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....
Friday, January 29, 2010
Wednesday, December 23, 2009
Yes, Madame Speaker, We are serious
No one's life, liberty, or property is safe while the legislature is in session. -- Mark Twain
To me it looked like a gang war. Groups of individuals lining up one one side or the other of some ill defined crucial territory; and inflicting violence on whoever gets in the crossfire. Unfortunately, there are 308,214,746 of us in the crossfire. Like the Crips and the Bloods, these gang members do not respect any of us or our property. Their's is a turf war where diktat politics is the goal, and our wealth is the ammunition.
The law stands against just about every action of the Crips and the Bloods, who have, incidentally, staked out turf in Washington DC. Apparently, more gangs have found a home there. What Congress is doing now is almost certainly unconstitutional. That is, against the fundamental law of the land. Still, it continues. The cops seem powerless.
Try telling a Blood that setting fire to a car is illegal. He'll probably ask "are you serious?".
So, when Nancy Pelosi was asked what the constitutionality of mandated health care was, she responded the same way.
My thought is that, yes, it's a very serious question, and one that really needs to be answered. No self respecting Crip is going to care what the law says about holding up liquor stores, but we should expect more from our elected representatives.
Hot Air has a good analysis of it here, and asks the question: "How difficult is it to cite the clause that enables Congress to impose a mandate on its citizens to spend money on anything but a tax?" Then explains how difficult it would be.
Sometime, very soon, the electorate is going to get serious on crime -- starting with the beltway..
Monday, November 09, 2009
Failure, Now Our Only Option
Failure is not an option. -- Gene Kranz, Apollo 13 Flight Director
It's almost always easier to pass a bill in the House than in the Senate. So the difficulties in the House show how tough it's going to be for us. But like the House, we'll succeed, because every Democrat, from the most liberal to the most conservative, knows that failure is not an option. -- Sen. Charles Schumer (D., N.Y.).
Look, the bottom line is, the American people, the American economy, and the federal budget have to have some sort of reforms in the health care system. And, you know failure is not an option this year. -- Barry H. Obama (8/5/2009), responding to the following question from NBCs Chuck Todd: "If you're going to get something passed, you're going to get it passed any way you can?"
...That failure is not an option because millions of Americans are watching their premiums skyrocket. - Robert Gibbs, ABC This Week
These people are putting out all the dramatic stops now. That's proof right there that this idea is too dumb to move itself along an orderly process. The pattern for this administration is to hurry into things that won't take place for years to come. Obviously they will all be gone byt the time the consequences are known, and those consequences will be many. Among them,
Lower quality health care.
More expensive healthcare.
Budgetary disaster.
Fewer doctors.
More lawyers.
Fewer Choices.
More Bureacrats.
Unfortunately, once the government gets rolling in a direction, thyey have to claim some sort of victory, so we will get a health care bill; and whatever size and scope it turns out to be it will be the wrong thing to do.
So, I have to agree...failure is not an option, it's a dead certainty.
It's almost always easier to pass a bill in the House than in the Senate. So the difficulties in the House show how tough it's going to be for us. But like the House, we'll succeed, because every Democrat, from the most liberal to the most conservative, knows that failure is not an option. -- Sen. Charles Schumer (D., N.Y.).
Look, the bottom line is, the American people, the American economy, and the federal budget have to have some sort of reforms in the health care system. And, you know failure is not an option this year. -- Barry H. Obama (8/5/2009), responding to the following question from NBCs Chuck Todd: "If you're going to get something passed, you're going to get it passed any way you can?"
...That failure is not an option because millions of Americans are watching their premiums skyrocket. - Robert Gibbs, ABC This Week
These people are putting out all the dramatic stops now. That's proof right there that this idea is too dumb to move itself along an orderly process. The pattern for this administration is to hurry into things that won't take place for years to come. Obviously they will all be gone byt the time the consequences are known, and those consequences will be many. Among them,
Lower quality health care.
More expensive healthcare.
Budgetary disaster.
Fewer doctors.
More lawyers.
Fewer Choices.
More Bureacrats.
Unfortunately, once the government gets rolling in a direction, thyey have to claim some sort of victory, so we will get a health care bill; and whatever size and scope it turns out to be it will be the wrong thing to do.
So, I have to agree...failure is not an option, it's a dead certainty.
Tuesday, October 20, 2009
Not a Healthy Development
I predict future happiness for Americans if they can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them. --
Thomas Jefferson
There is only one basic human right, the right to do as you damn well please. And with it comes the only basic human duty, the duty to take the consequences -- P.J. O'Rourke
I find myself troubled with where the argument is centered, more than anything. All the king's men, and all the kings Rinos are lined up behind the idea that government not only belongs in the debate, they should be running the show.
Lemmee see that copy of the constitution for a minute. Gotta be a few of these laying around the capitol somewhere. Lessee, promote general welfare. Hmm. anything else? No? See, that doesn't seem like enough of a charter to take over 1/6th of the economy. In fact, you would be hard pressed to even put up so much as an aspirin dispenser on that directive alone.
So having a discussion about this bill or that bill misses the point entirely. Government has no business in this health business, and should not be acting as if they do. If you need any further proof of that, see further: Medicare
Thomas Jefferson
There is only one basic human right, the right to do as you damn well please. And with it comes the only basic human duty, the duty to take the consequences -- P.J. O'Rourke
I find myself troubled with where the argument is centered, more than anything. All the king's men, and all the kings Rinos are lined up behind the idea that government not only belongs in the debate, they should be running the show.
Lemmee see that copy of the constitution for a minute. Gotta be a few of these laying around the capitol somewhere. Lessee, promote general welfare. Hmm. anything else? No? See, that doesn't seem like enough of a charter to take over 1/6th of the economy. In fact, you would be hard pressed to even put up so much as an aspirin dispenser on that directive alone.
So having a discussion about this bill or that bill misses the point entirely. Government has no business in this health business, and should not be acting as if they do. If you need any further proof of that, see further: Medicare
Monday, October 12, 2009
Counting on the Census
Representatives and direct taxes shall be apportioned among the several states which may be included within this union, according to their respective numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole number of free persons, including those bound to service for a term of years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons. The actual Enumeration shall be made within three years after the first meeting of the Congress of the United States, and within every subsequent term of ten years, in such manner as they shall by law direct. The number of Representatives shall not exceed one for every thirty thousand, but each state shall have at least one Representative; and until such enumeration shall be made, the state of New Hampshire shall be entitled to chuse three, Massachusetts eight, Rhode Island and Providence Plantations one, Connecticut five, New York six, New Jersey four, Pennsylvania eight, Delaware one, Maryland six, Virginia ten, North Carolina five, South Carolina five, and Georgia three. -- Article I, section 2, US Constitution.
For many years, voluntary compliance has been falling. In anticipation of this problem, the Census Bureau has been relying on wholly owned sectors of society to propagandize for its campaign. The Sesame Street character named Count von Count is touring public schools to tell the kids to tell their parents to fill out the census, even as more than 1 million census kits have been sent to public schools around the country. Think of it as the state using children to manipulate their parents into becoming volunteers in the civic planning project. -- “The Census and Despotism” by Llewellyn H. Rockwell, Jr.
I have more than a few issues with the census. Not any more than Lew Rockwell, of course (I'm a mere amateur), but I have a slightly different take. I don't necessarily oppose the census because it is an unconstitutional invasion of privacy, although I could defend that position. Here's my issue: The sheer inefficiency of our approach, coupled with the potential for abuse.
1. Many people do not want to be counted. Others insist these people should be counted anyway. Some feel these folks should be counted even if they can't be found.
The census has become another system for legalized theft. Because "direct taxes" are apportioned by the census, the opportunity for abuse is very high. As a result, we have much overcounting, and many thousands of people with Mickey-Mouse-names on our census roles. People are paid by our government and by its enemies to make up these entries.
Even if it weren't for this, paying stenographers to find people who do not want to be found can hardly be a good use of federal money, can it?
Here's The Wizer's plan:
Have anyone who wants to be counted show up in person to the county clerk's office, show ID and fill out a form for all members of the household. Anyone who does not show up, simply does not care to be catalogued in this fashion, and should be left alone.
It should be no easier to be counted as a citizen than going to the polls on election day. People who do this are the real citizens, and should be the ones counted. Those who don't care to show up are not exercising their right to be counted as citizens; and they probably have a very good reason for it. I say leave them alone.
For many years, voluntary compliance has been falling. In anticipation of this problem, the Census Bureau has been relying on wholly owned sectors of society to propagandize for its campaign. The Sesame Street character named Count von Count is touring public schools to tell the kids to tell their parents to fill out the census, even as more than 1 million census kits have been sent to public schools around the country. Think of it as the state using children to manipulate their parents into becoming volunteers in the civic planning project. -- “The Census and Despotism” by Llewellyn H. Rockwell, Jr.
I have more than a few issues with the census. Not any more than Lew Rockwell, of course (I'm a mere amateur), but I have a slightly different take. I don't necessarily oppose the census because it is an unconstitutional invasion of privacy, although I could defend that position. Here's my issue: The sheer inefficiency of our approach, coupled with the potential for abuse.
1. Many people do not want to be counted. Others insist these people should be counted anyway. Some feel these folks should be counted even if they can't be found.
The census has become another system for legalized theft. Because "direct taxes" are apportioned by the census, the opportunity for abuse is very high. As a result, we have much overcounting, and many thousands of people with Mickey-Mouse-names on our census roles. People are paid by our government and by its enemies to make up these entries.
Even if it weren't for this, paying stenographers to find people who do not want to be found can hardly be a good use of federal money, can it?
Here's The Wizer's plan:
Have anyone who wants to be counted show up in person to the county clerk's office, show ID and fill out a form for all members of the household. Anyone who does not show up, simply does not care to be catalogued in this fashion, and should be left alone.
It should be no easier to be counted as a citizen than going to the polls on election day. People who do this are the real citizens, and should be the ones counted. Those who don't care to show up are not exercising their right to be counted as citizens; and they probably have a very good reason for it. I say leave them alone.
Wednesday, September 16, 2009
Diversity is Division
America is God's Crucible, the great Melting-Pot where all the races of Europe are melting and reforming... Germans and Frenchmen, Irishmen and Englishmen, Jews and Russians - into the Crucible with you all! God is making the American. -- Israel Zangwill
I hear that melting-pot stuff a lot, and all I can say is that we haven't melted. -- Jesse Jackson
The question invites itself. In what sense are we one nation and one people anymore? For what is a nation if not a people of a common ancestry, faith, culture and language, who worship the same God, revere the same heroes, cherish the same history, celebrate the same holidays, and share the same music, poetry, art and literature? Pat Buchanan
The article by Pat Buchanan prompted more thought about the nature of America. I grew up understanding America as a country where all people were and are created equal. All with unalienable rights, among them, life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. It seemed like everyone I met along the way had the same idea. That people should be allowed to choose their paths to happiness, and we were good with that. All our neighbors, black, white, arab, asian were like that too.
As time went by, I would find discontinuities in this simple landscape. I find for example that my right to pray in school, my right to pledge allegiance to this country in the venue of my choice, and even my right to call out a liar in the chambers of congress are challenged. Somewhere along the way people came along to poison the land with their ideas of conflict and oppression. Those who would restrict my rights are now all around us, indeed may even outnumber us. These are not Americans, nor do they want anyone else to be.
Whereas Americans respect the rights of other individuals to live their lives, those who would require others to buy health insurance, or to subsidize cars for their neighbors, can not rationally be referred to as Americans, except by virtue of their birth certificates (if that).
We invite immigrants to share in our freedoms every day and in large numbers. We only ask that they respect our laws, respect our institutions, and respect our fellow citizens. We have no problem if people want to celebrate a 1966 manufactured holiday called Kwanzaa, even though its intent was to undermine and marginalize Christmas. Go, have your party, but let us have ours, too.
We don't really mind if people speak their native tongue in their own homes; but only those who would keep them from being Americans would suggest that they be taught their primary studies in any language but English.
We celebrate diversity. What does that mean? We celebrate black people, white people, asian-americans, arab americans, jews, syrians, austrians and australians. It's a good thing. Polish people are proud, and with good reason. So it is with those whose heritage is important to them.
So why is everybody here? I will tell you. Everybody is here because it is the best place in the world for everybody to be. We want people to have the blessings of this society, yet we ensure that they are forever locked out by calling attention to their differences. Can we celebrate diversity without fomenting division? Perhaps not.
Diversity is Division.
Instead of arab americans, why aren't we just americans. Instead of african-americans, why not simply americans? Does any american wish he were back in africa? As irish americans or german americans, do we wish we were back in Ireland or Germany? Do we have one foot in each country? No, we choose and have chosen to be Americans. Why do we need special categories for people? It only emphasizes how we are different. Not how we are the same.
Only our similarities can define us as a nation. Fortunately, those similarities are vast, and the most important one is we love freedom. We share the belief that this is the best culture in the world of which to be a part. What more unification do we need than that?
If we don't start thinking about our "sames" instead of our "differences", people will continue touse it to divide us. They will say that the antidote to Bush is Obama (cue laugh track). They will say that government has to create equal results, because equal opportunity doesn't work. Americans, easy enough to spot, know this is not true.
And at some point, we need to talk about what's right for Americans. Not what's right for democrats or republicans. Not what's right for socialists or libertarians. Not what's right for progressives or conservatives, rich or poor, belly button in or belly button out. It's time to reject the politics of division, of race, of ethnicity, of ideology, of all kinds. It's time to rise up for what's right for Hoosiers, for Michiganders, for Americans.
It is what brings us all together here.
I hear that melting-pot stuff a lot, and all I can say is that we haven't melted. -- Jesse Jackson
The question invites itself. In what sense are we one nation and one people anymore? For what is a nation if not a people of a common ancestry, faith, culture and language, who worship the same God, revere the same heroes, cherish the same history, celebrate the same holidays, and share the same music, poetry, art and literature? Pat Buchanan
The article by Pat Buchanan prompted more thought about the nature of America. I grew up understanding America as a country where all people were and are created equal. All with unalienable rights, among them, life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. It seemed like everyone I met along the way had the same idea. That people should be allowed to choose their paths to happiness, and we were good with that. All our neighbors, black, white, arab, asian were like that too.
As time went by, I would find discontinuities in this simple landscape. I find for example that my right to pray in school, my right to pledge allegiance to this country in the venue of my choice, and even my right to call out a liar in the chambers of congress are challenged. Somewhere along the way people came along to poison the land with their ideas of conflict and oppression. Those who would restrict my rights are now all around us, indeed may even outnumber us. These are not Americans, nor do they want anyone else to be.
Whereas Americans respect the rights of other individuals to live their lives, those who would require others to buy health insurance, or to subsidize cars for their neighbors, can not rationally be referred to as Americans, except by virtue of their birth certificates (if that).
We invite immigrants to share in our freedoms every day and in large numbers. We only ask that they respect our laws, respect our institutions, and respect our fellow citizens. We have no problem if people want to celebrate a 1966 manufactured holiday called Kwanzaa, even though its intent was to undermine and marginalize Christmas. Go, have your party, but let us have ours, too.
We don't really mind if people speak their native tongue in their own homes; but only those who would keep them from being Americans would suggest that they be taught their primary studies in any language but English.
We celebrate diversity. What does that mean? We celebrate black people, white people, asian-americans, arab americans, jews, syrians, austrians and australians. It's a good thing. Polish people are proud, and with good reason. So it is with those whose heritage is important to them.
So why is everybody here? I will tell you. Everybody is here because it is the best place in the world for everybody to be. We want people to have the blessings of this society, yet we ensure that they are forever locked out by calling attention to their differences. Can we celebrate diversity without fomenting division? Perhaps not.
Diversity is Division.
Instead of arab americans, why aren't we just americans. Instead of african-americans, why not simply americans? Does any american wish he were back in africa? As irish americans or german americans, do we wish we were back in Ireland or Germany? Do we have one foot in each country? No, we choose and have chosen to be Americans. Why do we need special categories for people? It only emphasizes how we are different. Not how we are the same.
Only our similarities can define us as a nation. Fortunately, those similarities are vast, and the most important one is we love freedom. We share the belief that this is the best culture in the world of which to be a part. What more unification do we need than that?
If we don't start thinking about our "sames" instead of our "differences", people will continue touse it to divide us. They will say that the antidote to Bush is Obama (cue laugh track). They will say that government has to create equal results, because equal opportunity doesn't work. Americans, easy enough to spot, know this is not true.
And at some point, we need to talk about what's right for Americans. Not what's right for democrats or republicans. Not what's right for socialists or libertarians. Not what's right for progressives or conservatives, rich or poor, belly button in or belly button out. It's time to reject the politics of division, of race, of ethnicity, of ideology, of all kinds. It's time to rise up for what's right for Hoosiers, for Michiganders, for Americans.
It is what brings us all together here.
Thursday, September 10, 2009
Thursday, September 03, 2009
Next Man Up
If you see a snake, just kill it - don't appoint a committee on snakes. --
Ross Perot
Eagles don't flock, you have to find them one at a time.
Ross Perot
The latest polls confirm what many of us have known since November; that people did not get "what they voted for". More importantly, it is now more obvious that simply voting for the other guy doesn't get the job done either.
Your Wizer believes this opens up an opportunity for someone to demonstrate a difference and earn the country's elective support.
I heard a radio host talk yesterday about Bush's numbers were low, and in the course of the discussion compared them to Obama's sinking ratings. He did miss the point of the low Bush numbers. It had more to do with the ineptness of compassionate conservatism and misguided nation building than matters directly related to the war, but it started the portion of my brain that deals with hindsight.
My point is that people wanted the alternative to Bush, and were horrified to learn ever since then what that meant. Surely there is room for more than two interpretations of the future; especially when these two were so darned similar. The Bush Obama Recession continues. Meanwhile, some rather good systems are left untried. For example: Capitalism, we should try that. Rugged individualism. That would be a good system. Federalism, when properly applied. Constitutionalism would work. Even Anarchy is better than what we have now. What we have now goes by many names, but by my reckoning it is pretty close to National Socialism.
I think if someone were to stand up and defend the constitution, he'd have better than a Ross Perot's chance at being elected.
Ross Perot
Eagles don't flock, you have to find them one at a time.
Ross Perot
The latest polls confirm what many of us have known since November; that people did not get "what they voted for". More importantly, it is now more obvious that simply voting for the other guy doesn't get the job done either.
Your Wizer believes this opens up an opportunity for someone to demonstrate a difference and earn the country's elective support.
I heard a radio host talk yesterday about Bush's numbers were low, and in the course of the discussion compared them to Obama's sinking ratings. He did miss the point of the low Bush numbers. It had more to do with the ineptness of compassionate conservatism and misguided nation building than matters directly related to the war, but it started the portion of my brain that deals with hindsight.
My point is that people wanted the alternative to Bush, and were horrified to learn ever since then what that meant. Surely there is room for more than two interpretations of the future; especially when these two were so darned similar. The Bush Obama Recession continues. Meanwhile, some rather good systems are left untried. For example: Capitalism, we should try that. Rugged individualism. That would be a good system. Federalism, when properly applied. Constitutionalism would work. Even Anarchy is better than what we have now. What we have now goes by many names, but by my reckoning it is pretty close to National Socialism.
I think if someone were to stand up and defend the constitution, he'd have better than a Ross Perot's chance at being elected.
Sunday, August 30, 2009
RIP Ted Kennedy
We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction. -- Edward Kennedy
It's now clear that from the very moment President Bush took office, Iraq was his highest priority as unfinished business from the first Bush Administration. His agenda was clear: find a rationale to get rid of Saddam. -- Edward Kennedy
He (Kennedy) was good company. Excellent company. I think I'm going to miss him more than I can say. -- John McCain
Ted was a big government liberal which as you know by now is the worst possible kind. I was trying to chart this week how he came to be such a communist weinie from what was a fairly normal political juggernaut. It wasn't the influence of his brothers, because as near as I can determine, JFKs conservatism and RFKs law and order persona did not translate to Teddy's world.
Maybe at some level Teddy reached the point where he needed redemption, and went to the chapel of the New York Times to get his religion.
Ever since then (and to borrow the terminology of Bostonians) he had a wicked bad voting record. He was a hypocrite, even by modern Washington standards. His manipulation of the senate succession process in 2004 and attempt to do so again in 2009 is the last final evidence of this.
Teddy's biggest triumph was in compromising people like Bush, McCain, and Hatch. He took a bunch of false progressive premises and found one sucker after another on the so-called right to act as a co-signer. The trouble is we are all now saddled with the payment book from these "bipartisan boondoggles".
RIP Teddy. You gamed the system, and the people of Massachusetts about as completely as it can be done.
It's now clear that from the very moment President Bush took office, Iraq was his highest priority as unfinished business from the first Bush Administration. His agenda was clear: find a rationale to get rid of Saddam. -- Edward Kennedy
He (Kennedy) was good company. Excellent company. I think I'm going to miss him more than I can say. -- John McCain
Ted was a big government liberal which as you know by now is the worst possible kind. I was trying to chart this week how he came to be such a communist weinie from what was a fairly normal political juggernaut. It wasn't the influence of his brothers, because as near as I can determine, JFKs conservatism and RFKs law and order persona did not translate to Teddy's world.
Maybe at some level Teddy reached the point where he needed redemption, and went to the chapel of the New York Times to get his religion.
Ever since then (and to borrow the terminology of Bostonians) he had a wicked bad voting record. He was a hypocrite, even by modern Washington standards. His manipulation of the senate succession process in 2004 and attempt to do so again in 2009 is the last final evidence of this.
Teddy's biggest triumph was in compromising people like Bush, McCain, and Hatch. He took a bunch of false progressive premises and found one sucker after another on the so-called right to act as a co-signer. The trouble is we are all now saddled with the payment book from these "bipartisan boondoggles".
RIP Teddy. You gamed the system, and the people of Massachusetts about as completely as it can be done.
Sunday, August 02, 2009
Market Intervention and Unintended Consequences.
Beware the greedy hand of government, thrusting itself into every corner and crevice of industry. — Thomas Paine
Depressions and mass unemployment are not caused by the free market but by government interference in the economy. – Ludwig von Mises
The government solution to a problem is usually as bad as the problem. – Milton Friedman
Let's examine the Cash for Clunkers program, shall we?
A billion dollars to "retire" 250,000 so-called clunkers. Another 2-3 billion on the way.
Our government creates the conditions under which the automotive industry is nearly bankrupted; forks over a bunch of money to own the car companies. Then needs to do their own "incentive plans". It's presented as important legislation, and applauded by every lawmaker in Michigan.
As usual, there are some unintended consequences.
First, they previously created a great deal of pent up demand by sucking all the capital flow out of the markets, causing everybody to delay their next vehicle purchas another year.
Then, with this program, they cause 250,000 perfectly functional cars to be physically removed from the market. Who does this help? People who were looking for one more reason to buy a car now. Let's say their trade was worth $2000. They get 3500 for it instead. Okay, a net gain of 1500 dollars.
But guess what? Now there's $2000 car that won't go to auction, and won't be available for another buyer... perhaps a student leaving for his first semester away at school. His parents now have to pay an inflated rate. Since there are no $2000 cars (due to the government scrap program), They are forced to bid up the price of any available $2000 dollar cars.
So the government has very clearly picked a winner (new car buyer), and a loser (entry level used car buyer). For every "winner" the government picks, they have to pick losers.
Another winner: The new car dealer.
Another loser. The used car dealer. Remember, a lot of these guys WERE new car dealers until this year. Now they have to tie up more capital bidding up what few used cars actually make it to auction.
Who else wins? The vehicle manufacturers. Some car plants will run a few more weeks than they might have this fall.
Who else loses? The spare parts business - - all these decommissioned cars no longer available for scrap value.
Finally, I wonder if anyone keeps track of the resources and energy necessary to build a new car vs. the cost of the gasoline to drive the old one for another year.
I for one am very tired of the government picking winners and losers, because it eventually makes losers out of all of us.
Depressions and mass unemployment are not caused by the free market but by government interference in the economy. – Ludwig von Mises
The government solution to a problem is usually as bad as the problem. – Milton Friedman
Let's examine the Cash for Clunkers program, shall we?
A billion dollars to "retire" 250,000 so-called clunkers. Another 2-3 billion on the way.
Our government creates the conditions under which the automotive industry is nearly bankrupted; forks over a bunch of money to own the car companies. Then needs to do their own "incentive plans". It's presented as important legislation, and applauded by every lawmaker in Michigan.
As usual, there are some unintended consequences.
First, they previously created a great deal of pent up demand by sucking all the capital flow out of the markets, causing everybody to delay their next vehicle purchas another year.
Then, with this program, they cause 250,000 perfectly functional cars to be physically removed from the market. Who does this help? People who were looking for one more reason to buy a car now. Let's say their trade was worth $2000. They get 3500 for it instead. Okay, a net gain of 1500 dollars.
But guess what? Now there's $2000 car that won't go to auction, and won't be available for another buyer... perhaps a student leaving for his first semester away at school. His parents now have to pay an inflated rate. Since there are no $2000 cars (due to the government scrap program), They are forced to bid up the price of any available $2000 dollar cars.
So the government has very clearly picked a winner (new car buyer), and a loser (entry level used car buyer). For every "winner" the government picks, they have to pick losers.
Another winner: The new car dealer.
Another loser. The used car dealer. Remember, a lot of these guys WERE new car dealers until this year. Now they have to tie up more capital bidding up what few used cars actually make it to auction.
Who else wins? The vehicle manufacturers. Some car plants will run a few more weeks than they might have this fall.
Who else loses? The spare parts business - - all these decommissioned cars no longer available for scrap value.
Finally, I wonder if anyone keeps track of the resources and energy necessary to build a new car vs. the cost of the gasoline to drive the old one for another year.
I for one am very tired of the government picking winners and losers, because it eventually makes losers out of all of us.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)