A study by Obama-supporting economists Romer and Romer found "no support for the hypothesis that tax cuts restrain government spending; indeed ... tax cuts may increase spending. The results also indicate that the main effect of tax cuts on the government budget is to induce subsequent legislated tax increases."

This is because major tax cuts, as supply-siders claim, stimulate more private economic growth and therefore provide government with more money to spend. This is precisely what happened in the 1960s and 1980s when tax cuts led to greater prosperity, but also greater government spending and ultimately deficits. These Obama economists are dishonestly leaving out this important fact, implying that tax cuts are bad (from a limited government point-of-view) because they lead to greater government spending. Under liberals and (sadly) under conservatives as well, you can always be sure of one thing: Government will continue to expand and spend more. If government stimulates the economy by lowering taxes and reducing regulation, then government will take that extra money from the economy and spend it on political pet projects and programs; or, in cases like right now, when government is strangling the private economy through the threat of massive expansion, major controls and huge tax increases, government will likewise spend more and more. The common denominator is that government likes to grow. The time has arrived to stop looking to government (and that includes flaky "conservatives," including newly elected ones from Massachusetts) to solve our problems. Government IS the problem. The people have to bring their government into line; not the other way around.

A 1999 study by Christina Romer, who now works in the Obama Administration, found that the average length of recessions from 1887 to 1929 was only 10.3 months, with the longest lasting 16 months. Recessions lasted longer during the supposedly enlightened post World War II era (prior to 2000), with three of them lasting 16 to 21 months.

Now wait a minute. Government intervention in the economy really took off in this country after 1929 -- after the Administration of Franklin Delano Roosevelt began in 1933, launching the welfare-regulatory state as we know it, in earnest. Every Administration since Roosevelt has either dramatically expanded the welfare state or at least maintained it. If government entitlement programs and regulations are so good for the economy, then how come recessions became longer and nastier since they came into existence? All the government regulation of the past 75 years didn't do much to prevent the Great Recession that began in 2007 and is still going strong in 2010. What gives?

Maybe we actually need less government intervention in the economy. Much less. Or, better yet -- maybe the government should get completely out of the economy. Some claim this would mean a worse economy. But how much worse can it get? The latest unemployment figures suggest the recession is expanding, and we're now in the fourth year of it! Starting with Bush and now with Obama, government has never been so involved in the economy and has never transferred the amount of wealth (hundreds of billions under Bush, now trillions under Obama) from the private sector to the wasteland of government offices.

Could Obama be right that we need change, only 180 degrees the opposite of what he's giving us? And isn't it time to face the fact that neither party in power has any intention, or desire, of curbing their own power in order to give Americans the change they need to thrive and survive?

Republicans have often been called “The Stupid Party.” This is because they give away their advantages to the liberals, every time they can. They won the Congress in 1994 and they held both the Presidency and the Congress from 2003 to 2007, and did nothing at all during these times except advance the liberals’ agenda of big spending and government growth (and take the blame when these policies go wrong). Now the Stupid Party can brag that it has The Stupid Senator: Senator Scott Brown of Massachusetts, who has signed on with his support for the Obama/Pelosi/Reid “jobs program.” The so-called jobs program is nothing more than a multi-billion dollar wealth transfer from the private sector to the public sector. No new jobs are created, but government jobs are preserved while new private jobs—real jobs, from an economic point-of-view—are prevented from creation. In short, the “jobs bill” is just another expansion of Big Government, the very thing Brown claimed to oppose while running for his historic takeover of ultra-liberal Senator Ted Kennedy’s seat. It took Brown all of what—two weeks?—in Washington DC to become part of the political class who transfers money from one segment of the economy, the productive, to—well, to the political class. Congratulations, Senator Brown. You’re now one of them. You have proven what I often say: That America does not need a third party; it needs a second party. The Republicrats are destroying us, and only someone with the exact opposite governing philosophy can save us from government bankruptcy and eventual financial ruin. I don’t know who that will be, but it won’t be Scott Brown and it won’t be the Republicans as we have known them.

P.S. Watch for The Stupid Senator to support whatever modified version of ObamaCare emerges from the economic sinkhole of Washington DC.