If you see a snake, just kill it - don't appoint a committee on snakes. --
Ross Perot
Eagles don't flock, you have to find them one at a time.
Ross Perot
The latest polls confirm what many of us have known since November; that people did not get "what they voted for". More importantly, it is now more obvious that simply voting for the other guy doesn't get the job done either.
Your Wizer believes this opens up an opportunity for someone to demonstrate a difference and earn the country's elective support.
I heard a radio host talk yesterday about Bush's numbers were low, and in the course of the discussion compared them to Obama's sinking ratings. He did miss the point of the low Bush numbers. It had more to do with the ineptness of compassionate conservatism and misguided nation building than matters directly related to the war, but it started the portion of my brain that deals with hindsight.
My point is that people wanted the alternative to Bush, and were horrified to learn ever since then what that meant. Surely there is room for more than two interpretations of the future; especially when these two were so darned similar. The Bush Obama Recession continues. Meanwhile, some rather good systems are left untried. For example: Capitalism, we should try that. Rugged individualism. That would be a good system. Federalism, when properly applied. Constitutionalism would work. Even Anarchy is better than what we have now. What we have now goes by many names, but by my reckoning it is pretty close to National Socialism.
I think if someone were to stand up and defend the constitution, he'd have better than a Ross Perot's chance at being elected.
Thursday, September 03, 2009
Sunday, August 30, 2009
RIP Ted Kennedy
We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction. -- Edward Kennedy
It's now clear that from the very moment President Bush took office, Iraq was his highest priority as unfinished business from the first Bush Administration. His agenda was clear: find a rationale to get rid of Saddam. -- Edward Kennedy
He (Kennedy) was good company. Excellent company. I think I'm going to miss him more than I can say. -- John McCain
Ted was a big government liberal which as you know by now is the worst possible kind. I was trying to chart this week how he came to be such a communist weinie from what was a fairly normal political juggernaut. It wasn't the influence of his brothers, because as near as I can determine, JFKs conservatism and RFKs law and order persona did not translate to Teddy's world.
Maybe at some level Teddy reached the point where he needed redemption, and went to the chapel of the New York Times to get his religion.
Ever since then (and to borrow the terminology of Bostonians) he had a wicked bad voting record. He was a hypocrite, even by modern Washington standards. His manipulation of the senate succession process in 2004 and attempt to do so again in 2009 is the last final evidence of this.
Teddy's biggest triumph was in compromising people like Bush, McCain, and Hatch. He took a bunch of false progressive premises and found one sucker after another on the so-called right to act as a co-signer. The trouble is we are all now saddled with the payment book from these "bipartisan boondoggles".
RIP Teddy. You gamed the system, and the people of Massachusetts about as completely as it can be done.
It's now clear that from the very moment President Bush took office, Iraq was his highest priority as unfinished business from the first Bush Administration. His agenda was clear: find a rationale to get rid of Saddam. -- Edward Kennedy
He (Kennedy) was good company. Excellent company. I think I'm going to miss him more than I can say. -- John McCain
Ted was a big government liberal which as you know by now is the worst possible kind. I was trying to chart this week how he came to be such a communist weinie from what was a fairly normal political juggernaut. It wasn't the influence of his brothers, because as near as I can determine, JFKs conservatism and RFKs law and order persona did not translate to Teddy's world.
Maybe at some level Teddy reached the point where he needed redemption, and went to the chapel of the New York Times to get his religion.
Ever since then (and to borrow the terminology of Bostonians) he had a wicked bad voting record. He was a hypocrite, even by modern Washington standards. His manipulation of the senate succession process in 2004 and attempt to do so again in 2009 is the last final evidence of this.
Teddy's biggest triumph was in compromising people like Bush, McCain, and Hatch. He took a bunch of false progressive premises and found one sucker after another on the so-called right to act as a co-signer. The trouble is we are all now saddled with the payment book from these "bipartisan boondoggles".
RIP Teddy. You gamed the system, and the people of Massachusetts about as completely as it can be done.
Sunday, August 02, 2009
Market Intervention and Unintended Consequences.
Beware the greedy hand of government, thrusting itself into every corner and crevice of industry. — Thomas Paine
Depressions and mass unemployment are not caused by the free market but by government interference in the economy. – Ludwig von Mises
The government solution to a problem is usually as bad as the problem. – Milton Friedman
Let's examine the Cash for Clunkers program, shall we?
A billion dollars to "retire" 250,000 so-called clunkers. Another 2-3 billion on the way.
Our government creates the conditions under which the automotive industry is nearly bankrupted; forks over a bunch of money to own the car companies. Then needs to do their own "incentive plans". It's presented as important legislation, and applauded by every lawmaker in Michigan.
As usual, there are some unintended consequences.
First, they previously created a great deal of pent up demand by sucking all the capital flow out of the markets, causing everybody to delay their next vehicle purchas another year.
Then, with this program, they cause 250,000 perfectly functional cars to be physically removed from the market. Who does this help? People who were looking for one more reason to buy a car now. Let's say their trade was worth $2000. They get 3500 for it instead. Okay, a net gain of 1500 dollars.
But guess what? Now there's $2000 car that won't go to auction, and won't be available for another buyer... perhaps a student leaving for his first semester away at school. His parents now have to pay an inflated rate. Since there are no $2000 cars (due to the government scrap program), They are forced to bid up the price of any available $2000 dollar cars.
So the government has very clearly picked a winner (new car buyer), and a loser (entry level used car buyer). For every "winner" the government picks, they have to pick losers.
Another winner: The new car dealer.
Another loser. The used car dealer. Remember, a lot of these guys WERE new car dealers until this year. Now they have to tie up more capital bidding up what few used cars actually make it to auction.
Who else wins? The vehicle manufacturers. Some car plants will run a few more weeks than they might have this fall.
Who else loses? The spare parts business - - all these decommissioned cars no longer available for scrap value.
Finally, I wonder if anyone keeps track of the resources and energy necessary to build a new car vs. the cost of the gasoline to drive the old one for another year.
I for one am very tired of the government picking winners and losers, because it eventually makes losers out of all of us.
Depressions and mass unemployment are not caused by the free market but by government interference in the economy. – Ludwig von Mises
The government solution to a problem is usually as bad as the problem. – Milton Friedman
Let's examine the Cash for Clunkers program, shall we?
A billion dollars to "retire" 250,000 so-called clunkers. Another 2-3 billion on the way.
Our government creates the conditions under which the automotive industry is nearly bankrupted; forks over a bunch of money to own the car companies. Then needs to do their own "incentive plans". It's presented as important legislation, and applauded by every lawmaker in Michigan.
As usual, there are some unintended consequences.
First, they previously created a great deal of pent up demand by sucking all the capital flow out of the markets, causing everybody to delay their next vehicle purchas another year.
Then, with this program, they cause 250,000 perfectly functional cars to be physically removed from the market. Who does this help? People who were looking for one more reason to buy a car now. Let's say their trade was worth $2000. They get 3500 for it instead. Okay, a net gain of 1500 dollars.
But guess what? Now there's $2000 car that won't go to auction, and won't be available for another buyer... perhaps a student leaving for his first semester away at school. His parents now have to pay an inflated rate. Since there are no $2000 cars (due to the government scrap program), They are forced to bid up the price of any available $2000 dollar cars.
So the government has very clearly picked a winner (new car buyer), and a loser (entry level used car buyer). For every "winner" the government picks, they have to pick losers.
Another winner: The new car dealer.
Another loser. The used car dealer. Remember, a lot of these guys WERE new car dealers until this year. Now they have to tie up more capital bidding up what few used cars actually make it to auction.
Who else wins? The vehicle manufacturers. Some car plants will run a few more weeks than they might have this fall.
Who else loses? The spare parts business - - all these decommissioned cars no longer available for scrap value.
Finally, I wonder if anyone keeps track of the resources and energy necessary to build a new car vs. the cost of the gasoline to drive the old one for another year.
I for one am very tired of the government picking winners and losers, because it eventually makes losers out of all of us.
Thursday, July 30, 2009
Tuesday, July 28, 2009
Happy Trails, Sarah Palin
So much success, and Alaska there is much good in store further down the road, but to reach it we must value and live the optimistic pioneering spirit that made this state proud and free, and we can resist enslavement to big central government that crushes hope and opportunity. Be wary of accepting government largess. It doesn't come free and often, accepting it takes away everything that is free, melting into Washington's powerful "care-taking" arms will just suck incentive to work hard and chart our own course right out of us, and that not only contributes to an unstable economy and dizzying national debt, but it does make us less free. -- Sarah Palin
I don't know what she's thinking, but she's getting a lot of advice on what to do next. Here's my suggestion to Sarah: Convince Alaskans to secede from the union, and run for President of the Independent Republic of Alaska.
I don't know what she's thinking, but she's getting a lot of advice on what to do next. Here's my suggestion to Sarah: Convince Alaskans to secede from the union, and run for President of the Independent Republic of Alaska.
Sunday, July 19, 2009
What's the Big Hurry? (reprise)
"This is what the debate in Congress is all about: whether we'll keep talking and tinkering and letting this problem fester as more families and businesses go under and more Americans lose their coverage; Or whether we'll seize this opportunity -- one we might not have again for generations -- and finally pass health insurance reform this year, in 2009." -- Barry H. Obama in his weekly radio and internet speech
"Damn the torpedoes, Full speed ahead!" -- Admiral David Glasgow Farragut
I've noticed that Barry's always in a big hurry. It seems like every idea he comes up with is tagged with this high urgency. 2009 or bust. Hurry up and pass it.
In What's the Big Hurry , I pointed out that he exhorted people to vote before election day. It was clear that time would not work in his advantage, as more and more regular people (like Joe the Plumber) uncovered his true intentions.
So, he gets elected, and he needs to rush through a big spending package, take over the banks and car companies, slam the credit card issuers, cap the student loan paybacks, add a massive new energy tax and now take over 1/6th of our economy with Obamacare.
On this latter point, a CBO Report surfaced that shows how this plan will not work. Maybe it's time we read one of these bills.
Never mind the facts. Full speed ahead!
"Damn the torpedoes, Full speed ahead!" -- Admiral David Glasgow Farragut
I've noticed that Barry's always in a big hurry. It seems like every idea he comes up with is tagged with this high urgency. 2009 or bust. Hurry up and pass it.
In What's the Big Hurry , I pointed out that he exhorted people to vote before election day. It was clear that time would not work in his advantage, as more and more regular people (like Joe the Plumber) uncovered his true intentions.
So, he gets elected, and he needs to rush through a big spending package, take over the banks and car companies, slam the credit card issuers, cap the student loan paybacks, add a massive new energy tax and now take over 1/6th of our economy with Obamacare.
On this latter point, a CBO Report surfaced that shows how this plan will not work. Maybe it's time we read one of these bills.
Never mind the facts. Full speed ahead!
Monday, July 13, 2009
Watch out for whatever she has for lunch
An individual has not started living until he can rise above the narrow confines of his individualistic concerns to the broader concerns of all humanity. --
Martin Luther King, Jr.
Personal experiences affect the facts that judges choose to see. -- Sonia Sotomayor
I'm baffled as to why Sonia Sotomayor is considered a reasonable choice for the Supreme Court. Obviously, Barry H. Obama, the mass media, and the American Bar Associatioinare are all in love with her. I'm having trouble deciding what to do other than break her other leg and send her home. (I know, I know, hardly civil discourse, but this selection is even worse than the Harriet Miers pick).
She is one of many, it's true, who believe the constitution oughta be re-written on a daily basis; and that is bad enough. But here's one who believes that members of her "own race" are more qualified to do it. My goodness, we've come full circle, if we plan to put a racist on the highest court in the land. I thought it was a bad thing to be a racist.
Here's another quote from Sotomayor:
Whether born from experience or inherent physiological or cultural differences our gender and national origins may and will make a difference in our judging.
Now, why would that be the case? Is the law so fundamentally fluid that it matters what we had for lunch to reflect what the law really means? Gives a whole new meaning to legislating from the bench.
This lady sure seems unqualified. If she tries to defend any of these positions, she definitely is.
Martin Luther King, Jr.
Personal experiences affect the facts that judges choose to see. -- Sonia Sotomayor
I'm baffled as to why Sonia Sotomayor is considered a reasonable choice for the Supreme Court. Obviously, Barry H. Obama, the mass media, and the American Bar Associatioinare are all in love with her. I'm having trouble deciding what to do other than break her other leg and send her home. (I know, I know, hardly civil discourse, but this selection is even worse than the Harriet Miers pick).
She is one of many, it's true, who believe the constitution oughta be re-written on a daily basis; and that is bad enough. But here's one who believes that members of her "own race" are more qualified to do it. My goodness, we've come full circle, if we plan to put a racist on the highest court in the land. I thought it was a bad thing to be a racist.
Here's another quote from Sotomayor:
Whether born from experience or inherent physiological or cultural differences our gender and national origins may and will make a difference in our judging.
Now, why would that be the case? Is the law so fundamentally fluid that it matters what we had for lunch to reflect what the law really means? Gives a whole new meaning to legislating from the bench.
This lady sure seems unqualified. If she tries to defend any of these positions, she definitely is.
Sunday, June 14, 2009
A sure-fire solution
The national budget must be balanced. The public debt must be reduced; the arrogance of the authorities must be moderated and controlled. Payments to foreign governments must be reduced. If the nation doesn’t want to go bankrupt, people must again learn to work, instead of living on public assistance. – Marcus Tullius Cicero, 55 BC
It is a popular delusion that the government wastes vast amounts of money through inefficiency and sloth. Enormous effort and elaborate planning are required to waste this much money. – P.J. O’Rourke
Unnecessary laws are not good laws, but traps for money. – Thomas Hobbes, Leviathan, 1651
I have come up a fabulous idea, and need to share it with the world as quickly and as often as I can. The more I think about it, the more I am sure it is the last, best hope for freedom. First, I should point out what I've observed in the political landscape. People in the politics business are motivated by the same thing that motivates regular people. Self interest. Sure, they talk a different game, but it really is about their personal best interest.
What motivates regular people and politicians is the idea of "what's in it for me?". And, for the most part, the only incentives we as a people give to our politicians is low pay and high stress. Hence, the need for the pols to moonlight, as it were, and to make their gravy on the side. Further, they and their fellow civil servants have a need to keep the system rolling to maintain their gravy train.
I propose something more in line with an enlightened self interest for each federal employee.
How about a system of incentives to eliminate government spending? Pay them a commission. Yes, pay a percent of every government program eliminated directly to the people who eliminate it. Department of Energy? Gone. Pay each of the employees enough to retire on and pull out. National Endowment of the Arts? Adios. No useful function to that group anyway. Department of Health and Human Services? Retired.
I'm thinking we could get to a right sized government really, really fast. We just have to approach it like a business would, and properly incentivize what is needed. We have to replace the under the table incentives with true above board money. That will turn every politician into an honest representative of the people.
Can anyone tell me why that would not work?
It is a popular delusion that the government wastes vast amounts of money through inefficiency and sloth. Enormous effort and elaborate planning are required to waste this much money. – P.J. O’Rourke
Unnecessary laws are not good laws, but traps for money. – Thomas Hobbes, Leviathan, 1651
I have come up a fabulous idea, and need to share it with the world as quickly and as often as I can. The more I think about it, the more I am sure it is the last, best hope for freedom. First, I should point out what I've observed in the political landscape. People in the politics business are motivated by the same thing that motivates regular people. Self interest. Sure, they talk a different game, but it really is about their personal best interest.
What motivates regular people and politicians is the idea of "what's in it for me?". And, for the most part, the only incentives we as a people give to our politicians is low pay and high stress. Hence, the need for the pols to moonlight, as it were, and to make their gravy on the side. Further, they and their fellow civil servants have a need to keep the system rolling to maintain their gravy train.
I propose something more in line with an enlightened self interest for each federal employee.
How about a system of incentives to eliminate government spending? Pay them a commission. Yes, pay a percent of every government program eliminated directly to the people who eliminate it. Department of Energy? Gone. Pay each of the employees enough to retire on and pull out. National Endowment of the Arts? Adios. No useful function to that group anyway. Department of Health and Human Services? Retired.
I'm thinking we could get to a right sized government really, really fast. We just have to approach it like a business would, and properly incentivize what is needed. We have to replace the under the table incentives with true above board money. That will turn every politician into an honest representative of the people.
Can anyone tell me why that would not work?
Friday, June 12, 2009
Fair share
U.S. NATIONAL DEBT CLOCK
The Outstanding Public Debt as of 12 Jun 2009 at 05:53:37 PM GMT is:
The Outstanding Public Debt as of 12 Jun 2009 at 05:53:37 PM GMT is:
The estimated population of the United States is 306,355,187
so each citizen's share of this debt is $37,182.29.
The National Debt has continued to increase an average of
$3.83 billion per day since September 28, 2007!
Concerned? Then tell Congress and the White House!
http://www.brillig.com/debt_clock/
How would it feel to each citizen of this country if they and each of their children were presented with a bill for $37, 182.29? If everyone in their family took out a credit card and maxed it out to the tune of $37 large plus. Family of four? You just added another house payment. For 30 years.
I believe people want to do their share, and when they see what their share really is, there should be a great deal of discomfort over where this country is going.
Sunday, June 07, 2009
Graduation Day
Now, understand -- understand, Class of 2009, I do not suggest that the debate surrounding abortion can or should go away. Because no matter how much we may want to fudge it -- indeed, while we know that the views of most Americans on the subject are complex and even contradictory -- the fact is that at some level, the views of the two camps are irreconcilable. Each side will continue to make its case to the public with passion and conviction. But surely we can do so without reducing those with differing views to caricature. Barry H Obama, Commencement Exercises at The University of Notre Dame du Lac, May 17, 2009
I wasn't going to blog about this. It should have been a private celebration of our family and friends for the graduation of our daughter, and I really wanted it to stay that way. Instead, it became an event. A memorable one, to be sure, and well covered in the media (so much so, one would think there was little more to say). Still, it calls to be blogged about.
I wanted to have a nice traditional midwest college campus graduation with nothing but fond memories and a beautiful spring day. Not a chance on this day. Not with Air Force One flying in and out of town, and four miles of silent (and not so silent) protesters lining the streets leading to campus. I felt sorry for everybody. The protesters, the parents, the security guards, our daughter and the rest of the students. I'm sure some thought it was good theater, and a thrill to hang with his magnanimousness. My thought was why did this have to happen on our time?
Three weeks have passed, and nothing of any consequence was decided. The quotation above leaves one with a great deal to wonder about. It's the president telling us that there is no right and no wrong in the abortion conflict. There is no leadership in that quote; and none was forthcoming the entire afternoon. One speech after another of politicians and academics trying to outlecture each other.
You see, this was an opportunity to lead, and our leader called it a draw. It's exactly what he's doing in foreign policy (Israel and Palestine are equivalent. They're both right). Same thing over abortion. Yes, it's an electric issue. It's an emotional one, but it's also an issue that people can't navigate around, because of all the bad laws put up in protection of the current legal landscape.
What could he have done? Return the issue to the states where it belongs. What Obama could have done is pledge to unravel the legal mechanisms so that the people could decide. No, he's a big time supporter of Roe v Wade despite it being one of the most poorly and hastily constructed mishaps in the history of the Supreme Court. With that as backdrop we are going to populate the court with more people who have less regard for life than they do for causes.
Your Wizer has long been a pro-life libertarian. What that means is that life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness should be preserved for everyone, including the unborn. Especially the unborn, since they are the most vulnerable among us.
That is my deepest held belief, and why I must blog today.
So, what of abortion? What are the elements of it that a constitutionalist must follow? Well, for one, he must make no law abridging the rights of the individual. So, for the federal government to even be involved in this issue is unconstitutional. One might make the argument that the mother of the unborn child is an individual, too. Fair enough. It's something that can and should be debated at the state level. The debate is currently precluded by a federal court ruling, and that's why the argument is even still in place 36 years later. It's not for the Federal government to say. But what the federal government should do is stay out of the argument. That's especially true if you believe both sides are right; as apparently Barry H Obama does.
I wasn't going to blog about this. It should have been a private celebration of our family and friends for the graduation of our daughter, and I really wanted it to stay that way. Instead, it became an event. A memorable one, to be sure, and well covered in the media (so much so, one would think there was little more to say). Still, it calls to be blogged about.
I wanted to have a nice traditional midwest college campus graduation with nothing but fond memories and a beautiful spring day. Not a chance on this day. Not with Air Force One flying in and out of town, and four miles of silent (and not so silent) protesters lining the streets leading to campus. I felt sorry for everybody. The protesters, the parents, the security guards, our daughter and the rest of the students. I'm sure some thought it was good theater, and a thrill to hang with his magnanimousness. My thought was why did this have to happen on our time?
Three weeks have passed, and nothing of any consequence was decided. The quotation above leaves one with a great deal to wonder about. It's the president telling us that there is no right and no wrong in the abortion conflict. There is no leadership in that quote; and none was forthcoming the entire afternoon. One speech after another of politicians and academics trying to outlecture each other.
You see, this was an opportunity to lead, and our leader called it a draw. It's exactly what he's doing in foreign policy (Israel and Palestine are equivalent. They're both right). Same thing over abortion. Yes, it's an electric issue. It's an emotional one, but it's also an issue that people can't navigate around, because of all the bad laws put up in protection of the current legal landscape.
What could he have done? Return the issue to the states where it belongs. What Obama could have done is pledge to unravel the legal mechanisms so that the people could decide. No, he's a big time supporter of Roe v Wade despite it being one of the most poorly and hastily constructed mishaps in the history of the Supreme Court. With that as backdrop we are going to populate the court with more people who have less regard for life than they do for causes.
Your Wizer has long been a pro-life libertarian. What that means is that life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness should be preserved for everyone, including the unborn. Especially the unborn, since they are the most vulnerable among us.
That is my deepest held belief, and why I must blog today.
So, what of abortion? What are the elements of it that a constitutionalist must follow? Well, for one, he must make no law abridging the rights of the individual. So, for the federal government to even be involved in this issue is unconstitutional. One might make the argument that the mother of the unborn child is an individual, too. Fair enough. It's something that can and should be debated at the state level. The debate is currently precluded by a federal court ruling, and that's why the argument is even still in place 36 years later. It's not for the Federal government to say. But what the federal government should do is stay out of the argument. That's especially true if you believe both sides are right; as apparently Barry H Obama does.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)