Quote of the Day
Leaders don't make excuses for inaction. They are first movers and early adopters. They make things happen.
W. Bennis, G. M. Spreitzer, and T. G. Cummings
Happy Birthday, Brayden Joseph Guillemette! Congratulations, Jason and Diana!
America's Got Talent:
Silhouettes' Performance of God Bless America
Thumbs UP!
At the time of this post, I haven't seen an embeddable video of this remarkable performance by the dance group, but I cast my vote for it and will include a video clip when available in a future post.
Political Quote of the Day
Why should we care? Because government spending is taken directly out of your pocket, or out of the economy. Spending is today's burden becaue every dollar consumed by our profligate government is one less that could fund productive advancement in the private economy. Every dime needlessly spent by government comes at the cost of efficiency in moving scarce resources to their most valuable use... So any policy that reduces personal freedom in economic decision making inhibits economic growth which forces people to suffer needlessly.
Dean Kalahar, "Government Spending, and the 18% of GDP Myth":
Two Thumbs WAY, WAY UP! Can I climb a flight of stairs first?
Dean Kalahar is implicitly criticizing even the Congressional Republicans aren't going far enough to cut the morally corrupt Barack Obama and his fellow Democratic legislative cronies doing everything in their power to protect and perpetuate their intergenerational and class warfare theft of 25.3% federal confiscation of and pissing away of our GDP and lower spending down to a saner 18%. Kalahar is challenging the Republicans that we need to go beyond that, suggesting that even 18% is excessive compared to the preponderance of past federal fiscal expenditures in American history and the government should be restricted to, at most, a tithing of our income. AMEN, AMEN, AMEN!
Henry Olsen, A GOP Dark Horse? Thumbs UP!
The author in this piece attempts to explain differences in conservatism and coalitions within the GOP. In particular, he distinguishes between dispositional and ideological conservatism.
Dispositional conservatives are concerned about the corrosive effects (including moral hazard and unintended consequences) of material changes to the status quo, including unproven policy initiatives, degraded cultural values or judicial activism. If and when change occurs, it should be incremental and manageable in nature: we have the ability to detect any dysfunctional effects or failures to achieve expected results and depending on the nature of feedback, kill the program outcome or make any necessary course corrections.
In my words, Olsen sees ideological conservatives as willing to embrace creative destruction to effectuate a paradigm shift, a reset or reboot of American politics back to a core of unalienable rights and relevant responsibilities of life, liberty and property; an unapologetic, proactive, strong common defense and promotion of democratic republican ideals; and a renewal of traditional institutions and values. We see local and state government as a proving ground for relevant conservative reforms which can then be promoted at the federal level to refashion this perverted, counterproductive, unsustainable albatross, this convoluted, unmanageable Frankenstein of failed liberal Democratic policies, the ring-after-ring rotting core of socially progressive policy deadwood, an overwhelming burden, smothering out the nascent flames, initially lit by our Founding Fathers, of our economy and the aspirations of free, self-reliant individuals. We cannot bide a second longer these progressive Democratic policy/drug pushers, led by the sophistical chameleon Pied Piper of Failed Liberalism, Barack Obama, brazenly attempting to hook younger generations on class warfare- and deficit-funded "free" goods and services provided by overpaid, incompetent, self-important, condescending, unresponsive, elitist federal bureaucrats, an undue dependence that saps the American spirit of its very vitality. (Ask me how I really feel...)
Where do I fit in this distinction? I think I'm a more pragmatic, realistic ideological conservative; unlike so-called Reagan conservatives whom conveniently ignore Reagan's flexibility on taxes and ability to deal with a Democratic House of Representatives (I am not a Reagan conservative, but I am a Reagan ally), I have the patience of a dispositional conservative to get where we have to go; I understand that there has been crony capitalism intermingling of the private and government sectors, and business can be frozen by analysis paralysis resulting from radical changes in government policies, something 111th Congress Democrats and Obama passing convoluted ObamaCare and financial "reform" still haven't grasped. But I also realize that if Democratic progressives rack up high-spending bills and run up a big budget, you're not going to balance the budget by nickel and diming your way.
But at the same time there are things I'm not going to do. In the case of the debt limit, I am not going to play a game of chicken with the pristine credit history of the federal government on the line. We are already paying high interest payments to sustain the national debt; a default could result in an explosion in interest rates across the economy. As a conservative, I know the Senate and the White House are led by extreme fiscal liberals. I have to make the best deal I can under the circumstances and bide my time until the next Congress so I can do bigger things. If I overplay my hand here, I not only put a half-measure at risk but I hand the fiscally irresponsible Democrats an ad hominem election issue. We have to win the election next year noting the best we could do under the circumstances and we need a strong mandate if we are going to leave to the next generation an America with a viable economic future: Barack Obama and his fellow Democrats must be stopped from stealing even more from the future and the piggy banks of America's children to fund their corrupt, ineffectual agenda promoting their own reelections and delivering to their special interests.
I'm also tired of media conservatives like Sean Hannity whom are misplacing their fire at Republicans like Mitch McConnell trying to find the best practical solution they can given the poor hand of cards they are holding. The media conservatives have no one but themselves to blame for misplaying their hand last year by nominating unelectable Senate candidates like Sharron Angle and Christine O'Donnell.
Olsen's article later goes on to suggest a rationale for why Republicans have a tendency to nominate candidates whom have paid their dues (e.g., G.H.W. Bush, 1988, Dole, 1996, McCain, 2008). He has an interesting analysis of McCain, showing how George W. Bush appealing to the ideologues with a more orthodox tax and other policies and to moderates and independents with his compassionate conservatism positions while McCain had blurred the line between parties. McCain responded in the 2008 election by aligning himself with Bush on major policies (including making the tax breaks permanent) and appealing to military conservatives, while retaining his appeal to moderates and independents.
Olsen implies that Romney should be the likely nominee but suggests that Romney could find himself knocked out early like Giuliani in 2008. He also implies that Palin and Bachmann would easily be dispatched by Obama in a 1964 or 1972-style election where the losing candidate was easily redefined as an extremist. (I agree that Palin and Bachmann have ZERO chance of beating Obama short of an event like the economic tsunami that propelled him into the White House. However, I think almost any Republican would win most of the McCain states given Obama's polarizing policies.)
He doesn't quite say this, but let me draw a line between the dots: he's suggesting that if a dark horse might succeed if he is able to reassure the interest groups that Obama has been intentionally manipulating during the debt crisis, e.g., seniors worried about their benefits. In my opinion, this suggests a Rick Perry and/or Marco Rubio, coming from Southern retirement states whom can soften Tea Party rhetoric regarding short-term impacts of necessary reforms.
Cut, Cap and Balance Passes 234-190: Thumbs UP!
I've indicated that I oppose a balanced budget amendment: I think the spending ceiling should be set by the legislature itself, not the Constitution. However, this distinction is more a matter of semantics in terms of the principles beyond the bill, which I fully support, so I would have voted 'aye'. (To be honest, I wanted more cuts and less cap, but one must be flexible as I outlined above.)
I know that Obama has threatened a veto, but would Obama really veto a bill and accept responsibility for a default that would raise interest rates across the economy, making even anemic growth unsustainable? Kiss goodbye to reelection. Still, I think like in the case of ObamaCare, you have to get through the filibuster rules of the Senate. My guess is that the Gang of 6 compromise which appears to be gaining bipartisan momentum and a signaled approval from Obama will likely prevail. My personal opinion: the House Republicans should declare victory, claim credit for any concessions in the Senate compromise and term the compromise a first step.
I do want to address the irresponsible media conservatives like Sean Hannity attacking Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell's "surrender" fallback legislation essentially allowing the President to raise the debt ceiling subject to Congressional approval, essentially making the President politically responsible for the debt increase. The issue here is not whether McConnell's measure is intrinsically good policy; of course it isn't. The last thing you want to do is give any President--never mind a spendthrift one like Obama--the ability to raise his own credit limit, without any guarantee of spending cuts. But Hannity's position is a complete departure from reality--not only does it make the Republicans look unreasonable but Obama is actually benefiting politically from unnecessarily polarizing positions and policies: if Hannity and unelectable politicians like Michele Bachmann have their way, they might as well surrender moderate and independent votes in the Presidential election next year. McConnell is trying to give Obama and Senate Democrats all the rope they need to hang themselves next fall; apparently Hannity has never played a game of chess where you sacrifice some pawns to gain a larger chess piece on the board.
So let me say this one more time to clueless conservatives: a default of our debt will cause major economic problems. Obama is desperate, knowing his handling of the economy will be THE big issue next fall; if he can somewhat co-opt the GOP, say, by trying to make them responsible for economic issues next fall because they were "unreasonable" or "inflexible" on raising the debt ceiling, he wins--maybe even brings along the Wicked Witch of the West Coast on his coattails. In short, Hannity, Obama is himself giving the GOP all the rope they need to hang themselves. McConnell is onto Obama's tactics and wants to turn the table on him. There's no way Obama can turn McConnell's deal without acknowledging to the American people he is unfit to be President, which we already know anyway.
Musical Interlude: My Favorite Groups
ELO, "Don't Bring Me Down". #3 on my short list and probably ELO's most mainstream rock track.
