Quote of the Day
To raise new questions, new possibilities, to regard old problems from a new angle, requires creative imagination and marks real advance in science.
Albert Einstein
Sunday Talk Soup and Obama Caught Lying At Press Conference
I was listening to the Sunday morning podcasts when I heard a preposterous claim made by one of the Democrats that they have put on the table setting domestic spending levels to the lowest level since the Eisenhower Administration. I thought my ears were playing tricks on me, until I read that Obama had made that ludicrous claim during last Friday's news conference which I hadn't seen: "I have already said I am willing to take down domestic spending to the lowest percentage of our overall economy since Dwight Eisenhower."
Before we go any further, that one statement alone is enough to win this blog's first ever "LIAR, LIAR, PANTS ON FIRE" award and to earn the first nomination of Obama to my tongue-in-cheek Jackass of the Year (2011) competition. Former Congressman Weiner seemed to have the inside track, but Obama's lack of leadership and fundamental dishonesty during this crisis may trump even Weiner's boorish behavior.
Outside of the fact that nobody seems to recall him making this statement before even once, and I for one am sick and tired of hearing the Obama Administration demagogues gripe about they had inherited a mess (let's point out most of the jobs lost in the recession occurred on Bush's side of the ledger and the recession officially ended 5 months into Obama's administration, but two years into the recovery, we are spending 25.3% of GDP on the federal level and using Obama's own budget numbers, we will spend over 20% of GDP on an ongoing basis over the coming decade). Related expenditures have increased by 20% over the last Congress while revenues dropped by double-digit percentages, we have the weakest economic growth of any recession in decades and economic conditions are hardly the worst-case scenario Democratic partisans have misleadingly implied: look at economic-crippling, far higher inflation and interest rates Ronald Reagan inherited about 30 years ago. If we look at 1% of $15T GDP, we get about $150B. If we were to get down to the 18% GDP or so of federal spending under Eisenhower, we would be going to cut nearly a $1T PER YEAR (i.e., below $3T federal spending); the GOP would take that deal in a heartbeat. The most aggressive plans I've heard speak of about $4T over TEN YEARS. That works out to $400B per year.
Now let's talk about the facts of life. Older people are living longer, which means that our outlays are increasing even if we assume the number of new senior beneficiaries remains constant. But we already know the largest count population of American people (between 1945 and 1965), means that Medicare/social security enrollments are about to escalate radically. We have $50T in unfunded entitlement liabilities. And we haven't even talked about ObamaCare which will be heavily subsidized by the government. Medicare and Medicaid are already implicitly subsidized by shrinking private-sector plans. If companies start dumping their own plans (because program penalties are far cheaper than providing the benefit), program subsidies will skyrocket--totally missing from Democrats' Ponzi scheme smoke-and-mirrors accounting projections.
Let's now go back to Obama's disingenuous, deliberately misleading rhetoric. Pelosi argues that any cuts in the 60% of the budget in entitlements and social safety net are not acceptable. Obama suggests a quid pro quo in exchange for class warfare tax hikes--which would bring in roughly $70B. I've heard some proposals which reflect things like increased age criteria and COLA changes, but any of these would likely get phased in over several years. Do you think there's any chance Obama whom hasn't supported a single meaningful cut in domestic spending over the past 2.5 years, hasn't actively proposed or supported austerity in even a single category of spending, hasn't announced any meaningful layoffs or salary cuts and refuses to give back residual TARP money or unspent allocated stimulus money, will even give back any of the 20% domestic expenditure dollars increases won over the last Congress, never mind scale back failed post-Eisenhower Great Society programs? If you believe that, there's a bridge in Brooklyn that Anthony Weiner will sell you.
Jeff Flake R-AZ: US Senate 2012: Thumbs UP!
I have favored candidates in this blog (McCain over Obama was a no-brainer), but I haven't formally endorsed candidates. (Maybe I have an occasional Arizona reader of this blog; my endorsement and $5 will get Jeff a cup of coffee at Starbucks.) In this case one of the best Congressmen in the past 50 years is running to succeed retiring Jon Kyl. He has been strongly pro-economic growth, a fiscal hawk, pro-immigration reform, and pro-limited government. He has been endorsed by probably the highest IQ executive at the state or federal level, another personal favorite, Gov. Bobby Jindal (R-LA), House Budget chair Paul Ryan (R-WI), the Club for Growth and a Tea Party offshoot.
Guest Editorial: A. Barton Hinkle/Reason.com,
"The TSA's Invasive Search Contest"
Satire: Thumbs UP!
Musical Interlude: My Favorite Groups
ELO, "Shine a Little Love". Second only to "Do Ya?" on my personal ELO shortlist. I remember when this song soared up the charts and this is one of the few songs I loved the very first hearing. Glorious arrangement, infectious tempo, great percussion, upbeat love song, terrific songwriting, some nice staccato, brilliant vocal harmonies: why can't today's musical acts produce anything so wonderful?
I'm in a romantic mood, just caught the last 20 minutes of "August Rush" on a cable channel over the weekend, one of my favorite all-time movies. Louis Connelly, lead singer of a bluesy rock band, has a chance encounter with Lyla Novacek, a Juilliard-trained cellist, at a party. They realize from the start they are soulmates, get caught up in the magic of a moonlit night on the building roof and make love. Lyla's controlling disapproving father splits up the couple the next morning. Lyla's one encounter yields a prematurely born son, Evan. Lyla's father decides that Evan is an impediment to Lyla's budding musical career and, without Lyla's knowledge, gives him up for adoption. He tells Lyla that Evan died from complications of his premature birth. An emotionally devastated, mourning Lyla no longer has interest in a career as a professional musician. Louis, after several years of fruitlessly fighting the father to reunite with Lyla, finally accepts reality, has split from his band and moves on with his life.
Evan gets lost in the system and around the age of 11 escapes to join a community of homeless children headed by an adult musician, the Wizard, whom maintains tight control over the group. At one point Evan escapes from the Wizard and finds refuge in a black church. The pastor eventually discovers Evan's prodigious musical talent and gets Evan enrolled at his mother's alma mater. Evan's musical talent stands out even in Juilliard, and one of his compositions is featured as the core performance in a major park concert, which figures in the movie's climax. Evan is convinced that his unknown parents are out there and his music will somehow bring them together. Louis, who doesn't know he has a son, is coincidentally in NYC for a gig on his reunited band tour and has a memorable mutually respectful chance encounter with Evan in a small city park. However, the Wizard had recently discovered where Evan was and reasserted control over Evan, taking him out of Juilliard with no intention of letting him attend the concert.
Lyla's father on his deathbed, around the time of Evan's joining the Wizard's community, confesses to a still-grieving Lyla that her beloved presumably dead son is alive; finding Evan becomes her obsession, a search complicated by Evan's publicly-known pseudonym, August Rush. Friends and colleagues prevail upon Lyla in the interim to agree to a comeback appearance as a second-billing featured opening act performer.at Evan/August's concert. Louis, in a cab on the way to the airport for his next gig, spots his one true love Lyla's name on the concert sign. Evan escapes the Wizard in an attempt to conduct the symphony during the performance of his work. Lyla, who was in the process of leaving the concert, is moved by the magic of Evan's music and somehow knows she must seek out the young conductor. Louis spots Lyla moving through the crowd. At the front of the crowd before the orchestra, Lyla (Keri Russel), who has this genius of nonverbal communication through facial expressions, "tells" a reunited Louis they have a son, this extraordinary child prodigy composer/conductor she knows through maternal intuition is Evan; Evan turns to face his long-lost parents and realizes his dream of family reunion through music has come true. I love, love, love this movie.
Monday, July 18, 2011
Sunday, July 17, 2011
Miscellany: 7/17/11
Quote of the Day
Ah, but a man's reach should exceed in grasp, or what's a heaven for?
Robert Browning
Congratulations to the Japanese Women World Cup Soccer Champions!
I think I last played soccer in eighth grade gym class (I wasn't that bad at it--I scored a couple of goals in one game). But for me, watching soccer is as exciting as watching paint dry or listening to an Obama speech: you know there won't be many points scored. The basic difference between soccer and writing an Obama speech is to win at soccer you sometimes have to use your head. I can probably count on one hand how many games I've watched over the past decade.
I have to admit: I absolutely loathe the gimmick tiebreakers in pro football and soccer. In pro football, you have a first-score-wins concept. Unless you have a lousy field goal kicker, you're simply trying to to get into field goal territory. At the very least, you should make it fair by guaranteeing a return possession after any score. I also don't like the penalty kick concept; it changes the essence of the game to kick on goal uncontested: why not resolve basketball game ties with foul shots if we're going to do that?
Coming from a country which has been hit with unprecedented natural disasters over the past year, nuclear power plant failures, and economic problems, the Japanese women showed their scrappiness and when they scored another equalizing goal late in the game, I was convinced that somehow they would pull it out in the tiebreaker. The American women played a great game, but they just couldn't score the safety goal to put the game away.
Growing Veggies Illegal? Local Bureaucrats Gone Wild
I once had to deal with an overzealous apartment manager in the aftermath of a fire involving four buildings on the other side of the complex. (I had a few unpacked moving boxes which I later put into storage.) I think the complex was being scrutinized in the aftermath. I had a conversation with the manager whom in response to some of things being scrutinized, started rattling off a number of restrictions as just the front of the complex in terms of things like placement of signs, landscaping, even any flowers and their arrangement. Now I understand some basic restrictions, e.g., unkempt properties which depress property values and/or health and fire safety issues. But most people I think have no clue that busybody government bureaucrats or elected officials have enacted a voluminous amount of arcane rules and regulations that most people don't even realize exist. I've been fortunate in only modest exposure to the undue burden e.g., when my now retired maternal uncle had to go through various zoning processes simply to expand his church parking lot.
Julie Bass of Oak Park, MI, a Detroit suburb, in the aftermath of some work done in her front yard, decided to grow a professionally designed vegetable garden (tomatoes, zucchini, and bell peppers). Long story short, a local code enforcement officer cited Bass, which if convicted, could land her in jail for 3 months; there is no prohibition of front lawn vegetable gardens (just like Michelle Obama's on the White House front lawn). In fact, the Bass attorney can cite an exception for vegetable gardens, but the city is arguing that their interpretation of "suitable live plant material" (not explicitly defined in the code) is that vegetable gardens are not "suitable" because no one else in Oak Park is growing a vegetable garden in their front lawn.
No doubt we have a case here of yard segregation: you can have veggies so long as you grow them in the back of the house. Now personally, I don't care for zucchini either, but as Voltaire might be attributed saying, I would defend to the death Bass' right to grow it. If Oak Park is facing fiscal challenges, might I suggest eliminating the positions of code enforement officer?
Musical Interlude: My Favorite Groups
ELO, "It's Over"
Ah, but a man's reach should exceed in grasp, or what's a heaven for?
Robert Browning
Congratulations to the Japanese Women World Cup Soccer Champions!
I think I last played soccer in eighth grade gym class (I wasn't that bad at it--I scored a couple of goals in one game). But for me, watching soccer is as exciting as watching paint dry or listening to an Obama speech: you know there won't be many points scored. The basic difference between soccer and writing an Obama speech is to win at soccer you sometimes have to use your head. I can probably count on one hand how many games I've watched over the past decade.
I have to admit: I absolutely loathe the gimmick tiebreakers in pro football and soccer. In pro football, you have a first-score-wins concept. Unless you have a lousy field goal kicker, you're simply trying to to get into field goal territory. At the very least, you should make it fair by guaranteeing a return possession after any score. I also don't like the penalty kick concept; it changes the essence of the game to kick on goal uncontested: why not resolve basketball game ties with foul shots if we're going to do that?
Coming from a country which has been hit with unprecedented natural disasters over the past year, nuclear power plant failures, and economic problems, the Japanese women showed their scrappiness and when they scored another equalizing goal late in the game, I was convinced that somehow they would pull it out in the tiebreaker. The American women played a great game, but they just couldn't score the safety goal to put the game away.
Growing Veggies Illegal? Local Bureaucrats Gone Wild
I once had to deal with an overzealous apartment manager in the aftermath of a fire involving four buildings on the other side of the complex. (I had a few unpacked moving boxes which I later put into storage.) I think the complex was being scrutinized in the aftermath. I had a conversation with the manager whom in response to some of things being scrutinized, started rattling off a number of restrictions as just the front of the complex in terms of things like placement of signs, landscaping, even any flowers and their arrangement. Now I understand some basic restrictions, e.g., unkempt properties which depress property values and/or health and fire safety issues. But most people I think have no clue that busybody government bureaucrats or elected officials have enacted a voluminous amount of arcane rules and regulations that most people don't even realize exist. I've been fortunate in only modest exposure to the undue burden e.g., when my now retired maternal uncle had to go through various zoning processes simply to expand his church parking lot.
Julie Bass of Oak Park, MI, a Detroit suburb, in the aftermath of some work done in her front yard, decided to grow a professionally designed vegetable garden (tomatoes, zucchini, and bell peppers). Long story short, a local code enforcement officer cited Bass, which if convicted, could land her in jail for 3 months; there is no prohibition of front lawn vegetable gardens (just like Michelle Obama's on the White House front lawn). In fact, the Bass attorney can cite an exception for vegetable gardens, but the city is arguing that their interpretation of "suitable live plant material" (not explicitly defined in the code) is that vegetable gardens are not "suitable" because no one else in Oak Park is growing a vegetable garden in their front lawn.
No doubt we have a case here of yard segregation: you can have veggies so long as you grow them in the back of the house. Now personally, I don't care for zucchini either, but as Voltaire might be attributed saying, I would defend to the death Bass' right to grow it. If Oak Park is facing fiscal challenges, might I suggest eliminating the positions of code enforement officer?
Musical Interlude: My Favorite Groups
ELO, "It's Over"
Saturday, July 16, 2011
Miscellany: 7/16/11
Quote of the Day
Snowflakes are one of nature's most fragile things, but just look what they can do when they stick together.
Vista M. Kelly
Another Battle in the War on Kids' Lemonade
I have zero tolerance for this kind of bureaucratic stupidity. I can't speak for Georgia, but isn't it time local governments encourage kids to start businesses, by minimizing the cost (if any) and busy work involved with any relevant permits, licenses, etc? (In fact, shouldn't that be the case for businesses in general?) Let me give an example: unless there are a significant number of customers (e.g., a line of 10 people), to justify the costs of permits, licenses, etc.: they should be waived. Or capped at, say, a $25 annual fee, and all paperwork should be prepackaged and completed within 10 minutes by Internet.
I think what particularly sets me off on this story, besides the insanity of trying to charge 3 girls, just trying to make money to go to an amusement park, $50/day fees (plus paperwork) for selling lemonade on a front lawn, is the fact that police chief has become Big Nanny. "Oh, I don't know what they put in the lemonade, I didn't see them make it, etc." Apparently the Midway, GA police chief has nothing better to do with his time than to micromanage how people make beverages consumed on one's front lawn. Here's an alarming thing to consider, Mr. Police Chief of Midway, GA: maybe, just maybe, people drink iced tea on their front lawn, too, and I bet you don't get the public health inspector to test their ingredients. Unless if maybe someone chips in a dime to help cover his cost towards the tea. Yeah, you better send out a cop to see if anyone is going around making money selling iced tea on one's porch. Let's bust granny. Because we know what gets Mr. Police Chief of Midway, GA upset: lemonade is okay and healthy so long as people aren't being charged for it. What makes it evil is making money--after all, operating businesses at a profit must not be the American way, unless business owners are qualified for Obama stimulus programs.
New Airport Screening Constitutional?
Thumbs DOWN!
I don't want get into the weeds here; fortunately, I've not had to waste my good mind on the casuistries of our legal system, which attracts only the most pretentious, mediocre minds like Barack Obama's. Even a former Reagan SCOTUS nominee like Douglas Ginsburg sometimes lacks common sense. Long story short: the "naked body" image technology utilized by TSA in screening was the basis of a lawsuit by a privacy rights group on grounds of an unreasonable search (Fourth Amendment). It turns around the federal courts, of course, have arcane distinctions on what is considered "reasonable" and different types of searches: airport screenings come under a wide-berth "administrative search". That's right, folks: some unreasonable searches are "more equal" than other unreasonable searches. You get a feeling all the federal government has to do is put a "possible terrorist weapon" tag on anything, and TSA is able to tell 308M Americans to spread them. Ginsburg and his colleagues think some blurring technologies supposed implemented (after the fact, of course) for scanner technology means that, for instance, groping of 6-year-old kids is acceptable because your child's genitals may be blurred if you send them through a scanner instead of having them legally groped.
Of course, our brilliant legal system decides that because Al Qaeda is experimenting with some technology outside of the US that these nefarious 6-year-old's in large families flying to Disney World are caught up using the technology in question in some Al Qaeda plot. It stands to reason that the rest of the family wants to die together, not just the evil 6-year-old: after all, we have all those news reports of family reunions accompanying suicide bombers in the Middle East. Somehow I missed news reports of 6-year-old terrorists taking down airliners worldwide.
I can't resist one of my favorite expressions here: is the emperor wearing clothes?
Let our "brilliant" jurists get a clue: the overwhelming majority of searches come up empty; airline safety records have already better than many, if not most types of transportation; an American is probably far more likely to get killed or injured by a drunk driver than an international terrorist. You don't see nearly the kinds of search procedures and intrusion in dealing with DWI's than airlines. The fact that a stun gun was found on board a recent airliner (I haven't seen a more recent explanation: is it possibly due to human error by a federal safety officer forgetting his stun gun?) raises serious questions about the UNREASONABLE burden currently being assumed by travelers based on little more than paranoid suspicion by some federal bureaucrat, without having to assessment to any authorized review, the likelihood and cost-benefit trade-off.
Airline safety involves trade-offs against all sorts of risk, including pilot error, weather and operational/maintenance risks. The question for our feckless federal judges is why there is a double standard in terms of risk, that a terrorist risk is "more equal" than other types of risk. Risk is risk. Controlling risk does not eliminate the possibility of catastrophe. I argue that the burden we have been discussing is disproportionate to the risk.
Musical Interlude: My Favorite Groups
ELO, "Sweet Talkin' Woman"
Snowflakes are one of nature's most fragile things, but just look what they can do when they stick together.
Vista M. Kelly
Another Battle in the War on Kids' Lemonade
I have zero tolerance for this kind of bureaucratic stupidity. I can't speak for Georgia, but isn't it time local governments encourage kids to start businesses, by minimizing the cost (if any) and busy work involved with any relevant permits, licenses, etc? (In fact, shouldn't that be the case for businesses in general?) Let me give an example: unless there are a significant number of customers (e.g., a line of 10 people), to justify the costs of permits, licenses, etc.: they should be waived. Or capped at, say, a $25 annual fee, and all paperwork should be prepackaged and completed within 10 minutes by Internet.
I think what particularly sets me off on this story, besides the insanity of trying to charge 3 girls, just trying to make money to go to an amusement park, $50/day fees (plus paperwork) for selling lemonade on a front lawn, is the fact that police chief has become Big Nanny. "Oh, I don't know what they put in the lemonade, I didn't see them make it, etc." Apparently the Midway, GA police chief has nothing better to do with his time than to micromanage how people make beverages consumed on one's front lawn. Here's an alarming thing to consider, Mr. Police Chief of Midway, GA: maybe, just maybe, people drink iced tea on their front lawn, too, and I bet you don't get the public health inspector to test their ingredients. Unless if maybe someone chips in a dime to help cover his cost towards the tea. Yeah, you better send out a cop to see if anyone is going around making money selling iced tea on one's porch. Let's bust granny. Because we know what gets Mr. Police Chief of Midway, GA upset: lemonade is okay and healthy so long as people aren't being charged for it. What makes it evil is making money--after all, operating businesses at a profit must not be the American way, unless business owners are qualified for Obama stimulus programs.
New Airport Screening Constitutional?
Thumbs DOWN!
I don't want get into the weeds here; fortunately, I've not had to waste my good mind on the casuistries of our legal system, which attracts only the most pretentious, mediocre minds like Barack Obama's. Even a former Reagan SCOTUS nominee like Douglas Ginsburg sometimes lacks common sense. Long story short: the "naked body" image technology utilized by TSA in screening was the basis of a lawsuit by a privacy rights group on grounds of an unreasonable search (Fourth Amendment). It turns around the federal courts, of course, have arcane distinctions on what is considered "reasonable" and different types of searches: airport screenings come under a wide-berth "administrative search". That's right, folks: some unreasonable searches are "more equal" than other unreasonable searches. You get a feeling all the federal government has to do is put a "possible terrorist weapon" tag on anything, and TSA is able to tell 308M Americans to spread them. Ginsburg and his colleagues think some blurring technologies supposed implemented (after the fact, of course) for scanner technology means that, for instance, groping of 6-year-old kids is acceptable because your child's genitals may be blurred if you send them through a scanner instead of having them legally groped.
Of course, our brilliant legal system decides that because Al Qaeda is experimenting with some technology outside of the US that these nefarious 6-year-old's in large families flying to Disney World are caught up using the technology in question in some Al Qaeda plot. It stands to reason that the rest of the family wants to die together, not just the evil 6-year-old: after all, we have all those news reports of family reunions accompanying suicide bombers in the Middle East. Somehow I missed news reports of 6-year-old terrorists taking down airliners worldwide.
I can't resist one of my favorite expressions here: is the emperor wearing clothes?
Let our "brilliant" jurists get a clue: the overwhelming majority of searches come up empty; airline safety records have already better than many, if not most types of transportation; an American is probably far more likely to get killed or injured by a drunk driver than an international terrorist. You don't see nearly the kinds of search procedures and intrusion in dealing with DWI's than airlines. The fact that a stun gun was found on board a recent airliner (I haven't seen a more recent explanation: is it possibly due to human error by a federal safety officer forgetting his stun gun?) raises serious questions about the UNREASONABLE burden currently being assumed by travelers based on little more than paranoid suspicion by some federal bureaucrat, without having to assessment to any authorized review, the likelihood and cost-benefit trade-off.
Airline safety involves trade-offs against all sorts of risk, including pilot error, weather and operational/maintenance risks. The question for our feckless federal judges is why there is a double standard in terms of risk, that a terrorist risk is "more equal" than other types of risk. Risk is risk. Controlling risk does not eliminate the possibility of catastrophe. I argue that the burden we have been discussing is disproportionate to the risk.
Musical Interlude: My Favorite Groups
ELO, "Sweet Talkin' Woman"
Friday, July 15, 2011
Miscellany: 7/15/11
Quote of the Day
Small is the number of people who see with their eyes and think with their minds.
Albert Einstein
A Rant on Voters, Hannity, Obama
When a very intelligent, articulate blogger like myself, a natural administrator and problem solver, looks at the polls, watches the newscasts, and sees how GOP and Tea Party routinely fecklessly misplay their hand and lose the propaganda war against a grossly incompetent President Obama time after time, one almost loses faith in the American voter. I mean, how stupid are people to rationally consider grossly incompetent and unqualified candidates like Sarah Palin and Michele Bachmann for President? How stupid do you have to be to have been a Delaware GOP primary voter whom voted for Christine O'Donnell or a Nevada GOP primary voter whom voted for Sharron Angle? I understand the activists want more ideological purity but nominating polarizing candidates or gadfly politicians is literally throwing elections away. How could you not beat a highly unpopular corrupt deal-making Harry Reid in Nevada with unemployment around 14%? In what sense is the right thing to do to target a Mike Castle in Delaware whom had won several statewide elections as governor and Congressmen and has voted the "right way" 50% of the time and is routing the Democratic candidate whom votes the right way only 10% of the time?
I understand there are people whom genuinely like these women and like what they have to say, but think of this: the same people who mocked Obama for using a teleprompter and being inexperienced are seriously thinking of voting for President women whom have been hyping having an Air Force Base in Alaska and obscure trade mission as military and foreign policy experience? Or a family-owned mental health clinic significantly dependent on government payments as the equivalent of, say, Romney turning around the Winter Olympics in Salt Lake City or launching or turning around well-known companies as a venture capitalist?
After seeing Obama, a similar lightweight with no meaningful executive experience, functionally incapable of working with the opposition and with little ability more than to deliver a prepared speech that anyone could write, why would we trust someone whom couldn't stand up to the political pressure in a sparsely populated state which doesn't even have a state income tax for a full term? Because Sarah Palin can write a catchy tweet? What on earth makes anyone think she can handle a $3.5T budget, deal with the Palestinian issue or deal with Senate Democrats whom after the 2012 election will at least have filibuster privileges? She had problems dealing with the majority GOP leadership in the Alaskan legislature; she couldn't even get her nominee as state attorney general confirmed. It's one thing to deliver a speech--it's another thing to get things done.
There's also a question of temperament and judgment. While governor, she spent the better part of a week or two going after a late night talk show host comedian whom used a Palin unwed mother as the target of a joke about a promiscuous major league baseball player. Why would any sane, intelligent person even go there? Why would a responsible mother want that joke that would have quickly died the death of any joke in bad taste to become part of the national headlines? Don't sweat the small stuff; choose your battles. If you can't deal with a David Letterman, how can you deal with a Qaddafi? Can you imagine a President Palin more concerned about a Chavez tweet intentionally calling her daughter a whore than his troublemaking policies in South America?
Don't get me started about Bachmann; with all the issues in a liberal state like Minnesota, her more prominent issue was trying to pass a constitutional amendment against gay marriage--in a state where there was no short-term prospect of gay marriage passing the legislature. Bachmann is playing a dangerous game of chicken over a possible government default, which could result in potentially soaring, economy-crippling interest rate hikes, when no one pretends we can trim a $1.6T or so deficit overnight: we know there's no way we can cut a 40% deficit when 60% of the budget involves entitlements where a simple modest cut is essentially off the table. What we need is a grown-up like me, not petulant ideologues like Obama or Bachmann.
Now what the GOP needs to do is avoid looking as the inflexible person in the room; I saw one poll where Obama led the GOP in terms of whom was handling the crisis better (Obama was in the mid-40's and the GOP in the 30's). I just can't believe how ineptly this is being handled. First, how do you lose a message war when Obama is back to the same old same old class warfare nonsense he was saying against the GOP back in 2008? The GOP fails to point out that the deficit during the Bush Administration, with, as Obama once again railed against, "unpaid income tax cuts" (never mind over 75% of tax cuts that went to the middle class have never been paid for--if Obama had even an ounce of integrity, he would argue for ALL the Bush tax cuts revoked across the board, which really would be the grown-up in the room), "unpaid wars" (which don't even account for 10% of the deficit and, by the way, he hasn't reduced), etc. And we continue to hear about tax loopholes, but only for companies Obama doesn't support like oil companies, which he continues to throw money down the rathole of green energy as "investments". Obama continues to play games: what givebacks has Obama done AT ALL from unspent, say, allocated stimulus bill or TARP funding? None really.
No, he insists, with a $1.6T deficit to rail against $70B of upper-income potential higher income taxes. Never mind the deficit has more than doubled under Obama, holding tax policy constant, holding the war funding constant, etc. He rails against tax breaks for private jets (started, by the way, under his own stimulus program) and oil companies--but these are more artifacts of accounting items like depreciation. Not, for example, sugar or ethanol subsidies. But even if you ignore his deliberately misleading discussion of these items, first of all, note he is talking about TAX REVENUES, NOT SPENDING CUTS. Second, his cherry-picked items don't even amount to a rounding error in a $1.6T federal deficit.
So when Obama is talking about lack of flexibility from the Republicans on the revenue side--he conveniently fails to put out that the spending cuts he's talked about are deferred, not near-term, and unlikely (e.g., unrealistic cuts in government program piecemeal payments, already underwater with provider cuts). He's not talking about what businesses talk about when tightening the belt: no salary cuts or benefit freezes, hiring freezes, selling assets, shuttering operations, etc.
FNC Special Report looked at the support for the balanced budget amendment: it showed strong support--until you throw in spending cuts and/or tax increases. How does one think a budget get balanced?
Finally on Hannity tonight, there was one of those Frank Luntz focus group events. One of them focused on Colorado Senator Michael Bennet (D-CO), including coverage of an ad Frank Luntz described as one of the best in the 2010 electoral campaign. It really annoyed me because it exactly referenced something I ranted against yesterday: what I called the "eat your own dog food" nonsense. E.g., for the Congressman choose the same health plan choices as everyone else, not work as lobbyists after their Congressional career, etc.
This is the political equivalent of cotton candy; it doesn't amount to a significant rounding error and distracts from policy substance. "Lobbyists", "special interests", and "shared sacrifice" are misleading, cynical Democratic attempts to hijack/co-opt plain English understandings of the terms. You see, when Obama is making deals with unions (remember the auto bankruptcies and generous exemptions for gold-plated health care benefits?), AARP, pharmaceuticals or organizations like ACORN, those weren't "lobbyists" or "special interests".
"Shared sacrifice" doesn't mean the 50% of workers whom don't pay a single penny in income taxes to defray the costs of the federal government: it is okay, of course, for entitled workers to pay their own groceries or rent, but not government goods and services that directly benefit them, because, of course, the government is run by magic fairies. Poor people are frugal when it comes to buying groceries or where they choose to live, but why should they care how frugal the government is in providing "free water" from the tap? Of course, conservatives try in vain to explain if the government isn't frugal, sooner or later there will be no more "free water"; in reality the water they're getting is not free and there is no "free water" fairy. And heaven help us if we ask the people whom have come to believe in the "free water" fairy to engage in REAL shared sacrifice (e.g., REAL user fee) and offset a portion of the costs in providing that "free water": after all, we're ENTITLED to "free water" because Barack "Fairy Godfather" Obama and Nancy "Fairy Godmother" Pelosi, representing the land of the fairies, not the gun-toting, Bible-believing Midwesterners, said so!
The reason I mentioned 'lobbyists' here--a key part of the cotton candy Bennet ad--is because the way you control for things like lobbyists is substantive reform--e.g., arcane Senate seniority rules which gives some members more clout than others or tax simplification which does away with the Sally Brown "all I want is my fair share" gold rush for government largesse. The unconstitutional policies Bennet is advocating here would treat only the symptoms, not the underlying disease. Where was the grown-up Bennet ad attacking the corrupt deal making during the health care "reform" debate? It's simply easier to scapegoat former legislators like Trent Lott than deal with the real underlying issues...
Never mind the fact that Bennet voted for ObamaCare. All of this is nonsense--politicians do not vote based on how they are personally affected by legislation; Mitt Romney in 2008 spent tens of millions in assets to compete for the Presidency, a job which pays less than $500K per year; Mike Bloomberg is a billionaire whom is in his third term as NYC mayor. They are most likely motivated by political self-interest, and the way you keep your seat is by co-opting possible challengers, often ideologues with activist backing. The classic textbook case has to be Mike Castle in Delaware where activists, irritated by his more moderate views, backed unelectable Christine O'Donnell, whom barely nipped him in the primary. The way you make a difference is by being able to reach across the aisle--which is rejected out of hand by ideologues.
Finally, Congressman McCarthy (R-CA) started talking about cuts and the Department of Education by pointing out the number of $100K employees. This is true insofar as it goes, but the broader point is why we have a Department of Education in the first place. Education is at the state/local level, and there are a number of private institutions at all levels. Is the emperor wearing clothes? Public schools compete unfairly to begin with. It would be far more efficient and better to privatize education and provide assistance for less able students.
Musical Interlude: My Favorite Groups
ELO, "Wild West Hero"
Small is the number of people who see with their eyes and think with their minds.
Albert Einstein
A Rant on Voters, Hannity, Obama
When a very intelligent, articulate blogger like myself, a natural administrator and problem solver, looks at the polls, watches the newscasts, and sees how GOP and Tea Party routinely fecklessly misplay their hand and lose the propaganda war against a grossly incompetent President Obama time after time, one almost loses faith in the American voter. I mean, how stupid are people to rationally consider grossly incompetent and unqualified candidates like Sarah Palin and Michele Bachmann for President? How stupid do you have to be to have been a Delaware GOP primary voter whom voted for Christine O'Donnell or a Nevada GOP primary voter whom voted for Sharron Angle? I understand the activists want more ideological purity but nominating polarizing candidates or gadfly politicians is literally throwing elections away. How could you not beat a highly unpopular corrupt deal-making Harry Reid in Nevada with unemployment around 14%? In what sense is the right thing to do to target a Mike Castle in Delaware whom had won several statewide elections as governor and Congressmen and has voted the "right way" 50% of the time and is routing the Democratic candidate whom votes the right way only 10% of the time?
I understand there are people whom genuinely like these women and like what they have to say, but think of this: the same people who mocked Obama for using a teleprompter and being inexperienced are seriously thinking of voting for President women whom have been hyping having an Air Force Base in Alaska and obscure trade mission as military and foreign policy experience? Or a family-owned mental health clinic significantly dependent on government payments as the equivalent of, say, Romney turning around the Winter Olympics in Salt Lake City or launching or turning around well-known companies as a venture capitalist?
After seeing Obama, a similar lightweight with no meaningful executive experience, functionally incapable of working with the opposition and with little ability more than to deliver a prepared speech that anyone could write, why would we trust someone whom couldn't stand up to the political pressure in a sparsely populated state which doesn't even have a state income tax for a full term? Because Sarah Palin can write a catchy tweet? What on earth makes anyone think she can handle a $3.5T budget, deal with the Palestinian issue or deal with Senate Democrats whom after the 2012 election will at least have filibuster privileges? She had problems dealing with the majority GOP leadership in the Alaskan legislature; she couldn't even get her nominee as state attorney general confirmed. It's one thing to deliver a speech--it's another thing to get things done.
There's also a question of temperament and judgment. While governor, she spent the better part of a week or two going after a late night talk show host comedian whom used a Palin unwed mother as the target of a joke about a promiscuous major league baseball player. Why would any sane, intelligent person even go there? Why would a responsible mother want that joke that would have quickly died the death of any joke in bad taste to become part of the national headlines? Don't sweat the small stuff; choose your battles. If you can't deal with a David Letterman, how can you deal with a Qaddafi? Can you imagine a President Palin more concerned about a Chavez tweet intentionally calling her daughter a whore than his troublemaking policies in South America?
Don't get me started about Bachmann; with all the issues in a liberal state like Minnesota, her more prominent issue was trying to pass a constitutional amendment against gay marriage--in a state where there was no short-term prospect of gay marriage passing the legislature. Bachmann is playing a dangerous game of chicken over a possible government default, which could result in potentially soaring, economy-crippling interest rate hikes, when no one pretends we can trim a $1.6T or so deficit overnight: we know there's no way we can cut a 40% deficit when 60% of the budget involves entitlements where a simple modest cut is essentially off the table. What we need is a grown-up like me, not petulant ideologues like Obama or Bachmann.
Now what the GOP needs to do is avoid looking as the inflexible person in the room; I saw one poll where Obama led the GOP in terms of whom was handling the crisis better (Obama was in the mid-40's and the GOP in the 30's). I just can't believe how ineptly this is being handled. First, how do you lose a message war when Obama is back to the same old same old class warfare nonsense he was saying against the GOP back in 2008? The GOP fails to point out that the deficit during the Bush Administration, with, as Obama once again railed against, "unpaid income tax cuts" (never mind over 75% of tax cuts that went to the middle class have never been paid for--if Obama had even an ounce of integrity, he would argue for ALL the Bush tax cuts revoked across the board, which really would be the grown-up in the room), "unpaid wars" (which don't even account for 10% of the deficit and, by the way, he hasn't reduced), etc. And we continue to hear about tax loopholes, but only for companies Obama doesn't support like oil companies, which he continues to throw money down the rathole of green energy as "investments". Obama continues to play games: what givebacks has Obama done AT ALL from unspent, say, allocated stimulus bill or TARP funding? None really.
No, he insists, with a $1.6T deficit to rail against $70B of upper-income potential higher income taxes. Never mind the deficit has more than doubled under Obama, holding tax policy constant, holding the war funding constant, etc. He rails against tax breaks for private jets (started, by the way, under his own stimulus program) and oil companies--but these are more artifacts of accounting items like depreciation. Not, for example, sugar or ethanol subsidies. But even if you ignore his deliberately misleading discussion of these items, first of all, note he is talking about TAX REVENUES, NOT SPENDING CUTS. Second, his cherry-picked items don't even amount to a rounding error in a $1.6T federal deficit.
So when Obama is talking about lack of flexibility from the Republicans on the revenue side--he conveniently fails to put out that the spending cuts he's talked about are deferred, not near-term, and unlikely (e.g., unrealistic cuts in government program piecemeal payments, already underwater with provider cuts). He's not talking about what businesses talk about when tightening the belt: no salary cuts or benefit freezes, hiring freezes, selling assets, shuttering operations, etc.
FNC Special Report looked at the support for the balanced budget amendment: it showed strong support--until you throw in spending cuts and/or tax increases. How does one think a budget get balanced?
Finally on Hannity tonight, there was one of those Frank Luntz focus group events. One of them focused on Colorado Senator Michael Bennet (D-CO), including coverage of an ad Frank Luntz described as one of the best in the 2010 electoral campaign. It really annoyed me because it exactly referenced something I ranted against yesterday: what I called the "eat your own dog food" nonsense. E.g., for the Congressman choose the same health plan choices as everyone else, not work as lobbyists after their Congressional career, etc.
This is the political equivalent of cotton candy; it doesn't amount to a significant rounding error and distracts from policy substance. "Lobbyists", "special interests", and "shared sacrifice" are misleading, cynical Democratic attempts to hijack/co-opt plain English understandings of the terms. You see, when Obama is making deals with unions (remember the auto bankruptcies and generous exemptions for gold-plated health care benefits?), AARP, pharmaceuticals or organizations like ACORN, those weren't "lobbyists" or "special interests".
"Shared sacrifice" doesn't mean the 50% of workers whom don't pay a single penny in income taxes to defray the costs of the federal government: it is okay, of course, for entitled workers to pay their own groceries or rent, but not government goods and services that directly benefit them, because, of course, the government is run by magic fairies. Poor people are frugal when it comes to buying groceries or where they choose to live, but why should they care how frugal the government is in providing "free water" from the tap? Of course, conservatives try in vain to explain if the government isn't frugal, sooner or later there will be no more "free water"; in reality the water they're getting is not free and there is no "free water" fairy. And heaven help us if we ask the people whom have come to believe in the "free water" fairy to engage in REAL shared sacrifice (e.g., REAL user fee) and offset a portion of the costs in providing that "free water": after all, we're ENTITLED to "free water" because Barack "Fairy Godfather" Obama and Nancy "Fairy Godmother" Pelosi, representing the land of the fairies, not the gun-toting, Bible-believing Midwesterners, said so!
The reason I mentioned 'lobbyists' here--a key part of the cotton candy Bennet ad--is because the way you control for things like lobbyists is substantive reform--e.g., arcane Senate seniority rules which gives some members more clout than others or tax simplification which does away with the Sally Brown "all I want is my fair share" gold rush for government largesse. The unconstitutional policies Bennet is advocating here would treat only the symptoms, not the underlying disease. Where was the grown-up Bennet ad attacking the corrupt deal making during the health care "reform" debate? It's simply easier to scapegoat former legislators like Trent Lott than deal with the real underlying issues...
Never mind the fact that Bennet voted for ObamaCare. All of this is nonsense--politicians do not vote based on how they are personally affected by legislation; Mitt Romney in 2008 spent tens of millions in assets to compete for the Presidency, a job which pays less than $500K per year; Mike Bloomberg is a billionaire whom is in his third term as NYC mayor. They are most likely motivated by political self-interest, and the way you keep your seat is by co-opting possible challengers, often ideologues with activist backing. The classic textbook case has to be Mike Castle in Delaware where activists, irritated by his more moderate views, backed unelectable Christine O'Donnell, whom barely nipped him in the primary. The way you make a difference is by being able to reach across the aisle--which is rejected out of hand by ideologues.
Finally, Congressman McCarthy (R-CA) started talking about cuts and the Department of Education by pointing out the number of $100K employees. This is true insofar as it goes, but the broader point is why we have a Department of Education in the first place. Education is at the state/local level, and there are a number of private institutions at all levels. Is the emperor wearing clothes? Public schools compete unfairly to begin with. It would be far more efficient and better to privatize education and provide assistance for less able students.
Musical Interlude: My Favorite Groups
ELO, "Wild West Hero"
Thursday, July 14, 2011
Miscellany: 7/14/11
Quote of the Day
They may forget what you said, but they will never forget how you made them feel.
Carl W. Buechner
One of my favorite relatives has an annoying habit of forwarding what I think must be every Internet hoax he or she receives. Some of them are patently obvious; for example, many hoaxes encourage recipients to emails a set number of contacts in your address book, add their names to petitions, etc. Many of the emails are sensational or provocative in nature (health, politics, etc.) I have explained that one can go to a site like scopes.com and enter salient key terms in their custom website search. This is not an IT blog, and I also want to point out there are competitors to scopes.com. My focus for this post has to do with certain political hoaxes, in particular, a recent proposed constitutional amendment.
I have a true conservative's aversion to unnecessary amendments. I've opposed constitutional amendments, even those reflecting my political preferences, e.g., prohibition of flag burning, balanced budget, and traditional marriage definition. Generally I worry about unintended consequences and materiality of the issue. Let me address a relevant issue here: the question of a balanced budget amendment. I am a strong fiscal hawk but I oppose this. Why? There are a variety of reasons, but in part, budgets can run out of balance for reasons beyond government control, e.g., general economic conditions, wartime spending, artifacts of tax and spending policy, etc. You have to set conditions for exceptions, and almost invariably you end up having fiscal policies ending up in the court system. You also have issues like how you deal with 40% deficits without economic shocks, where you resolve a deficit (like we're seeing) by changing revenue and spending policies. I also think there's a matter of moral hazard here: we should be addressing macro policy issues like the counterproductive effects of progressive tax policies, excessive reliance in income taxes (which introduce accounting distinctions like GE's famous no-taxes-paid distinction earlier this year), and a tax bias in favor home mortgages and other consumption versus savings and investment. We should be proactive, not reactive. A balanced budget amendment is surrender--a surrender not necessary in 220 years or so of the republic; we can't be trusted to resolve policy but must establish yet another government bureaucracy to monitor and regulate the budget. And let me say here: any Democrat or liberal/progressive who reads into my position a validation of his or her position in the ongoing fiscal crisis needs to reread my recent rants. There is not a single Democrat in the federal government whom acts fiscally responsible. The government bubble, which has reached unprecedented status during the Obama Administration, will almost surely make the other (stock market and real estate) bubbles pale in comparison.
Do I support a constitutional amendment? In the past I've made reference to certain constraints on public service, e.g., 12 year tenure caps on positions in legislative and/or judicial service. With all due respect, we have certain public servants whom seem/seemed to regard their position as an entitlement--former Justice Stevens, the late Senators Byrd and Kennedy, and (this will be controversial) Congresswoman Giffords. The issue for me is the primacy of the underlying service. Certainly what happened to Gabby Giffords is unfair, but she's the only one authorized to represent her district in Congress, and her ability to serve her district has been affected by factors beyond her control. Where to draw the line is the rub, of course.
The so-called 28th constitutional amendment is designed to prevent a double standard between public policy and a Congressman's office or compensation policies. For example, if Congress passes a law, say, dealing with affirmative action policies, a Congressman's office employment decisions are subject to the same constraints. There shouldn't be special compensation exceptions (e.g., a gold-plated pension system not available to other government employees).
I call it the "eat your own dog food" amendment. There are obvious issues with this populist amendment any conservative should recognize. Any conservative who has not noticed, for instance, is that demagogues like Bill Clinton, Barack Obama and high-profile Democratic executives (e.g., Warren Buffett) will say "hey, tax me more", is not paying attention. It's bad policy even if these guys insist they're eating their own dog food. The point is, the author of this hoax suggests that, say, Congressmen might vote more responsibly on social security if they had to pay into social security. I think this is like trying to nail jello or grasp a balloon. People act against their political positions all the time--all you have to do is look at sex scandals in Congress. Some members of Congress are very wealthy and, for example, won't need social security checks. I think if and when Congressmen act in a blatantly hypocritical manner, it can and should be an issue in the next election campaign. But do we want to open up Pandora's box of amending the constitution based on paranoia? I don't think so.
Scopes.com points out there are several factual errors in the emails, including its active consideration in Congress, the fact that Congressmen in fact do pay into social security, must comply with sexual harassment policy, don't retire at full pay, have access to the same health care options as other federal employees, etc.
Musical Interlude: My Favorite Groups
ELO, "Mr. Blue Sky"
They may forget what you said, but they will never forget how you made them feel.
Carl W. Buechner
Internet Hoaxes: The 28th Amendment
I have a true conservative's aversion to unnecessary amendments. I've opposed constitutional amendments, even those reflecting my political preferences, e.g., prohibition of flag burning, balanced budget, and traditional marriage definition. Generally I worry about unintended consequences and materiality of the issue. Let me address a relevant issue here: the question of a balanced budget amendment. I am a strong fiscal hawk but I oppose this. Why? There are a variety of reasons, but in part, budgets can run out of balance for reasons beyond government control, e.g., general economic conditions, wartime spending, artifacts of tax and spending policy, etc. You have to set conditions for exceptions, and almost invariably you end up having fiscal policies ending up in the court system. You also have issues like how you deal with 40% deficits without economic shocks, where you resolve a deficit (like we're seeing) by changing revenue and spending policies. I also think there's a matter of moral hazard here: we should be addressing macro policy issues like the counterproductive effects of progressive tax policies, excessive reliance in income taxes (which introduce accounting distinctions like GE's famous no-taxes-paid distinction earlier this year), and a tax bias in favor home mortgages and other consumption versus savings and investment. We should be proactive, not reactive. A balanced budget amendment is surrender--a surrender not necessary in 220 years or so of the republic; we can't be trusted to resolve policy but must establish yet another government bureaucracy to monitor and regulate the budget. And let me say here: any Democrat or liberal/progressive who reads into my position a validation of his or her position in the ongoing fiscal crisis needs to reread my recent rants. There is not a single Democrat in the federal government whom acts fiscally responsible. The government bubble, which has reached unprecedented status during the Obama Administration, will almost surely make the other (stock market and real estate) bubbles pale in comparison.
Do I support a constitutional amendment? In the past I've made reference to certain constraints on public service, e.g., 12 year tenure caps on positions in legislative and/or judicial service. With all due respect, we have certain public servants whom seem/seemed to regard their position as an entitlement--former Justice Stevens, the late Senators Byrd and Kennedy, and (this will be controversial) Congresswoman Giffords. The issue for me is the primacy of the underlying service. Certainly what happened to Gabby Giffords is unfair, but she's the only one authorized to represent her district in Congress, and her ability to serve her district has been affected by factors beyond her control. Where to draw the line is the rub, of course.
The so-called 28th constitutional amendment is designed to prevent a double standard between public policy and a Congressman's office or compensation policies. For example, if Congress passes a law, say, dealing with affirmative action policies, a Congressman's office employment decisions are subject to the same constraints. There shouldn't be special compensation exceptions (e.g., a gold-plated pension system not available to other government employees).
I call it the "eat your own dog food" amendment. There are obvious issues with this populist amendment any conservative should recognize. Any conservative who has not noticed, for instance, is that demagogues like Bill Clinton, Barack Obama and high-profile Democratic executives (e.g., Warren Buffett) will say "hey, tax me more", is not paying attention. It's bad policy even if these guys insist they're eating their own dog food. The point is, the author of this hoax suggests that, say, Congressmen might vote more responsibly on social security if they had to pay into social security. I think this is like trying to nail jello or grasp a balloon. People act against their political positions all the time--all you have to do is look at sex scandals in Congress. Some members of Congress are very wealthy and, for example, won't need social security checks. I think if and when Congressmen act in a blatantly hypocritical manner, it can and should be an issue in the next election campaign. But do we want to open up Pandora's box of amending the constitution based on paranoia? I don't think so.
Scopes.com points out there are several factual errors in the emails, including its active consideration in Congress, the fact that Congressmen in fact do pay into social security, must comply with sexual harassment policy, don't retire at full pay, have access to the same health care options as other federal employees, etc.
Musical Interlude: My Favorite Groups
ELO, "Mr. Blue Sky"
Wednesday, July 13, 2011
MIscellany: 7/13/11
Quote of the Day
A compliment is a gift, not to be thrown away carelessly, unless you want to hurt the giver.
Eleanor Hamilton
Barack "Crybaby" Obama: AWOL on Leadership
Grow up, Mr. "President". You no longer deserve respect. I've losing patience with the pathetic Demagogue in Chief. It's bad enough this loser doesn't have the balls to take responsibility for a single substantive thing. He views things like minimal reforms for things like Medicare with vast unfunded liabilities as a Democratic "concession" as a quid pro quo to demand class warfare tax hikes. It's not only his intellectual dishonesty in dealing with overspending he is directly responsible for now, but he thinks the American people are too stupid to understand that he wants tax hikes TODAY by making concessions that take place in the FUTURE and are purely ILLUSORY and UNREALISTIC in nature. Things like long-overdue actuarial changes for stretching out eligibility ages occur in the future. That's totally irresponsible by any objective measure. People are living longer TODAY and think they have "earned" windfall benefit eligibility even though with long lifespans, current retirees collecting far more benefits than paid into the system. This is inherently an existing Ponzi scheme. I'm criticizing Paul Ryan for not facing reality and demanding changes TODAY because we are headed towards a Greece-like debacle earlier than later such as Moody's put the US government on downgrade watch. As for IQ-challenged, delusional partisans like Nancy Pelosi in a total state of denial over $50T in unfunded entitlement liabilities, Democrats have proven themselves of being unworthy of the support of sane American voters. Even take the fantasy/delusional financing of Medicare and Medicaid: Democratic answers to these problems is to "save" money by imposing price controls over products and services BELOW their legitimate costs. That simply is not a viable business model. So when the Democrats passed last year's Healthcare Ponzi Scheme, by double-counting savings to fund ObamaCare and and address Medicare resources, there was no thought given to the fact that the future price cuts are unrealistic given the fact that most government providers are already being reimbursed below cost.
Let me boil down what's happening to make it clearer to my readers: what you have is Democratic partisans engaging in intentional deception of the American people by pretending to engage fiscal reform and responsibility. Where is the money to keep their promises? Federal revenues are stagnant; adding to job creator tax burden will likely suppress revenues, not grow them. I am not aware of any serious Democratic initiative to reduce costs anywhere--the only things Democrats try to cut are budget increases. You don't hear ANY kind of sacrifice of the large majority of present and future participants in entitlement programs.
If Democrats want to engage in talk of revenue enhancements, over and beyond simplifying tax policy, when are they going to talk to a fairer, more distributed cost sharing, like a national sales tax, given the fact that this country's tax policy is already too progressive and prefers consumption over savings and investment?
All of this exactly reflects what we should expect from the "cerebral" President whom let his super-majority Congress last term pass purely partisan legislation including the stimulus, healthcare, and financial "reform" measures. He basically walks out on the House Majority Leader pushing for a short-term deal for what reason? What kind of idiot thinks that this President is recognizing the political facts of life: in the last Congress, Obama knowingly and deliberately poisoned the well. The GOP majority in the House has absolutely no incentive to work with this guy. He hoodwinked them earlier this year by making trivial budgetary concessions earlier, and this "genius" thinks that the GOP will fall for the same smoke-and-mirrors game a second time. You reap what you sow, guy. Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice...
I suggested considering in yesterday's post the McConnell legislation which is essentially aimed at giving President Obama, Reid and their fellow Democratic hacks all the political rope they need to hang themselves. I think in part it's because McConnell is concerned that Republicans will get blamed with a default.
After Obama decided to throw today's temper tantrum, I don't believe that McConnell's plan is a viable option. The House should pass a single short-term limit increase with a package of cuts. PERIOD. Take it or leave it. Force the Senate to vote it down and/or the President to veto it, and make it clear if and when the President vetoes it, the next bill will double the cuts and shrink the debt increase. As for political blame: all the House has to do is pass a bill. If and when the Senate and/or President reject the package and we default, who do you think is going to get blamed? The House which passed a bill or the Senate or President which didn't? Time to eat your peas, President Loser.
Musical Interlude: My Favorite Groups
ELO, "Turn to Stone"
A compliment is a gift, not to be thrown away carelessly, unless you want to hurt the giver.
Eleanor Hamilton
Barack "Crybaby" Obama: AWOL on Leadership
Grow up, Mr. "President". You no longer deserve respect. I've losing patience with the pathetic Demagogue in Chief. It's bad enough this loser doesn't have the balls to take responsibility for a single substantive thing. He views things like minimal reforms for things like Medicare with vast unfunded liabilities as a Democratic "concession" as a quid pro quo to demand class warfare tax hikes. It's not only his intellectual dishonesty in dealing with overspending he is directly responsible for now, but he thinks the American people are too stupid to understand that he wants tax hikes TODAY by making concessions that take place in the FUTURE and are purely ILLUSORY and UNREALISTIC in nature. Things like long-overdue actuarial changes for stretching out eligibility ages occur in the future. That's totally irresponsible by any objective measure. People are living longer TODAY and think they have "earned" windfall benefit eligibility even though with long lifespans, current retirees collecting far more benefits than paid into the system. This is inherently an existing Ponzi scheme. I'm criticizing Paul Ryan for not facing reality and demanding changes TODAY because we are headed towards a Greece-like debacle earlier than later such as Moody's put the US government on downgrade watch. As for IQ-challenged, delusional partisans like Nancy Pelosi in a total state of denial over $50T in unfunded entitlement liabilities, Democrats have proven themselves of being unworthy of the support of sane American voters. Even take the fantasy/delusional financing of Medicare and Medicaid: Democratic answers to these problems is to "save" money by imposing price controls over products and services BELOW their legitimate costs. That simply is not a viable business model. So when the Democrats passed last year's Healthcare Ponzi Scheme, by double-counting savings to fund ObamaCare and and address Medicare resources, there was no thought given to the fact that the future price cuts are unrealistic given the fact that most government providers are already being reimbursed below cost.
Let me boil down what's happening to make it clearer to my readers: what you have is Democratic partisans engaging in intentional deception of the American people by pretending to engage fiscal reform and responsibility. Where is the money to keep their promises? Federal revenues are stagnant; adding to job creator tax burden will likely suppress revenues, not grow them. I am not aware of any serious Democratic initiative to reduce costs anywhere--the only things Democrats try to cut are budget increases. You don't hear ANY kind of sacrifice of the large majority of present and future participants in entitlement programs.
If Democrats want to engage in talk of revenue enhancements, over and beyond simplifying tax policy, when are they going to talk to a fairer, more distributed cost sharing, like a national sales tax, given the fact that this country's tax policy is already too progressive and prefers consumption over savings and investment?
All of this exactly reflects what we should expect from the "cerebral" President whom let his super-majority Congress last term pass purely partisan legislation including the stimulus, healthcare, and financial "reform" measures. He basically walks out on the House Majority Leader pushing for a short-term deal for what reason? What kind of idiot thinks that this President is recognizing the political facts of life: in the last Congress, Obama knowingly and deliberately poisoned the well. The GOP majority in the House has absolutely no incentive to work with this guy. He hoodwinked them earlier this year by making trivial budgetary concessions earlier, and this "genius" thinks that the GOP will fall for the same smoke-and-mirrors game a second time. You reap what you sow, guy. Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice...
I suggested considering in yesterday's post the McConnell legislation which is essentially aimed at giving President Obama, Reid and their fellow Democratic hacks all the political rope they need to hang themselves. I think in part it's because McConnell is concerned that Republicans will get blamed with a default.
After Obama decided to throw today's temper tantrum, I don't believe that McConnell's plan is a viable option. The House should pass a single short-term limit increase with a package of cuts. PERIOD. Take it or leave it. Force the Senate to vote it down and/or the President to veto it, and make it clear if and when the President vetoes it, the next bill will double the cuts and shrink the debt increase. As for political blame: all the House has to do is pass a bill. If and when the Senate and/or President reject the package and we default, who do you think is going to get blamed? The House which passed a bill or the Senate or President which didn't? Time to eat your peas, President Loser.
Musical Interlude: My Favorite Groups
ELO, "Turn to Stone"
Tuesday, July 12, 2011
Miscellany: 7/12/11
Quote of the Day
Being defeated is often only a temporary condition. Giving up is what makes it permanent.
Marilyn vos Savant
The Debt Ceiling Debacle:
McConnell Fallback Initiative: Thumbs UP!
We have an unconscionable game of chicken going on. First, I've made it clear that Obama is totally irresponsible. How many times has the Obama Administration, say, played Chicken Little with scaremongering tactics, but then Obama says he won't pass any short-term deal, he will only consider long-overdue Medicare reform if it comes with a class warfare tax hike: never mind the issue with Medicare has more to do with intrinsic sustainability and unfunded liabilities. You know, Obama is awfully particular for someone facing financial Armageddon. Never mind eating one's peas: Obama is more like a starving man whom decides he deserves better than day-old bread.
The latest scaremongering involves the deliberate attempt by a morally corrupt Barack Obama, utterly incompetent and unfit to serve as President, to stoke fears that social security beneficiaries will not be paid. In watching this debacle, e.g., on Fox News, I'm amazed nobody is making the most obvious point: In a budget with a 40% deficit or so, the social security program is for the most part self-sustaining, at least in the short-term from payroll taxes. We are modestly in short-term deficit and mostly because of fallen payroll tax receipts due to stagnating employment; we hold Treasury securities in reserve which could be sold to cover disbursement gaps.
The McConnell plan, which is opposed by many media conservatives in favor of short-term deals which Obama has ruled out, is a political masterstroke in the sense that Obama would be forced to take direct responsibilities for cuts (instead of demagogue against them) and national debt increases, allows the GOP to vote against the debt ceiling and put the Democratic legislators on the hook to also accept full responsibility for the debt increases, sidesteps any responsibilities of the game of chicken for disruptions in the financial markets because of defaults, and disallows Obama's attempts to use the crisis for extortion in a demand for class warfare tax hikes. Given the fact that the Democrats control the Senate and the White House, the ideologues like Bachmann are engaged in reckless and stupid public policy. The Democrats are deliberately manipulating this situation feeling that they are setting the House GOP up for losing control in next year's elections; budget cuts are politically very unpopular, and the risk of a default could cause chronic problems in the economy, which almost certainly would be attributed to the GOP, not the "Teflon President" (because he wants to escape responsibility for everything). The political risk-to-reward is unreasonably high with a more ideological approach.
Musical Interlude: My Favorite Groups
ELO, "Telephone Line"
Being defeated is often only a temporary condition. Giving up is what makes it permanent.
Marilyn vos Savant
The Debt Ceiling Debacle:
McConnell Fallback Initiative: Thumbs UP!
We have an unconscionable game of chicken going on. First, I've made it clear that Obama is totally irresponsible. How many times has the Obama Administration, say, played Chicken Little with scaremongering tactics, but then Obama says he won't pass any short-term deal, he will only consider long-overdue Medicare reform if it comes with a class warfare tax hike: never mind the issue with Medicare has more to do with intrinsic sustainability and unfunded liabilities. You know, Obama is awfully particular for someone facing financial Armageddon. Never mind eating one's peas: Obama is more like a starving man whom decides he deserves better than day-old bread.
The latest scaremongering involves the deliberate attempt by a morally corrupt Barack Obama, utterly incompetent and unfit to serve as President, to stoke fears that social security beneficiaries will not be paid. In watching this debacle, e.g., on Fox News, I'm amazed nobody is making the most obvious point: In a budget with a 40% deficit or so, the social security program is for the most part self-sustaining, at least in the short-term from payroll taxes. We are modestly in short-term deficit and mostly because of fallen payroll tax receipts due to stagnating employment; we hold Treasury securities in reserve which could be sold to cover disbursement gaps.
The McConnell plan, which is opposed by many media conservatives in favor of short-term deals which Obama has ruled out, is a political masterstroke in the sense that Obama would be forced to take direct responsibilities for cuts (instead of demagogue against them) and national debt increases, allows the GOP to vote against the debt ceiling and put the Democratic legislators on the hook to also accept full responsibility for the debt increases, sidesteps any responsibilities of the game of chicken for disruptions in the financial markets because of defaults, and disallows Obama's attempts to use the crisis for extortion in a demand for class warfare tax hikes. Given the fact that the Democrats control the Senate and the White House, the ideologues like Bachmann are engaged in reckless and stupid public policy. The Democrats are deliberately manipulating this situation feeling that they are setting the House GOP up for losing control in next year's elections; budget cuts are politically very unpopular, and the risk of a default could cause chronic problems in the economy, which almost certainly would be attributed to the GOP, not the "Teflon President" (because he wants to escape responsibility for everything). The political risk-to-reward is unreasonably high with a more ideological approach.
Musical Interlude: My Favorite Groups
ELO, "Telephone Line"
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)