Enjoy the little things,
for one day you may look back and
realize they were the big things.
Robert Brault
Harry Reid Earns Another JOTY Nomination
From the Hill:
Reid told KNPR that he regretted concessions made to Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) in talks in 2011 and 2012. Reid said he and President Obama were too willing to compromise in talks that took place in 2011 and 2012, and that he intends to drive a harder bargain going forward. Democrats gave up next to nothing in that deal after Republicans had demanded the defunding of ObamaCare. In the end, the deal to raise the debt ceiling wasn't even accompanied by spending cuts, a top House GOP priority. The Democratic leader signaled that he could be open to minor trimming of some Medicare or Social Security spending as part of deal that involves tax revenue. Obama in his last budget included more means testing for Medicare and lower Social Security benefits as part of a new inflation calculation.
Reid said a wider deal, involving entitlement cuts, could happen next year if mainstream Republicans can take control of the GOP away from the Tea Party.
Reid in the interview claimed that the fact the House voted more than 40 times to repeal all or part of ObamaCare indicates many in the GOP have gone mad. “If Einstein’s right then we have a bunch of insane people in the House of Representatives,” Reid said.I don't think I've ever had as crowded a field for JOTY heading down the home stretch of the year, but I'm ready to announce that not only is Harry Reid a multiple nominee, but he's clinched a spot as a finalist.
It's hard to say about where to start with this; first, he is violating his fiduciary responsibilities as Senate majority leader. The federal budget has expanded nearly 40% and the national debt almost doubled since he became leader in 2007. The social security disability trust fund has nearly been exhausted, the Medicare and social security pension reserves have seen their expiration dates moved up by years. Conservative estimates of unfunded liabilities start at over $80T; we've never come close to $3T in federal revenues.
For the most part, the Democrats have been spending 40 borrowed cents on the dollar during the Profligate Age of Obama--passing our bills onto our grandchildren, which is morally outrageous. So what have we seen from the GOP since 2011? According to CATO, very modest (like rounding errors) cuts year-over-year. You listen to Harry Reid , and he made traumatic reductions--literally less than 3 cents on the dollar, and now he says that he regrets agreeing to doing even that. The proposals that he's cited of Barry's concessions are actually GOP proposals, one of them (means-testing) is, in fact, a "progressive" reform. On the chained CPI reform:
The specific proposal to “steal thousands of dollars from grandparents” would basically cut a few tenths of a percent off the annual adjustment to Social Security Benefits (and many other revenue and outlay programs) by replacing the standard inflation measure with an alternative called the “chain-weighted Consumer Price Index (CPI).” Unlike Classic CPI, the new measure accounts for the fact that when prices rise unevenly, consumers will substitute cheaper items for those whose prices rise. As a result, the real burden of inflation is less than measured by the static CPI market basket. Most economists think this version is a better overall measure of the true cost of living.
The Congressional Budget Office projects that spending on Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and Exchange Subsidies will grow by more than 5 percent of GDP (the equivalent of $800 billion per year at current levels) over the next 25 years. That is more than half of income tax revenues in a good year (and about 70 percent of revenues in recent years). To raise that kind of revenue, we would need to tax more than just the rich. ...And if we continue to ignore the basic arithmetic and accumulate debt even after the economy has recovered, the resultant crisis could necessitate draconian cuts in public programs.Okay, got that? There aren't enough rich people, not enough slack in the defense budget to take that hit in escalated government spending. So the point is, the middle-class is going to get socked sooner or later. Do we defer our future entitlement costs on future taxpayers or do we more properly fund them now? The Democrats under the Three Racketeers (Obama, Reid, and Pelosi) have done nothing proactive to ensure the crown jewels of their legislative legacy will be in solid shape over the next 2 generations. And yet this piece of work thinks that GOP initiatives to preserve these programs are political bargaining chips.
As for Reid's corrupt bargaining to set up a new healthcare house of cards is invulnerable to reform, a law which was never favored by the American people since before it was based is being protected against "insane" House Republicans? What's insane is an eccentric majority leader whom refuses to acknowledge public rejection of his legislative "accomplishment" poll after poll. The Democrats lost the House over this law (and other things, but principally this law), and yet Reid refuses to change a completely partisan law that didn't receive the vote of even 1 Republican, virtually unprecedented in American history on major legislation, and it was saved by merely an eccentric opinion by Chief Justice Roberts in SCOTUS (although the Medicaid extortion provision was ruled unconstitutional).
Facebook Corner
A couple of posts ago I published a thread to a Statism is Slavery image, which I correctly inferred was a shot at minarchists from anarchists, basically a variation of an old joke:
Man to woman: Would you sleep with me for one million dollars?On my quotes page (see the second pages link on the right side of the blog), I have a saying I first published weeks ago: "Libertarians would rather kill the heretic than the infidel." I didn't intend to add to the thread, but it continued with one or 2 other minarchists chiming in, basically met with adolescent-style ridicule. I don't mind debating ideas, but with government run amok, it seems that a group against Statism should focus on building alliances against government hegemony, not purges of ideological purity. I made one final attempt to explain my point of view. If this group turns out to be divisive and a sinkhole of time, I won't deal with it in the future. The sad part is that probably only a handful of people have read the thread, but being ever the patient professor, I sought to educate, even if I had only one or 2 students with me:
Woman: Sure.
Man: How about for ten dollars?
Woman: What do you think I am?
Man: We've already established what you are. All we're doing is bargaining about price.
Going back to the amateurish slogan, true, government is a monopoly, but only in the sense of guaranteeing negative liberties. The author seems to confound socialism with governance. We minarchists reject redistributive policies, the assertion of positive rights, and subordination of the economy to small-r republican elitists. We don't object to the idea of introducing competitive bidding and/or decentralization/delegation of government services. Think of a central government in terms of a middleman or warehousing construct. As a former IT professor, I used to teach a computer programming construct: high cohesion and low coupling (e.g., think in terms of not micromanaging the economy). Look at our history of the Confederation (1783-1789). The Confederation was too weak. What happened to the minarchist design of the Constitution? I argue 2 things--direct taxation (16th amendment) enabled radical growth in government and the FDR shakedown of SCOTUS, the abandonment of economic liberty in Carolene Products and the infamous Footnote 4, judicial capitulation to Statists.
(Another Statism is Slavery thread.) Next time a modern liberal accuses you of wanting only the rich to be able to afford something when you want to privatize it (such as schools for instance), accuse them of the same thing. If you ask them if government should produce food and they say no accuse them of wanting the poor to not be able to buy food. If they say the government shouldn't provide cell phones accuse them of wanting only the rich to be able to afford a phone to talk to people. If they don't want the government to provide paper then accuse them of wanting only the rich to be able to write. If you come to a point where it seems like they aren't giving in and want government to provide everything, then accuse them (quite correctly) of being a totalitarian. -DR
I believe you are mixing up the words want and profit. The constitution uses the phrase unalienable rights. Some of the things you mentioned belong in that category. Apparently you like to confuse what Liberals are asking for and what you think they are asking for.
More directly, the unalienable rights (life, liberty and property) are negative rights, i.e., government or groups can't take them without due process. The other things are positive rights, things government or other people must provide for you--like guaranteeing free education, low-cost basic needs (food, housing, utilities, whatever), old-age pension, healthcare, a lawyer, etc. As even The (Megalomaniac) One admitted when he was a lecturer in Constitutional law at the University of Chicago, the Constitution doesn't guarantee positive rights. Social liberals/"progressives" want to implement positive rights (a potential unlimited universe). What I want to focus on in particular, which I didn't hear from the commentator, is the morally hazardous nature of "progressive" legislation, corrosive to freedom and responsibility, e.g., I don't have to save for a recession or my golden years because the government has my back. So I can squander my income on frivolous possessions, women, gambling, etc.
There was a follow-up debate over another discussant whom was willing to concede to constitutionally-enabled government trespassing of his property, but not other individuals/groups. The anarchists basically went after him. Here's my comment/exchange:
Wow, this thread has taken on a life of its own. There should be due process, but we have a judicial system letting the Statists run amok. Look at the Kelo decision, where New London abused eminent domain because they felt they could get more tax money from real estate development by condemning local homeowners on choice locations. The last I heard there was a California group trying to use eminent domain to force banks to write down mortgages. This are examples of what Bastiat famously called "legalized plunder". I think power is frequently, if not usually, morally corrosive. Just because SCOTUS abused its authority in Carolene Products, Filburn, Kelo, ObamaCare, etc., doesn't make their majority opinions and decisions correct. Unfortunately, our only remedy to combat judicial tyranny is the Constitutional Amendment process.
"Unfortunately, our only remedy to combat judicial tyranny is the Constitutional Amendment process." Disagree, the constitution is not the solution. To quote the great Lysander Spooner, "Either the Constitution has authorized such a government as we have had or it has been powerless to prevent it. In either case, it is unfit to exist."
The problem is, too many people have a vested interest in legalized plunder. Look, we already have unsustainable Big Government. Ironically, the Constitution was designed to make it difficult for a central government to grow. I argued in another comment there were 2 major events which permitted scaled-up government--the 16th amendment and the infamous Footnote 4, which basically gave legislation the presumption of a doubt over economic liberty concerns. Our only viable alternative is to reform the system from within. I think we'll have a window of opportunity to do that when the house of cards collapses.
How can we reform the system from within? Why would any want to limit their power, especially if the masses are stupid enough to believe it's for their own good.
The status quo is only possible because of window dressing. Look at the Detroit bankruptcy, the chronically underfunded Illinois and California pension systems. When people have to wait an hour for a cop to arrive in an emergency, when you have to cut city services to pay six-figure public pensioners, etc., people will realize that politicians can't deliver on what they promised. Mark my word, I don't know when or how, but a day of reckoning is coming when the Statists lose the credibility and support of even government dependents.
(The SIS moderator started a new thread posting about the debate above, quoting the discussant finally saying in effect, "This is America and America's laws. Love it or leave it.")
This is actually being taken out of context from another thread I was in (another discussant). He was arguing that he would let a government official access his property, assuming the official's access was the result of due process. Other discussants started attacking his position, and he eventually responded out of frustration. I think most of us agree that the courts have done a poor job enforcing the fourth amendment, but we have the right, if not the obligation to protest and reform, not simply capitulate to Statists pushing the envelope. Still, when I read that line, I remember that verse from "Hotel California"--"you can check out anytime you like, but you can never leave."
(The SIS group) I laugh whenever I hear people say that America is a free country. Really? Try selling raw milk or lemonade and see how free it is. -DR
I think this has to do with the corruptible nature of politics. Legislators or Presidents are rewarded for passing regulations, getting their fair share of the tax loot, etc. Our "we can't afford to do nothing" President. How often do we see the vicious cycle of, say, bank regulations blamed on "market failures", not say government guarantees of depositors? Only a few politicians, like Calvin Coolidge, actually downsized the government and budget. You don't win elective office taking on the crony capitalists and unionists whom fight to retain their privileged status or promising cuts in entitlements. The Statists will respond that retired grannies will have to resort to eating cat food. The problem is, most people fear the free market, although they haven't experienced a real one in their lifetimes.
(The LFC group) While I'm in favor of killing non essential regulation, I don't think total laissez faire is a great idea. The government can and should intervene in the economy where the risk of not doing so is too great but not in a manner which burdens that sector. The finance sector for example is one of those sectors to big to ignore, if you let it go completely they'll plunge the world economy into recession like the CDO subprime mortgage crisis in 2008. There inevitably has to be regulation but never too much. The tax burden and regulation should be low, yes. But complete laissez faire? No thanks.
Since when have you experienced a truly free market? There are, of course, negative consequences of what economists call externalities--chronic air or water pollution, tragedy of the commons stuff like overfished waters, etc. Part of that is to hold private entities responsible for spillover effects; other things might be to advance privatization efforts (say, a company whom manages a lake and keeps it fully stocked for customers). I personally regard a vibrant free press--transparency--is the better regulatory alternative--who wants to work for or invest in a business which plunders and shifts expenses to others?
(Tom Woods) Ron Paul will be my guest next week on an episode of the Tom Woods Show. What should I ask him? Nothing nasty, though they need not be softballs.
If he had been elected President, how would he have dealt with the likes of Harry Reid? Would he have vetoed a CR and taken a hit over the shutdown?
What is Ron's take on the Senate immigration bill? Is his opinion the same as Rand's? How would he change it if he was still in the House?
(From SIS) "Democracy is the counting of heads, not what’s in them." -Padraig Deignan
Democracy is when the pickpockets outnumber those with wallets.
 |
| Via LFC |
Political Cartoon
 |
| Courtesy of Steve Kelley and Townhall |
Musical Interlude: My Ipod Shuffle Series
Procol Harum, "Conquistador"
