In an article about how the current financial crisis would affect the two presidential candidates promises, the NY Times demonstrates the real problem without even noticing it.

While first commenting, as I did, that neither candidate could get specific on what promised programs they would not implement or delay as a result of circumstances, the paper immediately jumps in with the absolutely wrong emphasis.

The big issue for each candidate is not spending, per se, but how the crisis will affect their promises on taxes. Mr. Obama has said that he would raise taxes on the wealthy, starting next year, to help restore fairness to the tax code and to pay for his spending plans. With the economy tanking, however, it’s hard to imagine how he could prudently do that. He should acknowledge the likelihood of having to postpone a tax increase and explain how that change will affect his plans. Then, he can promise to raise those taxes as soon as the economy allows.

Mr. McCain has an even tougher job. To be straight with voters, he would have to acknowledge that the centerpiece of his economic plan — to permanently extend the Bush tax cuts beyond their expiration in 2011 and to add billions of dollars of new tax breaks — is impossible. If he went ahead with those plans, the national debt would explode, undermining the borrowing that the nation must undertake to finance the bailouts.

Sounding like some forlorn caller to the Dave Ramsey show, complaining that they could get out of debt if only they could make more money, the Times looks only to the income side of the ledger.  Not content to ignore spending, they specifically rule it out.  But as anyone who’s listened to Dave, or to advice from Crown Financial Ministries, or just about any other financial advisor, it is far, far easier to regulate your spending thanit is your income level.  Now, the federal government is in a different position than most of us, in that they can simply legislate the amount of money they want to come in, but as these advisors will tell you, if you don’t discipline your spending and set good habits in that regard, no amount of income will be enough.  Ever.

Not only does the Times come at this problem incorrectly, it’s ironic that it paints itself into a corner on its proposed solution.  Obama can’t raise taxes, but McCain can’t cut them.  Guess the Bush tax levels are, as Goldilocks might say, just right?

But seriously folks, let’s not forget who’s backward proposal this is; the New York Times.  No one would mistake them for a member of The Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy.  This is a liberal answer to the problem, and it is entirely the wrong approach.  The conservative answer to this are common sense financial principles.

Notice I’m not naming party names.  This is mostly because, while Democrats can spend like a drunken sailor, Republicans have show that they can get about as drunk themselves.  If the conservative, common sense solution is to have a ghost of a chance, Republican politicians have to get back to their conservative roots. 

And we, as their constituents, have to get out of our entitlement mentality, waiting to see which candidate for whatever office will give us the most stuff.  Otherwise, the road to the presidency will be won by the candidate promising to be the most pandering and the least responsible.  The best thing about our republic is that it is government "by the people", but sometimes it’s the worst thing about it, too.

Shire Network News #149 has been released. The feature interview is with the Director of probably this year’s most universally panned movie (in the main stream media). Yes we speak to David Zucker, director of An American Carol. David speaks to us about the movie’s initial reception and the process behind getting an overtly conservative movie out of Hollywood. Click here for the show notes, links, and ways to listen to the show; directly from the web site, by downloading the mp3 file, or by subscribing with your podcatcher of choice.

Below is the text of my commentary.

Hi, this is Doug Payton for Shire Network News, asking you to "Consider This!"

Dave Ramsey is a syndicated talk show host here in the States, and he gives advice on how to get out of debt, something we Americans are in love with.  An occasional forlorn caller to his show will indicate the desire to make more money so that he or she can pay all their bills.  What Dave and many other financial advisors would say is; control your spending.  You have much more control over that, and without discipline and good habits on the spending side, no amount of money will ever be enough.

Well, somebody at the New York Times needs to give Dave a call.  In a recent editorial, the first sign of someone who is in deep denial about our financial situation was quite evident.  "The big issue for each candidate," they said, "is not spending, per se, but how the crisis will affect their promises on taxes."  What?  We spend 3 trillion dollars a year, and the problem isn’t spending?  Aside from perhaps the dire need to include wool research funding in a 700 trillion dollar credit rescue bill (and who could argue with that, really?), this is the top financial priority in the United States. 

Now, most Americans can’t just legislate more income (well, unless they work for a union).  The government is in a position to say both how much they earn…well, take…as well as how much they spend.  But the typical government mindset is to never decrease spending if at all possible, and to mischaracterize reductions when necessary.  When Sarah Palin tripled spending for pregnant teens, the Washington Post said she "slashed funding".  Now, when you hear the term "slashed" you think of someone losing an arm in a horror flick, not growing 2 additional ones.  And yet, since Palin didn’t quadruple the spending, as was originally requested, the Post said, with a straight face, that she "slashed" it by 20%.  Only in Washington, DC, and in its media, is a 200% increase called a 20% cut. 

This is a toxic environment for someone who should be taking Ramsey’s advice.  The liberal media are certainly one contributor to this, but there’s another culprit.  To quote the old comic strip Pogo, "We have met the enemy…and he is us".  The entitlement mindset of Americans who ask, "What has government done for me today?", is perhaps the primary culprit, if indeed we have a government "of the people".  Just see what would happen if a presidential candidate actually suggested the government should live within its means, spending no more than it takes in.  Hoo boy, the sparks would fly!  But after keeping our hands off welfare, staying away from entitlements, continuing those ever-so-badly-needed subsidies to all manner of businesses, and not touching each person’s pet project, we’d probably be in the same exact place we are now. 

You see, we are keeping our politicians from making the tough decisions.  Because as soon as they make them, they become our ex-politicians.  John F. Kennedy did not say, "Ask what your country can do for you", but today his Democratic party spends like a drunken sailor, finding new and exciting ways to live up to Robin Hood’s exacting standards.  And to be honest, Republicans, for the past 8 years, have certainly shown that they can get rather tipsy themselves.  A recent poll said that 60% of Americans would replace the entire Congress, yet their Congressmen and women keep getting re-elected over and over again.

My fellow Americans, do you want to help solve this financial crisis?  Look in the mirror and have a heart-to-heart with that guy or girl.  And my fellow Anglospherans…Anglospheriacs…Anglo…my fellow English-speakers from all over; you are getting hit as hard or harder by this, and you, too, have mirrors or silver tea sets or puddles of water you can stare into.  Let’s stop this entitlement mentality.  It begins with us.

And if you see someone on the street, staring at the side of a mirrored-glass building, talking to him- or herself, be glad to know that they took the time to consider this.

With an expensive war, a Republican Congress spending like a drunken sailor (and a presidential veto pen still unused), and gas prices way up, why aren’t we in the middle of a recession?

Because of tax cuts for the rich, perhaps? Bill O’Reilly makes the case.