President Obama and many other Democrats - and even a few Republicans - claim that the huge deficits the United States is experiencing result from the George W. Bush-era tax rate cuts.

Is this true, and must we have a tax rate increase? The short answer is no.  First, a little budget history.

In the 40 years prior to the 2007-09 Great Recession, tax revenues as percentage of gross domestic product were remarkably constant, never varying more than 2.3 percent above or below 18.3 percent of GDP.  This fact is all the more remarkable given that the maximum individual income tax rate during this period varied from a low of 28 percent to a high of 70 percent.

Federal government expenditures also were remarkably constant during this same 40-year period, never lower than 18.2 percent or higher than 23.5 percent of GDP, and deficits averaged about 2.5 percent. The debt-to-GDP ratio rose and fell during this period and was a manageable 36 percent as late as 2007. Yet, in the past four years, the debt-to-GDP ratio has almost doubled.

I received a number of raised eyebrows regarding Hanoi John and Slick Willie, wherein I questioned Kerry’s patriotism but not Clinton’s. Here’s one from Sandra Adams:

“I am wondering why you would not question Clinton's patriotism considering Chinagate. I have always thought that he allowed the transfer of America's nuclear technology secrets to the Chinese in exchange for money with which to run his campaign for re-election. I have read that he allowed the Chinese to advance at least a couple of decades, with the knowledge gained, thereby hugely increasing the threat to America. I admit to being puzzled by your statement upholding Clinton's patriotism. Other than this, what I have read so far on your site has been fascinating. Thank you very much.”

Sandra’s point is well-made. I was wondering how many TTPers would call me on the carpet about Chinagate, and now I know! Yes, it’s true, as Congressman Chris Cox, chairman of the House Committee on Homeland Security determined, that Clinton authorized high-tech transfer to the Chicoms in exchange for campaign donations to the Democrat Party. Sleazy and illegal and impeachable, yes. Treason? Here’s why I’m not completely sure.

On April 1 and May 27 of last year, two tiny tremors were detected by seismographs with magnitudes of 2.3 and 1.5 in England's Blackpool region of Lancashire.  They are being blamed on fracking.  The same claim is being made in Ohio.

It is now official: drilling for shale gas by fracturing rock with water may rattle the odd teacup. But is highly unlikely to cause damaging earthquakes. That much has been obvious to anybody who has followed the development of the shale gas industry in America over the past ten years. More than 25,000 wells drilled have caused a handful of micro-seismic events that can barely be felt.

To call a two-magnitude tremor an earthquake is a bit like calling a hazelnut lunch. Such tremors happen naturally more than 15 times a year in Blackpool but go unnoticed and they are a common consequence of many other forms of underground work such as coalmining and geothermal drilling.

So can we now get on with fracking and get over fear of it? The economic and environmental benefits are vast.

Question of the week:  How do we reconcile Perry's incredible President Zero ad - the most powerful political ad of modern times -

{youtube}8EL5Atp_vF0{/youtube} 

with his botched debate performances, which keep getting worse, as we saw last night?  Isn't he supposed to be a kick-em-in-the-groin take-no-prisoners Texas Aggie?  And what's up with the you-have-no-heart schmaltz if you deny in-state tuition to illegals? 

Perhaps, however, you think the question should be:  What about Sarah?  When Perry announced and she refrained, it was clear she was waiting to see how Rick would do.  She was never worried about Bachmann, knowing that MB would flame out and she has.  Now that Perry might also, will she jump in?

The HFR has learned there is another reason for her hesitation beyond the patience of a huntress.

Keep this column until April 2013.

In the accompanying table, you will see two forecasts for federal debt-related items: the official Congressional Budget Office's forecast (which is close to the Obama administration's) and a pessimistic forecast (mine).

No forecast is perfect, but it is likely that I will be closer to the mark than the CBO/administration because my assumptions are more realistic.

The Federal Reserve will be under continuing pressure to keep up "quantitative easing," i.e., printing money. This is likely to result in a continuing fall in the dollar, which will cause inflationary pressures to grow, and/or a continuing fall in real wages, as has been the case in recent months.

If the administration and Congress were suddenly to reduce spending enough to reduce the deficit from roughly 10 percent of gross domestic product (GDP) to 3 percent, the Fed could stop printing money and inflationary pressures would ease. But that is not going to happen.

Not the country. Not the people who live in the country. Eliminate the country's name.

"Iraq" is a plain Arabic noun - al-iraq - meaning “the shore and grazing area of a river.” Inspiring, isn't it?

Prior to 1921, there had never been a country called “Iraq” - never in history. “Iraq” was an invention of the British after World War I, who along with the French were carving up pieces of the defeated Ottoman Turkish Empire into colonies called League of Nations Mandates.

Yet there already was a name for the region encompassed by the Ottoman remnants, a name from the mists of time. For thousands of years before it was eliminated from history by reasons known only to the unfathomable British colonial mind, it was called Mesopotamia.

"A conservative," the old cliché goes, "is a liberal who has been mugged." But some liberals who are mugged refuse to admit that it happened.

Observe the rough treatment to which the new American ambassador in Moscow, Michael McFaul, has been subjected since his appointment last January. Since his arrival, the ambassador has been constantly accused in the media of stirring up anti-government protests, and lately he has been ambushed by Russian state-TV crews at his meetings, official and unofficial, suggesting that his phone was tapped.

This comes on top of numerous other strong indications that the Obama administration's attempts to "reset" relations with Russia - a policy spearheaded by Mr. McFaul - have failed. But while McFaul has complained loudly about his recent treatment, he does not seem to realize that he, along with his boss Hillary Clinton, have been mugged in a much broader sense.

Some people, in their pursuit of profit, benefit their fellow humans by creating new or better goods and services, and then by employing others. We call such people entrepreneurs and productive workers.

Others are parasites who suck the blood and energy away from the productive. Such people are most often found in government.

Perhaps the most vivid description of what happens to a society where the parasites become so numerous and powerful that they destroy their productive hosts is Ayn Rand's classic novel "Atlas Shrugged." The just-released movie version is an entertaining, tension-filled struggle between the productive and the parasites who ally themselves with the envious and evil. Go see it - here's the theatre list nationwide .

Bad policies come about from the actions of specific people - individuals in Congress and government agencies - not the Congress or the administration as a whole. Washington is filled with people who are more destructive than constructive. It is useful to name some of the most destructive people in the hope that they will either reform or leave.