"It is a vital national security interest of the United States to reduce these conflicts because whether we like it or not, we remain a dominant military superpower, and when conflicts break out, one way or another we get pulled into them" -- Barry H. Obama
Dear Barry,
You said a mouthful. I realize there isn't much you like about America; but there's a lot of things we Americans do like, and one of them is the fact that we are a dominant military superpower. A lot of your friends don't particularly like the fact that we are the greatest civilization this world has seen. It's true. But we've learned that the people you hang around with are friends of our enemies. Whether YOU like it or not, there are some things about this country that are worth saving.
Like it or not, We have a Constitution.
Like it or not, it contains ONLY negative liberties.
Like it or not, it requires of the government very few services (one of which is a capable military)
Like it or not, this IS America, the country you happen to be president of, and it would help if you'd show us that you like it just a little bit.
Now, as to the bulk of your remarks, the United States of America does not "get pulled in to" these conflicts. Either there is a national interest requiring our participation, or there is not. And at the moment, I'm very nervous that you and your team of socio-meddlers don't know the difference.
Sunday, April 25, 2010
Friday, March 26, 2010
Government 2.0
What Washington needs is adult supervision.
--Barry H. Obama
We can't change the way Washington works unless we first change how Congress works.
--Barry H. Obama
Most people who serve in Washington have been trained either as lawyers or as political operatives – professions that tend to place a premium on winning arguments rather than solving problems.
--Barry H. Obama
For a guy who railed against Washington through the whole campaign, Barry O sure fits in well with that bunch, doesn't he? One of the most remarkable things about him is not that he's usually wrong. It's that he is wrong on every issue. Every One. He's against freedom, property rights, family values, the economy. Pick any topic, and he's sure to be on the wrong side of it. Try it. What's his position? It's likely as not a bizarre freedom-sapping notion about what the government "must do", instead of recognition of it's restrictions.
You'd think a president who was merely incompetent would get it right half the time. George Bush got it right half the time. Why can't Obama?
One theory is that he gets it wrong because he simply does not believe in America. He has little regard or concern about true human nature, and flails around with non-natural policies. It is remarkable that a majority of congress follows him down this path. A second theory has it that Obama has a Cloward and Piven death wish for this society. Either way, we all lose.
Only when we get someone who gets it right every time can we hope to preserve our freedoms. Those presidents are harder to find than the ones who get it wrong every time. Over the last 20 years we are surely batting less than 50%. If we give up half our freedoms every 4 or 8 years, it won't be long before we have no freedoms left that are worth caring about.
I have concluded that the system does not and can not protect us from the dangers of these periodic forced reductions of life, liberty, and property. It is time to go for government 2.0.
Government 2.0 has two immediate goals. One is to have the states ratify a change to the constitution that requires that all federal money comes from the states. Federal taxes would be eliminated in favor of a tax on the states in proportion to their population. Instead of the federal government spending money regardless of income, the states could decide jointly to rein it in. This will force the federal government back to the proper size, with the real power allocated to the states and to the people. Wayne Root's book "The Conscience of a Libertarian" makes the case for this.
The second thing will be to repeal the commerce clause. The commerce clause is badly abused on a daily basis, is regularly cited as the constitutional basis for everything from health care to high finance; and is the cause of gross misappropriation of government resources. If we repeal the commerce claus, it won't be misconstrued any more.
Yes, Government 2.0. It is time to install the upgrade.
--Barry H. Obama
We can't change the way Washington works unless we first change how Congress works.
--Barry H. Obama
Most people who serve in Washington have been trained either as lawyers or as political operatives – professions that tend to place a premium on winning arguments rather than solving problems.
--Barry H. Obama
For a guy who railed against Washington through the whole campaign, Barry O sure fits in well with that bunch, doesn't he? One of the most remarkable things about him is not that he's usually wrong. It's that he is wrong on every issue. Every One. He's against freedom, property rights, family values, the economy. Pick any topic, and he's sure to be on the wrong side of it. Try it. What's his position? It's likely as not a bizarre freedom-sapping notion about what the government "must do", instead of recognition of it's restrictions.
You'd think a president who was merely incompetent would get it right half the time. George Bush got it right half the time. Why can't Obama?
One theory is that he gets it wrong because he simply does not believe in America. He has little regard or concern about true human nature, and flails around with non-natural policies. It is remarkable that a majority of congress follows him down this path. A second theory has it that Obama has a Cloward and Piven death wish for this society. Either way, we all lose.
Only when we get someone who gets it right every time can we hope to preserve our freedoms. Those presidents are harder to find than the ones who get it wrong every time. Over the last 20 years we are surely batting less than 50%. If we give up half our freedoms every 4 or 8 years, it won't be long before we have no freedoms left that are worth caring about.
I have concluded that the system does not and can not protect us from the dangers of these periodic forced reductions of life, liberty, and property. It is time to go for government 2.0.
Government 2.0 has two immediate goals. One is to have the states ratify a change to the constitution that requires that all federal money comes from the states. Federal taxes would be eliminated in favor of a tax on the states in proportion to their population. Instead of the federal government spending money regardless of income, the states could decide jointly to rein it in. This will force the federal government back to the proper size, with the real power allocated to the states and to the people. Wayne Root's book "The Conscience of a Libertarian" makes the case for this.
The second thing will be to repeal the commerce clause. The commerce clause is badly abused on a daily basis, is regularly cited as the constitutional basis for everything from health care to high finance; and is the cause of gross misappropriation of government resources. If we repeal the commerce claus, it won't be misconstrued any more.
Yes, Government 2.0. It is time to install the upgrade.
Saturday, March 20, 2010
We Have A Constitution
Our country's founders cherished liberty, not democracy.
-- Ron Paul
Constitutionalism proclaims the desirability of the rule of law as opposed to rule by the arbitrary judgment or mere fiat of public officials. -- David Fellman
I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter: So help me God. -- Oaths of Office For Federal Officials
In a prior post, I expressed my disbelief at the reaction of the Speaker of the House to a simple question. I've had a couple of months now to think about this, and to make sense of it in light of, well, the oath of office and the apparent disregard for the document. She's hardly alone. I am sure that very few congressmen can be shown to support the constitution. However, by blatantly discrediting the fundamental rule of law, there is little left to stand on.
Many persons, citizens and politicians alike view the constitution as this quaint historic document, and not the law of the land. Our forefathers sweated over this very thing for many years. History had proven, indeed many times by then, that a nation of men would always become corrupt and despotic. That the only way to avoid that same morass was to make it a nation of laws. That is what is important about the costitution. It is a great document precisely because it lays out that which is necessary to define a great country.
Obama was right to identify it as a collection of negative liberties. It could not, should not, and can not be anything else. What is remarkable is that he, too took the oath of office without so much as a hint of irony, and without any intent of upholding it. He wants it to remain an artifact of the past, and discount the application of its principles and provisions in today's society.
It's not that the constitution of the United States is outdated. If it was, we'd have to write a new one, wouldn't we? The constitution has within it not only the historical record of how this country became great, but also the principles by which we are governed today.
I believe you can name a federal government in 15 pages, which is what the constitution and all its amendments are comprised on. Everything the government must do is listed there. Everything else belongs to the states, or the people.
When you look at it that way, that the owners manual for the US government is only 15 pages, you wonder why so many of our government officials are unaware of its provisions. If they can't read and understand the first 15 pages, no other bill that follows has a chance of being constitutional.
Sunday, February 28, 2010
Sometimes It Hits Me
When we get piled upon one another in large cities, as in Europe, we shall become as corrupt as Europe. -- Thomas Jefferson
Many so-called "Blue Staters" are susceptible to the notions of the global warming alarmists. I had always marveled at the number of people who would buy into the improbable scenarios that are protrayed in works of fiction such as The Day After Tomorrow, Reefer Madness and An Inconvenient Truth.
I enjoy a good eco-scare story. Movies like Damnation Alley were a good way to kill a few on a rainy Sunday. The problem is when government officials' attitudes start reflecting some of the fears put out by these works of overt irrationality.
Most of us have never feared winged monkeys despite watching the Wizard of Oz some 35 times. Why should we fear the world tilting on its axis, Earth running out of oxygen, or whole states totally swamped out by tsunamis.
Then it occurred to me. New Yorkers, not to pick on them, but to give the seminal example, are often at the mercy of their environment. How many remember the plight of New York City residents when the garbage workers went out on strike? Now that is an environmental catastrophe. Garbage could take over your whole life. It would pile up at the doors, and eventually trap you in your apartment building. There is indeed a reason to believe that your environment can affect you in New York.
Meanwhile, out in the real world, there's plenty of room to roam around. Our garbage is well tended to, and there is no obvious environmental or population problem. In fact, bring on the tired, the poor, the wretched refuse; we have room here.
Here, yes in red state country, we observe that the earth is resilient, renewable, and irrepressible. We can handle all the carbon dioxide you want to send our way. Anyone who doesn't think so, should regard the dandelion. The point is, none of us should believe we have nearly as much impact on the environment as the movies would seem to say we do.
There is also a big danger in letting the big city types set any kind of environmental policy. From where they stand, something has to be done. Maybe so, but they should keep the cures to themselves, and let the rest of us live our lives free from their "solutions".
Many so-called "Blue Staters" are susceptible to the notions of the global warming alarmists. I had always marveled at the number of people who would buy into the improbable scenarios that are protrayed in works of fiction such as The Day After Tomorrow, Reefer Madness and An Inconvenient Truth.
I enjoy a good eco-scare story. Movies like Damnation Alley were a good way to kill a few on a rainy Sunday. The problem is when government officials' attitudes start reflecting some of the fears put out by these works of overt irrationality.
Most of us have never feared winged monkeys despite watching the Wizard of Oz some 35 times. Why should we fear the world tilting on its axis, Earth running out of oxygen, or whole states totally swamped out by tsunamis.
Then it occurred to me. New Yorkers, not to pick on them, but to give the seminal example, are often at the mercy of their environment. How many remember the plight of New York City residents when the garbage workers went out on strike? Now that is an environmental catastrophe. Garbage could take over your whole life. It would pile up at the doors, and eventually trap you in your apartment building. There is indeed a reason to believe that your environment can affect you in New York.
Meanwhile, out in the real world, there's plenty of room to roam around. Our garbage is well tended to, and there is no obvious environmental or population problem. In fact, bring on the tired, the poor, the wretched refuse; we have room here.
Here, yes in red state country, we observe that the earth is resilient, renewable, and irrepressible. We can handle all the carbon dioxide you want to send our way. Anyone who doesn't think so, should regard the dandelion. The point is, none of us should believe we have nearly as much impact on the environment as the movies would seem to say we do.
There is also a big danger in letting the big city types set any kind of environmental policy. From where they stand, something has to be done. Maybe so, but they should keep the cures to themselves, and let the rest of us live our lives free from their "solutions".
Monday, February 22, 2010
Conspiracies and Complicities
The three aims of the tyrant are, one, the humiliation of his subjects; he knows that a mean-spirited man will not conspire against anybody; two, the creation of mistrust among them; for a tyrant is not to be overthrown until men begin to have confidence in one another -- and this is the reason why tyrants are at war with the good; they are under the idea that their power is endangered by them, not only because they will not be ruled despotically, but also because they are too loyal to one another and to other men, and do not inform against one another or against other men -- three, the tyrant desires that all his subjects shall be incapable of action, for no one attempts what is impossible and they will not attempt to overthrow a tyranny if they are powerless. -- Aristotle
For you see, the world is governed by very different personages from what is imagined by those who are not behind the scenes. -- Benjamin Disraeli
I have been bothered recently by the treatment of persons identified as "wacko conspiracy theorists" for wanting to learn the truth. High profile persons mock and deride honest people like Alan Keyes who would simply like to see a birth certificate.
Recently, Bill O'Reilly and Glenn Beck have taken up against the inquiry. O'Reilly misses and dismisses a lot in his efforts to be perceived as fair and balanced. Glenn "hold to the truth" Beck should know better than to dismiss a constitutional truth. A certificate of live birth, which simply proves that someone was born somewhere is not the same as a birth certificate, and shouldn't be accepted as such, without other proof. Now, do I think it makes a difference? Yes, for future reference. If in fact it turns out Obama was born out of the US, it will be but one in a long list of serious mistakes leading to the election.
I believe in Occam's razor. Occam's razor teaches that the simplest explanation is almost always true. The simplest explanation to me is that this child's mother wanted US citizenship for her son, and learned of a way to accomplish that in August 1961. Not the first time, nor the last. This is done many times a day in the US even now.
I don't normally subscribe to conspiracy theories. For example, the torturous logic behind those who believe in US government complicity in 9/11 leaves me unconvinced. Too complicated. Too hard to cover up that many loose strings. Sure, a lot of folks are suspicious, and not all things can be explained.
But to dismiss those who seek the truth is to promote untruth. No matter the results of the find.
Many conspiracies turn out to be true. Here's one.
A hospital record of birth would be helpful here. No, it's not a "right wing conspiracy". It is an issue of constitutional importance.
Saturday, January 30, 2010
Happy Trails, Martha Coakley
The Republicans are even more recalcitrant than they were before, and they believe the public are on their side, which they’re not—Howard Fineman
The jubilant folks at FOX News et al. are correct that the Massachusetts election today has national significance -- but not for the reasons they claim. They think people are upset at "government" but they're really upset with corporate control of government ..., -- Joseph Palermo
The same thing that swept Scott Brown into office swept me into office. People are angry, and they’re frustrated. Not just because of what’s happened in the last year or two years, but what’s happened over the last eight years.….. Barack Obama
"Everyone" is rushing to interpret the Massachusetts election. It's fascinating to watch the reactions from the blogosphere on what this election means. Much of the chatter can be boiled down to this simple statement: People were so mad about Bush's policies, that they elected a Republican in Massachusetts. Now, I got plenty steamed at Bush, but it would never have occurred to me to vote for a Republican because of it.
What is really missing is that the pundits have to account for the Tea Party phenomenon which was bigger than Kent State, bigger than Chicago '68, and bigger than any other political groundswell this country has seen. It's significance is downplayed by all media, who seem afraid to define it as the voice of the people. Virginia, New Jersy, and now Massachusetts, all with the same result...the politician who espoused less government and more freedom got the votes. The elections are proving that freedom is the more popular choice. Freedom to choose our own health care, freedom from the debilitating spendocracy, freedom to enjoy the fruits of our own labors.
One intriguing trend I see, and particularly from Massachusetts, is that the people voted for the right candidate, and it didn't matter what party he was from. Brown said he'd use the vote to stop health care. That was enough qualification for the office. It wasn't the only thing---the pickup truck was a refreshing blast too --- but the right guy got elected.
The trend will go further. I believe that the parties are now so similar as to be indistinguishable. Therefore it is important to vote for the person who most advocates freedom, regardless of his party. Political parties are outmoded and as unnecessary as unions are to the economy. No more Rs and Ds. In fact, some day I'd like to see an amendment to effectively abolish political parties. More on that another time.
On the heels of the election, there was another refreshing win for freedom. The Supreme Court got it right when they abolished the most egregious parts of McCain Feingold. Let's hope that's also a trend.
The jubilant folks at FOX News et al. are correct that the Massachusetts election today has national significance -- but not for the reasons they claim. They think people are upset at "government" but they're really upset with corporate control of government ..., -- Joseph Palermo
The same thing that swept Scott Brown into office swept me into office. People are angry, and they’re frustrated. Not just because of what’s happened in the last year or two years, but what’s happened over the last eight years.….. Barack Obama
"Everyone" is rushing to interpret the Massachusetts election. It's fascinating to watch the reactions from the blogosphere on what this election means. Much of the chatter can be boiled down to this simple statement: People were so mad about Bush's policies, that they elected a Republican in Massachusetts. Now, I got plenty steamed at Bush, but it would never have occurred to me to vote for a Republican because of it.
What is really missing is that the pundits have to account for the Tea Party phenomenon which was bigger than Kent State, bigger than Chicago '68, and bigger than any other political groundswell this country has seen. It's significance is downplayed by all media, who seem afraid to define it as the voice of the people. Virginia, New Jersy, and now Massachusetts, all with the same result...the politician who espoused less government and more freedom got the votes. The elections are proving that freedom is the more popular choice. Freedom to choose our own health care, freedom from the debilitating spendocracy, freedom to enjoy the fruits of our own labors.
One intriguing trend I see, and particularly from Massachusetts, is that the people voted for the right candidate, and it didn't matter what party he was from. Brown said he'd use the vote to stop health care. That was enough qualification for the office. It wasn't the only thing---the pickup truck was a refreshing blast too --- but the right guy got elected.
The trend will go further. I believe that the parties are now so similar as to be indistinguishable. Therefore it is important to vote for the person who most advocates freedom, regardless of his party. Political parties are outmoded and as unnecessary as unions are to the economy. No more Rs and Ds. In fact, some day I'd like to see an amendment to effectively abolish political parties. More on that another time.
On the heels of the election, there was another refreshing win for freedom. The Supreme Court got it right when they abolished the most egregious parts of McCain Feingold. Let's hope that's also a trend.
Friday, January 29, 2010
Introducing Average Joe
To save us all some time, I have borrowed Erick Erickson's summary of Obama's SOTU (State of the Union) speech; and am adding the response from Average Joe, a typical US citizen.
Raise Taxes:
• “I have proposed a fee on the biggest banks.”
AJ: Targeting "bigness" is bad for business. and Who do you think pays those fees?
• “finally slash the tax breaks for companies that ship our jobs overseas”
AJ: Government minimum wage policies lead to this loss of jobs. Tax policy is not a solution. Eliminating wage interference is.
• “But at a time of record deficits, we will not continue tax cuts for oil companies, investment fund managers, and those making over $250,000 a year.”
AJ: These companies and individuals already pay higher than average taxes. To make it more difficult for them to hire people does not serve your jobs purpose.
Tax Cuts With Strings – Targeted, Not broad-based cuts:
• “new small business tax credit”
AJ: So, I have to downsize my business to qualify for credits? Why not give all businesses a credit?
• “eliminate all capital gains taxes on small business investment”
AJ: This makes no sense: Are you trying to make all businesses small?
• “provide a tax incentive for all businesses, large and small, to invest in new plants and equipment”
AJ: A good economy is all the incentive needed. No sense in adding tax complexity to it.
• “give rebates to Americans who make their homes more energy efficient”
AJ: Efficiency is its own reward. Giving rebates only subsidizes the window companies, and forces prices higher.
• “give those tax breaks to companies that create jobs in the United States of America”
AJ: An economy that creates jobs is one that is increasingly productive. Tax policy can only shift money from one pocket to the other.
• “That’s why we’re nearly doubling the child care tax credit”
AJ: How does subsidizing the child care outfits help the economy? It just raises the cost for everyone who does not "qualify" for this credit.
• “expanding the tax credit for those who start a nest egg”
AJ: Here's an idea, let people keep what they earn. That will get a lot of nest eggs going.
• “give families a $10,000 tax credit for four years of college and increase Pell Grants”
AJ: The cost of college tuition is already high enough. If everybody (but the so called "rich") has an extra 10,000 to play with, the cost of college will go up 10,000 dollars to keep pace with it. Supply and Demand.
• “we will extend our middle-class tax cuts”
AJ: Great! How do I get into this so-called "middle class"? Or do you really mean 95% of us, which amounts to a tax cut for less than half of us, and a free bag of money for the rest?
Regulation
• “We can’t allow financial institutions to take risks that threaten the whole economy”
AJ: Actually, they are the only ones who can deal with risk. But you must let them pay for their mistakes, too.
• “Require lobbyists to disclose each contact they make on behalf of a client with my Administration or Congress.”
AJ: Great, who's going to manage that database. The department of lobbyist review? Sounds like a good way to build your enemies list to me.
• “And it’s time to put strict limits on the contributions that lobbyists give to candidates for federal office.”
AJ: Limiting contributions? Didn't we just have an object lesson in freedom of speech this week?
• “urging Democrats and Republicans to pass a bill that helps to right this wrong [the Supreme Court ruling]”
I can think of a lot of bad law that came out of the Supreme Court. This is one they got right.
• “We are going to crack down on violations of equal pay laws – so that women get equal pay for an equal day’s work.”
AJ: This is a straw man, but a good way to get half your constituents mad at the other half.
Spending - General:
• “We need to encourage American innovation” (through “investment”)
AJ: How about stopping the spending so that capital can be released to the private companies that drive innovation?
• “launching a National Export Initiative that will help farmers and small businesses increase their exports, and reform export controls consistent with national security”
AJ: Sounds like another federal department to me. Let's get rid of a few hundred failed initiatives before adding more, shall we?
• “we will step up re-financing so that homeowners can move into more affordable mortgages.”
AJ: Why are you in the financing business? Mortgages should cost exactly what they have to in free market and fair competition.
• “jobs must be our number one focus in 2010, and that is why I am calling for a new jobs bill tonight.”
AJ: You called for a stimulus, and got Nancy Pelosi's Christmas list. Calling for a jobs bill will have a similar destructive result.
Spending Freeze and Reform
• “Starting in 2011, we are prepared to freeze government spending for three years. Spending related to our national security, Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security will not be affected. But all other discretionary government programs will.”
AJ: A freeze at this historically high spending rate will continue the bankruptcy path we started on last year. How about dropping it 35% and then freezing it?
• “calling on Congress to publish all earmark requests on a single website before there’s a vote”
AJ: Sure, we can put it on C-Span.org
Spending - Education
• “When we renew the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, we will work with Congress to expand these reforms to all fifty states”
AJ: Of all the hare-brained things GWB came up with, you had to embrace this one. No child allowed to succeed.
• “urge the Senate to follow the House and pass a bill that will revitalize our community colleges”
AJ: This will remove community colleges one more step from accountability to their communities. Not a good idea.
• “And let’s tell another one million students that when they graduate, they will be required:
o “to pay only ten percent of their income on student loans,
AJ: Given that college age kids are the dumbest demographic when it comes to voting, it's not surprising you would try to bribe them.
o “and all of their debt will be forgiven after twenty years – and forgiven after ten years if they choose a career in public service.”
AJ: That means stringing the loan office along for 15 years, make payments for five, and then ditch the thing. Sounds like a good long term economics plan (for some).
Healthcare (Spending, Regulation and Taxes)
• “And it is precisely to relieve the burden on middle-class families that we still need health insurance reform.”
AJ: This puzzles me. Forcing my company to drop health insurance so that I will need to buy it on my own, putting me on rationing, and forcing my parents to face death panels relieves my burden how?
National Security
• We will have all of our combat troops out of Iraq by the end of this August.
AJ: Finally! A war that was over in 9 months. 8 years later, we come home. Bravo.
• “We will support the Iraqi government as they hold elections, and continue to partner with the Iraqi people to promote regional peace and prosperity. But make no mistake: this war is ending, and all of our troops are coming home.”
AJ: Send Al Gore's lawyers to oversee the elections. That will stir up some patriotism.
• “To reduce our stockpiles and launchers, while ensuring our deterrent, the United States and Russia are completing negotiations on the farthest-reaching arms control treaty in nearly two decades.”
AJ: Like with farm subsidies, you are incentivising the Russians to not do what they weren't inclined to do in the first place. Brilliant, if you are Russian.
• “That is why North Korea now faces increased isolation, and stronger sanctions – sanctions that are being vigorously enforced.”
AJ: My five year old does tantrums better than Kim Jong Il. Sanctions don't seem to stop him.
• “And as Iran’s leaders continue to ignore their obligations, there should be no doubt: they, too, will face growing consequences.”
AJ: So we'll keep letting the Russians sell them what they need? This sounds like a good deal for the Russians too.
• “This year, I will work with Congress and our military to finally repeal the law that denies gay Americans the right to serve the country they love because of who they are.”
AJ: So much for an all volunteer Army. I hope there's enough for a batallion.,
Immigration
• “And we should continue the work of fixing our broken immigration system – to secure our borders, enforce our laws, and ensure that everyone who plays by the rules can contribute to our economy and enrich our nations.”
AJ: Oh, okay, I agree with that one. That's one.
AJ: Are we done here? That's it? Wow. One idea we can embrace. Well. It's a start....
Raise Taxes:
• “I have proposed a fee on the biggest banks.”
AJ: Targeting "bigness" is bad for business. and Who do you think pays those fees?
• “finally slash the tax breaks for companies that ship our jobs overseas”
AJ: Government minimum wage policies lead to this loss of jobs. Tax policy is not a solution. Eliminating wage interference is.
• “But at a time of record deficits, we will not continue tax cuts for oil companies, investment fund managers, and those making over $250,000 a year.”
AJ: These companies and individuals already pay higher than average taxes. To make it more difficult for them to hire people does not serve your jobs purpose.
Tax Cuts With Strings – Targeted, Not broad-based cuts:
• “new small business tax credit”
AJ: So, I have to downsize my business to qualify for credits? Why not give all businesses a credit?
• “eliminate all capital gains taxes on small business investment”
AJ: This makes no sense: Are you trying to make all businesses small?
• “provide a tax incentive for all businesses, large and small, to invest in new plants and equipment”
AJ: A good economy is all the incentive needed. No sense in adding tax complexity to it.
• “give rebates to Americans who make their homes more energy efficient”
AJ: Efficiency is its own reward. Giving rebates only subsidizes the window companies, and forces prices higher.
• “give those tax breaks to companies that create jobs in the United States of America”
AJ: An economy that creates jobs is one that is increasingly productive. Tax policy can only shift money from one pocket to the other.
• “That’s why we’re nearly doubling the child care tax credit”
AJ: How does subsidizing the child care outfits help the economy? It just raises the cost for everyone who does not "qualify" for this credit.
• “expanding the tax credit for those who start a nest egg”
AJ: Here's an idea, let people keep what they earn. That will get a lot of nest eggs going.
• “give families a $10,000 tax credit for four years of college and increase Pell Grants”
AJ: The cost of college tuition is already high enough. If everybody (but the so called "rich") has an extra 10,000 to play with, the cost of college will go up 10,000 dollars to keep pace with it. Supply and Demand.
• “we will extend our middle-class tax cuts”
AJ: Great! How do I get into this so-called "middle class"? Or do you really mean 95% of us, which amounts to a tax cut for less than half of us, and a free bag of money for the rest?
Regulation
• “We can’t allow financial institutions to take risks that threaten the whole economy”
AJ: Actually, they are the only ones who can deal with risk. But you must let them pay for their mistakes, too.
• “Require lobbyists to disclose each contact they make on behalf of a client with my Administration or Congress.”
AJ: Great, who's going to manage that database. The department of lobbyist review? Sounds like a good way to build your enemies list to me.
• “And it’s time to put strict limits on the contributions that lobbyists give to candidates for federal office.”
AJ: Limiting contributions? Didn't we just have an object lesson in freedom of speech this week?
• “urging Democrats and Republicans to pass a bill that helps to right this wrong [the Supreme Court ruling]”
I can think of a lot of bad law that came out of the Supreme Court. This is one they got right.
• “We are going to crack down on violations of equal pay laws – so that women get equal pay for an equal day’s work.”
AJ: This is a straw man, but a good way to get half your constituents mad at the other half.
Spending - General:
• “We need to encourage American innovation” (through “investment”)
AJ: How about stopping the spending so that capital can be released to the private companies that drive innovation?
• “launching a National Export Initiative that will help farmers and small businesses increase their exports, and reform export controls consistent with national security”
AJ: Sounds like another federal department to me. Let's get rid of a few hundred failed initiatives before adding more, shall we?
• “we will step up re-financing so that homeowners can move into more affordable mortgages.”
AJ: Why are you in the financing business? Mortgages should cost exactly what they have to in free market and fair competition.
• “jobs must be our number one focus in 2010, and that is why I am calling for a new jobs bill tonight.”
AJ: You called for a stimulus, and got Nancy Pelosi's Christmas list. Calling for a jobs bill will have a similar destructive result.
Spending Freeze and Reform
• “Starting in 2011, we are prepared to freeze government spending for three years. Spending related to our national security, Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security will not be affected. But all other discretionary government programs will.”
AJ: A freeze at this historically high spending rate will continue the bankruptcy path we started on last year. How about dropping it 35% and then freezing it?
• “calling on Congress to publish all earmark requests on a single website before there’s a vote”
AJ: Sure, we can put it on C-Span.org
Spending - Education
• “When we renew the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, we will work with Congress to expand these reforms to all fifty states”
AJ: Of all the hare-brained things GWB came up with, you had to embrace this one. No child allowed to succeed.
• “urge the Senate to follow the House and pass a bill that will revitalize our community colleges”
AJ: This will remove community colleges one more step from accountability to their communities. Not a good idea.
• “And let’s tell another one million students that when they graduate, they will be required:
o “to pay only ten percent of their income on student loans,
AJ: Given that college age kids are the dumbest demographic when it comes to voting, it's not surprising you would try to bribe them.
o “and all of their debt will be forgiven after twenty years – and forgiven after ten years if they choose a career in public service.”
AJ: That means stringing the loan office along for 15 years, make payments for five, and then ditch the thing. Sounds like a good long term economics plan (for some).
Healthcare (Spending, Regulation and Taxes)
• “And it is precisely to relieve the burden on middle-class families that we still need health insurance reform.”
AJ: This puzzles me. Forcing my company to drop health insurance so that I will need to buy it on my own, putting me on rationing, and forcing my parents to face death panels relieves my burden how?
National Security
• We will have all of our combat troops out of Iraq by the end of this August.
AJ: Finally! A war that was over in 9 months. 8 years later, we come home. Bravo.
• “We will support the Iraqi government as they hold elections, and continue to partner with the Iraqi people to promote regional peace and prosperity. But make no mistake: this war is ending, and all of our troops are coming home.”
AJ: Send Al Gore's lawyers to oversee the elections. That will stir up some patriotism.
• “To reduce our stockpiles and launchers, while ensuring our deterrent, the United States and Russia are completing negotiations on the farthest-reaching arms control treaty in nearly two decades.”
AJ: Like with farm subsidies, you are incentivising the Russians to not do what they weren't inclined to do in the first place. Brilliant, if you are Russian.
• “That is why North Korea now faces increased isolation, and stronger sanctions – sanctions that are being vigorously enforced.”
AJ: My five year old does tantrums better than Kim Jong Il. Sanctions don't seem to stop him.
• “And as Iran’s leaders continue to ignore their obligations, there should be no doubt: they, too, will face growing consequences.”
AJ: So we'll keep letting the Russians sell them what they need? This sounds like a good deal for the Russians too.
• “This year, I will work with Congress and our military to finally repeal the law that denies gay Americans the right to serve the country they love because of who they are.”
AJ: So much for an all volunteer Army. I hope there's enough for a batallion.,
Immigration
• “And we should continue the work of fixing our broken immigration system – to secure our borders, enforce our laws, and ensure that everyone who plays by the rules can contribute to our economy and enrich our nations.”
AJ: Oh, okay, I agree with that one. That's one.
AJ: Are we done here? That's it? Wow. One idea we can embrace. Well. It's a start....
Wednesday, December 23, 2009
Yes, Madame Speaker, We are serious
No one's life, liberty, or property is safe while the legislature is in session. -- Mark Twain
To me it looked like a gang war. Groups of individuals lining up one one side or the other of some ill defined crucial territory; and inflicting violence on whoever gets in the crossfire. Unfortunately, there are 308,214,746 of us in the crossfire. Like the Crips and the Bloods, these gang members do not respect any of us or our property. Their's is a turf war where diktat politics is the goal, and our wealth is the ammunition.
The law stands against just about every action of the Crips and the Bloods, who have, incidentally, staked out turf in Washington DC. Apparently, more gangs have found a home there. What Congress is doing now is almost certainly unconstitutional. That is, against the fundamental law of the land. Still, it continues. The cops seem powerless.
Try telling a Blood that setting fire to a car is illegal. He'll probably ask "are you serious?".
So, when Nancy Pelosi was asked what the constitutionality of mandated health care was, she responded the same way.
My thought is that, yes, it's a very serious question, and one that really needs to be answered. No self respecting Crip is going to care what the law says about holding up liquor stores, but we should expect more from our elected representatives.
Hot Air has a good analysis of it here, and asks the question: "How difficult is it to cite the clause that enables Congress to impose a mandate on its citizens to spend money on anything but a tax?" Then explains how difficult it would be.
Sometime, very soon, the electorate is going to get serious on crime -- starting with the beltway..
Monday, November 09, 2009
Failure, Now Our Only Option
Failure is not an option. -- Gene Kranz, Apollo 13 Flight Director
It's almost always easier to pass a bill in the House than in the Senate. So the difficulties in the House show how tough it's going to be for us. But like the House, we'll succeed, because every Democrat, from the most liberal to the most conservative, knows that failure is not an option. -- Sen. Charles Schumer (D., N.Y.).
Look, the bottom line is, the American people, the American economy, and the federal budget have to have some sort of reforms in the health care system. And, you know failure is not an option this year. -- Barry H. Obama (8/5/2009), responding to the following question from NBCs Chuck Todd: "If you're going to get something passed, you're going to get it passed any way you can?"
...That failure is not an option because millions of Americans are watching their premiums skyrocket. - Robert Gibbs, ABC This Week
These people are putting out all the dramatic stops now. That's proof right there that this idea is too dumb to move itself along an orderly process. The pattern for this administration is to hurry into things that won't take place for years to come. Obviously they will all be gone byt the time the consequences are known, and those consequences will be many. Among them,
Lower quality health care.
More expensive healthcare.
Budgetary disaster.
Fewer doctors.
More lawyers.
Fewer Choices.
More Bureacrats.
Unfortunately, once the government gets rolling in a direction, thyey have to claim some sort of victory, so we will get a health care bill; and whatever size and scope it turns out to be it will be the wrong thing to do.
So, I have to agree...failure is not an option, it's a dead certainty.
It's almost always easier to pass a bill in the House than in the Senate. So the difficulties in the House show how tough it's going to be for us. But like the House, we'll succeed, because every Democrat, from the most liberal to the most conservative, knows that failure is not an option. -- Sen. Charles Schumer (D., N.Y.).
Look, the bottom line is, the American people, the American economy, and the federal budget have to have some sort of reforms in the health care system. And, you know failure is not an option this year. -- Barry H. Obama (8/5/2009), responding to the following question from NBCs Chuck Todd: "If you're going to get something passed, you're going to get it passed any way you can?"
...That failure is not an option because millions of Americans are watching their premiums skyrocket. - Robert Gibbs, ABC This Week
These people are putting out all the dramatic stops now. That's proof right there that this idea is too dumb to move itself along an orderly process. The pattern for this administration is to hurry into things that won't take place for years to come. Obviously they will all be gone byt the time the consequences are known, and those consequences will be many. Among them,
Lower quality health care.
More expensive healthcare.
Budgetary disaster.
Fewer doctors.
More lawyers.
Fewer Choices.
More Bureacrats.
Unfortunately, once the government gets rolling in a direction, thyey have to claim some sort of victory, so we will get a health care bill; and whatever size and scope it turns out to be it will be the wrong thing to do.
So, I have to agree...failure is not an option, it's a dead certainty.
Tuesday, October 20, 2009
Not a Healthy Development
I predict future happiness for Americans if they can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them. --
Thomas Jefferson
There is only one basic human right, the right to do as you damn well please. And with it comes the only basic human duty, the duty to take the consequences -- P.J. O'Rourke
I find myself troubled with where the argument is centered, more than anything. All the king's men, and all the kings Rinos are lined up behind the idea that government not only belongs in the debate, they should be running the show.
Lemmee see that copy of the constitution for a minute. Gotta be a few of these laying around the capitol somewhere. Lessee, promote general welfare. Hmm. anything else? No? See, that doesn't seem like enough of a charter to take over 1/6th of the economy. In fact, you would be hard pressed to even put up so much as an aspirin dispenser on that directive alone.
So having a discussion about this bill or that bill misses the point entirely. Government has no business in this health business, and should not be acting as if they do. If you need any further proof of that, see further: Medicare
Thomas Jefferson
There is only one basic human right, the right to do as you damn well please. And with it comes the only basic human duty, the duty to take the consequences -- P.J. O'Rourke
I find myself troubled with where the argument is centered, more than anything. All the king's men, and all the kings Rinos are lined up behind the idea that government not only belongs in the debate, they should be running the show.
Lemmee see that copy of the constitution for a minute. Gotta be a few of these laying around the capitol somewhere. Lessee, promote general welfare. Hmm. anything else? No? See, that doesn't seem like enough of a charter to take over 1/6th of the economy. In fact, you would be hard pressed to even put up so much as an aspirin dispenser on that directive alone.
So having a discussion about this bill or that bill misses the point entirely. Government has no business in this health business, and should not be acting as if they do. If you need any further proof of that, see further: Medicare
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)