Did Barney Frank Contribute a New Word to the Political Lexicon? Did He Say “Changeinism”?

A new word for our political dictionary?

A new word for our political dictionary?

**PLEASE NOTE**  This blog has moved. For this and recent posts, click here.

On Monday of this week, Rep. Barney Frank spoke about a stimulus package recently proposed by House Democrats:

I think at this point, there needs to be a focus on an immediate increase in spending. At this time, I think deficit fear needs to take a second seat. I do think this is a very important time for a very big dose of changeinism[?].

Yes, I believe later on, there should be tax increases. Speaking personally, I believe there are a lot of rich people out there who we can tax at a point down the road and recover some of this money.

On Glenn Beck’s Tuesday radio show, Glenn discussed these statements with the show’s producer, Stu, when both discovered Frank’s apparently newly coined word. And it’s a gem. On the first two rounds of listening to the audio clip, it sounded as if Frank may have been saying “changelism”.

Stu pondered whether or not the word “changelism” means “change by vandalism”.

The show’s first caller postulated that the word new word was a combination of socialism + change.

The second caller speculated that Frank really meant that the country needs a big dose of Keynesianism. The theory of Keynesian economics was largely employed during the New Deal. A number of Keynesian principles have been with us ever since (think the Fed). The central tenet of this theory is that government intervention in the economy promotes prosperity and stability.

Stu’s and the callers’ theories are viable prospects. “Vandalism + change”, upon examination, is a good candidate because Barack Obama and the Congressional leadership are promoting a policy that could be construed as vandalism ala Robin Hood; we all know that Obama’s central campaign theme has been that of “change”. By “spreading the wealth around” through higher taxation of anyone with an income over $250,000, and giving a “tax credit” to 95% of Americans, 40% of whom pay no income taxes at all, Obama / Robin Hood promises to steal (hence, vandalism) from the rich and give to the poor. Delving further into the vandalism theme, one could also say that these tax policies would cap or discourage the level of achievement to which business owners and workers would aspire, cause the loss of jobs when small businesses have to lay off workers to pay the higher taxes, slow down spending by the rich on goods and services made and performed by workers, and thereby wreck the economy. This would be a change, that’s for sure, and wrecking something is vandalism. Hence, change by vandalism.

The second viable intrepretation, change + socialism, would fit Barack Obama and the Congressional leadership’s proposed plans. Outright socialism would certainly be a change for America. Although many of these kinds of policies have been creeping into government by stealth for many years, there is a historical American antipathy for openly, unabashedly admitting that certain policies are socialist.

The third proposed intrepretation is “Keynesian”. The interventionist, tinkering policies employed to head off and lessen the Great Depression have continued to be used by degrees ever since the early 1930’s, are certainly already being used to deal with the “financial meltdown” and their expansion are being aggressively advocated by Washington leadership.

Perhaps it was Frank’s speech impediment. Perhaps he misspoke. Did he coin a new word? He probably meant “Keynesianism”. It’s unlikely a clarification will be called for, much less answered. In any case, “changeinism” is at least more entertaining. If we’re going to go down in flames as a country, it would be nice to at least have fun doing it, right?

Unfortunately, there is no misconstruing the remainder of his statement. The ridiculous policy measures Frank is proposing are exactly the wrong thing to do at this time. They come at a moment when the United States has for the first time in its history ecrued a $1 trillion deficit in one year. Because of the continuing massive overspending, the country’s creditors are considering downgrading the country’s credit rating. A number of nations are calling for “a new world order” and even one world currency.  Dangerous and unprecedented powers have been granted to the same administration officials whose Keynesian-style tinkering with the country’s financial system helped sew the sides of a financial meltdown. These powers were granted despite the vast majority of the public rising up in efforts to prevent it. In the legislative branch, the very same corrupt politicians who are not being called into account for their aggressive advocating and engineering of the very policies that led to the mortgage meltdown are now leading the way to “fix it”. There is now an astounding volume of money being churned off the printing presses to fund all of the bailouts and forced government purchases of shares in private banks. The unchecked flood of currency into the financial system can lead no where but to massive inflation, perhaps on levels found only in such places as Zimbabwe or the Weimar Republic.

Yeah right, we really need a big dose of “changeinism” or a bigger dose of Keynesiam, as semi-defined by Barney Frank. But that doesn’t actually seem like change at all. Ironically, it’s a continuation and expansion of the abysmal failure of the current administration’s and Congressional leadership’s policies. Maybe that’s what changeinism really means. If Frank was attempting to contribute a new word the American political lexicon, perhaps it was the much-touted change hybrized with “continuism” and “expanison” to disguise the actually villified “more of the same”.

Lynn De Rothschild: “Obama Tax ‘Cuts’ Are Biggest Welfare Program Since Welfare Began

**PLEASE NOTE** This blog has moved. You can read this story and recently added posts by clicking here.

After Wednesday night’s debate, FoxNews‘ Greta Van Susteren interviewed Lynn Forester De Rothschild, a prominent former Hillary Clinton supporter and fundraiser who recently came forward to support John McCain.

Mrs. De Rothschild informed Greta that Sen. Obama’s purported tax cuts for 95% of Americans is not a tax cut at; it’s a welfare program disguised as a tax cut. She pointed out that the Obama campaign fails to mention that under the Obama plan, 40% of the 95% are people who currently pay not taxes at all. The 40%, some 60 million people who again, currently don’t pay any taxes, would receive money from the government through a “tax credit”. Mrs. De Rothschild stated further:

It’s the biggest welfare plan in the guise of a ‘tax cut’ since welfare began. This is not a tax cut.

In addition, she pointed out that analysts have confirmed that this plan would cost $1 trillion dollars. Greta then asked how the plan would be funded.

Barack Obama isn’t going to get all that money from the other 5% of taxpayers.

Greta inquired:

So, you’re saying the rest of the taxpayers, would have to pay for it?

Mrs. De Rothschild replied in the affirmative. She concluded by explaining that John McCain’s tax plan would cut taxes for people who are paying taxes today.

No Wonder the Democratic Party’s Symbol is an….A#$!

What a shocker….many Democrats are RUDE!

Is anyone else completely fed up with many members of that so oft self-described “tolerant”  party besides myself? While many conservatives are cowering in the corner, afraid to open their mouths for fear of being called “racist”, “sexist”, “homophobic”, “religious freak”, “stupid”, “crazy”, “bitter”, an on and on and on…..The blue party of the donkey, a.k.a the a$$, seems to have a disproportionate number of neanderthals in its ranks. Why don’t their fellow members call them out?

I know, I know: It’s the Hypocrisy, Stupid

I personally observed some very classy behavior from a group of Obama-Biden protesters just this Sunday, October 5, in Omaha, Nebraska. This lovely bunch took out time from their Sunday afternoon and evening to stand across the street from the ever-growing line of Palin supporters to what end, one can only guess. Many of the signs were childishly insulting.

Wonder if Madeleine Albright meant these kind of women?

Wonder if Madeleine Albright meant these kind of women?

Those of us out here in fly-over country aren’t accustomed to protesters (except occasionally near the University of Nebraska at Lincoln campus).  Besides a number of insulting signs, which were, interestingly enough, largely wielded by women, this nice group of folks took the opportunity to periodically shout nonsense across the street. While we Palin supporters were waiting in line, some of us chatted about the silliness of it all. To the woman in front of me, I queried, “Why aren’t there ever any Republican protesters?” While it was essentially a moot question, she replied that we have better sense, and better things to do with our time, apparently.

In addition to witnessing this group of classless rabble personally, there are some recent examples of similar rabble-like behavior by Democrat public figures and their entourages.

Last night, after the Presidential Debate in Nashville, Senator Claire McCaskill exemplified a high-degree of class when she handed Gov. Mitt Romney the earpiece she had just finished using when interviewed on MSNBC, as he was up next.

“I spit on this before I put it in,” she said to Romney, with a sweet smile.

Politico’s Ben Smith witnessed the exchange. You can read the full blurb here. You will note that McCaskill’s spokesperson later tried to explain away McCaskill’s remark, but apparently Mr. Smith was predisposed to believe McCaskill has a habit of behaving this way. How ladylike she seems to be.

What is definitely more interesting is a post by CBS reporter Dean Reynolds on his “Reporter’s Notebook” on October 7. After having traveled with the Obama campaign for over twelve months, he is now traveling with the McCain campaign. The comparison he draws between the two operations is not flattering to Obama and Company.

I find it interesting that Mr. Reynolds didn’t comment about the incident on June 7 wherein press members were packed onto the campaign plane, left to sit on the run way, and then flown to Chicago, only to be told mid-air that Barack Obama was not on the plane. They had been misled into believing otherwise earlier. The linked New York Times article doesn’t quite convey the level of anger many in the press felt at the time. The deliberate subterfuge was intended to provide cover for a secret meeting with Sen. Hillary Clinton, Obama’s close rival in the Democratic primaries.

While neither a reporter nor a Democrat, I found the entire June 7 incident distasteful simply because it made me wonder how much subterfuge a President Obama might engage in to hide events?

Besides finding oafish behavior, well, just plain, oafish, I also find it sad and frustrating. We’re constantly being lectured to by pundits and even some politicians about “bi-partisanship”. We’re told that we have to find “common ground” and “make compromises”. I don’t know about anyone else, but I have not intention of finding common ground nor making compromises with people who don’t know how to behave civilly.

Conservatives had better learn quickly that there is no point in cowering in the corner. They will be called every name in the book, shouted at, and degraded simply for being….well, conservative.