It's been a while since we have heard from Democrat South Carolina Congressman James Clyburn. He's the one who said that blacks are more likely to be hurt by global warming than other Americans. As inane as that comment may be, it is nowhere near as dangerous as his latest. James Clyburn says, "We're not going to save our way out of this recession ... We've got to spend our way out of this recession, and I think most economists know that." Isn't it wonderful that the same man who thinks that global warming is going to affect blacks the most knows that most economists thinks? What a valuable man to have in the Congress of the United States!

This is the third ranking Democrat in the House, folks. Man is he absolutely dead wrong. Perhaps Clyburn would like to read a report from The Heritage Foundation: Why Government Spending Does Not Stimulate Economic Growth: Answering the Critics. Here are just a few examples of how government can't spend its way to prosperity:

• During the 1930s, New Deal lawmakers doubled federal spending--yet unemployment remained above 20 percent until World War II.
• Japan responded to a 1990 recession by passing 10 stimulus spending bills over 8 years (building the largest national debt in the industrialized world)--yet its economy remained stagnant.
• In 2001, President Bush responded to a recession by "injecting" tax rebates into the economy. The economy did not respond until two years later, when tax rate reductions were implemented.
• In 2008, President Bush tried to head off the current recession with another round of tax rebates. The recession continued to worsen.
• Now, the most recent $787 billion stimulus bill was intended to keep the unemployment rate from exceeding 8 percent. In November, it topped 10 percent.

If you have the time you might want to read the full Heritage Backgrounder. Just click on the link we cleverly provided above. This will give you some good information you can use when arguing with ObamaBots and Dems who think that the congress simply must pass another hundred-dollar stimulus bill or we're all gonna die.

Here's what bothers me. The party of government, not the party of freedom is in control right now. Economic liberty in the United States is on decline. We're number 8 right now on the top ten list. When you have a political party and a president who believe that America's greatness comes from government running the show .. you're only going to get government solutions to economic problems. The private sector really doesn't have a role to play for these people.

Here's the question. Sure, we need spending to get ourselves out of this economic mess. But who should do the spending? The government, or you?

Let me try to rephrase the question. Which type of spending do you think would most benefit a free economy and enhance economic liberty:

1. Tell the government to go seize massive amounts of money from private Americans and private sector companies. Then hand that money to a few hundred elected officials and government bureaucrats with marching orders to get out there and spend that money to put the American economy in growth mode again.
2. All the tens of millions of people who actually earned that money to keep it, and then let them go into the marketplace and spend that money as they, and not the political class, see fit.

In other words: Do you want politicians, with an eye to reelection, to make the decisions on how your money is going to be spent; or would you rather see the people who earned the money make these decisions for themselves. Do you want political hacks to select the economic winners and losers, or do you want that decision made by free people working and spending in the context of a free economy?

Are these questions really that hard?