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
Monday, October 12, 2009
Counting on the Census
Representatives and direct taxes shall be apportioned among the several states which may be included within this union, according to their respective numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole number of free persons, including those bound to service for a term of years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons. The actual Enumeration shall be made within three years after the first meeting of the Congress of the United States, and within every subsequent term of ten years, in such manner as they shall by law direct. The number of Representatives shall not exceed one for every thirty thousand, but each state shall have at least one Representative; and until such enumeration shall be made, the state of New Hampshire shall be entitled to chuse three, Massachusetts eight, Rhode Island and Providence Plantations one, Connecticut five, New York six, New Jersey four, Pennsylvania eight, Delaware one, Maryland six, Virginia ten, North Carolina five, South Carolina five, and Georgia three. -- Article I, section 2, US Constitution.
For many years, voluntary compliance has been falling. In anticipation of this problem, the Census Bureau has been relying on wholly owned sectors of society to propagandize for its campaign. The Sesame Street character named Count von Count is touring public schools to tell the kids to tell their parents to fill out the census, even as more than 1 million census kits have been sent to public schools around the country. Think of it as the state using children to manipulate their parents into becoming volunteers in the civic planning project. -- “The Census and Despotism” by Llewellyn H. Rockwell, Jr.
I have more than a few issues with the census. Not any more than Lew Rockwell, of course (I'm a mere amateur), but I have a slightly different take. I don't necessarily oppose the census because it is an unconstitutional invasion of privacy, although I could defend that position. Here's my issue: The sheer inefficiency of our approach, coupled with the potential for abuse.
1. Many people do not want to be counted. Others insist these people should be counted anyway. Some feel these folks should be counted even if they can't be found.
The census has become another system for legalized theft. Because "direct taxes" are apportioned by the census, the opportunity for abuse is very high. As a result, we have much overcounting, and many thousands of people with Mickey-Mouse-names on our census roles. People are paid by our government and by its enemies to make up these entries.
Even if it weren't for this, paying stenographers to find people who do not want to be found can hardly be a good use of federal money, can it?
Here's The Wizer's plan:
Have anyone who wants to be counted show up in person to the county clerk's office, show ID and fill out a form for all members of the household. Anyone who does not show up, simply does not care to be catalogued in this fashion, and should be left alone.
It should be no easier to be counted as a citizen than going to the polls on election day. People who do this are the real citizens, and should be the ones counted. Those who don't care to show up are not exercising their right to be counted as citizens; and they probably have a very good reason for it. I say leave them alone.
For many years, voluntary compliance has been falling. In anticipation of this problem, the Census Bureau has been relying on wholly owned sectors of society to propagandize for its campaign. The Sesame Street character named Count von Count is touring public schools to tell the kids to tell their parents to fill out the census, even as more than 1 million census kits have been sent to public schools around the country. Think of it as the state using children to manipulate their parents into becoming volunteers in the civic planning project. -- “The Census and Despotism” by Llewellyn H. Rockwell, Jr.
I have more than a few issues with the census. Not any more than Lew Rockwell, of course (I'm a mere amateur), but I have a slightly different take. I don't necessarily oppose the census because it is an unconstitutional invasion of privacy, although I could defend that position. Here's my issue: The sheer inefficiency of our approach, coupled with the potential for abuse.
1. Many people do not want to be counted. Others insist these people should be counted anyway. Some feel these folks should be counted even if they can't be found.
The census has become another system for legalized theft. Because "direct taxes" are apportioned by the census, the opportunity for abuse is very high. As a result, we have much overcounting, and many thousands of people with Mickey-Mouse-names on our census roles. People are paid by our government and by its enemies to make up these entries.
Even if it weren't for this, paying stenographers to find people who do not want to be found can hardly be a good use of federal money, can it?
Here's The Wizer's plan:
Have anyone who wants to be counted show up in person to the county clerk's office, show ID and fill out a form for all members of the household. Anyone who does not show up, simply does not care to be catalogued in this fashion, and should be left alone.
It should be no easier to be counted as a citizen than going to the polls on election day. People who do this are the real citizens, and should be the ones counted. Those who don't care to show up are not exercising their right to be counted as citizens; and they probably have a very good reason for it. I say leave them alone.
Wednesday, September 16, 2009
Diversity is Division
America is God's Crucible, the great Melting-Pot where all the races of Europe are melting and reforming... Germans and Frenchmen, Irishmen and Englishmen, Jews and Russians - into the Crucible with you all! God is making the American. -- Israel Zangwill
I hear that melting-pot stuff a lot, and all I can say is that we haven't melted. -- Jesse Jackson
The question invites itself. In what sense are we one nation and one people anymore? For what is a nation if not a people of a common ancestry, faith, culture and language, who worship the same God, revere the same heroes, cherish the same history, celebrate the same holidays, and share the same music, poetry, art and literature? Pat Buchanan
The article by Pat Buchanan prompted more thought about the nature of America. I grew up understanding America as a country where all people were and are created equal. All with unalienable rights, among them, life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. It seemed like everyone I met along the way had the same idea. That people should be allowed to choose their paths to happiness, and we were good with that. All our neighbors, black, white, arab, asian were like that too.
As time went by, I would find discontinuities in this simple landscape. I find for example that my right to pray in school, my right to pledge allegiance to this country in the venue of my choice, and even my right to call out a liar in the chambers of congress are challenged. Somewhere along the way people came along to poison the land with their ideas of conflict and oppression. Those who would restrict my rights are now all around us, indeed may even outnumber us. These are not Americans, nor do they want anyone else to be.
Whereas Americans respect the rights of other individuals to live their lives, those who would require others to buy health insurance, or to subsidize cars for their neighbors, can not rationally be referred to as Americans, except by virtue of their birth certificates (if that).
We invite immigrants to share in our freedoms every day and in large numbers. We only ask that they respect our laws, respect our institutions, and respect our fellow citizens. We have no problem if people want to celebrate a 1966 manufactured holiday called Kwanzaa, even though its intent was to undermine and marginalize Christmas. Go, have your party, but let us have ours, too.
We don't really mind if people speak their native tongue in their own homes; but only those who would keep them from being Americans would suggest that they be taught their primary studies in any language but English.
We celebrate diversity. What does that mean? We celebrate black people, white people, asian-americans, arab americans, jews, syrians, austrians and australians. It's a good thing. Polish people are proud, and with good reason. So it is with those whose heritage is important to them.
So why is everybody here? I will tell you. Everybody is here because it is the best place in the world for everybody to be. We want people to have the blessings of this society, yet we ensure that they are forever locked out by calling attention to their differences. Can we celebrate diversity without fomenting division? Perhaps not.
Diversity is Division.
Instead of arab americans, why aren't we just americans. Instead of african-americans, why not simply americans? Does any american wish he were back in africa? As irish americans or german americans, do we wish we were back in Ireland or Germany? Do we have one foot in each country? No, we choose and have chosen to be Americans. Why do we need special categories for people? It only emphasizes how we are different. Not how we are the same.
Only our similarities can define us as a nation. Fortunately, those similarities are vast, and the most important one is we love freedom. We share the belief that this is the best culture in the world of which to be a part. What more unification do we need than that?
If we don't start thinking about our "sames" instead of our "differences", people will continue touse it to divide us. They will say that the antidote to Bush is Obama (cue laugh track). They will say that government has to create equal results, because equal opportunity doesn't work. Americans, easy enough to spot, know this is not true.
And at some point, we need to talk about what's right for Americans. Not what's right for democrats or republicans. Not what's right for socialists or libertarians. Not what's right for progressives or conservatives, rich or poor, belly button in or belly button out. It's time to reject the politics of division, of race, of ethnicity, of ideology, of all kinds. It's time to rise up for what's right for Hoosiers, for Michiganders, for Americans.
It is what brings us all together here.
I hear that melting-pot stuff a lot, and all I can say is that we haven't melted. -- Jesse Jackson
The question invites itself. In what sense are we one nation and one people anymore? For what is a nation if not a people of a common ancestry, faith, culture and language, who worship the same God, revere the same heroes, cherish the same history, celebrate the same holidays, and share the same music, poetry, art and literature? Pat Buchanan
The article by Pat Buchanan prompted more thought about the nature of America. I grew up understanding America as a country where all people were and are created equal. All with unalienable rights, among them, life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. It seemed like everyone I met along the way had the same idea. That people should be allowed to choose their paths to happiness, and we were good with that. All our neighbors, black, white, arab, asian were like that too.
As time went by, I would find discontinuities in this simple landscape. I find for example that my right to pray in school, my right to pledge allegiance to this country in the venue of my choice, and even my right to call out a liar in the chambers of congress are challenged. Somewhere along the way people came along to poison the land with their ideas of conflict and oppression. Those who would restrict my rights are now all around us, indeed may even outnumber us. These are not Americans, nor do they want anyone else to be.
Whereas Americans respect the rights of other individuals to live their lives, those who would require others to buy health insurance, or to subsidize cars for their neighbors, can not rationally be referred to as Americans, except by virtue of their birth certificates (if that).
We invite immigrants to share in our freedoms every day and in large numbers. We only ask that they respect our laws, respect our institutions, and respect our fellow citizens. We have no problem if people want to celebrate a 1966 manufactured holiday called Kwanzaa, even though its intent was to undermine and marginalize Christmas. Go, have your party, but let us have ours, too.
We don't really mind if people speak their native tongue in their own homes; but only those who would keep them from being Americans would suggest that they be taught their primary studies in any language but English.
We celebrate diversity. What does that mean? We celebrate black people, white people, asian-americans, arab americans, jews, syrians, austrians and australians. It's a good thing. Polish people are proud, and with good reason. So it is with those whose heritage is important to them.
So why is everybody here? I will tell you. Everybody is here because it is the best place in the world for everybody to be. We want people to have the blessings of this society, yet we ensure that they are forever locked out by calling attention to their differences. Can we celebrate diversity without fomenting division? Perhaps not.
Diversity is Division.
Instead of arab americans, why aren't we just americans. Instead of african-americans, why not simply americans? Does any american wish he were back in africa? As irish americans or german americans, do we wish we were back in Ireland or Germany? Do we have one foot in each country? No, we choose and have chosen to be Americans. Why do we need special categories for people? It only emphasizes how we are different. Not how we are the same.
Only our similarities can define us as a nation. Fortunately, those similarities are vast, and the most important one is we love freedom. We share the belief that this is the best culture in the world of which to be a part. What more unification do we need than that?
If we don't start thinking about our "sames" instead of our "differences", people will continue touse it to divide us. They will say that the antidote to Bush is Obama (cue laugh track). They will say that government has to create equal results, because equal opportunity doesn't work. Americans, easy enough to spot, know this is not true.
And at some point, we need to talk about what's right for Americans. Not what's right for democrats or republicans. Not what's right for socialists or libertarians. Not what's right for progressives or conservatives, rich or poor, belly button in or belly button out. It's time to reject the politics of division, of race, of ethnicity, of ideology, of all kinds. It's time to rise up for what's right for Hoosiers, for Michiganders, for Americans.
It is what brings us all together here.
Thursday, September 10, 2009
Thursday, September 03, 2009
Next Man Up
If you see a snake, just kill it - don't appoint a committee on snakes. --
Ross Perot
Eagles don't flock, you have to find them one at a time.
Ross Perot
The latest polls confirm what many of us have known since November; that people did not get "what they voted for". More importantly, it is now more obvious that simply voting for the other guy doesn't get the job done either.
Your Wizer believes this opens up an opportunity for someone to demonstrate a difference and earn the country's elective support.
I heard a radio host talk yesterday about Bush's numbers were low, and in the course of the discussion compared them to Obama's sinking ratings. He did miss the point of the low Bush numbers. It had more to do with the ineptness of compassionate conservatism and misguided nation building than matters directly related to the war, but it started the portion of my brain that deals with hindsight.
My point is that people wanted the alternative to Bush, and were horrified to learn ever since then what that meant. Surely there is room for more than two interpretations of the future; especially when these two were so darned similar. The Bush Obama Recession continues. Meanwhile, some rather good systems are left untried. For example: Capitalism, we should try that. Rugged individualism. That would be a good system. Federalism, when properly applied. Constitutionalism would work. Even Anarchy is better than what we have now. What we have now goes by many names, but by my reckoning it is pretty close to National Socialism.
I think if someone were to stand up and defend the constitution, he'd have better than a Ross Perot's chance at being elected.
Ross Perot
Eagles don't flock, you have to find them one at a time.
Ross Perot
The latest polls confirm what many of us have known since November; that people did not get "what they voted for". More importantly, it is now more obvious that simply voting for the other guy doesn't get the job done either.
Your Wizer believes this opens up an opportunity for someone to demonstrate a difference and earn the country's elective support.
I heard a radio host talk yesterday about Bush's numbers were low, and in the course of the discussion compared them to Obama's sinking ratings. He did miss the point of the low Bush numbers. It had more to do with the ineptness of compassionate conservatism and misguided nation building than matters directly related to the war, but it started the portion of my brain that deals with hindsight.
My point is that people wanted the alternative to Bush, and were horrified to learn ever since then what that meant. Surely there is room for more than two interpretations of the future; especially when these two were so darned similar. The Bush Obama Recession continues. Meanwhile, some rather good systems are left untried. For example: Capitalism, we should try that. Rugged individualism. That would be a good system. Federalism, when properly applied. Constitutionalism would work. Even Anarchy is better than what we have now. What we have now goes by many names, but by my reckoning it is pretty close to National Socialism.
I think if someone were to stand up and defend the constitution, he'd have better than a Ross Perot's chance at being elected.
Sunday, August 30, 2009
RIP Ted Kennedy
We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction. -- Edward Kennedy
It's now clear that from the very moment President Bush took office, Iraq was his highest priority as unfinished business from the first Bush Administration. His agenda was clear: find a rationale to get rid of Saddam. -- Edward Kennedy
He (Kennedy) was good company. Excellent company. I think I'm going to miss him more than I can say. -- John McCain
Ted was a big government liberal which as you know by now is the worst possible kind. I was trying to chart this week how he came to be such a communist weinie from what was a fairly normal political juggernaut. It wasn't the influence of his brothers, because as near as I can determine, JFKs conservatism and RFKs law and order persona did not translate to Teddy's world.
Maybe at some level Teddy reached the point where he needed redemption, and went to the chapel of the New York Times to get his religion.
Ever since then (and to borrow the terminology of Bostonians) he had a wicked bad voting record. He was a hypocrite, even by modern Washington standards. His manipulation of the senate succession process in 2004 and attempt to do so again in 2009 is the last final evidence of this.
Teddy's biggest triumph was in compromising people like Bush, McCain, and Hatch. He took a bunch of false progressive premises and found one sucker after another on the so-called right to act as a co-signer. The trouble is we are all now saddled with the payment book from these "bipartisan boondoggles".
RIP Teddy. You gamed the system, and the people of Massachusetts about as completely as it can be done.
It's now clear that from the very moment President Bush took office, Iraq was his highest priority as unfinished business from the first Bush Administration. His agenda was clear: find a rationale to get rid of Saddam. -- Edward Kennedy
He (Kennedy) was good company. Excellent company. I think I'm going to miss him more than I can say. -- John McCain
Ted was a big government liberal which as you know by now is the worst possible kind. I was trying to chart this week how he came to be such a communist weinie from what was a fairly normal political juggernaut. It wasn't the influence of his brothers, because as near as I can determine, JFKs conservatism and RFKs law and order persona did not translate to Teddy's world.
Maybe at some level Teddy reached the point where he needed redemption, and went to the chapel of the New York Times to get his religion.
Ever since then (and to borrow the terminology of Bostonians) he had a wicked bad voting record. He was a hypocrite, even by modern Washington standards. His manipulation of the senate succession process in 2004 and attempt to do so again in 2009 is the last final evidence of this.
Teddy's biggest triumph was in compromising people like Bush, McCain, and Hatch. He took a bunch of false progressive premises and found one sucker after another on the so-called right to act as a co-signer. The trouble is we are all now saddled with the payment book from these "bipartisan boondoggles".
RIP Teddy. You gamed the system, and the people of Massachusetts about as completely as it can be done.
Sunday, August 02, 2009
Market Intervention and Unintended Consequences.
Beware the greedy hand of government, thrusting itself into every corner and crevice of industry. — Thomas Paine
Depressions and mass unemployment are not caused by the free market but by government interference in the economy. – Ludwig von Mises
The government solution to a problem is usually as bad as the problem. – Milton Friedman
Let's examine the Cash for Clunkers program, shall we?
A billion dollars to "retire" 250,000 so-called clunkers. Another 2-3 billion on the way.
Our government creates the conditions under which the automotive industry is nearly bankrupted; forks over a bunch of money to own the car companies. Then needs to do their own "incentive plans". It's presented as important legislation, and applauded by every lawmaker in Michigan.
As usual, there are some unintended consequences.
First, they previously created a great deal of pent up demand by sucking all the capital flow out of the markets, causing everybody to delay their next vehicle purchas another year.
Then, with this program, they cause 250,000 perfectly functional cars to be physically removed from the market. Who does this help? People who were looking for one more reason to buy a car now. Let's say their trade was worth $2000. They get 3500 for it instead. Okay, a net gain of 1500 dollars.
But guess what? Now there's $2000 car that won't go to auction, and won't be available for another buyer... perhaps a student leaving for his first semester away at school. His parents now have to pay an inflated rate. Since there are no $2000 cars (due to the government scrap program), They are forced to bid up the price of any available $2000 dollar cars.
So the government has very clearly picked a winner (new car buyer), and a loser (entry level used car buyer). For every "winner" the government picks, they have to pick losers.
Another winner: The new car dealer.
Another loser. The used car dealer. Remember, a lot of these guys WERE new car dealers until this year. Now they have to tie up more capital bidding up what few used cars actually make it to auction.
Who else wins? The vehicle manufacturers. Some car plants will run a few more weeks than they might have this fall.
Who else loses? The spare parts business - - all these decommissioned cars no longer available for scrap value.
Finally, I wonder if anyone keeps track of the resources and energy necessary to build a new car vs. the cost of the gasoline to drive the old one for another year.
I for one am very tired of the government picking winners and losers, because it eventually makes losers out of all of us.
Depressions and mass unemployment are not caused by the free market but by government interference in the economy. – Ludwig von Mises
The government solution to a problem is usually as bad as the problem. – Milton Friedman
Let's examine the Cash for Clunkers program, shall we?
A billion dollars to "retire" 250,000 so-called clunkers. Another 2-3 billion on the way.
Our government creates the conditions under which the automotive industry is nearly bankrupted; forks over a bunch of money to own the car companies. Then needs to do their own "incentive plans". It's presented as important legislation, and applauded by every lawmaker in Michigan.
As usual, there are some unintended consequences.
First, they previously created a great deal of pent up demand by sucking all the capital flow out of the markets, causing everybody to delay their next vehicle purchas another year.
Then, with this program, they cause 250,000 perfectly functional cars to be physically removed from the market. Who does this help? People who were looking for one more reason to buy a car now. Let's say their trade was worth $2000. They get 3500 for it instead. Okay, a net gain of 1500 dollars.
But guess what? Now there's $2000 car that won't go to auction, and won't be available for another buyer... perhaps a student leaving for his first semester away at school. His parents now have to pay an inflated rate. Since there are no $2000 cars (due to the government scrap program), They are forced to bid up the price of any available $2000 dollar cars.
So the government has very clearly picked a winner (new car buyer), and a loser (entry level used car buyer). For every "winner" the government picks, they have to pick losers.
Another winner: The new car dealer.
Another loser. The used car dealer. Remember, a lot of these guys WERE new car dealers until this year. Now they have to tie up more capital bidding up what few used cars actually make it to auction.
Who else wins? The vehicle manufacturers. Some car plants will run a few more weeks than they might have this fall.
Who else loses? The spare parts business - - all these decommissioned cars no longer available for scrap value.
Finally, I wonder if anyone keeps track of the resources and energy necessary to build a new car vs. the cost of the gasoline to drive the old one for another year.
I for one am very tired of the government picking winners and losers, because it eventually makes losers out of all of us.
Thursday, July 30, 2009
Tuesday, July 28, 2009
Happy Trails, Sarah Palin
So much success, and Alaska there is much good in store further down the road, but to reach it we must value and live the optimistic pioneering spirit that made this state proud and free, and we can resist enslavement to big central government that crushes hope and opportunity. Be wary of accepting government largess. It doesn't come free and often, accepting it takes away everything that is free, melting into Washington's powerful "care-taking" arms will just suck incentive to work hard and chart our own course right out of us, and that not only contributes to an unstable economy and dizzying national debt, but it does make us less free. -- Sarah Palin
I don't know what she's thinking, but she's getting a lot of advice on what to do next. Here's my suggestion to Sarah: Convince Alaskans to secede from the union, and run for President of the Independent Republic of Alaska.
I don't know what she's thinking, but she's getting a lot of advice on what to do next. Here's my suggestion to Sarah: Convince Alaskans to secede from the union, and run for President of the Independent Republic of Alaska.
Sunday, July 19, 2009
What's the Big Hurry? (reprise)
"This is what the debate in Congress is all about: whether we'll keep talking and tinkering and letting this problem fester as more families and businesses go under and more Americans lose their coverage; Or whether we'll seize this opportunity -- one we might not have again for generations -- and finally pass health insurance reform this year, in 2009." -- Barry H. Obama in his weekly radio and internet speech
"Damn the torpedoes, Full speed ahead!" -- Admiral David Glasgow Farragut
I've noticed that Barry's always in a big hurry. It seems like every idea he comes up with is tagged with this high urgency. 2009 or bust. Hurry up and pass it.
In What's the Big Hurry , I pointed out that he exhorted people to vote before election day. It was clear that time would not work in his advantage, as more and more regular people (like Joe the Plumber) uncovered his true intentions.
So, he gets elected, and he needs to rush through a big spending package, take over the banks and car companies, slam the credit card issuers, cap the student loan paybacks, add a massive new energy tax and now take over 1/6th of our economy with Obamacare.
On this latter point, a CBO Report surfaced that shows how this plan will not work. Maybe it's time we read one of these bills.
Never mind the facts. Full speed ahead!
"Damn the torpedoes, Full speed ahead!" -- Admiral David Glasgow Farragut
I've noticed that Barry's always in a big hurry. It seems like every idea he comes up with is tagged with this high urgency. 2009 or bust. Hurry up and pass it.
In What's the Big Hurry , I pointed out that he exhorted people to vote before election day. It was clear that time would not work in his advantage, as more and more regular people (like Joe the Plumber) uncovered his true intentions.
So, he gets elected, and he needs to rush through a big spending package, take over the banks and car companies, slam the credit card issuers, cap the student loan paybacks, add a massive new energy tax and now take over 1/6th of our economy with Obamacare.
On this latter point, a CBO Report surfaced that shows how this plan will not work. Maybe it's time we read one of these bills.
Never mind the facts. Full speed ahead!
Monday, July 13, 2009
Watch out for whatever she has for lunch
An individual has not started living until he can rise above the narrow confines of his individualistic concerns to the broader concerns of all humanity. --
Martin Luther King, Jr.
Personal experiences affect the facts that judges choose to see. -- Sonia Sotomayor
I'm baffled as to why Sonia Sotomayor is considered a reasonable choice for the Supreme Court. Obviously, Barry H. Obama, the mass media, and the American Bar Associatioinare are all in love with her. I'm having trouble deciding what to do other than break her other leg and send her home. (I know, I know, hardly civil discourse, but this selection is even worse than the Harriet Miers pick).
She is one of many, it's true, who believe the constitution oughta be re-written on a daily basis; and that is bad enough. But here's one who believes that members of her "own race" are more qualified to do it. My goodness, we've come full circle, if we plan to put a racist on the highest court in the land. I thought it was a bad thing to be a racist.
Here's another quote from Sotomayor:
Whether born from experience or inherent physiological or cultural differences our gender and national origins may and will make a difference in our judging.
Now, why would that be the case? Is the law so fundamentally fluid that it matters what we had for lunch to reflect what the law really means? Gives a whole new meaning to legislating from the bench.
This lady sure seems unqualified. If she tries to defend any of these positions, she definitely is.
Martin Luther King, Jr.
Personal experiences affect the facts that judges choose to see. -- Sonia Sotomayor
I'm baffled as to why Sonia Sotomayor is considered a reasonable choice for the Supreme Court. Obviously, Barry H. Obama, the mass media, and the American Bar Associatioinare are all in love with her. I'm having trouble deciding what to do other than break her other leg and send her home. (I know, I know, hardly civil discourse, but this selection is even worse than the Harriet Miers pick).
She is one of many, it's true, who believe the constitution oughta be re-written on a daily basis; and that is bad enough. But here's one who believes that members of her "own race" are more qualified to do it. My goodness, we've come full circle, if we plan to put a racist on the highest court in the land. I thought it was a bad thing to be a racist.
Here's another quote from Sotomayor:
Whether born from experience or inherent physiological or cultural differences our gender and national origins may and will make a difference in our judging.
Now, why would that be the case? Is the law so fundamentally fluid that it matters what we had for lunch to reflect what the law really means? Gives a whole new meaning to legislating from the bench.
This lady sure seems unqualified. If she tries to defend any of these positions, she definitely is.
Sunday, June 14, 2009
A sure-fire solution
The national budget must be balanced. The public debt must be reduced; the arrogance of the authorities must be moderated and controlled. Payments to foreign governments must be reduced. If the nation doesn’t want to go bankrupt, people must again learn to work, instead of living on public assistance. – Marcus Tullius Cicero, 55 BC
It is a popular delusion that the government wastes vast amounts of money through inefficiency and sloth. Enormous effort and elaborate planning are required to waste this much money. – P.J. O’Rourke
Unnecessary laws are not good laws, but traps for money. – Thomas Hobbes, Leviathan, 1651
I have come up a fabulous idea, and need to share it with the world as quickly and as often as I can. The more I think about it, the more I am sure it is the last, best hope for freedom. First, I should point out what I've observed in the political landscape. People in the politics business are motivated by the same thing that motivates regular people. Self interest. Sure, they talk a different game, but it really is about their personal best interest.
What motivates regular people and politicians is the idea of "what's in it for me?". And, for the most part, the only incentives we as a people give to our politicians is low pay and high stress. Hence, the need for the pols to moonlight, as it were, and to make their gravy on the side. Further, they and their fellow civil servants have a need to keep the system rolling to maintain their gravy train.
I propose something more in line with an enlightened self interest for each federal employee.
How about a system of incentives to eliminate government spending? Pay them a commission. Yes, pay a percent of every government program eliminated directly to the people who eliminate it. Department of Energy? Gone. Pay each of the employees enough to retire on and pull out. National Endowment of the Arts? Adios. No useful function to that group anyway. Department of Health and Human Services? Retired.
I'm thinking we could get to a right sized government really, really fast. We just have to approach it like a business would, and properly incentivize what is needed. We have to replace the under the table incentives with true above board money. That will turn every politician into an honest representative of the people.
Can anyone tell me why that would not work?
It is a popular delusion that the government wastes vast amounts of money through inefficiency and sloth. Enormous effort and elaborate planning are required to waste this much money. – P.J. O’Rourke
Unnecessary laws are not good laws, but traps for money. – Thomas Hobbes, Leviathan, 1651
I have come up a fabulous idea, and need to share it with the world as quickly and as often as I can. The more I think about it, the more I am sure it is the last, best hope for freedom. First, I should point out what I've observed in the political landscape. People in the politics business are motivated by the same thing that motivates regular people. Self interest. Sure, they talk a different game, but it really is about their personal best interest.
What motivates regular people and politicians is the idea of "what's in it for me?". And, for the most part, the only incentives we as a people give to our politicians is low pay and high stress. Hence, the need for the pols to moonlight, as it were, and to make their gravy on the side. Further, they and their fellow civil servants have a need to keep the system rolling to maintain their gravy train.
I propose something more in line with an enlightened self interest for each federal employee.
How about a system of incentives to eliminate government spending? Pay them a commission. Yes, pay a percent of every government program eliminated directly to the people who eliminate it. Department of Energy? Gone. Pay each of the employees enough to retire on and pull out. National Endowment of the Arts? Adios. No useful function to that group anyway. Department of Health and Human Services? Retired.
I'm thinking we could get to a right sized government really, really fast. We just have to approach it like a business would, and properly incentivize what is needed. We have to replace the under the table incentives with true above board money. That will turn every politician into an honest representative of the people.
Can anyone tell me why that would not work?
Friday, June 12, 2009
Fair share
U.S. NATIONAL DEBT CLOCK
The Outstanding Public Debt as of 12 Jun 2009 at 05:53:37 PM GMT is:
The Outstanding Public Debt as of 12 Jun 2009 at 05:53:37 PM GMT is:
The estimated population of the United States is 306,355,187
so each citizen's share of this debt is $37,182.29.
The National Debt has continued to increase an average of
$3.83 billion per day since September 28, 2007!
Concerned? Then tell Congress and the White House!
http://www.brillig.com/debt_clock/
How would it feel to each citizen of this country if they and each of their children were presented with a bill for $37, 182.29? If everyone in their family took out a credit card and maxed it out to the tune of $37 large plus. Family of four? You just added another house payment. For 30 years.
I believe people want to do their share, and when they see what their share really is, there should be a great deal of discomfort over where this country is going.
Sunday, June 07, 2009
Graduation Day
Now, understand -- understand, Class of 2009, I do not suggest that the debate surrounding abortion can or should go away. Because no matter how much we may want to fudge it -- indeed, while we know that the views of most Americans on the subject are complex and even contradictory -- the fact is that at some level, the views of the two camps are irreconcilable. Each side will continue to make its case to the public with passion and conviction. But surely we can do so without reducing those with differing views to caricature. Barry H Obama, Commencement Exercises at The University of Notre Dame du Lac, May 17, 2009
I wasn't going to blog about this. It should have been a private celebration of our family and friends for the graduation of our daughter, and I really wanted it to stay that way. Instead, it became an event. A memorable one, to be sure, and well covered in the media (so much so, one would think there was little more to say). Still, it calls to be blogged about.
I wanted to have a nice traditional midwest college campus graduation with nothing but fond memories and a beautiful spring day. Not a chance on this day. Not with Air Force One flying in and out of town, and four miles of silent (and not so silent) protesters lining the streets leading to campus. I felt sorry for everybody. The protesters, the parents, the security guards, our daughter and the rest of the students. I'm sure some thought it was good theater, and a thrill to hang with his magnanimousness. My thought was why did this have to happen on our time?
Three weeks have passed, and nothing of any consequence was decided. The quotation above leaves one with a great deal to wonder about. It's the president telling us that there is no right and no wrong in the abortion conflict. There is no leadership in that quote; and none was forthcoming the entire afternoon. One speech after another of politicians and academics trying to outlecture each other.
You see, this was an opportunity to lead, and our leader called it a draw. It's exactly what he's doing in foreign policy (Israel and Palestine are equivalent. They're both right). Same thing over abortion. Yes, it's an electric issue. It's an emotional one, but it's also an issue that people can't navigate around, because of all the bad laws put up in protection of the current legal landscape.
What could he have done? Return the issue to the states where it belongs. What Obama could have done is pledge to unravel the legal mechanisms so that the people could decide. No, he's a big time supporter of Roe v Wade despite it being one of the most poorly and hastily constructed mishaps in the history of the Supreme Court. With that as backdrop we are going to populate the court with more people who have less regard for life than they do for causes.
Your Wizer has long been a pro-life libertarian. What that means is that life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness should be preserved for everyone, including the unborn. Especially the unborn, since they are the most vulnerable among us.
That is my deepest held belief, and why I must blog today.
So, what of abortion? What are the elements of it that a constitutionalist must follow? Well, for one, he must make no law abridging the rights of the individual. So, for the federal government to even be involved in this issue is unconstitutional. One might make the argument that the mother of the unborn child is an individual, too. Fair enough. It's something that can and should be debated at the state level. The debate is currently precluded by a federal court ruling, and that's why the argument is even still in place 36 years later. It's not for the Federal government to say. But what the federal government should do is stay out of the argument. That's especially true if you believe both sides are right; as apparently Barry H Obama does.
I wasn't going to blog about this. It should have been a private celebration of our family and friends for the graduation of our daughter, and I really wanted it to stay that way. Instead, it became an event. A memorable one, to be sure, and well covered in the media (so much so, one would think there was little more to say). Still, it calls to be blogged about.
I wanted to have a nice traditional midwest college campus graduation with nothing but fond memories and a beautiful spring day. Not a chance on this day. Not with Air Force One flying in and out of town, and four miles of silent (and not so silent) protesters lining the streets leading to campus. I felt sorry for everybody. The protesters, the parents, the security guards, our daughter and the rest of the students. I'm sure some thought it was good theater, and a thrill to hang with his magnanimousness. My thought was why did this have to happen on our time?
Three weeks have passed, and nothing of any consequence was decided. The quotation above leaves one with a great deal to wonder about. It's the president telling us that there is no right and no wrong in the abortion conflict. There is no leadership in that quote; and none was forthcoming the entire afternoon. One speech after another of politicians and academics trying to outlecture each other.
You see, this was an opportunity to lead, and our leader called it a draw. It's exactly what he's doing in foreign policy (Israel and Palestine are equivalent. They're both right). Same thing over abortion. Yes, it's an electric issue. It's an emotional one, but it's also an issue that people can't navigate around, because of all the bad laws put up in protection of the current legal landscape.
What could he have done? Return the issue to the states where it belongs. What Obama could have done is pledge to unravel the legal mechanisms so that the people could decide. No, he's a big time supporter of Roe v Wade despite it being one of the most poorly and hastily constructed mishaps in the history of the Supreme Court. With that as backdrop we are going to populate the court with more people who have less regard for life than they do for causes.
Your Wizer has long been a pro-life libertarian. What that means is that life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness should be preserved for everyone, including the unborn. Especially the unborn, since they are the most vulnerable among us.
That is my deepest held belief, and why I must blog today.
So, what of abortion? What are the elements of it that a constitutionalist must follow? Well, for one, he must make no law abridging the rights of the individual. So, for the federal government to even be involved in this issue is unconstitutional. One might make the argument that the mother of the unborn child is an individual, too. Fair enough. It's something that can and should be debated at the state level. The debate is currently precluded by a federal court ruling, and that's why the argument is even still in place 36 years later. It's not for the Federal government to say. But what the federal government should do is stay out of the argument. That's especially true if you believe both sides are right; as apparently Barry H Obama does.
Sunday, May 03, 2009
Three Republicans
If there's a Souter legacy, it is that he gave birth to the "stealth nominee" - a person so bland that he inspires no strong reaction from political hacks and interest groups. -- S.M. Oliva
I want to talk about three Republicans today.
David Souter, retiring. David Souder wasn't really a republican. He was a guy apointed by Bush 41, who himself was said to be a republican. Souder came recommended by Warren Rudman as a way to pay back the Rockefeller Republicans for their support in the 88 election. He seemed pretty harmless at the time, but wound up betraying America in countless ways through his many years. There's no price he has to pay for this betrayal, except to know that history has a place for him alongside Earl Warren and Roger Taney.
Next, we have Arlen Specter. Arlen is switching parties from the left to the other left. A guy who voted with the democrats so often, he was often confused for one. The latest polls suggested that republicans were going to get their own guy and let Arlen be a democrat, anyway. The switch did not seem to surprise anyone on either side. Specter's NTU rating never got better than a C+, and that's not good enough, so he will join with the other low-performance kids on the left side of the class.
Finally there's Jack Kemp. It was less a matter of Jack Kemp being a republican, than the republicans being Jack Kemp. Republicans were only doing well when they were following him. Unfortunately for Jack, and for his running mate in the 1996 election, the only tool was evidently the tax cut. And while that would have been a good idea (it always is), the people whose votes they needed to attract weren't paying federal taxes in the first place. So, what did they have to gain by voting for Dole - Kemp? There needed to be more to that message. Like a serious reduction in government. And a serious pro-growth climate. He believed it. I know he did. But we missed his best chance to execute it.
Of our three republicans, Souder and Specter never really were republicans. Kemp was what republicanism meant before the party became more "compassionate". As a result, they became more like the non-republicans, and less like Kemp. Republicans would do well to join the Kemp party once again.
Kites cause wind
Imagination is the highest kite one can fly -- Lauren Bacall
I was mowing the yard yesterday (something us Michiganders only get to do 6 months a year) when the wind kicked up a little and sent my straw hat flying a few feet away. As I retrieved the errant chapeau, I pondered the state of nature, and what causes wind. I also observed that it was the annual kite festival in my town starting about then.
Later, while having lunch with my family, I recounted my observations, and told them that I can only conclude that kites cause wind. There was, after all, a kite festival going on, which required wind to be successful. It was logical to conclude as I did that the kites brought the weather necessary to sustain themselves.
Of course, they looked at me like I just told them that humans cause planetary climate change. (They know of course, that I'm not one to blame humans for things they don't do). Then it hit me. These are exactly the same argument. Saying humans cause climate change is like saying kites cause wind. The reverse of each statement is actually the truth. Wind brings out the kites, and climate change causes human migration.
Later that day, we enjoyed the kite festival. We were all thankful that the kites were able to bring enough wind with them. It would've been good for a laugh if there weren't so many people who believe it.
I was mowing the yard yesterday (something us Michiganders only get to do 6 months a year) when the wind kicked up a little and sent my straw hat flying a few feet away. As I retrieved the errant chapeau, I pondered the state of nature, and what causes wind. I also observed that it was the annual kite festival in my town starting about then.
Later, while having lunch with my family, I recounted my observations, and told them that I can only conclude that kites cause wind. There was, after all, a kite festival going on, which required wind to be successful. It was logical to conclude as I did that the kites brought the weather necessary to sustain themselves.
Of course, they looked at me like I just told them that humans cause planetary climate change. (They know of course, that I'm not one to blame humans for things they don't do). Then it hit me. These are exactly the same argument. Saying humans cause climate change is like saying kites cause wind. The reverse of each statement is actually the truth. Wind brings out the kites, and climate change causes human migration.
Later that day, we enjoyed the kite festival. We were all thankful that the kites were able to bring enough wind with them. It would've been good for a laugh if there weren't so many people who believe it.
Wednesday, April 22, 2009
Living in the Past
Happy and I'm smiling,
Walk a mile to drink your water.
You know Id love to love you,
And above you theres no other.
Well go walking out
While others shout of wars disaster.
Oh, we wont give in,
Lets go living in the past.
-- Jethro Tull, Living in the Past, 1969 Chrysalis Records
This blog isn't all about bashing Barry Obama. It really isn't. Lord knows it's easy to do, and Obashing is such a target rich environment. A year ago, the blog wasn't about bashing GWB and one republican candidate after another either, but that's what we had to do. Rather, this blog is all about stuff that needs to be said that isn't being covered adequately elsewhere. If you read the more enlightened blogs highlighted on the left side of this page, and keep up with realclearpolitics.com, townhall.com, Shepard Smith, and Glenn Beck, you pretty much know 99% of what you need to know. I wouldn't want to waste your time a couple times a month to get at repetitive news flashes (that's what drudge is for).
I do have to call attention to certain persons on the left (including apparently, BHO himself) who can't let go of George Bush. Please. A torture investigation? You've already given away all the secrets, and not one of them "rises to the level of high crimes and misdemeanors". I get emails from folks decrying GWBs financials as if they were indication that Obama is the right candidate. As if Obama showed the slightest interest in correcting any of it. A right rong and a left wrong is still wrong. Fixing GWBs financials isn't the plan. But attacking some of the victims of his leadership apparently is. Torture investigation? Reminds me a lot of the Travelgate affair. Clinton's first 100 days. Needed a bad guy to hammer on.
Lookee, it's time to put GWB in the rear view mirror. It amounts to stalking for heavens sake. There's nothing he can do to help you now. If you need someone to pound on, Napolitano seems to be the fashion du jour. As for me, I'm officially calling a moratorium on any more Bush bashing (except as historical footnote in the Woodrow Wilson, Jimmy Carter, Abe Lincoln sense.) Blaming Bush for the current ills of the government is becoming more like blaming the 2008 Detroit Lions for the Washington National's slow start.
Walk a mile to drink your water.
You know Id love to love you,
And above you theres no other.
Well go walking out
While others shout of wars disaster.
Oh, we wont give in,
Lets go living in the past.
-- Jethro Tull, Living in the Past, 1969 Chrysalis Records
This blog isn't all about bashing Barry Obama. It really isn't. Lord knows it's easy to do, and Obashing is such a target rich environment. A year ago, the blog wasn't about bashing GWB and one republican candidate after another either, but that's what we had to do. Rather, this blog is all about stuff that needs to be said that isn't being covered adequately elsewhere. If you read the more enlightened blogs highlighted on the left side of this page, and keep up with realclearpolitics.com, townhall.com, Shepard Smith, and Glenn Beck, you pretty much know 99% of what you need to know. I wouldn't want to waste your time a couple times a month to get at repetitive news flashes (that's what drudge is for).
I do have to call attention to certain persons on the left (including apparently, BHO himself) who can't let go of George Bush. Please. A torture investigation? You've already given away all the secrets, and not one of them "rises to the level of high crimes and misdemeanors". I get emails from folks decrying GWBs financials as if they were indication that Obama is the right candidate. As if Obama showed the slightest interest in correcting any of it. A right rong and a left wrong is still wrong. Fixing GWBs financials isn't the plan. But attacking some of the victims of his leadership apparently is. Torture investigation? Reminds me a lot of the Travelgate affair. Clinton's first 100 days. Needed a bad guy to hammer on.
Lookee, it's time to put GWB in the rear view mirror. It amounts to stalking for heavens sake. There's nothing he can do to help you now. If you need someone to pound on, Napolitano seems to be the fashion du jour. As for me, I'm officially calling a moratorium on any more Bush bashing (except as historical footnote in the Woodrow Wilson, Jimmy Carter, Abe Lincoln sense.) Blaming Bush for the current ills of the government is becoming more like blaming the 2008 Detroit Lions for the Washington National's slow start.
Friday, April 10, 2009
Asking the Right Questions, Part V
Finishing up our series of media questions from the Obama press conference, we once again reprint the questions Obama was asked at his March 24 press conference. We have paraphrased Obamas remarks, because he sure has a tough time speaking his intentions concisely; and just for contrast, we add what a hypothetical good president would have answered to each of the questions.
Okay. Ed Henry. Where’s Ed? There he is.
QUESTION: (...) -- you’ve been very critical of President Bush doubling the national debt. And to be fair, it’s not just Republicans hitting you. Democrat Kent Conrad, as you know, said, quote, ”When I look at this budget, I see the debt doubling again.” You keep saying that you’ve inherited a big fiscal mess. Do you worry, though, that your daughters, not to mention the next president, will be inheriting an even bigger fiscal mess if the spending goes out of control?
QUESTION: (...) -- you’ve been very critical of President Bush doubling the national debt. And to be fair, it’s not just Republicans hitting you. Democrat Kent Conrad, as you know, said, quote, ”When I look at this budget, I see the debt doubling again.” You keep saying that you’ve inherited a big fiscal mess. Do you worry, though, that your daughters, not to mention the next president, will be inheriting an even bigger fiscal mess if the spending goes out of control?
Barry: Well that's what sharing is all about. You spread the wealth, you spread the lack of it just as broadly. It's of no concern to me that the stakeholders have not yet been born.
Hypothetical Good President: Yes, the national debt is public enemy number one, and those who seek to grow it are the accomplices in cross generation thievery.
QUESTION: So on AIG, why did you wait -- why did you wait days to come out and express that outrage? ... It seems like the action is coming out of New York in the attorney general’s office. It took you days to come public with Secretary Geithner and say, look, we’re outraged. Why did it take so long?
Barry: I'm only as outraged as 50.1% of the public, so until the outrage reaches critical mass, it's safer for me to wait on the sidelines.
Hypothetical Good President: There's a lot of outrage to go around, but why waste it on AIG? AIG does what they do. It makes little sense to expect them to do anything else just because we put a big bag of money on their conference table. Talk about mixed messages! Giving them money in the first place signals that the government likes what they do, and wants them to continue doing it. And wants it so much, they subsidize it! Stop giving AIG money and they'll develop their own new discipline, or go out of business. Problem solved. No sir, my outrage is at the people giving them taxpayer money in the first place. And they know who they are.
Major?
QUESTION: Good evening, Mr. President. Thank you. Taking this economic debate a bit globally, senior Chinese officials have publicly expressed an interest in an international currency. This is described by Chinese specialists as a sign that they are less confident than they used to be in the value and the reliability of the U.S. dollar. European countries have resisted your calls to spend more on economic stimulus.
I wonder, sir, as a candidate who ran concerned about the image of the United States globally, how comfortable you are with the Chinese government, run by communists, less confident than they used to be in the U.S. dollar, and European governments, some of the center-left, some of them socialist, who say you’re asking them to spend too much?
QUESTION: Good evening, Mr. President. Thank you. Taking this economic debate a bit globally, senior Chinese officials have publicly expressed an interest in an international currency. This is described by Chinese specialists as a sign that they are less confident than they used to be in the value and the reliability of the U.S. dollar. European countries have resisted your calls to spend more on economic stimulus.
I wonder, sir, as a candidate who ran concerned about the image of the United States globally, how comfortable you are with the Chinese government, run by communists, less confident than they used to be in the U.S. dollar, and European governments, some of the center-left, some of them socialist, who say you’re asking them to spend too much?
Barry: Well, when it comes to socialism, they are all pikers compared to this administration. It will be much easier to redistribute wealth here by printing money. Therefore the dollar is only as good as we decide it will be. What it's worth to the rest of the world doesn't matter to me.
Hypothetical Good President: This is the world's biggest economy, and the dollar will continue to be the world standard for a whole host of reasons, among them is that it represents the value produced by the world's most productive and free people. Other countries will ignore the dollar at their own peril.
QUESTION: Is there a need for a global currency?
Barry: As an advocate of one world government, and as a shepherd of the downfall of the dollar, I foresee the need for a good currency after our dollar goes the way of the peso. Further, having a common currency is only one small step to having a single world government. Bush had "exporting democracy". I favor "exporting fascism".
Hypothetical Good President: No, there is no scenario in which we can and should support any other currency. There's no reason to find a substitute for the dollar when the dollar is about to be rehabilitated by my administration.
QUESTION: Mr. President, are you -- (takes mic) -- thank you. Thank you, Mr. President. Are you reconsidering your plan to cut the interest-rate deduction for mortgages and for charities? And do you regret having proposed that in the first place?
Barry: As you know, the voracious appetite of this government knows no bounds. Mortgage and charitable deductions looks like easy money, because only rich people pay taxes and donate money in the first place. It's likeWillie Sutton said when asked why he robbed banks. It's because that's where the money is.
Hypothetical Good President: The law of unintended consequences really does apply here. If the government's goal is to reduce home ownership and reduce charitable deductions, then that is what will happen, and this is the way to do it. I will not support the elimination of these deductions. It's very simple. When you increase a tax on anything, you get less of it. I'm in favor of any mechanism that reduces the tax burden on our people. Since there are those in government who feel they must pick winners and losers, it strikes me as unconscionable that they would choose home owners and charities to be losers.
QUESTION: It’s not the well-to-do people; it’s the charities. Given what you’ve just said --
QUESTION: -- are you confident that charities are wrong when they contend that this would discourage giving?
QUESTION: -- are you confident that charities are wrong when they contend that this would discourage giving?
Barry: It is my goal to have the government take over more of the economy, and that includes the charity business. With government controlling all charity, not just welfare based charity, and not just FEMA type charities, our goal of socialism is much more completely met.
Hypothetical Good President: If we can get the government out of the charity business entirely, it would be a good thing. If people wanting a handout were required to get it from the local churches, secular charities, and independent aid organizations, they would be much better cared for, and all the sooner back into productive society. A tax deduction to support local charities would be worth preserving, and doesn't even amount to a subsidy, because in this case, the return would be greater than the "investment".
Kevin Chappell. Hi, Kevin.
QUESTION: Thank you, Mr. President. A recent report found that as a result of the economic downturn, one in 50 children are now homeless in America. With shelters at full capacity, tent cities are sprouting up across the country. In passing your stimulus package, you said that help was on the way, but what would you say to these families, especially children, who are sleeping under bridges and in tents across the country?
QUESTION: Thank you, Mr. President. A recent report found that as a result of the economic downturn, one in 50 children are now homeless in America. With shelters at full capacity, tent cities are sprouting up across the country. In passing your stimulus package, you said that help was on the way, but what would you say to these families, especially children, who are sleeping under bridges and in tents across the country?
Barry: George Bush. Bush. George did it. My predescessor put in programs to hurt people. Look over there. George? You still there? Oh, he left?. Okay. Next question.
Hypothetical Good President: Look Kevin, this is America. Anyone sleeping under a bridge is doing that because they have chosen to do so. Anyone willing to join productive society has ample opportunity to do just that. Anyone who wants to live off the land, in tents and bridges is also free to do that. If you bring me anyone living under a bridge who wants to be somewhere else, I'll tell them exactly how to accomplish their goal. Further, by letting the local governments keep more of the tax money that would otherwise be diverted to national boondoggles, problems like this would be handled at the local level, where they can be more effectively dealt with.
Ann Compton. Hey, Ann.
QUESTION: Yours is a rather historic presidency, and I’m just wondering whether in any of the policy debates that you’ve had within the White House, the issue of race has come up, or whether it has in the way you feel you’ve been perceived by other leaders or by the American people. Or have the last 64 days been a relatively color- blind time?
Barry: I owe a lot to racists of all colors who elected me. I hope to keep that advantage through the next election. So, color-blind is not in my best interest.
Hypothetical Good President: Historic? Because of my skin color? Gee, Ann, what color is it that you think that I am, and why should it matter? I would hate to think that this election is historic based on a physical attribute (handsome though I may be). I would much rather be known as the president who restored our freedoms, our pride, and our heritage as a nation.
Okay. Jon Ward, Washington Times. Where’s Jon?
QUESTION: Thank you, Mr. President.
In your remarks on stem-cell research earlier this month, you talked about a majority consensus in determining whether or not this is the right thing to do, to federally fund embryonic stem-cell research. I’m just wondering, though, how much you personally wrestled with the morality or ethics of federally funding this kind of research, especially given the fact that science so far has shown a lot of progress with adult stem cells but not a lot with embryonic?
QUESTION: Thank you, Mr. President.
In your remarks on stem-cell research earlier this month, you talked about a majority consensus in determining whether or not this is the right thing to do, to federally fund embryonic stem-cell research. I’m just wondering, though, how much you personally wrestled with the morality or ethics of federally funding this kind of research, especially given the fact that science so far has shown a lot of progress with adult stem cells but not a lot with embryonic?
Barry: My goal is federal funding of everything, but I particularly like the idea of funding embryonic stuff because it makes people of faith extra angry.
Hypothetical Good President: I'm against federal funding of most things, but especially this, because it creates an unnecessary new market for dead babies. Why should the government subsidize this, when adult stem cells show much more promise, and it appears that no federal funding is even necessary to see the fruits of this effort. By getting out of the way of the medical industry, the effort will pay off by itself.
QUESTION: I meant to ask as a follow-up, though, do you think that scientific consensus is enough to tell us what we can and cannot do?
Barry: A consensus of liberal quasi-scientists is what I'm focused on. Hopefully we can discredit enough of the real scientists by lies and distortions to get this done. Like we almost did with global warming.
Hypothetical Good President: The consensus is that adult stem cells show promise. I think federal funding of any medical processes is not warranted. Let the private market figure a way to finance and monetize it.
Okay. Stephen Collinson, AFP.
QUESTION: Mr. President, you came to office pledging to work for peace between Israel and the Palestinians. How realistic do you think those are hopes are now, given the likelihood of a prime minister who’s not fully signed up to a two- state solution and a foreign minister who’s been accused of insulting Arabs?
QUESTION: Mr. President, you came to office pledging to work for peace between Israel and the Palestinians. How realistic do you think those are hopes are now, given the likelihood of a prime minister who’s not fully signed up to a two- state solution and a foreign minister who’s been accused of insulting Arabs?
Barry: I plan on being as effective as all the previous presidents at brokering peace in the Middle East. I plan on continuing to fund the conflict both directly and indirectly so that we play one side against the other. That way, when we can choose either side whenever we wish for whatever purpose.
Hypothetical Good President: Stephen, look. These people have been killing each other for tens of centuries. Peace is not in the cards simply because we want it to be. It has to happen because it is what they want. I can't bring a Hamas guy, and an Israeli here to Camp David, have the two of them sign a silly document, and presto everybody over there likes each other. Both sides play us for everything they can get, and still go on killing each other. My plan is to stay out of it. If they want to use their meager wealth to attack each other, then nobody wins, and they will -- I repeat -- They will find a better way on their own.
So there we have it. Some actual good questions finally being posed to this president, as they should be. The answers were so dense that none of them made news, however it appears that the questions are getting better.
Saturday, April 04, 2009
Asking the Right Questions, Part IV
Barry is starting to get some good questions. His answers (if you can fight through the pauses and bends of purpose that are scattered throughout) betray his purpose pretty completely. He doesn't want to lie, and doesn't want to tell the truth, so the line he walks is tortuous but revealing. In this series, I have taken the questions from his last press conference, and condensed his answers to the most concise meaning; and I have also added the answer a hypothetical good president would give.
Chip Reid. QUESTION: Thank you, Mr. President. At both of your town hall meetings in California last week, you said, quote, ”I didn’t run for president to pass on roblems to the next generation.” But under your budget, the debt will increase $7 trillion over the next 10 years. The Congressional Budget Office says $9.3 trillion. And today on Capitol Hill, some Republicans called your budget, with all the spending on health care, education and environment, the most irresponsible budget in American history. Isn’t that kind of debt exactly what you were talking about when you said passing on our problems to the next generation?
Barry: I prefer to call them investments. Kind of like a 30 year mortgage with a balloon payment. You see, I don't have the faintest idea what a trillion is. Is that someone from Trillia?
Hypothetical Good President: Yes, I do see the lunacy in the CBO numbers, and that's why we will totally revamp spending programs to make the numbers work, just like every family has to do with their budgets. Believe me, this will be a lot easier than some people will have you believe. If you stop paying someone to watch the watchers, you have an immediate positive impact. That's better than an investment. We can drop 80-90% of all government programs. It's the responsible thing to do, and we will do it.
QUESTION: But even under your budget -- as you said, over the next four or five
years, you’re going to cut the deficit in half. Then, after that, six years in a row it goes up, up, up.
If you’re making all these long-term structural cuts --
QUESTION: -- why does it continue to go up in the out years?
Barry: Because we don't have to deal with the deficit. We can sweep it under the rug. It's what our constituents expect of us.
Hypothetical Good President: When you talk about cutting the deficit in half, it's like overdrawing your checking account by a massive amount, and then offering to pay back the bank half of what you owe. Why on Earth would anyone brag on that? You still have a massive deficit, and it will hurt you. We need to eliminate the deficit, and begin to retire the debt.
Barry: I'm concerned about violence on border. Yes, very concerned. Next question.
Hypothetical Good President: In my first 60 days I intend to finish the border fence, if I have to go out there and build it myself. Then, Mexico will be forced to deal with their problem, as we are forced to deal with ours. In time, law and order will prevail, because the law enforcement community will be right-sized to deal with a known population. Then we won't have this situational population ebb and flow that can't really be managed.
Barry: I'm going to make the military's job as difficult as possible, with poor objectives, poor funding, ;lack of commitment, and meaningless missions. That way, I hope all the volunteers leave the Army before they get hurt. Then we won't need as many VA hospitals. Meanwhile, I am going to choke off the VA funding by making it as much like Hillarycare as i can, and no one will want to work there. How's that for proactive?
Hypothetical Good President: We need to pick our fights much more effectively. I prefer the way Reagan won his wars. He would build a strong enough defense that it was never necessary to use it.
Chip Reid. QUESTION: Thank you, Mr. President. At both of your town hall meetings in California last week, you said, quote, ”I didn’t run for president to pass on roblems to the next generation.” But under your budget, the debt will increase $7 trillion over the next 10 years. The Congressional Budget Office says $9.3 trillion. And today on Capitol Hill, some Republicans called your budget, with all the spending on health care, education and environment, the most irresponsible budget in American history. Isn’t that kind of debt exactly what you were talking about when you said passing on our problems to the next generation?
Barry: I prefer to call them investments. Kind of like a 30 year mortgage with a balloon payment. You see, I don't have the faintest idea what a trillion is. Is that someone from Trillia?
Hypothetical Good President: Yes, I do see the lunacy in the CBO numbers, and that's why we will totally revamp spending programs to make the numbers work, just like every family has to do with their budgets. Believe me, this will be a lot easier than some people will have you believe. If you stop paying someone to watch the watchers, you have an immediate positive impact. That's better than an investment. We can drop 80-90% of all government programs. It's the responsible thing to do, and we will do it.
QUESTION: But even under your budget -- as you said, over the next four or five
years, you’re going to cut the deficit in half. Then, after that, six years in a row it goes up, up, up.
If you’re making all these long-term structural cuts --
QUESTION: -- why does it continue to go up in the out years?
Hypothetical Good President: When you talk about cutting the deficit in half, it's like overdrawing your checking account by a massive amount, and then offering to pay back the bank half of what you owe. Why on Earth would anyone brag on that? You still have a massive deficit, and it will hurt you. We need to eliminate the deficit, and begin to retire the debt.
QUESTION: Thank you, Mr. President. Today your administration presented a plan
to help curb the violence in Mexico and also to control any or prevent any
spillover of the violence into the United States. Do you consider the situationnow a national security threat?
And do you believe that it could require sending national troops to the border?
Governor Perry of Texas has said that you still need more troops and more
agents. How do you respond to that?
to help curb the violence in Mexico and also to control any or prevent any
spillover of the violence into the United States. Do you consider the situationnow a national security threat?
And do you believe that it could require sending national troops to the border?
Governor Perry of Texas has said that you still need more troops and more
agents. How do you respond to that?
Barry: I'm concerned about violence on border. Yes, very concerned. Next question.
Hypothetical Good President: In my first 60 days I intend to finish the border fence, if I have to go out there and build it myself. Then, Mexico will be forced to deal with their problem, as we are forced to deal with ours. In time, law and order will prevail, because the law enforcement community will be right-sized to deal with a known population. Then we won't have this situational population ebb and flow that can't really be managed.
Kevin Baron, Stars and Stripes. Is Kevin here? There you go.
QUESTION: Mr. President, where do you plan to find savings in the Defense and
Veterans Administration’s budgets when so many items that seem destined for the
chopping block are politically untenable, perhaps?
PRESIDENT OBAMA: I’m sorry, so many?
QUESTION: When so many items that may be destined for the chopping block seem
politically untenable, from major weapons systems -- as you mentioned,
procurement -- to wounded warrior care costs, or increased operations on
Afghanistan, or the size of the military itself.
QUESTION: Mr. President, where do you plan to find savings in the Defense and
Veterans Administration’s budgets when so many items that seem destined for the
chopping block are politically untenable, perhaps?
PRESIDENT OBAMA: I’m sorry, so many?
QUESTION: When so many items that may be destined for the chopping block seem
politically untenable, from major weapons systems -- as you mentioned,
procurement -- to wounded warrior care costs, or increased operations on
Afghanistan, or the size of the military itself.
Barry: I'm going to make the military's job as difficult as possible, with poor objectives, poor funding, ;lack of commitment, and meaningless missions. That way, I hope all the volunteers leave the Army before they get hurt. Then we won't need as many VA hospitals. Meanwhile, I am going to choke off the VA funding by making it as much like Hillarycare as i can, and no one will want to work there. How's that for proactive?
Hypothetical Good President: We need to pick our fights much more effectively. I prefer the way Reagan won his wars. He would build a strong enough defense that it was never necessary to use it.
Thursday, April 02, 2009
Asking the Right Questions, Part III
Yesterday (in our last episode) I started a press conference of my own, introducing to you a Hypothetical Good President. I thought it might be instructive for us to hear how the Hypothetical Good President would answer the important questions of the day.
Continuing in that vein,
Jake?
Continuing in that vein,
Jake?
QUESTION: Thank you, Mr. President. Right now on Capitol Hill, Senate Democrats
are writing a budget, and according to press accounts and their own statements,
they’re not including the middle-class tax cut that you include in the stimulus.
They’re talking about phasing that out. They’re not including the cap-and-trade
that you have in your budget, and they’re not including other measures.
I know when you outlined your four priorities over the weekend, a number of
these things were not in there. Will you sign a budget if it does not contain a
middle-class tax cut, does not contain cap-and- trade?
are writing a budget, and according to press accounts and their own statements,
they’re not including the middle-class tax cut that you include in the stimulus.
They’re talking about phasing that out. They’re not including the cap-and-trade
that you have in your budget, and they’re not including other measures.
I know when you outlined your four priorities over the weekend, a number of
these things were not in there. Will you sign a budget if it does not contain a
middle-class tax cut, does not contain cap-and- trade?
Barry: I gotta level with you. I was never serious about a tax cut. In fact, if you replay all the speeches, I was really referring to tax credits, where all you had to do was fill out a tax form to get 400 bucks of free money. It was probably worth it to get everybody's address for my Big Brother file. As for cap and trade, well, we haven't figured out how to monetize that in my Swiss account, so it will have to wait.
Hypothetical Good President. I do not believe in tax policy based on "class". There is no middle class. There is no lower class. There is no upper class. There are only Americans. Tax cuts mean letting people keep their own money. So when we lower the cost of government, the revenues from taxes will reduce debt, which will make more capital available for Americans; which will in turn improve everybody's productivity and income, and that, my friends, is better than a tax cut, and certainly better than the empty promise of one. As to the notion of cap and trade, I will eliminate any attempt to manipulate the energy and industrial markets, and there will be no cap and trade, and no more talk of it in my administration.
Hypothetical Good President: The budget I will send to congress will have only essential services in it, and therefore be approximately 30 pages long. I trust all the congressmen will have time to read that one.
To be continued.
Hypothetical Good President. I do not believe in tax policy based on "class". There is no middle class. There is no lower class. There is no upper class. There are only Americans. Tax cuts mean letting people keep their own money. So when we lower the cost of government, the revenues from taxes will reduce debt, which will make more capital available for Americans; which will in turn improve everybody's productivity and income, and that, my friends, is better than a tax cut, and certainly better than the empty promise of one. As to the notion of cap and trade, I will eliminate any attempt to manipulate the energy and industrial markets, and there will be no cap and trade, and no more talk of it in my administration.
QUESTION: So is that a yes, sir? You’re willing to sign a budget that doesn’t
have those two provisions?
Barry: It should be clear by now, that I have left the budget entirely up to Nancy, and I'll sign whatever makes it to my desk.have those two provisions?
Hypothetical Good President: The budget I will send to congress will have only essential services in it, and therefore be approximately 30 pages long. I trust all the congressmen will have time to read that one.
To be continued.
Wednesday, April 01, 2009
Asking the Right Questions, Part II
I started a blog post about Barry's press conference from last month, and didn't get around to finishing it. Sometimes, this is for a good reason. You can of course already predict what the president is going to say. Most of it has been refuted already here and in dozens of other blog outlets. Yes, he's very careful with his words. He wants to spread the wealth, and has to be more careful about who he tells that to. He's certainly not going to say that to a room full of reporters.
So, I thought I'd take a good look at the questions that followed the press conference speech, because I found most of them very good questions, deserving of a good answer. So I want to report to you two answers to each of the questions: One as Barry would give it, if he could be as brief as the Wizer. The other answer is what it would sound like if given by a good president. It should be easy to spot the differences:
Barry: Because we're the government, and we know better.
Hypothetical Good President: Good Question, Jennifer. I believe the government created this problem by guaranteeing idiotic loans through Fannie Mae and encouraging AIG to hold all the insurance paper for the scam. The least we can do as a government is clean up the mess and eliminate the people and processes in government that created it. I'm asking for the resignations of Barney Frank, Chuck Schumer, and Chris Dodd. I will take measures to ensure that all financial institutions are reprivatized, and will give the order for a thorough investigation.
Barry: Because we are trained as government officials to establish new expensive programs that have dubious value if accomplished, and fortunately we usually don't accomplish them.
Hypothetical Good President: Jennifer, you should never trust us. All I can do as an individual is promise I will do all I can to make this happen. If I can't do it, you should replace me. You should do the same with all those who stand in the way of achieving these goals.
Barry: Yes, I believe everybody must sacrifice for the greater good. Let government take over the auto industry, the banks, the financial firms, the insurance companies, and your thermostat. Then we'll see what happens.
Hypothetical Good President: My call to action is to have the country prepare for a new awakening. Another morning in America, so to speak. There will be far fewer government programs to get in the way of progress. There will be fewer government employees and others living on the backs of the taxpayers. There will be more taxes collected because of the higher productivity of the peoples of this nation, and that additional money will be used to retire the debt and strengthen our dollar. It simply means everybody goes to work, and we create the environment where that is facilitated.
To be continued
So, I thought I'd take a good look at the questions that followed the press conference speech, because I found most of them very good questions, deserving of a good answer. So I want to report to you two answers to each of the questions: One as Barry would give it, if he could be as brief as the Wizer. The other answer is what it would sound like if given by a good president. It should be easy to spot the differences:
All right. With that, let me take some questions. And I’ve got a list here;
let’s start off with Jennifer Loven, AP.
QUESTION: Thank you, Mr. President.
Your Treasury secretary and the Fed chair have been -- were on Capitol Hill
today, asking for this new authority that you want to regulate big, complex
financial institutions. But given the problems that the financial bailout
program has had so far -- banks not wanting to talk about how they’re spending
the money, the AIG bonuses that you mentioned -- why do you think the public
should sign on for another new, sweeping authority for the government to take
over companies, essentially?
let’s start off with Jennifer Loven, AP.
QUESTION: Thank you, Mr. President.
Your Treasury secretary and the Fed chair have been -- were on Capitol Hill
today, asking for this new authority that you want to regulate big, complex
financial institutions. But given the problems that the financial bailout
program has had so far -- banks not wanting to talk about how they’re spending
the money, the AIG bonuses that you mentioned -- why do you think the public
should sign on for another new, sweeping authority for the government to take
over companies, essentially?
Barry: Because we're the government, and we know better.
Hypothetical Good President: Good Question, Jennifer. I believe the government created this problem by guaranteeing idiotic loans through Fannie Mae and encouraging AIG to hold all the insurance paper for the scam. The least we can do as a government is clean up the mess and eliminate the people and processes in government that created it. I'm asking for the resignations of Barney Frank, Chuck Schumer, and Chris Dodd. I will take measures to ensure that all financial institutions are reprivatized, and will give the order for a thorough investigation.
QUESTION: But why should the public trust the government to handle that
authority well?
authority well?
Barry: Because we are trained as government officials to establish new expensive programs that have dubious value if accomplished, and fortunately we usually don't accomplish them.
Hypothetical Good President: Jennifer, you should never trust us. All I can do as an individual is promise I will do all I can to make this happen. If I can't do it, you should replace me. You should do the same with all those who stand in the way of achieving these goals.
Okay. Chuck Todd.
QUESTION: Thank you, Mr. President. Some have compared this financial crisis to
a war, and in times of war, past presidents have called for some form of
sacrifice. Some of your programs, whether for Main Street or Wall Street, have
actually cushioned the blow for those that were irresponsible during this --
during this economic period of prosperity or supposed prosperity that you were
talking about.
Why, given this new era of responsibility that you’re asking for, why haven’t
you asked for something specific that the public should be sacrificing to
participate in this economic recovery?
Barry: To answer that question with any specificity is above my pay grade.
Hypothetical Good President: Chuck, let me tell you, I do feel bad about that. When George and Henry wrote that check to the banks and the financial areas, they thought it would fix things, and if it worked, it might have even been a fair price to pay. However, history shows that any such intervention will always have unintended consequences that impact more people adversely than are helped. Now the government felt some responsibility because they created the problem with that Fannie Mae malfeasance. Writing the check provided cover for everybody involved. It's not right, but it's an explanation. Of course it also did not work. So, now I'm here, and the bucks have to stop. Everybody has to straighten their own ship. As a government, our only legal goal is to create an environment where we can at least grow out of the hole they've dug for us.
QUESTION: But you don’t think there should be a specific call to action that you
want the American -- I mean, this is -- you’ve described this as an economic
crisis like nothing we have seen since the Great Depression.
QUESTION: Thank you, Mr. President. Some have compared this financial crisis to
a war, and in times of war, past presidents have called for some form of
sacrifice. Some of your programs, whether for Main Street or Wall Street, have
actually cushioned the blow for those that were irresponsible during this --
during this economic period of prosperity or supposed prosperity that you were
talking about.
Why, given this new era of responsibility that you’re asking for, why haven’t
you asked for something specific that the public should be sacrificing to
participate in this economic recovery?
Barry: To answer that question with any specificity is above my pay grade.
Hypothetical Good President: Chuck, let me tell you, I do feel bad about that. When George and Henry wrote that check to the banks and the financial areas, they thought it would fix things, and if it worked, it might have even been a fair price to pay. However, history shows that any such intervention will always have unintended consequences that impact more people adversely than are helped. Now the government felt some responsibility because they created the problem with that Fannie Mae malfeasance. Writing the check provided cover for everybody involved. It's not right, but it's an explanation. Of course it also did not work. So, now I'm here, and the bucks have to stop. Everybody has to straighten their own ship. As a government, our only legal goal is to create an environment where we can at least grow out of the hole they've dug for us.
QUESTION: But you don’t think there should be a specific call to action that you
want the American -- I mean, this is -- you’ve described this as an economic
crisis like nothing we have seen since the Great Depression.
Barry: Yes, I believe everybody must sacrifice for the greater good. Let government take over the auto industry, the banks, the financial firms, the insurance companies, and your thermostat. Then we'll see what happens.
Hypothetical Good President: My call to action is to have the country prepare for a new awakening. Another morning in America, so to speak. There will be far fewer government programs to get in the way of progress. There will be fewer government employees and others living on the backs of the taxpayers. There will be more taxes collected because of the higher productivity of the peoples of this nation, and that additional money will be used to retire the debt and strengthen our dollar. It simply means everybody goes to work, and we create the environment where that is facilitated.
To be continued
Tuesday, March 31, 2009
Two Signs the Political Apocalypse is Nigh
Jimmy Carter famously said: "All of us must learn to waste less energy. Simply by keeping our thermostats, for instance, at 65 degrees in the daytime and 55 degrees at night we could save half the current shortage of natural gas."
Barry Obama, not to be outdone, calls for an "investment (to) place Smart Meters in homes to make our energy bills lower, make outages less likely and make it easier to use clean energy".
It's one thing to have Uncle Jimmy chiding us for liking it over 65 degrees in our homes; it's quite another to let the government into our home to check up on our thermostats.
Then there's this:
Henry Ford famously said: "Any customer can have a car painted any colour that he wants so long as it is black."
Not so fast! The California Cool Paints Initiative says that's gonna be a problem.
Aren't we just about ready for a free market on energy by now? Isn't it high time we told Big Brother to butt out?
Barry Obama, not to be outdone, calls for an "investment (to) place Smart Meters in homes to make our energy bills lower, make outages less likely and make it easier to use clean energy".
It's one thing to have Uncle Jimmy chiding us for liking it over 65 degrees in our homes; it's quite another to let the government into our home to check up on our thermostats.
Then there's this:
Henry Ford famously said: "Any customer can have a car painted any colour that he wants so long as it is black."
Not so fast! The California Cool Paints Initiative says that's gonna be a problem.
Aren't we just about ready for a free market on energy by now? Isn't it high time we told Big Brother to butt out?
Monday, March 30, 2009
Contender Schmontender
Everybody's got a plan until he gets hit. -- Mike Tyson
Read Iowahawk's Requiem for a Lightweight. Then come back.
So in another whiffed uppercut, Obama causes the resignation of a private citizen (Wagoner), announces that the US treasury will now guarantee auto quality for GM and Chrysler cars, and of course the market counterpunches another 3%.
....6...7....8....9....
(FADE TO BLACK)
Sunday, March 29, 2009
I'm Obama's Approval Rating, and I Approve this Message
News item: Obama's approval rating drops to 50-50.
For a fellow who might as well have changed his name to "Notbush" for the last election, he sure has been getting Bush-like results. People wanting change were told that Obama was the candidate for that, yet it sure looks like he wants to continue the Bush policies that people were voting against. Bigger government, wall street bailouts, misguided education and health programs. It's no wonder he's seeing sub-Bush approval ratings (by this point). What, exactly, is the difference between a big government republican and a big government democrat? Not much, I say. But you would at least expect to see some meaningful differences in economic policy. No, turns out the first order of business is launching Pelosi's shopping list.
Sure, guys like Geithner and Biden are merely incompetent; but Emmanual and Obama know what they are doing. They are doing Bush one better at every turn. Hard to believe it, but I can already see Bush 43's image as being rehabilitated before the midterm election. His will not have been a bad administration after all when compared to this one.
For a fellow who might as well have changed his name to "Notbush" for the last election, he sure has been getting Bush-like results. People wanting change were told that Obama was the candidate for that, yet it sure looks like he wants to continue the Bush policies that people were voting against. Bigger government, wall street bailouts, misguided education and health programs. It's no wonder he's seeing sub-Bush approval ratings (by this point). What, exactly, is the difference between a big government republican and a big government democrat? Not much, I say. But you would at least expect to see some meaningful differences in economic policy. No, turns out the first order of business is launching Pelosi's shopping list.
Sure, guys like Geithner and Biden are merely incompetent; but Emmanual and Obama know what they are doing. They are doing Bush one better at every turn. Hard to believe it, but I can already see Bush 43's image as being rehabilitated before the midterm election. His will not have been a bad administration after all when compared to this one.
Friday, March 27, 2009
Tuesday, March 17, 2009
Asking the Right Questions
"Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people". -- Eleanor Roosevelt.
You can usually tell when an idea has impact. The enemies of a great idea will invariably dive down and attempt to undercut the source of the idea, by attacking the person, instead of the idea. You've heard from these small minded people a lot, and especially lately.
Where the idea is the defeat of socialism, the response is "Rush is fat".
Where the idea is resisting the attack on American culture, the response is "O'Reilly is a racist".
Where the idea is the right size for the government, the response is "Gingrich is mean".
Where the idea is the sovereignty of the USA, the response is "Mark Steyn is a fear-monger".
I want you to watch for this, and then ask the name caller a simple question. If we all start asking this one simple question, we can begin to get the dialog focussed on the ideas, and not on the names. After all, it is the idea that counts, and a great idea is better than all of us put together, no matter our faults and personality traits.
The question: "But can you refute what he/she says?" Try it. It is guaranteed to stop the downward slide of the dialog, and might even cause some folks to reflect more on their own faults.
"Yes, but can you refute anything he/she says (Something?, Anything?)?".
"Chuck Baldwin is a bible thumping moron" - "Not really, but can you refute anything he says?".
"Ayn Rand was a godless witch" - "If you say so, but can you refute any of her ideas?".
"Pat Buchanan is a jew hating leviathon" - " Not at all, but tell me, can you refute what he says?"
If they can, then there's a basis for continued dialog. If they can't then it's surely best for the discussion to end there.
You can usually tell when an idea has impact. The enemies of a great idea will invariably dive down and attempt to undercut the source of the idea, by attacking the person, instead of the idea. You've heard from these small minded people a lot, and especially lately.
Where the idea is the defeat of socialism, the response is "Rush is fat".
Where the idea is resisting the attack on American culture, the response is "O'Reilly is a racist".
Where the idea is the right size for the government, the response is "Gingrich is mean".
Where the idea is the sovereignty of the USA, the response is "Mark Steyn is a fear-monger".
I want you to watch for this, and then ask the name caller a simple question. If we all start asking this one simple question, we can begin to get the dialog focussed on the ideas, and not on the names. After all, it is the idea that counts, and a great idea is better than all of us put together, no matter our faults and personality traits.
The question: "But can you refute what he/she says?" Try it. It is guaranteed to stop the downward slide of the dialog, and might even cause some folks to reflect more on their own faults.
"Yes, but can you refute anything he/she says (Something?, Anything?)?".
"Chuck Baldwin is a bible thumping moron" - "Not really, but can you refute anything he says?".
"Ayn Rand was a godless witch" - "If you say so, but can you refute any of her ideas?".
"Pat Buchanan is a jew hating leviathon" - " Not at all, but tell me, can you refute what he says?"
If they can, then there's a basis for continued dialog. If they can't then it's surely best for the discussion to end there.
Thursday, March 05, 2009
By the numbers
Here's another fun thing you can do while waiting for the weather and the economy to warm up:
Go to this database, and study the earmarks of the Omnibus Appropriations Bill. (Thanks to Taxpayers for Common Sense).
The NTU blog shows the list of the biggest earmark culprits. Who says bipartisanship is dead?
Tuesday, March 03, 2009
June Swoon
More math assignments:
Dow Jones Industrial Average on May 30, 2008:
12,638.32
On June 2, Obama clinched the nomination. Market dropped 9% that month alone.
The Dow Jones Industrial Average as of March 3, 2009:
6,726.02
Dow Jones Industrial Average on May 30, 2008:
12,638.32
On June 2, Obama clinched the nomination. Market dropped 9% that month alone.
The Dow Jones Industrial Average as of March 3, 2009:
6,726.02
Saw it coming
There's much more talk lately about Going John Galt.
I think a lot of people saw the emerging Bush-Obama Recession as the opportunity to bail out of the system; and they're pulling all their wealth out of the equities market. The market is known as a proxy for the future value of the economy. The smart money has already left, and the rest of us are holding onto what little is left of the market expecting some kind of upturn.
Along comes news of another stimulus plan, there's a fourth AIG bailout, a planned tax on the small business owners, and it goes lower than even the most pessimistic of us would have predicted. In every likelihood it is not over yet, thus more people are talking about John Galt.
Consider what has happened in the last 22 years:
Ronald "government is the problem" Reagan
George "read my lips" Bush
Bill "era of big government is over" Clinton
George "exporting democracy at all costs" Bush
Barry "spread the wealth" Obama.
The decline into socialism was slowed by one democrat ( Clinton) and one republican (Reagan), accelerated by two republicans (Bush and Bush) and now the democrat (Obama) who will show you how it's really done.
How we got here is not surprising given that the "other" choices presented were Dukakis, Dole, Gore, Kerry, and McCain. Somehow we have to get out of the cycle of settling for the evil of two lessers.
As I mentioned earlier, the so-called "wealthy" are smart enough to put their money out of reach of Obama. Any attempt to take it from them will wind up hurting us all; the people who do make 250,000 will find a way to make it 249,999. People will move out of the expensive cities, take up permanent residences in rural America and live off the CDs and mattresses they created when the market and the economy were working. That's going John Galt. Believe me, it has already started.
Meanwhile, Obama, ostensibly seeking to become more notorious than FDR, is about to make the great depression look like a spring vacation.
Those who saw it coming in early 2008 are in pretty good shape. Hope you got your mattresses full.
I think a lot of people saw the emerging Bush-Obama Recession as the opportunity to bail out of the system; and they're pulling all their wealth out of the equities market. The market is known as a proxy for the future value of the economy. The smart money has already left, and the rest of us are holding onto what little is left of the market expecting some kind of upturn.
Along comes news of another stimulus plan, there's a fourth AIG bailout, a planned tax on the small business owners, and it goes lower than even the most pessimistic of us would have predicted. In every likelihood it is not over yet, thus more people are talking about John Galt.
Consider what has happened in the last 22 years:
Ronald "government is the problem" Reagan
George "read my lips" Bush
Bill "era of big government is over" Clinton
George "exporting democracy at all costs" Bush
Barry "spread the wealth" Obama.
The decline into socialism was slowed by one democrat ( Clinton) and one republican (Reagan), accelerated by two republicans (Bush and Bush) and now the democrat (Obama) who will show you how it's really done.
How we got here is not surprising given that the "other" choices presented were Dukakis, Dole, Gore, Kerry, and McCain. Somehow we have to get out of the cycle of settling for the evil of two lessers.
As I mentioned earlier, the so-called "wealthy" are smart enough to put their money out of reach of Obama. Any attempt to take it from them will wind up hurting us all; the people who do make 250,000 will find a way to make it 249,999. People will move out of the expensive cities, take up permanent residences in rural America and live off the CDs and mattresses they created when the market and the economy were working. That's going John Galt. Believe me, it has already started.
Meanwhile, Obama, ostensibly seeking to become more notorious than FDR, is about to make the great depression look like a spring vacation.
Those who saw it coming in early 2008 are in pretty good shape. Hope you got your mattresses full.
Thursday, February 26, 2009
The (sordid) SOTU
I expected this to be depressing, and I wasn't disappointed. Sure, he painted a very bleak picture, but that had nothing to do with my disposition. It was the remedies he was proposing that sunk my disposition lower than the Mariana Trench.
First of all, this speech was designed to make sure that Bush gets the blame, and I understand and accept that. Comes with the territory. And Bush is not totally blameless. If he would have vetoed everything coming out of the 110th congress, plus seen to it that the CRA was repealed, then none of this (including the election of a socialist president) would have happened. So be it. Obama is within his rights to set everything up as a Bush induced problem. I'll leave the sorting out of that to the historians. Bush failed to defend the constitution. Fine. Now what is Obama going to do differently?
Your first clue would be the constant and incessant jumping up and cheering by (spender in chief) Pelosi whenever Obama mentioned another mind bogglingly huge spending proposition.
Another clue was his singling out little Ty'Sheoma for writing a letter to Congress about education. She looked like someone who was being congratulated in front of class for doing a homework assignment. What's the big deal? She just did what she was told to do. Never mind that the education system is not legally connected to nor should it be dependent on the federal government,; and a truly well educated schoolchild would know that. If she would have sent the letter to her school corporation, that would get an "A". This paper gets a "C". So, it appears Obama's education goals are for "C" level work even ahead of "A" and "B".
Obama talks about making sure the top 2% of wage earners send their money to Timothy Geithner instead of using it to create private sector jobs. Without even the slightest hint of irony in his voice. How exactly does he propose to classify "the wealthy"? If it really is families who make over $250,000 / year, we will have fewer families producing that amount. What's good or useful about that? The so called wealthy are smart enough not to make $250,001. They are smart enough to place their money into hard assets. What then? Tax revenue will drop significantly. So, not only will the economy continue to fall, tax revenue will fall, as well. And with all this spending going on, it doesn't take Geithner's accountant to know what happens next.
And then there's 95% of working households that will receive a tax cut. Note that tax cut as used here is actually a transfer payment, so it really means free money, at least to those who have zero net taxes. It seems like that detail is often lost on pundits. Regardless of how our collective wealth is redistributed I always find it helpful to calculate my share of the expenses, and compare it to my budget. 750 Billion dollars is about ten grand per family. So, if you are going to spend 10 grand of my money, it better be on something worthwhile. I don't think charitable redistribution would be on my short list. In fact, it just makes my dollars worth less, and the companies that use my dollars require more of them to provide the same service. Sorry to boil it down and ruin the president's fun.
Tax credits for college? $2500? Artificially subsidizing college will just raise college costs. Probably by $2600. Net result is less, but the teachers will sure like it.
Finally, the nationalization of banks. What to say about that? Well, I'm as good at running banks as I am at running the post office. Now as long as I'm a shareholder in the banks, I just have to vote for bankers to watch out for my interests. Steve Forbes, anyone?
I'm going to let others tally up all the cash register rings in this speech. I'm too depressed.
First of all, this speech was designed to make sure that Bush gets the blame, and I understand and accept that. Comes with the territory. And Bush is not totally blameless. If he would have vetoed everything coming out of the 110th congress, plus seen to it that the CRA was repealed, then none of this (including the election of a socialist president) would have happened. So be it. Obama is within his rights to set everything up as a Bush induced problem. I'll leave the sorting out of that to the historians. Bush failed to defend the constitution. Fine. Now what is Obama going to do differently?
Your first clue would be the constant and incessant jumping up and cheering by (spender in chief) Pelosi whenever Obama mentioned another mind bogglingly huge spending proposition.
Another clue was his singling out little Ty'Sheoma for writing a letter to Congress about education. She looked like someone who was being congratulated in front of class for doing a homework assignment. What's the big deal? She just did what she was told to do. Never mind that the education system is not legally connected to nor should it be dependent on the federal government,; and a truly well educated schoolchild would know that. If she would have sent the letter to her school corporation, that would get an "A". This paper gets a "C". So, it appears Obama's education goals are for "C" level work even ahead of "A" and "B".
Obama talks about making sure the top 2% of wage earners send their money to Timothy Geithner instead of using it to create private sector jobs. Without even the slightest hint of irony in his voice. How exactly does he propose to classify "the wealthy"? If it really is families who make over $250,000 / year, we will have fewer families producing that amount. What's good or useful about that? The so called wealthy are smart enough not to make $250,001. They are smart enough to place their money into hard assets. What then? Tax revenue will drop significantly. So, not only will the economy continue to fall, tax revenue will fall, as well. And with all this spending going on, it doesn't take Geithner's accountant to know what happens next.
And then there's 95% of working households that will receive a tax cut. Note that tax cut as used here is actually a transfer payment, so it really means free money, at least to those who have zero net taxes. It seems like that detail is often lost on pundits. Regardless of how our collective wealth is redistributed I always find it helpful to calculate my share of the expenses, and compare it to my budget. 750 Billion dollars is about ten grand per family. So, if you are going to spend 10 grand of my money, it better be on something worthwhile. I don't think charitable redistribution would be on my short list. In fact, it just makes my dollars worth less, and the companies that use my dollars require more of them to provide the same service. Sorry to boil it down and ruin the president's fun.
Tax credits for college? $2500? Artificially subsidizing college will just raise college costs. Probably by $2600. Net result is less, but the teachers will sure like it.
Finally, the nationalization of banks. What to say about that? Well, I'm as good at running banks as I am at running the post office. Now as long as I'm a shareholder in the banks, I just have to vote for bankers to watch out for my interests. Steve Forbes, anyone?
I'm going to let others tally up all the cash register rings in this speech. I'm too depressed.
Wednesday, February 25, 2009
The (sorta) SOTU
Your Wizer hasn't had a chance to break down the State of the Union speech, but I promise some analysis by the weekend. In the meantime, if you want a quick read of what was covered, Rich Galen mulls on it here.
Monday, February 23, 2009
Slap me aside the head.
How stupid of me. I did it again this month. Month after month. I paid again on my mortgage. How could I have been so dense?
Sunday, February 22, 2009
Parsing the Spendulus Speech, Part V
As you know, your Wizer likes to examine the math:
CBO estimates that enacting the conference agreement for H.R. 1
would increase federal budget deficits by $185 billion over the remaining
months of fiscal year 2009, by $399 billion in 2010, by $134 billion in
2011, and by $787 billion over the 2009-2019 period -- Congressional Budget Office, letter from Douglas Elmendorf to Nancy Pelosi, Friday, February 13, 2009
So, now, by popular demand, we hereby complete our series on analyzing the president's spendulus speech from "Fatter Tuesday "
And it’s a plan that rewards responsibility, lifting two million Americans from poverty by ensuring that anyone who works hard does not have to raise a child below the poverty line. As a whole, this plan will help poor and working Americans pull themselves into the middle class in a way we haven’t seen in nearly fifty years. What I am signing, then, is a balanced plan with a mix of tax cuts and investments.
So, does Barry really know what he signed? He was not familiar with the Gitmo order, and it was only a few pages long. This one is over 1000 pages. Anyway, his "people" have no doubt told him that this plan has balance. It really doesn't, and I know that because it doesn't have to have balance. Emanual was not going to waste this opportunity, no sir. And here he and Obama are picking and choosing who they want to put into the middle class. If they would stop trying to classify everybody, maybe they'd find out people are happy wherever they are on the economic scale.
It is a plan that’s been put together without earmarks or the usual pork barrel spending. And it is a plan that will be implemented with an unprecedented level of transparency and accountability. With a recovery package of this scale comes a responsibility to assure every taxpayer that we are being careful with the money they work so hard to earn.
If it's all the same to Barry and Rahm, I'd be happy if they would carefully put our money down and back away. No, I know it's not going to happen, but the image of them being forced to back away is a powerful dream.
That’s why I am assigning a team of managers to ensure that the precious dollars we have invested are being spent wisely and well. We will hold the governors and local officials who receive money to the same high standards. And we expect you, the American people, to hold us accountable for the results. That is why we have created Recovery.gov – so every American can go online and see how their money is being spent.
Hoo boy, that will be an adventure. I'm picturing an advanced dungeons and dragonsy game where bags of gold are dropped all over the place, and then more bags, and then some more. What characters should we play? I'd like to be Spendulus. You can be Porky.
As important as the step we take today is, this legislation represents only the first part of the broad strategy we need to address our economic crisis. In the coming days and weeks, I will be launching other aspects of the plan. We will need to stabilize, repair, and reform our banking system, and get credit flowing again to families and businesses.
Translation: If that doesn't work, we'll try something else. There are still blank checks in the checkbook.
We will need to end a culture where we ignore problems until they become full-blown crises instead of recognizing that the only way to build a thriving economy is to set and enforce firm rules of the road.
The American people will settle instead for a government that does not create more problems than it solves.
We must stem the spread of foreclosures and falling home values for all Americans, and do everything we can to help responsible homeowners stay in their homes, something I will talk more about tomorrow. And while we need to do everything in the short-term to get our economy moving again, we must recognize that having inherited a trillion-dollar deficit, we need to begin restoring fiscal discipline and taming our exploding deficits over the long-term. None of this will be easy.
Oh, responsible homeowners? Okay, so you guys over there that are irresponsible, you go home. We have to leave 3 or 4 of you out to make it look like we care about this trillion dollar deficit.
The road to recovery will not be straight and true. It will demand courage and discipline, and a new sense of responsibility that has been missing – from Wall Street to Washington. There will be hazards and reverses along the way. But I have every confidence that if we are willing to continue doing the difficult work that must be done – by each of us and by all of us – then we will leave this struggling economy behind us, and come out on the other side, more prosperous as a people. For our American story is not – and has never been – about things coming easy. It’s about rising to the moment when the moment is hard, converting crisis into opportunity, and seeing to it that we emerge from whatever trials we face stronger than we were before. It’s about rejecting the notion that our fate is somehow written for us, and instead laying claim to a destiny of our own making. That is what earlier generations of Americans have done, and that is what we are doing today. Thank you.
I think Obama is smart enough to know that the American economy is likely to cycle up in three years even despite the spendulus package. He will get away with this, not because of the spending, but in spite of it. Unfortunately, the permanent damage will be extensive and unrepentantly stubborn. Everything will seem wonderful by 2012, and that will be enough to trick the people who voted for him to do it again. It's too bad he couldn't choose to have a recovery in 2010 instead, and let the economy grow from there.
Saturday, February 21, 2009
Parsing the Spendulus Speech, Part IV
A billion here, a billion there, and pretty soon you're talking about real money. -- Senator Everett Dirksen (R) IL
Looks like Fat Tuesday has come a week early -- The Wizer
Now Continuing our public service of parsing the spendulus speech:
Because we know we can’t power America’s future on energy that’s controlled by foreign dictators, we are taking a big step down the road to energy independence, and laying the groundwork for a new, green energy economy that can create countless well-paying jobs. It’s an investment that will double the amount of renewable energy produced over the next three years, and provide tax credits and loan guarantees to companies like Namaste Solar, a company that will be expanding, instead of laying people off, as a result of the plan I am signing. In the process, we will transform the way we use energy.
Looks like Fat Tuesday has come a week early -- The Wizer
Now Continuing our public service of parsing the spendulus speech:
Because we know we can’t power America’s future on energy that’s controlled by foreign dictators, we are taking a big step down the road to energy independence, and laying the groundwork for a new, green energy economy that can create countless well-paying jobs. It’s an investment that will double the amount of renewable energy produced over the next three years, and provide tax credits and loan guarantees to companies like Namaste Solar, a company that will be expanding, instead of laying people off, as a result of the plan I am signing. In the process, we will transform the way we use energy.
Companies like Namaste? Doesn't this signal a clear intention of the Obama regime to pick and choose the winners in the market? Why not let "countless well paying jobs" occur organically, by creating the environment where all companies, not just a select few can prosper.
Today, the electricity we use is carried along a grid of lines and wires that dates back to Thomas Edison – a grid that can’t support the demands of clean energy. This means we’re using 19th and 20th century technologies to battle 21st century problems like climate change and energy security. It also means that places like North Dakota can produce a lot of wind energy, but can’t deliver it to communities that want it, leading to a gap between how much clean energy we are using and how much we could be using.
Battling climate change? I thought Obama was all about change. In any case, if building windmills in North Dakota is a good idea, we should get out of the way and let the private sector do it.
The investment we are making today will create a newer, smarter electric grid that will allow for the broader use of alternative energy. We will build on the work that’s being done in places like Boulder, Colorado – a community that is on pace to be the world’s first Smart Grid city. This investment will place Smart Meters in homes to make our energy bills lower, make outages less likely, and make it easier to use clean energy.
"Smart meters"? If it makes energy bills lower, wouldn't the users themselves be motivated to install these "smart meters". It becomes less smart these installations are subsidized by all, yet benefit very few.
It’s an investment that will save taxpayers over one billion dollars by slashing energy costs in our federal buildings by 25% and save working families hundreds of dollars a year on their energy bills by weatherizing over one million homes.
There are 119,117,000 homes in the USA. Which "million" does Obama propose to start with? And, how do you determine whether they are working families or not? Obama talks a lot about helping the working families. Somehow, I don't think he means to exclude non-working families.
And it’s an investment that takes the important first step towards a nationwide transmission superhighway that will connect our cities to the windy plains of the Dakotas and the sunny deserts of the Southwest. Even beyond energy, from the National Institutes of Health to the National Science Foundation, this recovery act represents the biggest increase in basic research funding in the long history of America’s noble endeavor to better understand our world. Just as President Kennedy sparked an explosion of innovation when he set America’s sights on the moon, I hope this investment will ignite our imagination once more, spurring new discoveries and breakthroughs that will make our economy stronger, our nation more secure, and our planet safer for our children.
Feeding the bureacracy isn't going to get us back to the moon. What exactly are these institutions challenged to do? I don't see the big visionary scenario; the one big idea. Kennedy's goal was not controversial, so there were few people who thought it necessary to speak out. In retrospect, the goal was certainly expensive, and we got a few moon-rocks to show for it. Let's hope there is more to show after this money goes up like a Saturn V.
While this package is mostly composed of critical investments, it also includes aid to state and local governments to prevent layoffs of firefighters or police recruits – recruits like the ones in Columbus, Ohio who were told that instead of being sworn-in as officers, they would be let go.
Picking the winners and losers among the police departments in Columbus Ohio hardly seems like it should be among the priorities of a federal government. Ohio should be bristling at this presumptuous interference from the government. Further, if the recruits were worthy enough, they would eventually be hired by the same entity, and taxpayer subsidization would be unnecessary.
It includes help for those hardest hit by our economic crisis like the nearly 18 million Americans who will get larger unemployment checks in the mail. And about a third of this package comes in the form of tax cuts – the most progressive in our history – not only spurring job-creation, but putting money in the pockets of 95% of all hardworking families. Unlike tax cuts we’ve seen in recent years, the vast majority of these tax benefits will go not to the wealthiest Americans but to the middle class – with those workers who make the least benefiting the most.
Oh, so that explains it. All of our problems have been caused by the wealthy. There are 18 million unemployed. We want to help 95% of hardworking families, and then there's the middle class. Why not have everyone wear a label? Mr. Obama needs to understand that we are all Americans. We do not consider ourselves members of any group (wealthy, middle, hardworking, non-working, Italian, Greek, Green, or any other group). We want solutions that benefit everybody, and don't single out a so-called group for which it will or won't help.
Friday, February 20, 2009
Parsing the Spendulus Speech, Part III
Never let a serious crisis go to waste. What I mean by that is it's an opportunity to do things you couldn't do before -- White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanual
Continuing our parsing of Tuesday's Spendulus Speech by Barry Obama:
It’s an investment that will create a new $2,500 annual tax credit to put the dream of a college degree within reach for middle class families and make college affordable for seven million students, helping more of our sons and daughters aim higher, reach farther, and fulfill their God-given potential.
A tax incentive will get more kids in school, but when you artificially increase demand for something, the prices go up. In all likelihood, the prices will go up a full 2500 dollars per family. Who wins this game? Only the schools. And since it does not discriminate between good schools and bad schools, the results are unintended consequences of rewarding poor teaching performance.
Because we know that spiraling health care costs are crushing families and businesses alike, we are taking the most meaningful steps in years towards modernizing our health care system. It’s an investment that will take the long overdue step of computerizing America’s medical records – to reduce the duplication and waste that costs billions of health care dollars and the medical errors that every year cost thousands of lives.
I fail to see the connection between economic stimulus and letting big brother consolidate my medical records.
Further, thanks to the action we have taken, seven million Americans who lost their health care along with their jobs will continue to get the coverage they need, and roughly 20 million more can breathe a little easier, knowing that their health care won’t be cut due to a state budget shortfall.
People who have lost jobs already have an option for health care. It's called COBRA, and the system seems to work pretty well.
And an historic commitment to wellness initiatives will keep millions of Americans from setting foot in the doctor’s office for purely preventable diseases.
They do that in Canada. Millions of Canadians are kept from setting foot in the doctor's office. They don't seem to like that system.
Taken together with the enactment earlier this month of a long-delayed law to extend health care to millions more children of working families, we have done more in 30 days to advance the cause of health reform than this country has done in a decade.
Health reform does not advance when you shuffle insurace from the private sector to the public. In fact, it is retarded. Government intermediation in the process is inefficient, and the costs and bureacracy accelerates. Meanwhile, the healthcare does not improve. The correct measure would be to make the process more transparent. Why not consider a rule requiring people to pay at least 20% out of pocket. That way, you would see a much more responsive health care sector emerge. With $10 deductible, the patient has no motivation to seek out the most efficient solution. With a straight percentage, everybody gets smarter.
Continuing our parsing of Tuesday's Spendulus Speech by Barry Obama:
It’s an investment that will create a new $2,500 annual tax credit to put the dream of a college degree within reach for middle class families and make college affordable for seven million students, helping more of our sons and daughters aim higher, reach farther, and fulfill their God-given potential.
A tax incentive will get more kids in school, but when you artificially increase demand for something, the prices go up. In all likelihood, the prices will go up a full 2500 dollars per family. Who wins this game? Only the schools. And since it does not discriminate between good schools and bad schools, the results are unintended consequences of rewarding poor teaching performance.
Because we know that spiraling health care costs are crushing families and businesses alike, we are taking the most meaningful steps in years towards modernizing our health care system. It’s an investment that will take the long overdue step of computerizing America’s medical records – to reduce the duplication and waste that costs billions of health care dollars and the medical errors that every year cost thousands of lives.
I fail to see the connection between economic stimulus and letting big brother consolidate my medical records.
Further, thanks to the action we have taken, seven million Americans who lost their health care along with their jobs will continue to get the coverage they need, and roughly 20 million more can breathe a little easier, knowing that their health care won’t be cut due to a state budget shortfall.
People who have lost jobs already have an option for health care. It's called COBRA, and the system seems to work pretty well.
And an historic commitment to wellness initiatives will keep millions of Americans from setting foot in the doctor’s office for purely preventable diseases.
They do that in Canada. Millions of Canadians are kept from setting foot in the doctor's office. They don't seem to like that system.
Taken together with the enactment earlier this month of a long-delayed law to extend health care to millions more children of working families, we have done more in 30 days to advance the cause of health reform than this country has done in a decade.
Health reform does not advance when you shuffle insurace from the private sector to the public. In fact, it is retarded. Government intermediation in the process is inefficient, and the costs and bureacracy accelerates. Meanwhile, the healthcare does not improve. The correct measure would be to make the process more transparent. Why not consider a rule requiring people to pay at least 20% out of pocket. That way, you would see a much more responsive health care sector emerge. With $10 deductible, the patient has no motivation to seek out the most efficient solution. With a straight percentage, everybody gets smarter.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)