti-growth regulatory uncertainty.  When we implemented those prescriptions during the Reagan Administration, we witnessed astounding two-year gross domestic product growth of approximately 7% over eight consecutive quarters in 1983-1984.  How much longer will it take Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi and Barack Obama to finally learn that simple lesson?

Even proponents of ObamaCare are now admitting that Obama “has not been honest with the American people about the nature of this bill.”  Those are the words of Yale University professor Jack Balkin, who actually supports the bill.

Throughout his candidacy and now into his presidency, Barack Obama solemnly promised American voters that he wouldn’t raise taxes on anyone earning under $250,000 per year.  Not just income taxes – he said “any form” of taxes.  When he, Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid subsequently dumped their ObamaCare monstrosity upon the resistant nation, however, the bill contained an individual mandate under which Americans who failed to purchase insurance for whatever reason would be assessed a punitive tax.  When career liberal George Stephanopoulos pointed out  to Obama during an ABC News interview that this mandate constitutes a tax, even reading a straightforward definition of “tax” from a dictionary, Obama petulantly objected.

That pesky interview from September now safely behind him, however, get a load of the Obama Administration’s new position on the matter.  In its legal brief defending ObamaCare against the lawsuit to overturn it brought by fifteen different states, Obama contends that the Constitution empowers the federal government “power to lay and collect taxes.”

Thus, it appears that Obama intentionally offered two falsehoods to the American people:  (1) that he would not increase “any form” of taxes upon anyone earning less than $250,000, and (2) that he didn’t consider ObamaCare’s individual mandate a “tax.”  How much deeper can this man bury his campaign false promise of “hope” and “change?”

This should be a period of robust cyclical recovery from the past recession, but we received yet another troubling sign from the Federal Reserve yesterday. For the month of June 2010, American manufacturers utilized only 71.4% of productive capacity, down from 71.7% utilization in June.

What this means is that instead of cranking up and increasing velocity, manufacturers decelerated from May to June.  Moreover, this 72% capacity utilization compares with the post-war historical average of 81%.  Translation:  there exists a lot of slack in our economy at a time when we should be expanding.  This news comes on the heels of reports that American companies are hoarding a record $2 trillion rather than spending it on expansion or job creation, and adds to the sense that Obamanomics are subduing our recovery, not stimulating it.

William F. Buckley, Jr. famously said that he’d rather be governed by the first 400 names in the Boston phonebook than by the Harvard faculty.

Every so often, however, the phone book and the faculty actually agree.  According to a new Bloomberg poll, a remarkable 73% of respondents oppose our supposed philosopher-king Barack Obama’s drilling moratorium.  What makes this remarkable is that approximately three-quarters of the American public, which very rarely seems to find consensus on anything these days, just doesn’t buy Obama’s constant drumbeat of scapegoating the oil industry, “deregulation” or the previous administration.  What makes this even more remarkable, however, is that Obama’s own appointed “experts” agree with everyday citizens.  As noted in yesterday’s Wall Street Journal, the hyper-partisan investigatory panel selected by Obama himself expresses skepticism toward his moratorium.

Add the fact that two separate courts have rejected the Obama Administration’s ill-advised moratorium, which is jeopardizing even more jobs in that hard-hit region, and we’re approaching unanimity against the self-professed “bridge-builder” Obama.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D – Nevada), who foolishly said in 2007 “this war is lost” just as the surge was winning in Iraq, just had another one of those “he didn’t really just say that, did he?” moments.

A local reporter raised the issue of high unemployment in Nevada’s hard-hit construction sector, noting that construction companies often find it easier to hire illegal aliens.  To this, Reid bizarrely replied, “any information you have in that regard is absolutely without foundation.”  The reporter then cited a Pew Hispanic Center study showing that 17% of construction workers are illegal aliens, to which Reid replied even more absurdly, “that may be someplace, but it’s not here in Nevada.”

As noted in the following Fox News video, however, the Pew Center confirms that Nevada actually suffers the highest percentage of unauthorized immigrants in the workforce.

Is it any wonder that Reid’s son avoids using the family surname in his own political race for Nevada governor?

In response to the uncertainty created by the Obama Administration’s foolish drilling moratorium, which has now been overturned by two separate courts, Diamond Offshore Drilling, Inc. announced that it will shift its Ocean Endeavor operation to Egypt.  As The Wall Street Journal noted, “when it comes to a showdown between jobs and ideology, the Obama Administration never fails to choose the latter.”

The Ocean Endeavor contract was worth $100 million, and its loss will cost “a great deal” of American jobs.  Even Democrat Senator Mary Landrieu of Louisiana found herself forced to break with the Obama Administration, noting that the offshore drilling industry safely operates approximately 42,000 other wells and employs innumerable Gulf citizens both directly and indirectly.  Sadly, Obama once again seems to be stimulating the far-left activist community, but not the American economy or job climate.

America’s technology sector can provide a wellspring of economic dynamism and new employment.  As long as government doesn’t poison that potentially abundant font, that is.

At a seminar today entitled “Technology and Economic Recovery” hosted by Americans for Technology Leadership, panelists Shahin Kohan, Dr. Joseph Fuhr and Karen Kerrigan explained that our information technology (IT) sector offers a much-needed vehicle by which we can overcome economic stagnation.  Dr. Fuhr explained that IT spending is expected to grow 2.3% per year between today and 2013, compared to expected gross domestic product (GDP) growth of just 0.5% during that span, and that employment in the IT industry will grow by over 1 million jobs compared to expected employment shrinkage in other fields.

For her part, Ms. Kerrigan, who serves as President and CEO of the Small Business & Entrepreneurship Council and founded Women Entrepreneurs, explained the destructive consequences of federal overregulation and taxation for small enterprises that create most new jobs in America.  Ms. Kerrigan pointed out that the prospect of even more suffocating regulations and taxation on small business and technology entrepreneurs only discourages innovation, expansion and hiring.  Mr. Kohan, an apparel entrepreneur from Los Angeles who is CEO of Focal Technology Solutions, Inc., illustrated ways in which new technology can assist creative entrepreneurs in a highly competitive worldwide market, along with terrifying examples of how state, local and federal bureaucracy can destroy American jobs and businesses.

The message was simple:  give technology enterprises freedom, and innovation, and critical job growth will soon follow.

The United Nations, that vast reservoir of righteousness and international justice, has once again defined absurdity downward.

In March, North Korea sank the South Korean Navy ship Cheonan, killing 46 in a bald and remorseless act of international aggression.  The U.N.’s reaction?  On Friday, the Security Council expressed “deep concern” without even bothering to name the attacking party, and urged “appropriate and peaceful measures to be taken against those responsible.”  North Korea naturally and rightfully labeled that U.N. evasion “our great diplomatic victory.”  In other words, the U.N. lamented the murder without daring to name the murderer.  In contrast, Israel was labeled “murderous” and “guilty” by U.N. officials earlier this year, and remains the most condemned target of the U.N. collection of dictators and kleptocrats.  Israel’s transgression?  Commandos firing in self-defense when attacked by knives, steel pipes and even guns taken by the mob from the commandos themselves.

The Obama Administration and liberals continue to dismiss the U.N.’s malfeasance as harmless, but the fact is that it isolates Israel, emboldens murderous dictators and only encourages similar future behavior.  Sadly, the U.N. continues to more closely resemble its failed predecessor, the League of Nations.

There is a strange element of humor when an international bureaucracy attempts to instruct the most prosperous and powerful nation in human history how to boost its economy.  The United States, after all, reached its status by maximizing economic freedom, not by following dynamism-sapping international norms.

Ignoring this reality, the International Monetary Fund (IMF) issued a statement yesterday instructing the U.S. to – you guessed it – raise taxes.  The IMF statement rightfully expressed concern over the nation’s debt that Obama is growing like a gigantic Chia Pet.  Unsurprisingly, however, the IMF failed to recognize this as an overspending problem, not an undertaxation problem.  More specifically, the IMF suggested “cuts in deductions, particularly for mortgage interest; higher taxes on energy; a national consumption tax; or a financial activities tax.”

Note how closely the IMF’s growth-killing prescription matches the Obama-Pelosi-Reid agenda, although at least the IMF didn’t take their “all of the above” position.  Regardless, the IMF (just like liberals in this country) apparently remains oblivious to the fact that incoming federal revenues actually reached their all-time high following the 2003 tax cuts, since lower taxes trigger economic growth, which in turn paradoxically increases revenues.  This is obviously a lesson that the “international community” still needs to learn along with Obama, Reid and Pelosi, but this episode provides yet another illustration why America is better off when it decides to be less like, rather than more like, the rest of the world.

The United States Supreme Court’s recently-completed term provided those who treasure individual freedom with much reason to celebrate, including the affirmation of Second Amendment protections against state infringement in McDonald v. City of Chicago.

Another 5-4 decision announced the same day as McDonald received less celebration, but not because it was any less worthy.  In Rent-a-Center, Inc. v. Jackson, the Court dealt a justified and much-needed blow against the hyper-litigious trial lawyer industry in America.   At issue in Jackson was whether the threshold question of enforceability of voluntary alternative dispute resolution agreements could be decided by arbitrators, or instead by already-overburdened courts.

Naturally, trial lawyers loathe alternative dispute resolution agreements because they reduce the likelihood of runaway “jackpot jury” awards and reduce the oppressive costs of litigation, thereby lowering settlement value.  Although the trial lawyers’ bar dishonestly claims that alternative dispute resolution “deprives plaintiffs of their day in court,” that is simply not true.  Arbitrators who decide such cases are typically experienced judges rather than random jurors off the street, and the full array of discovery and remedies are typically available to plaintiffs who have truly suffered.  The deciding arbitrator is also agreed upon mutually by the parties beforehand, thus ensuring an unbiased decisionmaker.  But because the chance of a runaway jury award is reduced, ambulance chasers absolutely loathe them.  And had the Supreme Court ruled that overburdened courts must determine threshold questions of enforceability of such agreements, trial lawyers would have reason to cheer.

Fortunately, the Supreme Court ruled correctly, albeit by only a frightening 5-4 margin.  Writing for the majority, Justice Antonin Scalia noted that plaintiff Jackson signed the alternative dispute resolution voluntarily, and it made no sense to distinguish enforceability questions from other matters on which disputes center.  For the dissenting minority, Justice John Paul Stevens claimed that the result was “unfair,” as if the plaintiff had no ability to walk away from the agreement when it was offered to him.

Alternative dispute resolution is an underappreciated way to reduce outrageous “jackpot justice” awards in a fair, speedy, inexpensive way, which is why trial lawyers detest them.  Come to think of it, trial lawyers’ hysterical opposition to alternative dispute resolution is evidence enough of their value.  A hearty “bravo” to the Supreme Court.

Hypocrisy in a president is shameful enough.  But combining that hypocrisy with outright dishonesty is inexcusable.

Compare a front-page headline from today’s Wall Street Journal versus President Obama’s speech from the Oval Office regarding the Gulf oil spill.  In his June 15 speech, Obama descended into his usual habit of scapegoating the allegedly “deregulatory” Bush administration and falsely attempting to distinguish his own:

Over the last decade, [the federal Minerals Management Service] has become emblematic of a failed philosophy that views all regulation with hostility — a philosophy that says corporations should be allowed to play by their own rules and police themselves…  When Ken Salazar became my Secretary of the Interior, one of his very first acts was to clean up the worst of the corruption at this agency.  But it’s now clear that the problem there ran much deeper, and the pace of reform was just too slow.  And so Secretary Salazar and I are bringing in new leadership at the agency…  So one of the lessons we’ve learned from this spill is that we need better regulations, better safety standards, and better enforcement when it comes to offshore drilling.  But a larger lesson is that no matter how much we improve our regulation of the industry, drilling for oil these days entails greater risk.”

But that’s not true.  According to a front-page report from today’s Wall Street Journal entitled “Obama Decried, Then Used, Some Bush Drilling Policies,” the Obama White House urged a federal court of appeals to reverse its environmental risk analysis and allow Gulf oil drilling to proceed:

Less than four months after President Barack Obama took office, his new administration received a forceful warning about the dangers of offshore drilling.  The alarm was rung by a federal appeals court in Washington, D.C., which found that the government was unprepared for a major spill at sea…  Despite its pro-environment pledges, the Obama administration urged the court to revisit the decision.”

The appellate court did reverse its previous ruling, allowing more Gulf drilling to proceed.  That includes BP’s well.

Obama’s halting leadership style sows economic uncertainty at home and international menace abroad.  His increasing dishonesty, however, creates an even more disturbing spectre haunting the nation.

Take a look at Table 2.1, “Receipts by Source: 1934-2015” here on the White House Office of Management and Budget website.  For the year 2009, the federal government took in $915 billion in income tax receipts.  Then take a look at this Congressional Budget Office report that the Obama “stimulus,” which was originally estimated to cost $787 billion, in fact cost $862 billion.

And to what effect?  The Obama White House promised that his “stimulus” would keep unemployment below 8%, but we’ve instead suffered months of approximately 10% unemployment.  Gross domestic product reports are tepid and often revised downward, and the Labor Department reported this week that unemployment claims increased just as Obama and Biden embarked on their “Recovery Summer” tour.

Obama’s “stimulus” has only succeeded in adding almost $1 trillion to our nation’s unsustainable debt, while failing in its stated goals.  For the same cost, we could have completely eliminated the income tax for an entire year.  That’s right – no income tax at all for 2009.  Imagine the real-world stimulative effect that would have had.  Unfortunately, Obama and liberals prefer more government spending and control of taxpayer dollars to the true stimulative effect that the income tax elimination would have instead provided.  They know that once Americans suddenly saw those dollars in their pockets, it would be nearly impossible to corral them back into Washington’s usual tax-and-borrow-and-spend ranch.

Today’s BigGovernment.com queue includes our commentary on the disturbingly cozy marriage of convenience between BP and the Obama Administration.

BP and the Obama Agenda

By Timothy H. Lee

For years, liberals in Washington have tirelessly thwarted America from tapping its domestic sources of energy, while hypocritically lamenting our “addiction to foreign oil.” They have forsworn abundant energy supplies just off our coasts and erected boundaries against drilling and energy development right here at home. The unfortunate effect of their effort is to unnecessarily drive exploration further and further offshore, to deeper and deeper depths.

Suddenly, those same forces are forging a marriage of convenience with BP to scapegoat the entire energy industry for BP’s individualized failures. In his Oval Office speech to the nation, for instance, President Obama resorted to sloppy slurs against “oil industry lobbyists” and “an entire way of life being threatened by a menacing cloud of black crude.” …

Read the entire piece here.

As we noted yesterday, Senator Jon Kyl (R – Arizona) stunned a weekend townhall audience with his disclosure that President Obama told him during a private Oval Office meeting, “the problem is if we secure the border, then you all won’t have a reason to support comprehensive immigration reform.”

In other words, Obama considers our nation’s very territorial integrity little more than a partisan bargaining chip. Or, as stated by Sen. Kyl, “they’re holding it hostage.”

In response, the Obama White House essentially labeled Sen. Kyl, a man respected across party lines for his intellectual heft and moral integrity, a liar.  Speaking yesterday to White House correspondents, Communications Director Dan Pfeiffer said, “the President didn’t say that, Senator Kyl knows the President didn’t say that…  It’s not true.”   Senator Kyl, however, maintains his version of events.

So whom to believe?  Well, this is the same White House that is accused by two separate Democratic candidates for Senate of offering appointments in exchange for dropping out of their campaigns.  This is also the same White House that falsely justified its offshore drilling moratorium (which threatens innumerable jobs in the Gulf region) by citing the opinions of drilling engineers.  Those engineers subsequently objected to the White House’s false attribution in the strongest of terms.

Those are just two recent examples of White House dishonesty.  It’s difficult to imagine a scenario under which both the White House and Sen. Kyl are correct, so who possesses the better record of honesty and integrity?

In taking the Constitution’s oath of office, President Barack Obama solemnly swore to “faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.”

Does faithfully executing the office to the best of his ability include holding our nation’s border security hostage to “comprehensive immigration reform” legislation?

In a truly stunning revelation recorded on video during an Arizona weekend townhall meeting, Senator Jon Kyl (R -AZ) recounted a one-on-one discussion in which Obama explicitly said that border security is a bargaining chip for comprehensive immigration reform, a.k.a. amnesty.

I met with the President, in the Oval Office, just the two of us – I kicked the rest of the people out…  Here’s what the President said:  ‘The problem is,’ he said, ‘if we secure the border, then you all won’t have a reason to support comprehensive immigration reform.’  In other words, they’re holding it hostage.”

So there you have it.  To Barack Obama, our nation’s border security, and its very territorial integrity, is nothing more than an expedient bargaining chip for his partisan political agenda and expansion of his potential voting bloc.  That admission occurs just as his Department of Justice plans to sue the state of Arizona for passing an illegal alien statute that merely parallels the existing federal statute.

Less than two years into his tenure, it is becoming increasingly clear that Barack Obama isn’t merely incompetent, but dangerous.

The Beatlemaniacs among us never would have predicted this, but what a refreshing antidote Elton John provides to Paul McCartney.

This month, McCartney put his foot in his mouth and provided even more evidence that John Lennon was the intellectual force behind the Beatles when he slurred President George W. Bush and mindlessly fawned over President Obama.  In public comments following his White House performance, and wearing a cheesy Members-Only style 1980s coat, McCartney said, “after the last eight years, it’s great to have a president who knows what a library is” before scurrying offstage.  This ignored Bush’s well-known prolific reading habit, and came one day after McCartney admonished reporters to “lay off” Obama.

Brilliant, Paul – the press’s primary job, after all, is to “lay off” the leader of the free world.

But now compare the case of Elton John.  This month, Sir Elton famously performed at Rush Limbaugh’s wedding, naturally upsetting the hyper-sensitive liberal chattering class.  Then, last night, John performed in Israel in defiance of other performers’ mindless boycott of that isolated nation.  He proudly stated that the other musicians’ boycotts “ain’t gonna stop me from playing here, baby,” and added, “we do not cherry-pick our consciences.”

No word yet on whether John will perform alongside Toby Keith at the next Grammy ceremony, but it’s nice to see some sanity among the pop music class.

Whom do you trust with the future of broadband?  The same federal government that brought us public education, the Post Office and Amtrak?

Or the innovative technology companies that have made the Internet the most vibrant and transformative sector of our modern economy in an atmosphere relatively free from federal overregulation?  Public opinion is unequivocal – we trust technology enterprises, not the federal government.

That question nevertheless remains an important one, because Obama’s Federal Communications Commission (FCC) and its far-left cheerleaders continue their effort to impose “Net Neutrality” and set us on a path toward a federal regulatory takeover of the Internet.  On Thursday, the FCC will hold an open meeting to”consider possible legal frameworks for broadband Internet services,” which is code for its “Net Neutrality” takeover attempt.  On the heels of a unanimous Court of Appeals decision ruling that the FCC doesn’t possess authority to impose “Net Neutrality,” Chairman Genachowski switched to Plan B – simply reclassify Internet service under Depression-era regulations created for 1930s landline telephone service.  That scheme contradicts bipartisan consensus spanning both the Clinton and Bush administrations, which is why Democrats and Republicans in Congress sent letters to the FCC objecting to this maneuver.

If successful, the FCC’s backdoor scheme to impose “Net Neutrality” (a dishonest name if there ever was one) will undermine the freedom of technology companies to innovate and invest, which has been the basis of the Internet’s success thus far.  Instead of triggering broadband expansion, “Net Neutrality” will only invite years of litigation and acrimony if the FCC presses this agenda.

We simply cannot allow the FCC and federal bureaucracy to do to the Internet what it has done for public education in this country.