Dear Wizer,
Afghanistan.
Signed,
Incredulous
Dear Incredulous, Your Wizer doesn't usually delve into foreign policy. The previous --oh--20 or so administrations have made such a mess of things that parsing it all out is not a practical goal. However, it does have a bearing on our reasonable expectation for personal safety, so I will say this about Afghanistan. This is a people whose biggest goal was getiing to the camel market before sundown. Now they see a bigger world. Where once their best weapons were scud missiles and box cutters, now there is a brave new world out there, with modern technology and cave making ordinance. Our administration wants them to be better organized now, with a central government, presumably so they can be coordinated in their contempt and ridicule of US citizens.
Whatever happened to leading by example? Why can't we just go about our business, and let the Aghanis and every other country on the planet organize in their own way? If we are a freedom loving people, we should love the Afghani's freedoms, and simply leave them alone. Theirs is a network of corruption that spans across the country. It's the way they prefer to work. We prefer to keep our corruptions in DC. Just because we don't like theirs it doesn't make me feel like I should go over there and play social engineer.
We go in there guns blazing like we're some sort of global SWAT team, and we wind up operating their friggin day care centers. Meanwhile, the ones who hate us have picked up a few new technologies to use against us. What WERE we thinking?
Friday, December 17, 2010
Thursday, December 16, 2010
Dear Wizer #2: Bush Tax Cuts
Dear Wizer,
Bush Tax Cuts?
Signed,
Puzzled
Dear Puzzled, Yes, it can be confusing, because there is so much doublespeak involved. The "Bush Tax Cuts" refers to a set of tax reductions entered during the last recession that were designed to forestall the country from falling into a deeper recession. That action expires on January 1st.
The tax cuts were a way to kick a number of the cans down the road, because the dotcom bubble and 9/11 kind of swamped out the real economy there for a while. These cuts should have been made permanent, but for political reasons they were not. So now, there's all this confusion about whether we are talking cuts, hikes, and for who. So I'll try to break it down for you later in this article, but first a little history:
Way back in In 2008, the government sponsored mortgage industry failed due to lax lending standards and poor management. Then government sanctioned banks began to fail for the same reason, and then because nobody wanted to loan money to anyone (especially the riskiest of ventures), the government decided to own all the risk, including the shakiest of them all, the auto companies. Of course bigger stimuli are needed to keep all these plates spinning. So, we have big spending, and the propping up of Wall Street, DC, and Union HQs across the land.
Meanwhile, the real economy had not recovered from 2001, so the tax cuts' only function if there was one was to allow the underlying problems to go another 6 years under the radar. We are now faced with a scenario where doing nothing will increase the average guy's taxes by $3000/ year. That's just to keep things steady. Even the economically misinformed Keynesians and Socialists in and around the administration know this is a big problem. Take $3000 out of anyone's budget, and you will see what economic stagnation really means.
So now, there's this bill that the administration is concocting with the help of the senate, which is said to be bipartisan, and which will "extend the Bush Tax Cuts" another two years.
Here's the thing. It's not a good bill. You might hold the opinion that two opposing sides agreeing on something would make it a reasonable thing to do. The fallacy in that idea is that there are two opposing sides. Both of these sides want the wheels of big government to spin merrily along, and are simply praying that the economy will recover soon enough that they can take credit for having passed this stupid bill. Here's what it does:
Sadly, the only debate is not whether to kick the can down the road, but who's turn it is to get in the can. It's your turn, of course.
Bush Tax Cuts?
Signed,
Puzzled
Dear Puzzled, Yes, it can be confusing, because there is so much doublespeak involved. The "Bush Tax Cuts" refers to a set of tax reductions entered during the last recession that were designed to forestall the country from falling into a deeper recession. That action expires on January 1st.
The tax cuts were a way to kick a number of the cans down the road, because the dotcom bubble and 9/11 kind of swamped out the real economy there for a while. These cuts should have been made permanent, but for political reasons they were not. So now, there's all this confusion about whether we are talking cuts, hikes, and for who. So I'll try to break it down for you later in this article, but first a little history:
Way back in In 2008, the government sponsored mortgage industry failed due to lax lending standards and poor management. Then government sanctioned banks began to fail for the same reason, and then because nobody wanted to loan money to anyone (especially the riskiest of ventures), the government decided to own all the risk, including the shakiest of them all, the auto companies. Of course bigger stimuli are needed to keep all these plates spinning. So, we have big spending, and the propping up of Wall Street, DC, and Union HQs across the land.
Meanwhile, the real economy had not recovered from 2001, so the tax cuts' only function if there was one was to allow the underlying problems to go another 6 years under the radar. We are now faced with a scenario where doing nothing will increase the average guy's taxes by $3000/ year. That's just to keep things steady. Even the economically misinformed Keynesians and Socialists in and around the administration know this is a big problem. Take $3000 out of anyone's budget, and you will see what economic stagnation really means.
So now, there's this bill that the administration is concocting with the help of the senate, which is said to be bipartisan, and which will "extend the Bush Tax Cuts" another two years.
Here's the thing. It's not a good bill. You might hold the opinion that two opposing sides agreeing on something would make it a reasonable thing to do. The fallacy in that idea is that there are two opposing sides. Both of these sides want the wheels of big government to spin merrily along, and are simply praying that the economy will recover soon enough that they can take credit for having passed this stupid bill. Here's what it does:
- Extends (by 13 months) a generous federal subsidy for persons wanting to avoid work.
- Promises not to raise taxes for two years for people who actually do work, but requires them to subsidize this first group.
- Provides Congressmen with 300 more pages of earmarks and set asides for the "good of the constituency".
- Extends the misery that is New Orleans by continuing a now perpetual subsidy for not finding your own post-hurricane home (and countless other malappropriations)
Sadly, the only debate is not whether to kick the can down the road, but who's turn it is to get in the can. It's your turn, of course.
Wednesday, December 15, 2010
Dear Wizer #1: WikiLeaks
Dear Wizer,
WikiLeaks?
Signed,
Uncertain
Dear Uncertain: WikiLeaks is an operation looking for notoriety as a purveyor of secret documents. The documents are usually reports and memos detailing our country's low opinion of other country's bad habits.
The name WikiLeaks is poorly chosen because it means, literally "Quick Leaks". Most of the time, the leaks are very long in development, and not delivered quickly. In fact, last time I looked, the site was down. In addition, I would think that WikiPedia would have some sort of trademark position on the name, but I digress.
It's not unusual for the president's administration to take issue with organizations wanting to tell the truth (cf: Obama vs. Fox News). Whether the truth was exposed illegally is probably without question (I don't doubt we have a lot of laws for hiding the truth). The laws must be followed. Still, The Wizer applauds truth in all its forms, and the internet is the best system yet for organizing and making truth available. So in many ways, WikiLeaks is necessary, and in many more, inevitable.
Is this bad? Is what WikiLeaks is putting out "some serious bad JUJU"? Let's examine that. There are very good reasons to keep secrets from our enemies, especially the ones that are not already US Congressmen. Some of these secrets' exposure will cost lives. Certainly it's dangerous for the spooks in the field who have had their cover blown. As part of the damage, we've likely had some very helpful information outposts now hopelessly compromised.
But there's a little explored upside, too. Now, with all our cards and some of theirs on the table, everybody knows what we are thinking. That hasn't happened since Reagan. It's a big-time reset button, and is probably about time we started dealing in true facts. Most of what we do outside of this country has little to do with the business of running our country.It deals instead with our country's meddling with other countries. Don't get me wrong, we need to keep an eye on things in Teheran, Hanoi, and, obviously Marin County CA, but it's what we do with this intelligence that counts, and sometimes (perhaps most often) we do more damage than good. Like handing a bag of money to a dictator, or sliding a weapons contract under a door.
The truth doesn't necessarily change any policies. It will take votes (and a good many of those) to change things. But what the truth will do for us is shine a brighter light on our leadership as to how we are conducting our business with the rest of the world. I for one fea that less than a cloak and dagger organization with loose tethers to American reality.
I don't know what this guy (Assange) 's motivation is, and I don't think motive is relevant here. For all I know, he just wants to be rich, mysterious, and famous. He's got his 15 minutes already. For the most part, I didn't find any one piece of the information leaked as being all that interesting. So, the Saudis would like us to bomb Iran? big surprise there. The Yemeni want to provide cover for our ops? Sure, maybe one good movie can be made from that. In my view it's hardly important for anyone to understand Assange's goal, unless they intend to stop him. Is stopping the truth something we should endorse? No; but it's a losing battle in any case.
I do think Assange has done something of significance though: he broke through one of the false barriers to truth, and others will rush in to capitalize on it. Apparently there's a market for it (or there wouldn't be 100 news stories a day on the subject). Can Google-Leaks be far behind?
WikiLeaks?
Signed,
Uncertain
Dear Uncertain: WikiLeaks is an operation looking for notoriety as a purveyor of secret documents. The documents are usually reports and memos detailing our country's low opinion of other country's bad habits.
The name WikiLeaks is poorly chosen because it means, literally "Quick Leaks". Most of the time, the leaks are very long in development, and not delivered quickly. In fact, last time I looked, the site was down. In addition, I would think that WikiPedia would have some sort of trademark position on the name, but I digress.
It's not unusual for the president's administration to take issue with organizations wanting to tell the truth (cf: Obama vs. Fox News). Whether the truth was exposed illegally is probably without question (I don't doubt we have a lot of laws for hiding the truth). The laws must be followed. Still, The Wizer applauds truth in all its forms, and the internet is the best system yet for organizing and making truth available. So in many ways, WikiLeaks is necessary, and in many more, inevitable.
Is this bad? Is what WikiLeaks is putting out "some serious bad JUJU"? Let's examine that. There are very good reasons to keep secrets from our enemies, especially the ones that are not already US Congressmen. Some of these secrets' exposure will cost lives. Certainly it's dangerous for the spooks in the field who have had their cover blown. As part of the damage, we've likely had some very helpful information outposts now hopelessly compromised.
But there's a little explored upside, too. Now, with all our cards and some of theirs on the table, everybody knows what we are thinking. That hasn't happened since Reagan. It's a big-time reset button, and is probably about time we started dealing in true facts. Most of what we do outside of this country has little to do with the business of running our country.It deals instead with our country's meddling with other countries. Don't get me wrong, we need to keep an eye on things in Teheran, Hanoi, and, obviously Marin County CA, but it's what we do with this intelligence that counts, and sometimes (perhaps most often) we do more damage than good. Like handing a bag of money to a dictator, or sliding a weapons contract under a door.
The truth doesn't necessarily change any policies. It will take votes (and a good many of those) to change things. But what the truth will do for us is shine a brighter light on our leadership as to how we are conducting our business with the rest of the world. I for one fea that less than a cloak and dagger organization with loose tethers to American reality.
I don't know what this guy (Assange) 's motivation is, and I don't think motive is relevant here. For all I know, he just wants to be rich, mysterious, and famous. He's got his 15 minutes already. For the most part, I didn't find any one piece of the information leaked as being all that interesting. So, the Saudis would like us to bomb Iran? big surprise there. The Yemeni want to provide cover for our ops? Sure, maybe one good movie can be made from that. In my view it's hardly important for anyone to understand Assange's goal, unless they intend to stop him. Is stopping the truth something we should endorse? No; but it's a losing battle in any case.
I do think Assange has done something of significance though: he broke through one of the false barriers to truth, and others will rush in to capitalize on it. Apparently there's a market for it (or there wouldn't be 100 news stories a day on the subject). Can Google-Leaks be far behind?
Monday, December 06, 2010
On the Wizer's Virtual Nightstand
"I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies. Already they have raised up a monied aristocracy that has set the government at defiance. The issuing power (of money) should be taken away from the banks and restored to the people to whom it properly belongs."
- Thomas Jefferson
In October, Mark Thornton addressed the LvMI, republished in this article that show just how far Ben Bernanke appears willing to go to shorten our path to hyper-inflation. I recommend everyone do the following:
1. Start viewing the videos at inflation.us .
2. If you haven't been keeping up with Glenn Beck on TV, read Broke
3. Go to Jim Sinclair's Mineset and follow along regularly.
4. Get the podcasts from Jim Puplava's Financial Sense Newshour
5. Start an emergency food, water, and energy stockpile.
6. Study up on residential farming, solar energy, and functional independence.
Your family is counting on it.
- Thomas Jefferson
In October, Mark Thornton addressed the LvMI, republished in this article that show just how far Ben Bernanke appears willing to go to shorten our path to hyper-inflation. I recommend everyone do the following:
1. Start viewing the videos at inflation.us .
2. If you haven't been keeping up with Glenn Beck on TV, read Broke
3. Go to Jim Sinclair's Mineset and follow along regularly.
4. Get the podcasts from Jim Puplava's Financial Sense Newshour
5. Start an emergency food, water, and energy stockpile.
6. Study up on residential farming, solar energy, and functional independence.
Your family is counting on it.
Thursday, November 04, 2010
Okay, so it means a little more than that.
...But we have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it... Nancy Pelosi, Former Speaker of the House
I don't worry about the Constitution....It Doesn't Matter to me" Phil Hare, Former US Representative (D-IL17)
These two entities -- Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac -- are not facing any kind of financial crisis Barney Frank, Former Chair, House Appropriations Committee
...I keep forgetting that you have to root these people out one at a time.
I feel bad sometimes, because I feel like Democrats should have delivered more for the people who supported us. In 2008, 75 percent of the people who voted for me were Democrats. Only 23 percent of Republicans voted for me. What does that tell me? I should be doing the most for the people who voted for me, not the people who voted the other way. -- Alan Grayson, Former US Representative (D- FL8)
Health care for all Americans is the most pressing domestic issue today. It's far past time for the President and Congress to deliver health care to everyone. -- Russ Feingold, Former US Senator, WI
The things we've done have helped the country avoid another Great Depression -- Baron Hill, Former US Representative (D-IN9)
I don't worry about the Constitution....It Doesn't Matter to me" Phil Hare, Former US Representative (D-IL17)
These two entities -- Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac -- are not facing any kind of financial crisis Barney Frank, Former Chair, House Appropriations Committee
...I keep forgetting that you have to root these people out one at a time.
I feel bad sometimes, because I feel like Democrats should have delivered more for the people who supported us. In 2008, 75 percent of the people who voted for me were Democrats. Only 23 percent of Republicans voted for me. What does that tell me? I should be doing the most for the people who voted for me, not the people who voted the other way. -- Alan Grayson, Former US Representative (D- FL8)
Health care for all Americans is the most pressing domestic issue today. It's far past time for the President and Congress to deliver health care to everyone. -- Russ Feingold, Former US Senator, WI
The things we've done have helped the country avoid another Great Depression -- Baron Hill, Former US Representative (D-IN9)
Wednesday, November 03, 2010
What the election means
Frankly, I wasn't really looking for much to happen either way. The election was anticlimactic. The people told the pollsters who they were going to go out and vote for, and that's what they did. Pretty orderly transition as far as I could tell. Heck, I even went on to bed at 9:00. It's like you are watching an NFL game, and the line is 21 points. You are only watching to see if it gets any closer.
So, did the republicans cover the spread? Yes, by a small amount. They did most of their scoring early, and then let the third string mop up. The tea party was MVP, but they had a few fumbles. In any case, I hope the republicans know what the message is here. Remember the season of '94?
Anyway, I was more interested in the Fed meeting today (One blogger posted that the Fed is as "federal" as Federal Express is). The Federal Reserve Board is meeting today, and will vote on whether or not to print more money and inflate the bond market. These are the people who need republican supervision. If they vote to fire up the printing press by another trillion, these next two years won't be an improvement over the last two. Not sure what Boehner and the tea team can do about it at this point, but at least they could start putting the real numbers up on their web site. That would be a step in the right direction.
Congrats to the republicans. By the way, Intrade.com has posted the odds for 2012, and it seems the expectations are picking up that the democrat will win the white house. I wonder if that means Hillary has made her decision.
So, did the republicans cover the spread? Yes, by a small amount. They did most of their scoring early, and then let the third string mop up. The tea party was MVP, but they had a few fumbles. In any case, I hope the republicans know what the message is here. Remember the season of '94?
Anyway, I was more interested in the Fed meeting today (One blogger posted that the Fed is as "federal" as Federal Express is). The Federal Reserve Board is meeting today, and will vote on whether or not to print more money and inflate the bond market. These are the people who need republican supervision. If they vote to fire up the printing press by another trillion, these next two years won't be an improvement over the last two. Not sure what Boehner and the tea team can do about it at this point, but at least they could start putting the real numbers up on their web site. That would be a step in the right direction.
Congrats to the republicans. By the way, Intrade.com has posted the odds for 2012, and it seems the expectations are picking up that the democrat will win the white house. I wonder if that means Hillary has made her decision.
Thursday, October 14, 2010
Not picking sides, but
Sometimes we get the result we voted for, but it's almost always a defensive vote. In 1980 we voted for the opposite of Nixon-Ford-Carter and got Reagan. In 1994 we voted for the opposite of Bill and Hillarycare, and got Newt. Since then, we've been getting less and less returns on our votes. We voted for the opposite of Al Gore, and got Bush 43. We voted for the opposite of Bush 43 and got Hugo Chavez.
The point is, we keep playing defense with our votes, and we are getting killed. It's time to go back on offense. That's where the Tea Party has been effective. While media tries to set up the two progressive parties as somehow representing a choice, the real wind of change is organizing on the horizon.
Even though the voters were smart enough to bring in the Republicans and their Contract with America In 1994, two years later the Republicans themselves threw out Newt. Near as I can recall, his only sin was being unlike the other Republicans. Perhaps Newt Gingrich was the original Tea Party politician; and seeing how the republicans treated him, and now treat Rand paul, it probably makes some sense. Newt took the blame for shutting down the government; even while many of us were loudly giving him kudos for that very useful exercise. Our only regret was that it didn't last long enough. Establishment Republicans think he led them astray. I think he was ahead of his time.
"Reduce the size and scope of the federal government?" Perish the thought! There was no room in either progressive party for a guy with such a command of history and economics on his side. Newt had to be marginalized, and so he was. I am quite sure the republicans will continue to fight the so-called tea parties. Big government republicanism is certainly more lucrative than small government leadership.
So, looking at 2012, who will emerge as the opposite of BHO? Can a real opposite emerge? Can it even be a Republican? Sometimes Newt looks like the best qualified, but since he tried to ingratiate himself with the progressive side of the party; including his ill-advised endorsement of Dede Scozzafava, he's pretty much fallen off the radar. Revolutionaries don't do that. And the Park 51 ground zero mosque dustup has exposed him as a populist who will have an opinion on a lot of irrelevant things...like state laws... Still, if the Tea Party recruited him to run in 2012, it would be a golden opportunity to present a contrast, and maybe even a choice.
The point is, we keep playing defense with our votes, and we are getting killed. It's time to go back on offense. That's where the Tea Party has been effective. While media tries to set up the two progressive parties as somehow representing a choice, the real wind of change is organizing on the horizon.
Even though the voters were smart enough to bring in the Republicans and their Contract with America In 1994, two years later the Republicans themselves threw out Newt. Near as I can recall, his only sin was being unlike the other Republicans. Perhaps Newt Gingrich was the original Tea Party politician; and seeing how the republicans treated him, and now treat Rand paul, it probably makes some sense. Newt took the blame for shutting down the government; even while many of us were loudly giving him kudos for that very useful exercise. Our only regret was that it didn't last long enough. Establishment Republicans think he led them astray. I think he was ahead of his time.
"Reduce the size and scope of the federal government?" Perish the thought! There was no room in either progressive party for a guy with such a command of history and economics on his side. Newt had to be marginalized, and so he was. I am quite sure the republicans will continue to fight the so-called tea parties. Big government republicanism is certainly more lucrative than small government leadership.
So, looking at 2012, who will emerge as the opposite of BHO? Can a real opposite emerge? Can it even be a Republican? Sometimes Newt looks like the best qualified, but since he tried to ingratiate himself with the progressive side of the party; including his ill-advised endorsement of Dede Scozzafava, he's pretty much fallen off the radar. Revolutionaries don't do that. And the Park 51 ground zero mosque dustup has exposed him as a populist who will have an opinion on a lot of irrelevant things...like state laws... Still, if the Tea Party recruited him to run in 2012, it would be a golden opportunity to present a contrast, and maybe even a choice.
Wednesday, September 29, 2010
Barry Obama and his legacy.
“It stands to reason that where there’s sacrifice, there’s someone collecting sacrificial offerings. Where there’s service, there’s someone being served. The man who speaks to you of sacrifice, speaks of slaves and masters. And intends to be the master.” Ayn Rand, The Soul of a Collectivist, For the New Intellectual, 73
"About sacrifice and the offering of sacrifices, sacrificial animals think quite differently from those who look on: but they have never been allowed to have their say". ~ Friedrich Nietzsche
"Everybody’s going to have to give. Everybody’s going to have to have some skin in the game" -- Barry H. Obama
I think it's fitting that the pull quotes about Obama here are now more from philosophers than from other types of people. Modern day philosophers from Dinesh D'Souza to Barry himself have finally and fully captured the essence of the man. There's little left to say, which is why I'm blogging today.
I want to walk through a mental process here, so we can all be clear where we are at this point. Right now, the damage that is being done is not going to be fixed in the next election. It's going to carry on until the middle of the decade. so while we are all wearing our tea party hats and joyfully voting out RINOSs and other progressives in this election cycle, the Fed continues to write bad checks, and Obama continues to sign them. I think while we are watching the train wreck that is the 111th congress, the real action is happening down the street at the Eccles building.
Rush Limbaugh often says that he is going to do his show until everyone in the US agrees with him. Well, as it turns out, he now agrees with us: RINOS are not the solution to our problem, RINOS are the problem (apologies to the great Ronaldus Magnus). This is a notable change in Rush's demeanor. He was as big a W supporter as you could find for Bush 43's 8 years, but he seems now to have moved out of neo-con territory. To see what I mean, read or listen to Rush's address in Philly. It sums up his change of heart to embrace the other side of his party (the liberty side). To that I say, welcome home Rush. Now that you agree with us, does that mean you are ready to retire? I'm okay either way, but I'll admit there are still a number of things you can teach us if you want to stay on the air. and There's still the troubling matter of leftover congressman of the two party type, and hopefully they can be identified and rooted out.
The more pressing issue is the economy. Right now, all the energy in the country is focused on fixing the government, since that has the biggest effect on economic fortunes and misfortunes; however, waiting for one election cycle or the next will just take too long. Are we going to wait for January 2013 to fix the spending problem? We need a solution that does not depend on Obama doing the right thing. Therefore, we need to stop obsessing about him and begin looking for solutions that do not depend on this. The real problem is productivity. We are one of the least productive societies in the western world. It's been 16 years since we ended welfare as we know it, and longer than that since we did any serious deregulation work. What is it that is going to create more "wealth" to "spread around". We need a productivity boost. More people working. Maybe even more people learning or re-learning how to work. You want temporary stimulus? How about eliminating the minimum wage for one year?
Since Obama is no longer credible as a solution, I don't find him an interesting blog topic any more. His legacy may not be complete, but the direction of his path is quite clear, and for the purposes of this blog, everything written about him is now enough. The rest of us need to move on.
"About sacrifice and the offering of sacrifices, sacrificial animals think quite differently from those who look on: but they have never been allowed to have their say". ~ Friedrich Nietzsche
"Everybody’s going to have to give. Everybody’s going to have to have some skin in the game" -- Barry H. Obama
I think it's fitting that the pull quotes about Obama here are now more from philosophers than from other types of people. Modern day philosophers from Dinesh D'Souza to Barry himself have finally and fully captured the essence of the man. There's little left to say, which is why I'm blogging today.
I want to walk through a mental process here, so we can all be clear where we are at this point. Right now, the damage that is being done is not going to be fixed in the next election. It's going to carry on until the middle of the decade. so while we are all wearing our tea party hats and joyfully voting out RINOSs and other progressives in this election cycle, the Fed continues to write bad checks, and Obama continues to sign them. I think while we are watching the train wreck that is the 111th congress, the real action is happening down the street at the Eccles building.
Rush Limbaugh often says that he is going to do his show until everyone in the US agrees with him. Well, as it turns out, he now agrees with us: RINOS are not the solution to our problem, RINOS are the problem (apologies to the great Ronaldus Magnus). This is a notable change in Rush's demeanor. He was as big a W supporter as you could find for Bush 43's 8 years, but he seems now to have moved out of neo-con territory. To see what I mean, read or listen to Rush's address in Philly. It sums up his change of heart to embrace the other side of his party (the liberty side). To that I say, welcome home Rush. Now that you agree with us, does that mean you are ready to retire? I'm okay either way, but I'll admit there are still a number of things you can teach us if you want to stay on the air. and There's still the troubling matter of leftover congressman of the two party type, and hopefully they can be identified and rooted out.
The more pressing issue is the economy. Right now, all the energy in the country is focused on fixing the government, since that has the biggest effect on economic fortunes and misfortunes; however, waiting for one election cycle or the next will just take too long. Are we going to wait for January 2013 to fix the spending problem? We need a solution that does not depend on Obama doing the right thing. Therefore, we need to stop obsessing about him and begin looking for solutions that do not depend on this. The real problem is productivity. We are one of the least productive societies in the western world. It's been 16 years since we ended welfare as we know it, and longer than that since we did any serious deregulation work. What is it that is going to create more "wealth" to "spread around". We need a productivity boost. More people working. Maybe even more people learning or re-learning how to work. You want temporary stimulus? How about eliminating the minimum wage for one year?
Since Obama is no longer credible as a solution, I don't find him an interesting blog topic any more. His legacy may not be complete, but the direction of his path is quite clear, and for the purposes of this blog, everything written about him is now enough. The rest of us need to move on.
Friday, September 10, 2010
The Half Term President
When we passed a bill earlier this summer to help states save jobs -- the jobs of hundreds of thousands of teachers and nurses and police officers and firefighters that were about to be laid off, they said no. (Applause.) And the Republican who thinks he’s going to take over as Speaker -- (boos) -- I’m just saying that’s his opinion -- (laughter) -- he’s entitled to his opinion. But when he was asked about this, he dismissed those jobs as “government jobs” that weren’t worth saving. (Boos.) That’s what he said, I’m quoting -- “government jobs.” Barry H. Obama
"You want to go forward, what do you do? You put it in 'D.' When you go backward, what do you do? You put it in 'R.'" Barry H. Obama
Hey, give me some of that "R" there, Mr. President. I always have to chuckle when Obama and his crowd say that two years is not enough time to turn an economy around. It's not that I don't agree with that. It arguably could take over 2 years. However, when you are driving south, the chances of ending up north are not that good no matter how long and how far you drive.
The thing I have trouble resolving is the notion that we've only been heading in this direction for two years. There are two ways to look at it, as far as I can see: Either you collect the last ten years, and put them in the Bush-Obama recession bucket, or you go back to 2006 when the current House and Senate leadership was put in place, i.e., when the Bush-Obama recession was put on an unrestrained rocket sled.
Many pundits want to say if you push the clock back two years, you get the republicans all over again. Actually, what you get is Nancy and Harry all over again. I agree with Barry, we certainly don't want that. I don't think any of us are too keen on going back to W and his boys, or to Hillary and hers, either. If we're going back to anything, my vote is Coolidge.
This media push of Barry only being at it for 2 years is a little weak. Nancy was pulling thousands of pages together, long, LONG before that, and for any old president to sign. Barry won the honor of signing her slush party invitation list. Not saying George wouldn't have, mind you. He was gullible enough. I mean, he bought into big government in the '80's (yes, I know, everything is bigger in Texas)
If we are sufficiently lucky in November, Congress has a more rational charter going forward, and Obama's agenda is merely stitched into the carpet. Queen Nancy's 4 year term will expire, and Barry brushes up on his stand-up routine. Ironically congress, this time, gets the four year term limit, and BHO effectively becomes the nation's first half-term president.
"You want to go forward, what do you do? You put it in 'D.' When you go backward, what do you do? You put it in 'R.'" Barry H. Obama
Hey, give me some of that "R" there, Mr. President. I always have to chuckle when Obama and his crowd say that two years is not enough time to turn an economy around. It's not that I don't agree with that. It arguably could take over 2 years. However, when you are driving south, the chances of ending up north are not that good no matter how long and how far you drive.
The thing I have trouble resolving is the notion that we've only been heading in this direction for two years. There are two ways to look at it, as far as I can see: Either you collect the last ten years, and put them in the Bush-Obama recession bucket, or you go back to 2006 when the current House and Senate leadership was put in place, i.e., when the Bush-Obama recession was put on an unrestrained rocket sled.
Many pundits want to say if you push the clock back two years, you get the republicans all over again. Actually, what you get is Nancy and Harry all over again. I agree with Barry, we certainly don't want that. I don't think any of us are too keen on going back to W and his boys, or to Hillary and hers, either. If we're going back to anything, my vote is Coolidge.
This media push of Barry only being at it for 2 years is a little weak. Nancy was pulling thousands of pages together, long, LONG before that, and for any old president to sign. Barry won the honor of signing her slush party invitation list. Not saying George wouldn't have, mind you. He was gullible enough. I mean, he bought into big government in the '80's (yes, I know, everything is bigger in Texas)
If we are sufficiently lucky in November, Congress has a more rational charter going forward, and Obama's agenda is merely stitched into the carpet. Queen Nancy's 4 year term will expire, and Barry brushes up on his stand-up routine. Ironically congress, this time, gets the four year term limit, and BHO effectively becomes the nation's first half-term president.
Thursday, September 02, 2010
Wizer One-liner #25
My town hosted a march against pancreatic cancer this week. There is no confirmation yet on whether Al Sharpton hosted the march in favor of pancreatic cancer.
Tuesday, August 17, 2010
Bill Clinton and Chris Ruddy, sitting in a tree
Former President Bill Clinton took a break from his busy schedule in South Florida Monday to visit Newsmax Media and its founder and CEO, Christopher Ruddy. Clinton was in the area while making several stops to support Democratic candidates. -Newsmax Breaking News, August 17, 2010
This positively floored me. I mean totally sent me for a loop. Chris Ruddy is a guy who made a name for himself investigating Clinton escapades from Whitewater to TrooperGate, and on to the Vince Foster incident. And now, Bill and Chris are hanging together and doing photo-ops.
Being the pattern-recognition kind of guy I am, I had to come up with some scenarios why this would make sense to either side. I came up with this:
Newsmax is branching out to the "moderate" democrats, most of whom still like Bill, and most of whom probably have no further love for BHO. The Newsmax readership has to compete with a lot of other media, and Chris Ruddy is certainly the type of personality that would do something completely different, even shocking. (it worked!)
Bill is no doubt eager to have all the messy elements of his and Hillary's past encapsulated in some Arkansas mausoleum, and if he and Chris are now Ruddy-buddy, the chances of that happening are much better.
Not that you heard this here first, but I can already visualize the HRC 2012 bumper stickers.
This positively floored me. I mean totally sent me for a loop. Chris Ruddy is a guy who made a name for himself investigating Clinton escapades from Whitewater to TrooperGate, and on to the Vince Foster incident. And now, Bill and Chris are hanging together and doing photo-ops.
Being the pattern-recognition kind of guy I am, I had to come up with some scenarios why this would make sense to either side. I came up with this:
Newsmax is branching out to the "moderate" democrats, most of whom still like Bill, and most of whom probably have no further love for BHO. The Newsmax readership has to compete with a lot of other media, and Chris Ruddy is certainly the type of personality that would do something completely different, even shocking. (it worked!)
Bill is no doubt eager to have all the messy elements of his and Hillary's past encapsulated in some Arkansas mausoleum, and if he and Chris are now Ruddy-buddy, the chances of that happening are much better.
Not that you heard this here first, but I can already visualize the HRC 2012 bumper stickers.
Tuesday, August 10, 2010
Happy Trails, John Paul Stevens
To show a "well-founded fear of persecution," an alien need not prove that it is more likely than not that he or she will be persecuted in his or her home country. -- John Paul Stevens
Happy trails, Justice Stevens. You left us with the strongest ever commerce clause, weakest ever property rights, and Elena Kagan. Some legacy.
Happy trails, Justice Stevens. You left us with the strongest ever commerce clause, weakest ever property rights, and Elena Kagan. Some legacy.
Thursday, July 22, 2010
Tippecanoe, and Tyler -- but not as much
Every time I hear someone in the media comment on "great presidents", I have to wonder what criteria they could possibly use to make the claim. How could FDR be considered great by some historians, and among the worst by others.
It's clear that there would be differences of opinion sometimes big, and sometimes small, and most of those split along ideological lines. So, no list is going to be correct. That said, I did find one (from this posting by Justin Buell ) that has a lot of potential; mostly because it is derived from entirely objective measures.
A couple of observations: I had been going along with the notion that Ronald Reagan was easily in the top 5; only to see him in this list as #17 overall. Was he merely the best in our lifetime? That gives me pause. If in the future we could count on the statistical likelihood of having more presidents better than Reagan, there would indeed be hope for the shining city on the hill.
William Henry Harrison (Tippecanoe) is the best ever. He was in office one month, and thus did not do enough damage to fall down the list. All present and future presidents should learn from this.
I have to agree, possibly even endorse this list, but would add the 44th one somewhere in the bottom 5. It certainly didn't take him long to find his place.
Here is the complete list.
1. William Henry Harrison
2. Grover Cleveland
3. Calvin Coolidge
4. John Tyler
5. Franklin Pierce
6. James Buchanan
7. Warren G. Harding
8. Zachary Taylor
9. James Monroe
10. William Howard Taft
11. Thomas Jefferson
12. Martin Van Buren
13. Benjamin Harrison
14. John Quincy Adams
15. George Washington
16. Rutherford B. Hayes
17. Ronald Reagan
18. Gerald Ford
19. Chester A. Arthur
20. James Garfield
21. Dwight D. Eisenhower
22. John Adams
23. James K. Polk
24. James Madison
25. Andrew Jackson
26. William McKinley
27. Jimmy Carter
28. Herbert Hoover
29. Millard Fillmore
30. John F. Kennedy
31. Andrew Johnson
32. U.S. Grant
33. Bill Clinton
34. George H.W. Bush
35. Richard Nixon
36. Theodore Roosevelt
37. Harry Truman
38. George W. Bush
39. Woodrow Wilson
40. Lyndon Johnson
41. Abraham Lincoln
42. Franklin D. Roosevelt
It's clear that there would be differences of opinion sometimes big, and sometimes small, and most of those split along ideological lines. So, no list is going to be correct. That said, I did find one (from this posting by Justin Buell ) that has a lot of potential; mostly because it is derived from entirely objective measures.
A couple of observations: I had been going along with the notion that Ronald Reagan was easily in the top 5; only to see him in this list as #17 overall. Was he merely the best in our lifetime? That gives me pause. If in the future we could count on the statistical likelihood of having more presidents better than Reagan, there would indeed be hope for the shining city on the hill.
William Henry Harrison (Tippecanoe) is the best ever. He was in office one month, and thus did not do enough damage to fall down the list. All present and future presidents should learn from this.
I have to agree, possibly even endorse this list, but would add the 44th one somewhere in the bottom 5. It certainly didn't take him long to find his place.
Here is the complete list.
1. William Henry Harrison
2. Grover Cleveland
3. Calvin Coolidge
4. John Tyler
5. Franklin Pierce
6. James Buchanan
7. Warren G. Harding
8. Zachary Taylor
9. James Monroe
10. William Howard Taft
11. Thomas Jefferson
12. Martin Van Buren
13. Benjamin Harrison
14. John Quincy Adams
15. George Washington
16. Rutherford B. Hayes
17. Ronald Reagan
18. Gerald Ford
19. Chester A. Arthur
20. James Garfield
21. Dwight D. Eisenhower
22. John Adams
23. James K. Polk
24. James Madison
25. Andrew Jackson
26. William McKinley
27. Jimmy Carter
28. Herbert Hoover
29. Millard Fillmore
30. John F. Kennedy
31. Andrew Johnson
32. U.S. Grant
33. Bill Clinton
34. George H.W. Bush
35. Richard Nixon
36. Theodore Roosevelt
37. Harry Truman
38. George W. Bush
39. Woodrow Wilson
40. Lyndon Johnson
41. Abraham Lincoln
42. Franklin D. Roosevelt
Wednesday, July 21, 2010
Steven's Dilemma
We’re pretty happy with the antenna design … we’re not feeling right now that we have a giant problem that we need to fix. -- Steve Jobs
A lot of people saw Jobs' tone at the press conference on the iPhone 4G's "AntennaGate" flap as contempt for his customers. His attitude seemed to be: look at all that I’ve done for you people — and now you quibble over some trifle? -- Michael Malone
I really thought lightning had struck with the original iPod, and that (mostly) it was because Apple made it accessible to the masses, not because there was much that I thought was special about it. I had MP3 players that worked as well and were less expensive. But Apple always had the inherent promise that they would make it as painless for the masses as possible, including making the necessary arrangements to make the music accessible for a reasonable price.
Although I figured they would hold the market for a good long time, I thought that their niche was already cast, and they'd be in maintenance mode.
The iPhone surprised me, as did the iPod touch. I'm still figuring out all the things my touch can do. I've had it for a year or so, and until recently, I was only vaguely aware that I could surf the web on it.
Remarkable stuff...and clearly another stroke of lightning in the same spot. So, now the world expects to be delighted and thrilled with Apple.
I have now seen the iPad, which as near as I can tell is iPod for the eyesight impaired. The numbers of units sold simply floors me. It's probably a better form factor for what a lot of people were doing with the iPod (i.e., sitting at their breakfast table or in front of TV scanning email and facebook), but it can't be considered a breakthrough product. Some people were conditioned to buy it. Others saw it as a solution to their needs. Clearly a home run for a product engine like Apple. But the buzz has died down quickly on that product. An iPod on steroids, and that's it. Yes, yes, very nice. So, Steve, what's the earth-shaking followup?
Maybe that's where the iPhone 4 comes in. Mostly mature technology, diffferent package. Some nice enhancements. What all is there to talk about? Gizmodo (1) and Antennas (2). Both of those focused more on the company and it's processes than the product itself. If they really want the next lightning bolt, it's going to have to come from somewhere else. People are bored with their smart phones.
A lot of people saw Jobs' tone at the press conference on the iPhone 4G's "AntennaGate" flap as contempt for his customers. His attitude seemed to be: look at all that I’ve done for you people — and now you quibble over some trifle? -- Michael Malone
I really thought lightning had struck with the original iPod, and that (mostly) it was because Apple made it accessible to the masses, not because there was much that I thought was special about it. I had MP3 players that worked as well and were less expensive. But Apple always had the inherent promise that they would make it as painless for the masses as possible, including making the necessary arrangements to make the music accessible for a reasonable price.
Although I figured they would hold the market for a good long time, I thought that their niche was already cast, and they'd be in maintenance mode.
The iPhone surprised me, as did the iPod touch. I'm still figuring out all the things my touch can do. I've had it for a year or so, and until recently, I was only vaguely aware that I could surf the web on it.
Remarkable stuff...and clearly another stroke of lightning in the same spot. So, now the world expects to be delighted and thrilled with Apple.
I have now seen the iPad, which as near as I can tell is iPod for the eyesight impaired. The numbers of units sold simply floors me. It's probably a better form factor for what a lot of people were doing with the iPod (i.e., sitting at their breakfast table or in front of TV scanning email and facebook), but it can't be considered a breakthrough product. Some people were conditioned to buy it. Others saw it as a solution to their needs. Clearly a home run for a product engine like Apple. But the buzz has died down quickly on that product. An iPod on steroids, and that's it. Yes, yes, very nice. So, Steve, what's the earth-shaking followup?
Maybe that's where the iPhone 4 comes in. Mostly mature technology, diffferent package. Some nice enhancements. What all is there to talk about? Gizmodo (1) and Antennas (2). Both of those focused more on the company and it's processes than the product itself. If they really want the next lightning bolt, it's going to have to come from somewhere else. People are bored with their smart phones.
Tuesday, July 20, 2010
Why the republicans need to embrace (and fear) the tea parties.
---
And what country can preserve its liberties, if its rulers are not warned from time to time, that this people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. -- Thomas Jefferson
If ever time should come, when vain and aspiring men shall possess the highest seats in Government, our country will stand in need of its experienced patriots to prevent its ruin.-- Samuel Adams
We don't need a lot of Jim DeMint disciples. As soon as they get here, we need to co-opt them. -- Fmr Sen Trent Lott
The problem with the Tea Party, I think it's just unsustainable because they can never come up with a coherent vision for governing the country. It will die out -- Sen Lindsey Graham
I'm not sure I should be participating in this story. -- Sen Bob Corker
From this vantage point, it does appear that the country's "regular people" identify with the tea parties. The tea party-goers invariably ask for less government (which is exactly the same as asking for more freedom). If the republicans are not "on" with that, the tea partiers will find someone who is. It may be a brave new world out there. I think people are genuinely tired of the left progressive party and the moderate progressive party being the only two choices. Experienced political observers are becoming the vocal majority. Unless something changes in the republican party, this powerful train leaves without them.
Tea party attendees are asking for a halt to unsustainable economic policies. Democrat and quasi-democrat parties don't want to sign on to that. Tea party types want government transparency and accountability. No more bailouts, and are without a doubt very tired of compassionate progressivism. Yet these two parties continue to glide that path together.
In the product development business, we have an axiom that says: If we follow the ideas of brand X, the brand X customer will always choose brand X over our version of brand X. They will pick Nike vs any other swoosh. If we instead make a superior product that is unabashedly Brand Y we have a chance to cut our own path. If we want big government, the way to get that is to vote democrat. No question.
There is nothing more useless than a big government republican (Wizer One-Liner #16 for those of you keeping score), yet it is the only kind younger voters (all those under 30) have ever seen. They likely wouldn't recognize the tea partiers as republican anyway. So, the risk is great that the republican party will "miss" this train.
Senator Graham doesn't see the coherent vision, yet it's as plain as every tea party sign in the rally: The "new" coherent vision for running the government is less government, Senator Graham, and if you don't see that, it might just result in your untimely retirement.
And what country can preserve its liberties, if its rulers are not warned from time to time, that this people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. -- Thomas Jefferson
If ever time should come, when vain and aspiring men shall possess the highest seats in Government, our country will stand in need of its experienced patriots to prevent its ruin.-- Samuel Adams
We don't need a lot of Jim DeMint disciples. As soon as they get here, we need to co-opt them. -- Fmr Sen Trent Lott
The problem with the Tea Party, I think it's just unsustainable because they can never come up with a coherent vision for governing the country. It will die out -- Sen Lindsey Graham
I'm not sure I should be participating in this story. -- Sen Bob Corker
From this vantage point, it does appear that the country's "regular people" identify with the tea parties. The tea party-goers invariably ask for less government (which is exactly the same as asking for more freedom). If the republicans are not "on" with that, the tea partiers will find someone who is. It may be a brave new world out there. I think people are genuinely tired of the left progressive party and the moderate progressive party being the only two choices. Experienced political observers are becoming the vocal majority. Unless something changes in the republican party, this powerful train leaves without them.
Tea party attendees are asking for a halt to unsustainable economic policies. Democrat and quasi-democrat parties don't want to sign on to that. Tea party types want government transparency and accountability. No more bailouts, and are without a doubt very tired of compassionate progressivism. Yet these two parties continue to glide that path together.
In the product development business, we have an axiom that says: If we follow the ideas of brand X, the brand X customer will always choose brand X over our version of brand X. They will pick Nike vs any other swoosh. If we instead make a superior product that is unabashedly Brand Y we have a chance to cut our own path. If we want big government, the way to get that is to vote democrat. No question.
There is nothing more useless than a big government republican (Wizer One-Liner #16 for those of you keeping score), yet it is the only kind younger voters (all those under 30) have ever seen. They likely wouldn't recognize the tea partiers as republican anyway. So, the risk is great that the republican party will "miss" this train.
Senator Graham doesn't see the coherent vision, yet it's as plain as every tea party sign in the rally: The "new" coherent vision for running the government is less government, Senator Graham, and if you don't see that, it might just result in your untimely retirement.
Tuesday, June 22, 2010
Saturday, June 12, 2010
These Boots are Made for Stepping In It.
And with iPods and iPads; and Xboxes and PlayStations -- none of which I know how to work -- information becomes a distraction, a diversion, a form of entertainment, rather than a tool of empowerment, rather than the means of emancipation. So all of this is not only putting pressure on you; it's putting new pressure on our country and on our democracy. -- Barry H. Obama
So, information is distracting? I do imagine that it distracts people from disinformation, misinformation, propaganda, breads and circuses.
Reason.com's blog, Hit and Run has it well scoped:
So, information is distracting? I do imagine that it distracts people from disinformation, misinformation, propaganda, breads and circuses.
Reason.com's blog, Hit and Run has it well scoped:
- Taken together, the message here is clear, clever, and wrong. The boom in opinionated, interconnected media is a challenge to our very democracy (it isn't). News needs to be hermetically sealed from opinion (it doesn't). The primary purpose of media consumption should be empowerment (if there was a primary purpose for media consumption, I sure as hell wouldn't trust a president to identify it). And the most dangerous purveyor of untruths is the 24/7 echo chamber (I for one am much more exercised about taxpayer-financed lies backed by lethal government force).
It seems like there are only two places we find this administrations boots: Either on our necks or in Barry's mouth.
Happy Trails Helen Thomas
We won't really know what will happen until it happens. Helen Thomas
When you're in the news business, you always expect the unexpected.-- Helen Thomas
Even Napoleon had his Watergate. Yogi Berra
I don't suppose Helen thought it would end this way. After all, she said a lot more hateful things than this to and about countries, presidents, and citizens over the years. Maybe because she delivered her latest hateful comment with a laugh. Her arrogance was more subtle when she delivered it deadpan. It's pretty appropriate for her to go out that way: every press secretary since Pierre Salinger had their laugh at her silly questions. Here's one from the late Tony Snow.
Sometimes stoneage reporters are kept around way too long. They eventually make a fool of themselves. Daniel Schorr, Dan Rather, Helen Thomas. She wasn't particularly original, intelligent, or fair with her questions, and the world was tired of her act many years ago. Sometimes we just have to dismiss our icons in an unflattering way. This one's for you, Helen.
Wednesday, June 09, 2010
Let Nanny get that
They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety. - Benjamin Franklin
Aaron Everitt posted this article on Mises.org, outlining the false sense of security we get because the government pretends to be an overarching protector of our safety.
Aaron Everitt posted this article on Mises.org, outlining the false sense of security we get because the government pretends to be an overarching protector of our safety.
- Coal miners go to work with an artificially bolstered confidence simply because there is a Mine Safety Administration monitoring their situation. Deep-sea oil workers have misguided confidence in their equipment because the derrick they are on recently won an award for safety from the federal government.
and
- Instead of spending time on adapting their product to the desires of consumers, homebuilders are busy adapting their homes to the code. Innovation is the victim. Most homebuilders don't have the staff to introduce innovative plans while also ensuring that they keep up with code.
I certainly agree with this. We now simply buy baby cribs with confidence because the government is "on the job" making sure they are safe. Well, meeting government standards and building safe products are two different things, and we should never confuse them.
I've read where air bags and seat belts an baby seats and anti-shatter glass, and a number of other things that came ostensibly out of government mandates have increased the likelihood of risky driving. Why not? The message is the government is keeping us safe. We no longer have to do it for ourselves.
Tune in next year when people stop worrying about their health because Harry Reid is going to give them a free kidney anyway Or buy all the sub-prime debt you want because government is here to bail you out.
I don't know what ever happened to personal responsibility, but it no longer seems to be the least bit necessary in order to function in this society. All we have to do is vote for a president who will fill our drug coverage donut holes, not leave a child behind, heal our planet, and spread the wealth.
If you ask me, it's far more risky to farm out any of your personal safety choices to government, than to watch for yourself, because at the end of the day, there's very little difference between Nanny and Big Brother.
Saturday, May 22, 2010
Political and Correct
"Tea Party Pick Causes Uproar on Civil Rights" -NYTimes headline
Rand Paul should stick to the winning campaign strategy of Bob McDonnell, Chris Christie, and Scott Brown: keep the attention on fiscal restraint, and stay away from hot-button social issues. Bush 41 speechwriter Mary Kate Cary, USN&WR
These attacks prove one thing for certain: the liberal establishment is desperate to keep leaders like me out of office, and we are sure to hear more wild, dishonest smears during this campaign. -Rand Paul
It is the scourge of "small l" libertarians running for office that there will be detractors from from both the left and right. Sooner or later, one side or the other finds something to demonize and distort.
I do enjoy politicians who reach into history and point out where we went wrong. Many honest politicians do this. The dishonest ones are all served by the status quo, so there won't be many history lessons from their corner. Which is to say that there won't be a lot of senators defending Rand Paul. It's all right. These senators are an endangered species themselves.
The statement Rand Paul made was boilerplate libertarian thinking that the government has no right to put their boots on the throats of private businesses . Whether it's a drug store diner or British British Petroleum, the idea is 100% correct.
When a democrat says something like this, he is allowed to pass over the "Bridge of Death". A republican is cast into the gorge. But a libertarian is besieged from both sides, and the true kernel of the idea is buried in the false outrage.
Rand Paul's candidacy is different. It may be the change everybody voted for in 2008 (and is still waiting for). I'm not sure; but so far I agree with everything Rand Paul is charged with saying. Most voters don't understand nuanced policy, but this is evidence that Rand Paul does, and that's exactly the type of politician we need in the US Senate now.
Paul's observations were consistent with the idea that government intervention is limited by the constitution, as it should be. It makes him different from almost all the other Senators, and it's a difference we could certainly benefit from.
I am reasonably sure the voters of Kentucky are smart enough to understand that. As for the media, The New York Times, and US News and World Report should not try to cover nuanced politics. They wind up looking as shallow and biased as they want people to think of Dr. Paul.
Rand Paul should stick to the winning campaign strategy of Bob McDonnell, Chris Christie, and Scott Brown: keep the attention on fiscal restraint, and stay away from hot-button social issues. Bush 41 speechwriter Mary Kate Cary, USN&WR
These attacks prove one thing for certain: the liberal establishment is desperate to keep leaders like me out of office, and we are sure to hear more wild, dishonest smears during this campaign. -Rand Paul
It is the scourge of "small l" libertarians running for office that there will be detractors from from both the left and right. Sooner or later, one side or the other finds something to demonize and distort.
I do enjoy politicians who reach into history and point out where we went wrong. Many honest politicians do this. The dishonest ones are all served by the status quo, so there won't be many history lessons from their corner. Which is to say that there won't be a lot of senators defending Rand Paul. It's all right. These senators are an endangered species themselves.
The statement Rand Paul made was boilerplate libertarian thinking that the government has no right to put their boots on the throats of private businesses . Whether it's a drug store diner or British British Petroleum, the idea is 100% correct.
When a democrat says something like this, he is allowed to pass over the "Bridge of Death". A republican is cast into the gorge. But a libertarian is besieged from both sides, and the true kernel of the idea is buried in the false outrage.
Rand Paul's candidacy is different. It may be the change everybody voted for in 2008 (and is still waiting for). I'm not sure; but so far I agree with everything Rand Paul is charged with saying. Most voters don't understand nuanced policy, but this is evidence that Rand Paul does, and that's exactly the type of politician we need in the US Senate now.
Paul's observations were consistent with the idea that government intervention is limited by the constitution, as it should be. It makes him different from almost all the other Senators, and it's a difference we could certainly benefit from.
I am reasonably sure the voters of Kentucky are smart enough to understand that. As for the media, The New York Times, and US News and World Report should not try to cover nuanced politics. They wind up looking as shallow and biased as they want people to think of Dr. Paul.
Sunday, May 16, 2010
School's Out
Barry Obama has been doing the college circuit lately. I've been to one of his commencement addresses. Most recently, he shows up at Hampton University. There, he espoused the notion that all people should be given (or words to that effect) a college education. This sounds like a sweet sentiment until you realize that if everybody has a degree, a degree will be nothing special. This outcome is very consistent with the other tenets of socialism, forced "equal outcome", the punishment of real success, etc.. The bonus for Barry is that if this happens, the costs of education will go up, as the demand rises. His teacher's union constituency will get larger and happier.
Meanwhile, there's no proof that college educations are all that helpful in finding one's productive way through life. Some college educations are a complete waste of time. It would be prudent to take a closer look at the value of a college education before conscripting a large number of kids to the paper chase. The US actually needs high productivity, and that may be better achieved by putting people to work as soon as possible.
Putting people to work as soon as possible is hard to do when they must make $7.50/ hour. Most kids aren't worth $7.50/hour. Four years worth of college may not even help. Lower the minimum wage to $4.00 for high school students, so they'll have a chance to learn how to be productive. By the time they are 21, they will have several marketable skills, and can actually deliver $15 worth of work every hour, raising their standard of living, and able to start a family.
Schools should be preserved for those who wish to learn. Why should everyone be forced or even encouraged to go to school indefinitely? It makes professional students out of average people, postponing their entry into the real world, and taking up valuable instructor time.
Meanwhile, there's no proof that college educations are all that helpful in finding one's productive way through life. Some college educations are a complete waste of time. It would be prudent to take a closer look at the value of a college education before conscripting a large number of kids to the paper chase. The US actually needs high productivity, and that may be better achieved by putting people to work as soon as possible.
Putting people to work as soon as possible is hard to do when they must make $7.50/ hour. Most kids aren't worth $7.50/hour. Four years worth of college may not even help. Lower the minimum wage to $4.00 for high school students, so they'll have a chance to learn how to be productive. By the time they are 21, they will have several marketable skills, and can actually deliver $15 worth of work every hour, raising their standard of living, and able to start a family.
Schools should be preserved for those who wish to learn. Why should everyone be forced or even encouraged to go to school indefinitely? It makes professional students out of average people, postponing their entry into the real world, and taking up valuable instructor time.
Sunday, April 25, 2010
Whether We Like it or Not
"It is a vital national security interest of the United States to reduce these conflicts because whether we like it or not, we remain a dominant military superpower, and when conflicts break out, one way or another we get pulled into them" -- Barry H. Obama
Dear Barry,
You said a mouthful. I realize there isn't much you like about America; but there's a lot of things we Americans do like, and one of them is the fact that we are a dominant military superpower. A lot of your friends don't particularly like the fact that we are the greatest civilization this world has seen. It's true. But we've learned that the people you hang around with are friends of our enemies. Whether YOU like it or not, there are some things about this country that are worth saving.
Like it or not, We have a Constitution.
Like it or not, it contains ONLY negative liberties.
Like it or not, it requires of the government very few services (one of which is a capable military)
Like it or not, this IS America, the country you happen to be president of, and it would help if you'd show us that you like it just a little bit.
Now, as to the bulk of your remarks, the United States of America does not "get pulled in to" these conflicts. Either there is a national interest requiring our participation, or there is not. And at the moment, I'm very nervous that you and your team of socio-meddlers don't know the difference.
Dear Barry,
You said a mouthful. I realize there isn't much you like about America; but there's a lot of things we Americans do like, and one of them is the fact that we are a dominant military superpower. A lot of your friends don't particularly like the fact that we are the greatest civilization this world has seen. It's true. But we've learned that the people you hang around with are friends of our enemies. Whether YOU like it or not, there are some things about this country that are worth saving.
Like it or not, We have a Constitution.
Like it or not, it contains ONLY negative liberties.
Like it or not, it requires of the government very few services (one of which is a capable military)
Like it or not, this IS America, the country you happen to be president of, and it would help if you'd show us that you like it just a little bit.
Now, as to the bulk of your remarks, the United States of America does not "get pulled in to" these conflicts. Either there is a national interest requiring our participation, or there is not. And at the moment, I'm very nervous that you and your team of socio-meddlers don't know the difference.
Friday, March 26, 2010
Government 2.0
What Washington needs is adult supervision.
--Barry H. Obama
We can't change the way Washington works unless we first change how Congress works.
--Barry H. Obama
Most people who serve in Washington have been trained either as lawyers or as political operatives – professions that tend to place a premium on winning arguments rather than solving problems.
--Barry H. Obama
For a guy who railed against Washington through the whole campaign, Barry O sure fits in well with that bunch, doesn't he? One of the most remarkable things about him is not that he's usually wrong. It's that he is wrong on every issue. Every One. He's against freedom, property rights, family values, the economy. Pick any topic, and he's sure to be on the wrong side of it. Try it. What's his position? It's likely as not a bizarre freedom-sapping notion about what the government "must do", instead of recognition of it's restrictions.
You'd think a president who was merely incompetent would get it right half the time. George Bush got it right half the time. Why can't Obama?
One theory is that he gets it wrong because he simply does not believe in America. He has little regard or concern about true human nature, and flails around with non-natural policies. It is remarkable that a majority of congress follows him down this path. A second theory has it that Obama has a Cloward and Piven death wish for this society. Either way, we all lose.
Only when we get someone who gets it right every time can we hope to preserve our freedoms. Those presidents are harder to find than the ones who get it wrong every time. Over the last 20 years we are surely batting less than 50%. If we give up half our freedoms every 4 or 8 years, it won't be long before we have no freedoms left that are worth caring about.
I have concluded that the system does not and can not protect us from the dangers of these periodic forced reductions of life, liberty, and property. It is time to go for government 2.0.
Government 2.0 has two immediate goals. One is to have the states ratify a change to the constitution that requires that all federal money comes from the states. Federal taxes would be eliminated in favor of a tax on the states in proportion to their population. Instead of the federal government spending money regardless of income, the states could decide jointly to rein it in. This will force the federal government back to the proper size, with the real power allocated to the states and to the people. Wayne Root's book "The Conscience of a Libertarian" makes the case for this.
The second thing will be to repeal the commerce clause. The commerce clause is badly abused on a daily basis, is regularly cited as the constitutional basis for everything from health care to high finance; and is the cause of gross misappropriation of government resources. If we repeal the commerce claus, it won't be misconstrued any more.
Yes, Government 2.0. It is time to install the upgrade.
--Barry H. Obama
We can't change the way Washington works unless we first change how Congress works.
--Barry H. Obama
Most people who serve in Washington have been trained either as lawyers or as political operatives – professions that tend to place a premium on winning arguments rather than solving problems.
--Barry H. Obama
For a guy who railed against Washington through the whole campaign, Barry O sure fits in well with that bunch, doesn't he? One of the most remarkable things about him is not that he's usually wrong. It's that he is wrong on every issue. Every One. He's against freedom, property rights, family values, the economy. Pick any topic, and he's sure to be on the wrong side of it. Try it. What's his position? It's likely as not a bizarre freedom-sapping notion about what the government "must do", instead of recognition of it's restrictions.
You'd think a president who was merely incompetent would get it right half the time. George Bush got it right half the time. Why can't Obama?
One theory is that he gets it wrong because he simply does not believe in America. He has little regard or concern about true human nature, and flails around with non-natural policies. It is remarkable that a majority of congress follows him down this path. A second theory has it that Obama has a Cloward and Piven death wish for this society. Either way, we all lose.
Only when we get someone who gets it right every time can we hope to preserve our freedoms. Those presidents are harder to find than the ones who get it wrong every time. Over the last 20 years we are surely batting less than 50%. If we give up half our freedoms every 4 or 8 years, it won't be long before we have no freedoms left that are worth caring about.
I have concluded that the system does not and can not protect us from the dangers of these periodic forced reductions of life, liberty, and property. It is time to go for government 2.0.
Government 2.0 has two immediate goals. One is to have the states ratify a change to the constitution that requires that all federal money comes from the states. Federal taxes would be eliminated in favor of a tax on the states in proportion to their population. Instead of the federal government spending money regardless of income, the states could decide jointly to rein it in. This will force the federal government back to the proper size, with the real power allocated to the states and to the people. Wayne Root's book "The Conscience of a Libertarian" makes the case for this.
The second thing will be to repeal the commerce clause. The commerce clause is badly abused on a daily basis, is regularly cited as the constitutional basis for everything from health care to high finance; and is the cause of gross misappropriation of government resources. If we repeal the commerce claus, it won't be misconstrued any more.
Yes, Government 2.0. It is time to install the upgrade.
Saturday, March 20, 2010
We Have A Constitution
Our country's founders cherished liberty, not democracy.
-- Ron Paul
Constitutionalism proclaims the desirability of the rule of law as opposed to rule by the arbitrary judgment or mere fiat of public officials. -- David Fellman
I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter: So help me God. -- Oaths of Office For Federal Officials
In a prior post, I expressed my disbelief at the reaction of the Speaker of the House to a simple question. I've had a couple of months now to think about this, and to make sense of it in light of, well, the oath of office and the apparent disregard for the document. She's hardly alone. I am sure that very few congressmen can be shown to support the constitution. However, by blatantly discrediting the fundamental rule of law, there is little left to stand on.
Many persons, citizens and politicians alike view the constitution as this quaint historic document, and not the law of the land. Our forefathers sweated over this very thing for many years. History had proven, indeed many times by then, that a nation of men would always become corrupt and despotic. That the only way to avoid that same morass was to make it a nation of laws. That is what is important about the costitution. It is a great document precisely because it lays out that which is necessary to define a great country.
Obama was right to identify it as a collection of negative liberties. It could not, should not, and can not be anything else. What is remarkable is that he, too took the oath of office without so much as a hint of irony, and without any intent of upholding it. He wants it to remain an artifact of the past, and discount the application of its principles and provisions in today's society.
It's not that the constitution of the United States is outdated. If it was, we'd have to write a new one, wouldn't we? The constitution has within it not only the historical record of how this country became great, but also the principles by which we are governed today.
I believe you can name a federal government in 15 pages, which is what the constitution and all its amendments are comprised on. Everything the government must do is listed there. Everything else belongs to the states, or the people.
When you look at it that way, that the owners manual for the US government is only 15 pages, you wonder why so many of our government officials are unaware of its provisions. If they can't read and understand the first 15 pages, no other bill that follows has a chance of being constitutional.
Sunday, February 28, 2010
Sometimes It Hits Me
When we get piled upon one another in large cities, as in Europe, we shall become as corrupt as Europe. -- Thomas Jefferson
Many so-called "Blue Staters" are susceptible to the notions of the global warming alarmists. I had always marveled at the number of people who would buy into the improbable scenarios that are protrayed in works of fiction such as The Day After Tomorrow, Reefer Madness and An Inconvenient Truth.
I enjoy a good eco-scare story. Movies like Damnation Alley were a good way to kill a few on a rainy Sunday. The problem is when government officials' attitudes start reflecting some of the fears put out by these works of overt irrationality.
Most of us have never feared winged monkeys despite watching the Wizard of Oz some 35 times. Why should we fear the world tilting on its axis, Earth running out of oxygen, or whole states totally swamped out by tsunamis.
Then it occurred to me. New Yorkers, not to pick on them, but to give the seminal example, are often at the mercy of their environment. How many remember the plight of New York City residents when the garbage workers went out on strike? Now that is an environmental catastrophe. Garbage could take over your whole life. It would pile up at the doors, and eventually trap you in your apartment building. There is indeed a reason to believe that your environment can affect you in New York.
Meanwhile, out in the real world, there's plenty of room to roam around. Our garbage is well tended to, and there is no obvious environmental or population problem. In fact, bring on the tired, the poor, the wretched refuse; we have room here.
Here, yes in red state country, we observe that the earth is resilient, renewable, and irrepressible. We can handle all the carbon dioxide you want to send our way. Anyone who doesn't think so, should regard the dandelion. The point is, none of us should believe we have nearly as much impact on the environment as the movies would seem to say we do.
There is also a big danger in letting the big city types set any kind of environmental policy. From where they stand, something has to be done. Maybe so, but they should keep the cures to themselves, and let the rest of us live our lives free from their "solutions".
Many so-called "Blue Staters" are susceptible to the notions of the global warming alarmists. I had always marveled at the number of people who would buy into the improbable scenarios that are protrayed in works of fiction such as The Day After Tomorrow, Reefer Madness and An Inconvenient Truth.
I enjoy a good eco-scare story. Movies like Damnation Alley were a good way to kill a few on a rainy Sunday. The problem is when government officials' attitudes start reflecting some of the fears put out by these works of overt irrationality.
Most of us have never feared winged monkeys despite watching the Wizard of Oz some 35 times. Why should we fear the world tilting on its axis, Earth running out of oxygen, or whole states totally swamped out by tsunamis.
Then it occurred to me. New Yorkers, not to pick on them, but to give the seminal example, are often at the mercy of their environment. How many remember the plight of New York City residents when the garbage workers went out on strike? Now that is an environmental catastrophe. Garbage could take over your whole life. It would pile up at the doors, and eventually trap you in your apartment building. There is indeed a reason to believe that your environment can affect you in New York.
Meanwhile, out in the real world, there's plenty of room to roam around. Our garbage is well tended to, and there is no obvious environmental or population problem. In fact, bring on the tired, the poor, the wretched refuse; we have room here.
Here, yes in red state country, we observe that the earth is resilient, renewable, and irrepressible. We can handle all the carbon dioxide you want to send our way. Anyone who doesn't think so, should regard the dandelion. The point is, none of us should believe we have nearly as much impact on the environment as the movies would seem to say we do.
There is also a big danger in letting the big city types set any kind of environmental policy. From where they stand, something has to be done. Maybe so, but they should keep the cures to themselves, and let the rest of us live our lives free from their "solutions".
Monday, February 22, 2010
Conspiracies and Complicities
The three aims of the tyrant are, one, the humiliation of his subjects; he knows that a mean-spirited man will not conspire against anybody; two, the creation of mistrust among them; for a tyrant is not to be overthrown until men begin to have confidence in one another -- and this is the reason why tyrants are at war with the good; they are under the idea that their power is endangered by them, not only because they will not be ruled despotically, but also because they are too loyal to one another and to other men, and do not inform against one another or against other men -- three, the tyrant desires that all his subjects shall be incapable of action, for no one attempts what is impossible and they will not attempt to overthrow a tyranny if they are powerless. -- Aristotle
For you see, the world is governed by very different personages from what is imagined by those who are not behind the scenes. -- Benjamin Disraeli
I have been bothered recently by the treatment of persons identified as "wacko conspiracy theorists" for wanting to learn the truth. High profile persons mock and deride honest people like Alan Keyes who would simply like to see a birth certificate.
Recently, Bill O'Reilly and Glenn Beck have taken up against the inquiry. O'Reilly misses and dismisses a lot in his efforts to be perceived as fair and balanced. Glenn "hold to the truth" Beck should know better than to dismiss a constitutional truth. A certificate of live birth, which simply proves that someone was born somewhere is not the same as a birth certificate, and shouldn't be accepted as such, without other proof. Now, do I think it makes a difference? Yes, for future reference. If in fact it turns out Obama was born out of the US, it will be but one in a long list of serious mistakes leading to the election.
I believe in Occam's razor. Occam's razor teaches that the simplest explanation is almost always true. The simplest explanation to me is that this child's mother wanted US citizenship for her son, and learned of a way to accomplish that in August 1961. Not the first time, nor the last. This is done many times a day in the US even now.
I don't normally subscribe to conspiracy theories. For example, the torturous logic behind those who believe in US government complicity in 9/11 leaves me unconvinced. Too complicated. Too hard to cover up that many loose strings. Sure, a lot of folks are suspicious, and not all things can be explained.
But to dismiss those who seek the truth is to promote untruth. No matter the results of the find.
Many conspiracies turn out to be true. Here's one.
A hospital record of birth would be helpful here. No, it's not a "right wing conspiracy". It is an issue of constitutional importance.
Saturday, January 30, 2010
Happy Trails, Martha Coakley
The Republicans are even more recalcitrant than they were before, and they believe the public are on their side, which they’re not—Howard Fineman
The jubilant folks at FOX News et al. are correct that the Massachusetts election today has national significance -- but not for the reasons they claim. They think people are upset at "government" but they're really upset with corporate control of government ..., -- Joseph Palermo
The same thing that swept Scott Brown into office swept me into office. People are angry, and they’re frustrated. Not just because of what’s happened in the last year or two years, but what’s happened over the last eight years.….. Barack Obama
"Everyone" is rushing to interpret the Massachusetts election. It's fascinating to watch the reactions from the blogosphere on what this election means. Much of the chatter can be boiled down to this simple statement: People were so mad about Bush's policies, that they elected a Republican in Massachusetts. Now, I got plenty steamed at Bush, but it would never have occurred to me to vote for a Republican because of it.
What is really missing is that the pundits have to account for the Tea Party phenomenon which was bigger than Kent State, bigger than Chicago '68, and bigger than any other political groundswell this country has seen. It's significance is downplayed by all media, who seem afraid to define it as the voice of the people. Virginia, New Jersy, and now Massachusetts, all with the same result...the politician who espoused less government and more freedom got the votes. The elections are proving that freedom is the more popular choice. Freedom to choose our own health care, freedom from the debilitating spendocracy, freedom to enjoy the fruits of our own labors.
One intriguing trend I see, and particularly from Massachusetts, is that the people voted for the right candidate, and it didn't matter what party he was from. Brown said he'd use the vote to stop health care. That was enough qualification for the office. It wasn't the only thing---the pickup truck was a refreshing blast too --- but the right guy got elected.
The trend will go further. I believe that the parties are now so similar as to be indistinguishable. Therefore it is important to vote for the person who most advocates freedom, regardless of his party. Political parties are outmoded and as unnecessary as unions are to the economy. No more Rs and Ds. In fact, some day I'd like to see an amendment to effectively abolish political parties. More on that another time.
On the heels of the election, there was another refreshing win for freedom. The Supreme Court got it right when they abolished the most egregious parts of McCain Feingold. Let's hope that's also a trend.
The jubilant folks at FOX News et al. are correct that the Massachusetts election today has national significance -- but not for the reasons they claim. They think people are upset at "government" but they're really upset with corporate control of government ..., -- Joseph Palermo
The same thing that swept Scott Brown into office swept me into office. People are angry, and they’re frustrated. Not just because of what’s happened in the last year or two years, but what’s happened over the last eight years.….. Barack Obama
"Everyone" is rushing to interpret the Massachusetts election. It's fascinating to watch the reactions from the blogosphere on what this election means. Much of the chatter can be boiled down to this simple statement: People were so mad about Bush's policies, that they elected a Republican in Massachusetts. Now, I got plenty steamed at Bush, but it would never have occurred to me to vote for a Republican because of it.
What is really missing is that the pundits have to account for the Tea Party phenomenon which was bigger than Kent State, bigger than Chicago '68, and bigger than any other political groundswell this country has seen. It's significance is downplayed by all media, who seem afraid to define it as the voice of the people. Virginia, New Jersy, and now Massachusetts, all with the same result...the politician who espoused less government and more freedom got the votes. The elections are proving that freedom is the more popular choice. Freedom to choose our own health care, freedom from the debilitating spendocracy, freedom to enjoy the fruits of our own labors.
One intriguing trend I see, and particularly from Massachusetts, is that the people voted for the right candidate, and it didn't matter what party he was from. Brown said he'd use the vote to stop health care. That was enough qualification for the office. It wasn't the only thing---the pickup truck was a refreshing blast too --- but the right guy got elected.
The trend will go further. I believe that the parties are now so similar as to be indistinguishable. Therefore it is important to vote for the person who most advocates freedom, regardless of his party. Political parties are outmoded and as unnecessary as unions are to the economy. No more Rs and Ds. In fact, some day I'd like to see an amendment to effectively abolish political parties. More on that another time.
On the heels of the election, there was another refreshing win for freedom. The Supreme Court got it right when they abolished the most egregious parts of McCain Feingold. Let's hope that's also a trend.
Friday, January 29, 2010
Introducing Average Joe
To save us all some time, I have borrowed Erick Erickson's summary of Obama's SOTU (State of the Union) speech; and am adding the response from Average Joe, a typical US citizen.
Raise Taxes:
• “I have proposed a fee on the biggest banks.”
AJ: Targeting "bigness" is bad for business. and Who do you think pays those fees?
• “finally slash the tax breaks for companies that ship our jobs overseas”
AJ: Government minimum wage policies lead to this loss of jobs. Tax policy is not a solution. Eliminating wage interference is.
• “But at a time of record deficits, we will not continue tax cuts for oil companies, investment fund managers, and those making over $250,000 a year.”
AJ: These companies and individuals already pay higher than average taxes. To make it more difficult for them to hire people does not serve your jobs purpose.
Tax Cuts With Strings – Targeted, Not broad-based cuts:
• “new small business tax credit”
AJ: So, I have to downsize my business to qualify for credits? Why not give all businesses a credit?
• “eliminate all capital gains taxes on small business investment”
AJ: This makes no sense: Are you trying to make all businesses small?
• “provide a tax incentive for all businesses, large and small, to invest in new plants and equipment”
AJ: A good economy is all the incentive needed. No sense in adding tax complexity to it.
• “give rebates to Americans who make their homes more energy efficient”
AJ: Efficiency is its own reward. Giving rebates only subsidizes the window companies, and forces prices higher.
• “give those tax breaks to companies that create jobs in the United States of America”
AJ: An economy that creates jobs is one that is increasingly productive. Tax policy can only shift money from one pocket to the other.
• “That’s why we’re nearly doubling the child care tax credit”
AJ: How does subsidizing the child care outfits help the economy? It just raises the cost for everyone who does not "qualify" for this credit.
• “expanding the tax credit for those who start a nest egg”
AJ: Here's an idea, let people keep what they earn. That will get a lot of nest eggs going.
• “give families a $10,000 tax credit for four years of college and increase Pell Grants”
AJ: The cost of college tuition is already high enough. If everybody (but the so called "rich") has an extra 10,000 to play with, the cost of college will go up 10,000 dollars to keep pace with it. Supply and Demand.
• “we will extend our middle-class tax cuts”
AJ: Great! How do I get into this so-called "middle class"? Or do you really mean 95% of us, which amounts to a tax cut for less than half of us, and a free bag of money for the rest?
Regulation
• “We can’t allow financial institutions to take risks that threaten the whole economy”
AJ: Actually, they are the only ones who can deal with risk. But you must let them pay for their mistakes, too.
• “Require lobbyists to disclose each contact they make on behalf of a client with my Administration or Congress.”
AJ: Great, who's going to manage that database. The department of lobbyist review? Sounds like a good way to build your enemies list to me.
• “And it’s time to put strict limits on the contributions that lobbyists give to candidates for federal office.”
AJ: Limiting contributions? Didn't we just have an object lesson in freedom of speech this week?
• “urging Democrats and Republicans to pass a bill that helps to right this wrong [the Supreme Court ruling]”
I can think of a lot of bad law that came out of the Supreme Court. This is one they got right.
• “We are going to crack down on violations of equal pay laws – so that women get equal pay for an equal day’s work.”
AJ: This is a straw man, but a good way to get half your constituents mad at the other half.
Spending - General:
• “We need to encourage American innovation” (through “investment”)
AJ: How about stopping the spending so that capital can be released to the private companies that drive innovation?
• “launching a National Export Initiative that will help farmers and small businesses increase their exports, and reform export controls consistent with national security”
AJ: Sounds like another federal department to me. Let's get rid of a few hundred failed initiatives before adding more, shall we?
• “we will step up re-financing so that homeowners can move into more affordable mortgages.”
AJ: Why are you in the financing business? Mortgages should cost exactly what they have to in free market and fair competition.
• “jobs must be our number one focus in 2010, and that is why I am calling for a new jobs bill tonight.”
AJ: You called for a stimulus, and got Nancy Pelosi's Christmas list. Calling for a jobs bill will have a similar destructive result.
Spending Freeze and Reform
• “Starting in 2011, we are prepared to freeze government spending for three years. Spending related to our national security, Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security will not be affected. But all other discretionary government programs will.”
AJ: A freeze at this historically high spending rate will continue the bankruptcy path we started on last year. How about dropping it 35% and then freezing it?
• “calling on Congress to publish all earmark requests on a single website before there’s a vote”
AJ: Sure, we can put it on C-Span.org
Spending - Education
• “When we renew the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, we will work with Congress to expand these reforms to all fifty states”
AJ: Of all the hare-brained things GWB came up with, you had to embrace this one. No child allowed to succeed.
• “urge the Senate to follow the House and pass a bill that will revitalize our community colleges”
AJ: This will remove community colleges one more step from accountability to their communities. Not a good idea.
• “And let’s tell another one million students that when they graduate, they will be required:
o “to pay only ten percent of their income on student loans,
AJ: Given that college age kids are the dumbest demographic when it comes to voting, it's not surprising you would try to bribe them.
o “and all of their debt will be forgiven after twenty years – and forgiven after ten years if they choose a career in public service.”
AJ: That means stringing the loan office along for 15 years, make payments for five, and then ditch the thing. Sounds like a good long term economics plan (for some).
Healthcare (Spending, Regulation and Taxes)
• “And it is precisely to relieve the burden on middle-class families that we still need health insurance reform.”
AJ: This puzzles me. Forcing my company to drop health insurance so that I will need to buy it on my own, putting me on rationing, and forcing my parents to face death panels relieves my burden how?
National Security
• We will have all of our combat troops out of Iraq by the end of this August.
AJ: Finally! A war that was over in 9 months. 8 years later, we come home. Bravo.
• “We will support the Iraqi government as they hold elections, and continue to partner with the Iraqi people to promote regional peace and prosperity. But make no mistake: this war is ending, and all of our troops are coming home.”
AJ: Send Al Gore's lawyers to oversee the elections. That will stir up some patriotism.
• “To reduce our stockpiles and launchers, while ensuring our deterrent, the United States and Russia are completing negotiations on the farthest-reaching arms control treaty in nearly two decades.”
AJ: Like with farm subsidies, you are incentivising the Russians to not do what they weren't inclined to do in the first place. Brilliant, if you are Russian.
• “That is why North Korea now faces increased isolation, and stronger sanctions – sanctions that are being vigorously enforced.”
AJ: My five year old does tantrums better than Kim Jong Il. Sanctions don't seem to stop him.
• “And as Iran’s leaders continue to ignore their obligations, there should be no doubt: they, too, will face growing consequences.”
AJ: So we'll keep letting the Russians sell them what they need? This sounds like a good deal for the Russians too.
• “This year, I will work with Congress and our military to finally repeal the law that denies gay Americans the right to serve the country they love because of who they are.”
AJ: So much for an all volunteer Army. I hope there's enough for a batallion.,
Immigration
• “And we should continue the work of fixing our broken immigration system – to secure our borders, enforce our laws, and ensure that everyone who plays by the rules can contribute to our economy and enrich our nations.”
AJ: Oh, okay, I agree with that one. That's one.
AJ: Are we done here? That's it? Wow. One idea we can embrace. Well. It's a start....
Raise Taxes:
• “I have proposed a fee on the biggest banks.”
AJ: Targeting "bigness" is bad for business. and Who do you think pays those fees?
• “finally slash the tax breaks for companies that ship our jobs overseas”
AJ: Government minimum wage policies lead to this loss of jobs. Tax policy is not a solution. Eliminating wage interference is.
• “But at a time of record deficits, we will not continue tax cuts for oil companies, investment fund managers, and those making over $250,000 a year.”
AJ: These companies and individuals already pay higher than average taxes. To make it more difficult for them to hire people does not serve your jobs purpose.
Tax Cuts With Strings – Targeted, Not broad-based cuts:
• “new small business tax credit”
AJ: So, I have to downsize my business to qualify for credits? Why not give all businesses a credit?
• “eliminate all capital gains taxes on small business investment”
AJ: This makes no sense: Are you trying to make all businesses small?
• “provide a tax incentive for all businesses, large and small, to invest in new plants and equipment”
AJ: A good economy is all the incentive needed. No sense in adding tax complexity to it.
• “give rebates to Americans who make their homes more energy efficient”
AJ: Efficiency is its own reward. Giving rebates only subsidizes the window companies, and forces prices higher.
• “give those tax breaks to companies that create jobs in the United States of America”
AJ: An economy that creates jobs is one that is increasingly productive. Tax policy can only shift money from one pocket to the other.
• “That’s why we’re nearly doubling the child care tax credit”
AJ: How does subsidizing the child care outfits help the economy? It just raises the cost for everyone who does not "qualify" for this credit.
• “expanding the tax credit for those who start a nest egg”
AJ: Here's an idea, let people keep what they earn. That will get a lot of nest eggs going.
• “give families a $10,000 tax credit for four years of college and increase Pell Grants”
AJ: The cost of college tuition is already high enough. If everybody (but the so called "rich") has an extra 10,000 to play with, the cost of college will go up 10,000 dollars to keep pace with it. Supply and Demand.
• “we will extend our middle-class tax cuts”
AJ: Great! How do I get into this so-called "middle class"? Or do you really mean 95% of us, which amounts to a tax cut for less than half of us, and a free bag of money for the rest?
Regulation
• “We can’t allow financial institutions to take risks that threaten the whole economy”
AJ: Actually, they are the only ones who can deal with risk. But you must let them pay for their mistakes, too.
• “Require lobbyists to disclose each contact they make on behalf of a client with my Administration or Congress.”
AJ: Great, who's going to manage that database. The department of lobbyist review? Sounds like a good way to build your enemies list to me.
• “And it’s time to put strict limits on the contributions that lobbyists give to candidates for federal office.”
AJ: Limiting contributions? Didn't we just have an object lesson in freedom of speech this week?
• “urging Democrats and Republicans to pass a bill that helps to right this wrong [the Supreme Court ruling]”
I can think of a lot of bad law that came out of the Supreme Court. This is one they got right.
• “We are going to crack down on violations of equal pay laws – so that women get equal pay for an equal day’s work.”
AJ: This is a straw man, but a good way to get half your constituents mad at the other half.
Spending - General:
• “We need to encourage American innovation” (through “investment”)
AJ: How about stopping the spending so that capital can be released to the private companies that drive innovation?
• “launching a National Export Initiative that will help farmers and small businesses increase their exports, and reform export controls consistent with national security”
AJ: Sounds like another federal department to me. Let's get rid of a few hundred failed initiatives before adding more, shall we?
• “we will step up re-financing so that homeowners can move into more affordable mortgages.”
AJ: Why are you in the financing business? Mortgages should cost exactly what they have to in free market and fair competition.
• “jobs must be our number one focus in 2010, and that is why I am calling for a new jobs bill tonight.”
AJ: You called for a stimulus, and got Nancy Pelosi's Christmas list. Calling for a jobs bill will have a similar destructive result.
Spending Freeze and Reform
• “Starting in 2011, we are prepared to freeze government spending for three years. Spending related to our national security, Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security will not be affected. But all other discretionary government programs will.”
AJ: A freeze at this historically high spending rate will continue the bankruptcy path we started on last year. How about dropping it 35% and then freezing it?
• “calling on Congress to publish all earmark requests on a single website before there’s a vote”
AJ: Sure, we can put it on C-Span.org
Spending - Education
• “When we renew the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, we will work with Congress to expand these reforms to all fifty states”
AJ: Of all the hare-brained things GWB came up with, you had to embrace this one. No child allowed to succeed.
• “urge the Senate to follow the House and pass a bill that will revitalize our community colleges”
AJ: This will remove community colleges one more step from accountability to their communities. Not a good idea.
• “And let’s tell another one million students that when they graduate, they will be required:
o “to pay only ten percent of their income on student loans,
AJ: Given that college age kids are the dumbest demographic when it comes to voting, it's not surprising you would try to bribe them.
o “and all of their debt will be forgiven after twenty years – and forgiven after ten years if they choose a career in public service.”
AJ: That means stringing the loan office along for 15 years, make payments for five, and then ditch the thing. Sounds like a good long term economics plan (for some).
Healthcare (Spending, Regulation and Taxes)
• “And it is precisely to relieve the burden on middle-class families that we still need health insurance reform.”
AJ: This puzzles me. Forcing my company to drop health insurance so that I will need to buy it on my own, putting me on rationing, and forcing my parents to face death panels relieves my burden how?
National Security
• We will have all of our combat troops out of Iraq by the end of this August.
AJ: Finally! A war that was over in 9 months. 8 years later, we come home. Bravo.
• “We will support the Iraqi government as they hold elections, and continue to partner with the Iraqi people to promote regional peace and prosperity. But make no mistake: this war is ending, and all of our troops are coming home.”
AJ: Send Al Gore's lawyers to oversee the elections. That will stir up some patriotism.
• “To reduce our stockpiles and launchers, while ensuring our deterrent, the United States and Russia are completing negotiations on the farthest-reaching arms control treaty in nearly two decades.”
AJ: Like with farm subsidies, you are incentivising the Russians to not do what they weren't inclined to do in the first place. Brilliant, if you are Russian.
• “That is why North Korea now faces increased isolation, and stronger sanctions – sanctions that are being vigorously enforced.”
AJ: My five year old does tantrums better than Kim Jong Il. Sanctions don't seem to stop him.
• “And as Iran’s leaders continue to ignore their obligations, there should be no doubt: they, too, will face growing consequences.”
AJ: So we'll keep letting the Russians sell them what they need? This sounds like a good deal for the Russians too.
• “This year, I will work with Congress and our military to finally repeal the law that denies gay Americans the right to serve the country they love because of who they are.”
AJ: So much for an all volunteer Army. I hope there's enough for a batallion.,
Immigration
• “And we should continue the work of fixing our broken immigration system – to secure our borders, enforce our laws, and ensure that everyone who plays by the rules can contribute to our economy and enrich our nations.”
AJ: Oh, okay, I agree with that one. That's one.
AJ: Are we done here? That's it? Wow. One idea we can embrace. Well. It's a start....
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)