Reporting to you from the heart of SNOWMAGEDDON!!!, the snowfall in DC is just now tapering off, leaving a heavy blanket of upwards of up to 20+ inches in its wake.
It’s customary to make fun of Washington for shutting down completely at the slightest dusting of snow, but I think by the time you hit two feet of accumulation, it’s pretty understandable that stuff just isn’t going to happen here. Plus, it’s Saturday.
Unfortunately for anti-government activists, the DC shutdown will probably only last through Monday and thereafter the wheels of the State will continue to turn in their depressing fashion.
Those looking for salvation from the RNC are likely to be disappointed. I can’t agree with my colleague Karl’s optimism about the recent noise being made from the bowels of RNC officialdom about withdrawing support from candidates who don’t hew closely to the 2008 Republican platform.
Of course, the Republican party has been an unmitigated disaster to conservatism in America.
Just take a look at that platform that’s supposed to be the basis for ideological cleansing. Section One: “Defending Our Nation, Supporting Our Heroes, Securing the Peace.” Translation: maintaining the aggressive, expansionist foreign policy that has been at the heart of exploding government spending, the curtailment of civil liberties under a bipartisan national security state, and the unprecedented expansion of the military-industrial complex.
Meanwhile, vague platitudes about “reducing spending” and “reforming the budget process” serve as promises to tinker with, not demolish, the corrupt fusion of the State with corporate interests that has resulted in the wholesale robbery of trillions of taxpayers’ dollars by corporate elites — under the watch of Democrats and Republicans alike.
What would the consequence be of a successful purge of non-GOP-approved candidates? For one thing, the promising candidacies of such genuine anti-government figures as Rand Paul and Peter Schiff would have been strangled in their cribs.
Unifying behind “GOP values” would spell the end of reform, not the beginning, and would represent a betrayal of the grass-roots Tea Party phenomenon, constitutionalism, and traditionalist conservatism. It comes down to this: You can’t be anti-government and pro-Empire. The cause of liberty won’t be furthered by strengthening the RNC leadership — instead, it must be overthrown.
The particulars are starting to appear less thrilling than Uncle Barry’s promises at first appeared at the SOTU.
For example: the second stimulus proposal appears to be simply another TARP for smaller banks, most of which only carry around 80% debt (as compared to the Big Boys, who carry around 92%). The small banks don’t want it, and they will sit on it rather than loan it, just like the Big Boys did. Anyone out there building a new high-rise because you got a loan in the past six months? Didn’t think so. Neither will anyone be financing all new office furniture, office equipment, tools, raw materials like wire or PVC with any new loans from the new “stimulus.” Example 2: the hinted at nuclear power plant boom is apparently contingent on Republicans playing ball and voting for crap-and-tax, er, cap-and-trade. Sure, the two “could” be separated. And Uncle Barry might sprout a third arm and use it to reach across the aisle, too. Example 3: targeted tax cuts (which won’twork) attached to the dangling carrot of capital gains rate reductions. Along with those few select rate cuts are other rate hikes and permanent extensions of further entitlements for the dependent class in the form of “tax cuts” for people who never pay them to begin with (i.e., more spending under the moniker “tax cut.”) Aren’t words wonderful things, Humpty-Dumpty?
The last year of this first decade of the 21st century will bring us many challenges and, D.v., many blessings as well. Speaking for my part, I resolve to strive for constructive policy recommendations along with my typical criticisms. Conservatives face a tremendous opportunity to once again, as Buckley once said, stand athwart history yelling “Stop!” And it is clear that they must be stopped: those forces of destruction, confiscation, redistribution, secular salvation, usurpation, and tyranny. The question before us, as has been handily demonstrated in the recent past here at CD is, “what is conservatism?” How shall we then live? What methodologies will we need to adapt and resurrect to counteract these agents of “change”? Whom shall we trust to carry our standard? What, in short, is a credo by which we can measure all our rhetoric and action?
Peril abounds, as it always has. Folk wisdom tells us not to bash a bee hive with a creek rock. Doubtless, the occasional sting will occur, even with due caution in the apiary. Such stings do not imply that the caution we were exercising was inappropriate or should be jettisoned in a fury of pain and trauma. Especially when an epinephrine pen won’t work to prevent the anaphylaxis anymore.
Debt looms insanely large, and yet more and more clamoring is heard from old and new quarters. A serious audit of the books is due, and serious cutbacks are not only necessary but inevitable, regardless of how they come. Borrowing billions to send $50 billion annually in foreign “aid” is no longer feasible. We have long since shifted from a manufacturing and production economy, and thus the idea that we as a country can or should take on the burdens of other countries is as ridiculous as taking out a third mortgage on my house to pay my neighbors’ cable and electric bills. That’s one slice of a tragically large pie that has to be — finally — served.
Lastly, liberty should not be spoken of apart from attendant responsibilities, because it is derived therefrom. We are created beings, social beings, and the most basic duties we have are to the One Who created us and to those whom we are familially and then societally related. It is inside those boundaries that we are truly free from fear, from want, and from oppression.
We have our work cut out for us, friends and readers. Let us get to splitting the wood.
I mean, really? Bernanke “is the principal architect of the government’s interventions in the banking industry during the financial crisis. That intervention probably represented the best available course of action in the circumstances, and it very likely averted a much worse recession… .” New Deal Republicans stand by their man.
Furthermore: “Bernanke has earned himself some enemies — enemies to be proud of [sic].” So, because Ron Paul doesn’t like you, you’re a genius? That’s the standard at NRO these days, it would appear. No, “the first order of business for Bernanke and the Fed is to lead the slow return to financial normalcy while standing ready to mitigate the effects of any unexpected economic shocks that may come… …to press for radical restructuring at the Fed, as Paul and Frank do, is hazardous.”
We must maintain the status quo in order to prevent the disastrous results we can necessarily expect from having, well, instituted that very status quo. Don’t you ninnies get it? Back to work, serfs, and spend EVERY DIME we graciously give you, whether earned or extended through whatever credit we deign to leak to you!
And the icing on the cake: NRO schlocks calling Ron Paul for being “a little dishonest” because, even though he makes no bones about wanting to abolish the Fed, somehow his initial tactic of calling for a full, independent audit as a first step in that direction is just disingenuous and mean. Poor Ben. Poor, poor Ben. He’s got all of these problems – the weight of the financial world – on his shoulders, and he’s got a “puritanical libertarian” [I swear they juxtaposed those terms] and a corrupt homosexual politician asking unfriendly question about what he’s doing with Americans’ life savings, tax revenues, and interest rates! The horror!
While conceding that we “wouldn’t know it to hear Bernanke speak lately,” he is really busy trying to maintain low prices [obviously for "consumers" in our "consumer economy" in which we are all simply supposed to "consume" and "consume."]. “For the past many decades, that has come to mean keeping a damper on inflation, a critically important task. We have severe unemployment and jaw-dropping deficits that Democrats are laboring mightily to make worse. The dollar and the creditworthiness of the U.S. government are objects of skepticism, and a serious spike in inflation would exacerbate that.” Nevermind that Ron Paul’s other crazy ideas would counteract inflation far better (indeed, the usual canard is that he would cause hysteria-inducing, starvation-causing “deflation”). No, any stick at hand with which to beat a straw man.
They caution us that “a central bank in thrall to the short-term political needs of congressmen would be a catastrophe.” Indeed, it would. And that is actually what we have today. Because the money behind those short-sighted congressmen which keeps them in power is the money that is coming from and simultaneously keeping afloat that very central bank. And who, precisely, do the editors of the magazine-formerly-known-as-the-premiere-conservative-periodical think Paul wants doing the audit? Other Congressmen or the CBO? Something – a hunch, call it – tells me Ron might be thinking more along the lines of independent, contracted, professional forensic accountants.
“Independence is the Fed’s characteristic virtue, as solvency is the FDIC’s and creditworthiness is the Treasury’s.” Oooops, bad choice of analogies. (“The FDIC’s Deposit Insurance Fund, which protects bank deposits, fell below zero in the third quarter of this year. Fifty U.S. banks failed, taking the fund down to negative $8.2 billion. It’s only the second time in the agency’s history that it has slipped into the red.” says the NPR article.)
Maybe when the kids at NRO finish prep school, they’ll have a little more clarity and credibility.
With respect to the establishment of a military, our constitution provides that Congress has the authority to levy taxes to “provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States” and
To declare war, grant letters of marque and reprisal, and make rules concerning captures on land and water;
To raise and support armies, but no appropriation of money to that use shall be for a longer term than two years;
To provide and maintain a navy;
To make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces.
The president is imbued with the authority to implement military strategy in his role as commander-in-chief of the military by Article II, Section 1 of the constitution.
Clearly, the raising and equipping of a military force is authorized by the constitution. What the constitution does not say is how that military is to be used. In the debates that led to the adoption of our constitution, issues surrounding the raising of armies and navies were hotly contested. Generally the debating parties fell into one of two camps: the Federalists and the anti-Federalists.
The Federalist position on the military was mainly represented by Alexander Hamilton’s writings. In Federalist 23, Hamilton argued that the federal government should be imbued with an unlimited authority to raise armies and navies “for the common defence.” Nonetheless, it was clear from his writings that the military’s role was defensive, that the military should be powerful enough to address any contingency in order to deter aggression from other quarters. Hamilton saw the American people as essentially a commercial people rather than an imperial or martial people. In Federalist 34, he stated:
But if we mean to be a commercial people, it must form a part of our policy, to be able one day to defend that commerce. The support of a navy, and of naval wars must baffle all the efforts of political arithmetic admitting that we ought to try the novel and absurd experiment in politics, of tying up the hands of Government from offensive war, founded upon reasons of state: Yet, certainly we ought not to disable it from guarding the community against the ambition or enmity of other Nations.
Clearly, the idea of engaging in offensive wars was an absurd notion to Hamilton, who believed that the military’s role should be to protect our nation’s commerce from attack. Continue Reading »
Article I, Section 8 of the United States Constitution (see Dead Letter) defines the powers of Congress. It reads:
Section 8. The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;
To borrow money on the credit of the United States;
To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes;
To establish a uniform rule of naturalization, and uniform laws on the subject of bankruptcies throughout the United States;
To coin money, regulate the value thereof, and of foreign coin, and fix the standard of weights and measures;
To provide for the punishment of counterfeiting the securities and current coin of the United States;
To establish post offices and post roads;
To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries;
To constitute tribunals inferior to the Supreme Court;
To define and punish piracies and felonies committed on the high seas, and offenses against the law of nations;
To declare war, grant letters of marque and reprisal, and make rules concerning captures on land and water;
To raise and support armies, but no appropriation of money to that use shall be for a longer term than two years;
To provide and maintain a navy;
To make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces;
To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions;
To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States, reserving to the states respectively, the appointment of the officers, and the authority of training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;
To exercise exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten miles square) as may, by cession of particular states, and the acceptance of Congress, become the seat of the government of the United States, and to exercise like authority over all places purchased by the consent of the legislature of the state in which the same shall be, for the erection of forts, magazines, arsenals, dockyards, and other needful buildings;–And
To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof.
I’m afraid that if the House’s arrogation of powers not delegated to them stands, even the most obtuse of us will come to the (belated) realization that the United States is not a free country and its citizens are but slaves the fruits of whose labors are enjoyed by their slavers.
President Obama is reported to have “decried” the media frenzy over angry protesters showing up at meetings all over the country concerned, and in many cases more informed than their representatives, about the current health care reform bill. This, from a man known for subtle and not-so-subtle criticisms of ordinary Americans (who cling to their religion and guns, the fools) was droll.
President Obama and his fellow Democrats across town at the Rayburn and Hart Buildings are reported to be extremely nervous about recent polling data showing a tremendously precipitous decline in public support and confidence in their ability to affect the kinds of change they voted for, namely an end to a reckless foreign policy and worrisome deficits, which the White House recently admitted were going to be $2 trillion more over the next decade than previously announced, skyrocketing from $7 trillion to $9 trillion. This kind of spending is beyond comprehension. It is outrageous and sickening. The continuation of essentially the same foreign policies as the last 3 administrations, the continuation of the same fiscal and monetary policies, the astonishing non-reform of credit-default swaps among the “too big to fail” but now record-profits-making financial sector, and so on, are all hastening the impending collapse of the world’s remaining superpower. The threatened takeover of the healthcare system, price-fixing, socialist income-levelling of doctors, and non-reform of insurance protection rackets companies are awakening the slumbering middle American like nothing since September 11, 2001.
That the constant media coverage of the public outrage has towed the White House barge onto the shoals of bill-killing sandbars is now apparent. The leftists in the editorial rooms have obeisantly published finger-wagging and the occasional mention of Sarah Palin’s tweets while steadfastly refusing to investigate the meaning of the actual content of the proposed legislation. Americans can access it for themselves in a fashion not possible on this scale 15 years ago. They do not like what they read. They are pointing out very valid concerns and huge 5-year-plan type language, and the Left has been forced to abandon one chief facet of their plan: the “public option.” While seemingly heartening, this is a ruse, a temporary setback in the Rahm Emanuel-designed hit-’em-from-7-sides strategy. As with every other leftist “compromise,” the ratchet will tighten. It just won’t be cranked up 4 clicks.
When I worked for a legal document management and reproduction company, we were often sent large jobs to provide legislators at the statehouse with copies of proposed legislation — from a huge law firm in town. The lawyers there wrote the bills, lobbied to find “sponsors,” and then gave the general assembly the materials needed to discuss and review the new laws. It happened all the time. Does anyone imagine that a hydra like the current healthcare bill is any different? This, friends, is not republicanism, it is not representative democracy, it is not American. It must stop. We must demand a return to constitutional government and expect responsible behavior from our elected officials. It starts with anger like we’re seeing today, but it is accomplished when emotions are set aside and rational examination of the sausage-making takes place.
Peter Schiff has a new article out cataloguing the misery that is coming down the pike. In 1979, Milton and Rose Friedman wrote a book called Free to Choose: A Personal Statement. In it the Friedmans decribed the causes and remedies for inflation.
Five simple truths embody most of what we know about inflation:
1. Inflation is a monetary phenomenon arising from a more rapid increase in the quantity of money than in output (though, of course, the reasons for the increase in money may be various).
2. In today’s world government determines – or can determine – the quantity of money.
3. There is only one cure for inflation: a slower rate of increase in the quantity of money.
4. It takes time – measured in years, not months – for inflation to develop; it takes time for inflation to be cured.
5. Unpleasant side effects of the cure are unavoidable.
As Schiff notes in his article, the massive amounts of spending by GWB and Obama, abetted by Bernanke’s keeping interest rates exceptionally low, have conspired to increase the amount of money available in the market. As the Friedmans point out, any time the money supply increases at a rate faster than the supply of goods on which to dispose of that money, inflation results. Furthermore, as the Friedmans point out, it takes years to feel the effects of the government’s policies. Once the die is cast, however, the outcome is inevitable.
Like a doomed Greek hero, Bernanke believes he can avoid his fate. But, like Oedipus, no matter what gyrations Ben attempts his Uncle Sam is doomed. Moreover, the question that Schiff poses is whether Bernanke will have the balls to face down his government masters to impose the only solution that might work to fend off the approach of the Inflation Monster. As the Friedmans point out, government never takes responsibility for its role in creating the monster:
No government is willing to accept responsibility for producing inflation, even in less virulent degree. Government officials always find some excuse – greedy businessmen, grasping trade unions, spendthrift consumers, Arab sheikhs, bad weather, or anything else that seems even remotely plausible.
Moreover, the government actually benefits from high inflation. To give one example, today we have sold billions of dollars of debt to the Chinese. We take money from the Chinese, which is worth a dollar today to finance whatever projects we want to spend teh money on. In ten years, after a serious inflationary period, we pay them back with dollars which are worth very much less. The Chinese have been screwed and the government finds that it has borrowed money for nothing or better than nothing – they have paid us to finance our spending.
In the face of the large benefits to the government, does anyone really believe that Bernanke will be able to stand up to whoever sits in the Oval Office and tell him no? Sure, the consumer will have felt the pinch and may be hurting. But, the cure for inflation causes the economy to slow down. Would a president want to slow the economy when the people are feeling their economic woes so strongly? Not likely. And despite Ben’s assurances, it is likely he will not have the fortitude to face down the president, the people, and tell them, “This is for your own good. Take your medicine. It will make you better, even if you feel worse for a while.”
This country is in for some tough times ahead. GWB started it. Obama made it much worse and appears intent on heaping even more coal on the fire. The Friedmans liken an inflationary period to binge drinking:
A more instructive analogy is between inflation and alcoholism. When the alcoholic first starts drinking, the good effects come first; the bad effects only come the next morning when he wakes up with a hangover – and often cannot resist easing the hangover by taking “the hair of the dog that bit him.”
The parallel with inflation is exact. When a country first starts on an inflationary episode, the initial effects seem good. The increased quantity of money enables whoever has access to it – nowadays, primarily governments – to spend more without anybody else having to spend less. Jobs become more plentiful, business is brisk, almost everybody is happy – at first. Those are the good effects. But then the increased spending starts to raise prices; workers find that their wages, even if higher in dollars, will buy less; businessmen find that their costs have risen, so that the extra sales are not as profitable as they anticipated, unless they can raise their prices even faster. The bad effects start to emerge: higher prices, less buoyant demand, inflation combined with stagnation. As with the alcoholic, the temptation is to increase the quantity of money still faster, which produces a roller coaster was have been on. In both cases, it takes a larger and larger amount – of alcohol or money – to give the alcoholic or the economy the same “kick.”
The parallel between alcoholism and inflation carries over to the cure. The cure for alcoholism is simple to state: stop drinking. It is hard to take because, this time the bad effects come first, the good effects come later. The alcoholic who goes on the wagon suffers severe withdrawal pains before he emerges in the happy land of no longer having an almost irresistible desire for another drink. So also with inflation. The initial side effects of a slower rate of monetary growth are painful: lower economic growth, temporarily high unemployment, without, for a time, much reduction of inflation. The benefits appear only after one or two years or so, in the form of lower inflation, a healthier economy, the potential for rapid noninflationary growth.
It will be interesting to see if Bernanke has the wherewithal to resist the urge for a little nip when the hangover comes. His previous track record with the subprime fiasco indicate that he may have good intentions, but his judgment is not always sound. Bet on the occasional shot…just to get us through the night.
As Indiana’s own popular and successful Republican governor noted in May, it’s not only an unnecessary waste of money to accomplish nothing, but it’s an exploitative, provincial policy that, if it benefits anyone at all, only does so to the richest (and “faltering”) coastal states, while hurting the people it supposedly helps.
No surprise the out of touch Statists running the Democrat party want it so badly.
On the same day that Michael Jackson beat it for the great beyond, Pelosi and her cohort passed the largest tax increase in the history of history. Perhaps you missed it; the news tended to focus only on the passing of a pop singer of doubtful moral character to the exclusion of a number of other stories. Can anybody tell me what ever happened with that North Korean freighter that the U.S. Navy was bird-dogging? Anybody hear about the AMA revolting against Obama’s healthcare scheme? You might have heard that we won the war in Iraq. Maybe not. Did anyone hear that an American soldier was captured by the Taliban in Afghanistan this week? How about that Barack Obama’s nominee for the upcoming Supreme Court vacancy was overturned this week by that same Court?
If you can’t beat ‘em, I suppose, you join ‘em. So, I will show how even the the Michael Jackson estate would be affected by the Cap and Trade bill that the House of Representatives passed last week. But first, a little about the bill itself. The bill itself states that its purpose is ”[t]o create clean energy jobs, achieve energy independence, reduce global warming pollution and transition to a clean energy economy.” Some of that may need to be explained. For instance, global warming pollution is carbon dioxide – the same stuff you exhale. Indeed, each respirating organism on earth is now categorized as a polluter. For an idea of what “transitioning to a clean energy economy” looks like, take a look at Spain. Apparently, if we look at Spain, it is possible to create clean energy jobs, but each one will cost between $750,000 and $1.4 million and will cost 2.2 jobs in other areas per job created. On other hand, we will be saving the planet, right?
During the campaign, Obama also pledged that he would never raise taxes in any form on Americans making less than $250,000 per year. But his cap and trade tax is estimated to cost American families almost $2,000 a year when it becomes effective, growing to almost $7,000 a year for a family of four by 2035. That will be paid through higher prices for electricity, oil, gasoline, natural gas, home heating oil, coal, food, and every product that is produced or transported using energy.
In short the Cap and Trade proposal passed out of the House last week is a “Tax on Everything” – everything that uses energy. An interesting exercise is to try to think of anything that you purchase that requires no energy to produce, deliver, sell, or consume. The increased costs associated with that energy usage will be embedded in the price of every consumer good and service that Americans utilize. As a result, Americans will purchase fewer goods and services. If Americans purchase fewer goods and services, then companies who provide those goods and services will be forced to cut production (read: jobs). But, hey, we’re saving the planet.
One of my “favorite” provisions of the bill is in sections 201-203, which requires every State to adopt the building codes of California. (See ACES Sec. 201(c)(3) which reads “COMPLIANT CODE — For the purposes of meeting the target described in subsection (a)(1)(A) [which required that State's become compliant within one year of enactment] for residential buildings, a State that adopts the code represented in California’s Title 24-2009 by the date two years after the enactment of the American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009 shall be considered to have met the requirements of this subsection for the applicable period.”) The code then goes on to dictate to State legislatures the legislation it is required to pass and the timeline on which it is required to pass it. The States are to be denied federal funding from the Act if they are found to be noncompliant. Indeed, if the State fails to enforce compliant building codes within 2 years, the Secretary of Energy shall enforce the codes within that State.
The bill requires not only new buildings to satisfy whatever arbitrary standard the Secretary chooses, but it also places the burden on homeowners of existing houses to “retrofit” their property before they are allowed to sell them. This provision alone will place an incredible economic burden on homeowners whether they earn $250,000 or not. Their mobility, their choice of where to live, their ability to change jobs will be affected by this single onerous provision. But, we will gladly sacrifice our freedom because it’s saving the planet, right? I hope MJ installed new windows and an EnergyStar compliant furnace before he died, otherwise his estate’s going to get hit with a gigantic bill to retrofit Neverland Ranch before they can sell it and distribute the proceeds to his heirs.
There is plenty more where that came from in the bill that has nothing to do with the actual Cap and Trade bits and which are sure to raise the eyebrows (or ire) of anyone who loves his freedom. For instance, there is an entire section regulating outdoor lightbulbs to be brighter and last longer. There’s even a provision regulating the type of bulb one can use to illuminate their artwork, including mandating its color spectrum and power factor.
As mentioned earlier, outrageously, this bill passed the House of Representatives 219-212. Now the bill goes to the Senate. If the Senate passes the bill, it will become law. If the Senate passes any kind of compromise bill, it will go to conference and will become law in some form. The only hope now is that the Senate stops this bill dead. “Obi Wan Senati, you’re our only hope!”
After all that, I apologize, but I don’t really care how this bill will affect the Jackson estate. I can assure you it would be bad. But, thanks for all the MJ Googlers for stopping in.
Obama announced yesterday that Corporate Auto Fuel Economy (CAFE) standards would be raised to 35.5 miles per gallon by 2016. Mugging for the photo op, were Governors Jennifer Granholm (MI), Arnold Schwarzenegger (CA), and Deval Patrick(MA), each of whom presides over some of the worst economic conditions in their respective states and each having proven to be inept at balancing a budget. The president and governors were abetted by Union capo, Ron Gettelfinger and members of Congress. Smiles and backpats were the order of the day.
Meanwhile, I can’t help but wonder. ARE THEY INSANE? Haven’t we been hearing about the bad financial straits that the automakers have been suffering through recently? Why in the world would anyone do anything to increase the cost of their products when they are having a hard time selling their products as it is? One estimate is that the new standard will add $4,000 to $10,000 to the cost of each new vehicle. It seems the administration and his admirers have set out to destroy the automakers even as they lavish untold amounts of taxpayer monies upon them.
The model is not new. It seems that Obama is following a model in which you take a formerly productive member of society, promise to pay him money seized from other taxpayers, and meanwhile create roadblocks to allowing that member of society becoming productive again. This way, one can create a dependent constituency who, even if he realizes that he has become a slave and is being hurt by the “kindness” being shown him by his master, nonetheless can see no option but to vote to keep the checks coming. Obama seems to be offering the carrot to the automakers at the same time he is making more carrots more necessary.
The rational thing to do at this point when the automakers are struggling to survive would be to lighten the regulatory burden that Big Government has placed on them. Instead, it appears the federal government will be increasing the regulatory burden of 49 states, by exporting California’s repressive auto emission standards to the rest of the nation, further increasing the costs associated with the automakers’ products for the other 49.
None of this will be good for the automakers and it certainly will hurt the consumer on Main Street.
Much hullabaloo has been made in California over COLA… that is, cost of living adjustments. With our beautiful state in dire straits, many local governments (Los Angeles included) have asked public servant unions to fore-go their annual cost of living adjustments. I find this sort of thing outrageous. What right does a local government have to ask employees to fore-go what they contracted for so long ago? The whole point of a COLA is to ensure that the value of the dollar earned by the employee fairly reflects the cost of living in a given area. Asking civil servants to disregard their contracts in a fiscal emergency is unfair and an insult to the taxpayer.
It is my opinion that COLAs ought to be mandatory this year. The overall cost of both ownership and renting a family home has dropped dramatically over the past year. the price per gallon of gasoline is nearly half of the cost it was the year before. automobiles cost less, tangible personal property costs less. Almost everything is cheaper. The cost of living in California, especially Southern California, has dropped by margins unseen in modern history. I am all for the COLAs. By all rights, the union members deserve a downward COLA adjustment to reflect just how far a dollar earned can go.
This is a great visual of the $100 million that Obama has been urging his cabinet to trim from his bloated $3.5 trillion budget. The cuts are supposed to show the president’s commitment to “go line by line through the budget to cut spending” and “reform government.”
Yes. Very committed. Seeing the level of the president’s commitment, I am left only with Hope™ that government will somehow be reformed and spending truly cut. Right now the cuts seem to amount to chump Change™.
Thousands of people this evening voiced their displeasure with the level of the government’s spending and ultimately the taxes which will flow from it. Lest the critics charge that the dissatisfaction stems from Barack Obama’s blackness, let it be known that this discomfiture began with G.W. Bush, in particular when he passed Medicare Part D. The protest stems from Washington’s overreach into the average American’s pocket, regardless of the party who deems it necessary make the grab.
In Indianapolis tonight, it is estimated that nearly 3,000 people appeared on the Statehouse steps to protest Washington’s overreach.
Indy Tea Party
All across America taxpayers gathered to voice their opposition to the rampant spending program that promises to impoverish future generations of Americans. Meanwhile, the Department of Homeland Security released a document that defines the ultimate boundaries of extremism. It appears that:
Rightwing extremism in the United States can be broadly divided into those groups, movements, and adherents that are primarily hate-oriented (based on hatred of particular religious, racial or ethnic groups), and those that are mainly antigovernment, rejecting federal authority in favor of state or local authority, or rejecting government authority entirely. It may include groups and individuals that are dedicated to a single issue, such as opposition to abortion or immigration.
(emphasis supplied). In other words, if you believe that the Tenth Amendment is something other than an indecipherable inkblot, you are a right-wing extremist. Indeed, if you believe that America’s laws should be enforced, you are akin to an extremist militia member bent on the destruction of America:
Over the past five years, various rightwing extremists, including militias and white supremacists, have adopted the immigration issue as a call to action, rallying point,
and recruiting tool. Debates over appropriate immigration levels and enforcement policy generally fall within the realm of protected political speech under the First Amendment, but in some cases, anti-immigration or strident pro-enforcement fervor has been directed against specific groups and has the potential to turn violent.
Needless to say, if you attended one of the reactionary tea parties this evening, you can be sure that you qualify as a right-wing racist extremist. You probably hate America as evidenced by your love of the Constitution and all its provisions. Nothing is a surer barometer than that.
An interesting thing is happening over in Europe these days. It is no secret that the economic meltdown is of global proportions, but not every country has the luxury of throwing wads of cash at the problem. You see, when a country seeks to save the economy today by lavishing government largesse on the problem, it is essentially asking future generations to pick up the tab. But, what happens if the prospect of future generations is sketchy? That is the problem that Germany, Itlay, France and Russia face. With dwindling populations for as far as the eye can see, their hands are tied inasmuch as they cannot, in good conscious, spend future money. There simply won’t be anyone to pick up the bill down the line. Of course, they could dramatically increase immigration (mainly from Northern Africa and the Middle East), but the immigrants have to be aware that it is they who will be asked to pony up the cash. In that position, it is not hard to imagine the prospective immigrant opting for greener pastures – one where the population is still growing.
The United States has been hovering right around the replacement rate for about a decade – that is, we have as many babies as deaths, on average, each year. Simple math dicates that increased spending today (which we have emphatically committed ourselves to), will mean a large debt service per person for the babies being born today as compared to today’s taxpayer. In addition, we seem to be expanding the percentage of the population that pays no taxes (welfare recipients, in essence). As a result, the average taxpayer is already being asked to increase his support of his neighbors. Babies born today will face a double whammy then, as more people will be on the dole (including a segment of those same babies) and the debt will have increased. It does not take a rocket scientist to conclude that we need either 1) dramatically more babies; 2) more immigrants or 3) all of the above.
Perhaps, we could advance the argument: “For the welfare state, consider adoption.” Wouldn’t that leave the Lefties in a bind.
On Thursday, the House of Representatives voted 328-93 to impose a 90% tax on recipients of bonuses from taxpayer-supplied bailout monies. It is nice to see Congress suddenly concerned about taxpayer money for a change, or even that they recognize the money as coming from the taxpayer and not belonging to the government.
I suppose before I jump off into my rant, it is required that I offer the obligatory distancing speech from AIG. Here goes: What AIG did was reprehensible and there are plenty of bad actors among the leadership of that company that paying bonuses was questionable at best. Many of them don’t deserve bonuses for the harm their actions have wrought. However, I would stop short of suggesting that these execs fall on their swords.
Having said that, what in the hell was the House thinking? Sen. Christopher Dodd inserted a provision in the bailout contractually obligating AIG to pay bonuses to its executives (although Dodd is now pointing at Geithner as the guilty party, either way…). As a result, AIG paid out $165 milllion worth of the $173 billion it received in the bailout. (For those who don’t have a calculator handy, that’s less than 1/10th of 1%). The company was contractually obligated to make the payments and the Senate Banking Committee and Treasury Department were well aware of the fact. But, when folks like Barney Frank heard that AIG was paying out bonuses to its execs, the spittle began to fly and politicians across this great land began to grandstand and demogogue. They so whipped themselves into a frenzy, that they thought nothing of passing a bill of attainder in the House to recoup 90% of the bonuses. After all, let us not forget who that money really belongs to (and the right answer is not taxpayers). If AIG is going to try to give that money to people who are politically toxic, Congress has an obligation to reassert its authority over those funds – no matter how unconstitutional the measure it has to adopt.
The one comforting thing I think we can all take from this is the certainty that we can trust that this is limited to the bailout money. We should not worry that contracts have been imperiled by Congress’ act. We should go about our daily business entering into contracts freely, secure in the knowledge that, at least as long as the politicians approve of both parties to a particular contract and don’t perceive that any politically disfavored person is being enriched by the contract, that your contracts are perfectly safe from government interference.
If you think way back to late January, you may remember that the administration was touting its economic stimulus plan as the only means to “save or create” three to four million jobs. They warned that, with passage of the economic stimulus, the economy would still suffer with unemployment rising to between 8 and 9 percent; but without the stimulus, we were looking at 12% unemployment. Well, luckily, we passed the stimulus because, don’t look now, but the unemployment rate just hit 8.1%. If they weren’t shining us on, then we are at or near the bottom of this crisis. It appears we can all take a deep breath because Washington has saved us. We should expect the next report on housing will show that prices are recovering.
If one were to take the Sunday shows as any indication, there must have been a memo that went out amongst Republican Party stalwarts to do anything possible to put distance between the Party and Rush Limbaugh. And yet, when Rush showed up at the CPAC conference to make a speech, he elicited eight standing ovations and clearly energized the crowd. What is going on here?
Let us set aside for one moment the question of whether Rush espouses a doctrinally pure conservatism. I promise, for those of you who are frothing at the mouth to denounce his conservative heresies, we will talk about that at the end of this post.
At the outset, any fair minded person would have to acknowledge that the controversy with Rush was created by comments made by President Obama that the Republican Party needs to stop listening to Rush. From that moment, Republicans have scampered for cover, assuring anyone who would listen that Rush doesn’t speak for them. In the current vernacular, they are throwing Rush under the bus.
Sure, one could argue that Rush brought this upon himself by saying that he hoped President Obama would fail in his attempt at adoption of his economic (“socialist,” as Rush pronounced them) policies. If one would concede that, then one would have to concede that the Bush administration was the epitome of open-mindedness and tolerance given the fact that “comedians” like Bill Maher and Keith Olberman slandered the president’s character on a nightly basis. Does anyone remember George W. Bush or anyone in his administration warning Democrats that if they hoped to get along (read: pass any legislation) with the administration, they should denounce Maher et. al.? I don’t either. The phenomenon seems to be peculiar to the Obama administration – this penchant for attacking one’s critics in the media.
What is really puzzling is not that Obama and his minions would attack the administration’s detractors, the Left has a long history of these sorts of tactics. The real surprise is the Republicans’ willingness to follow Obama’s lead and cast off one of its most effective spokesmen. You may hate Limbaugh. But you cannot deny that he captures the attention of millions of Americans every day. In addition, on balance, I think even the most ardent detractors on the Right would acknowledge that Rush does more to promote conservative values than he does to destroy them. And they would easily acknowledge that Rush is less of a threat than Obama himself.
On this issue, that Republicans (or conservatives, if one has abandoned the party) should denounce Rush for his statement that he hopes Obama’s socialistic goals fail, I wonder what the right position is. Does Ron Paul hope that Barack Obama succeeds in pushing his Socialist agenda down Americans’ throats? Why would anyone denounce Rush for that stance? Because he has the temerity to say that he hopes a black man fails? I want to know what is at the root of this reaction. Why shouldn’t the masses support Rush on this issue? Why shouldn’t that sort of rhetoric propel butts out of auditorium seats in fits of wild applause? How can anyone defend as sane this late Republican impulse to distance oneself from such a stance? What does that say about the Republican Party that when Rush says he hopes Obama fails to turn this country into a Socialist Paradise that the Party feels compelled to denounce him?
To clean up a few other items: Did Rahm Emanual really just say that Obama is going to make the economy contract – for the good of America? At around 6:15, Rahm states:
The Republicans will have the opportunity not just to criticize, but to propose. And the question is: Will they continue the path of the seven years that got us to the point of – basically a culture of rising deficits and more and more consumer spending? This budget deficit – for this budget and economic program fundamentally changes the culture in this way – it rejects the past and says we are going to be a culture and a society that invests and saves.
Those comments appear to me to be a clear message from the Obama administration, that it is not at all concerned about growing the economy. If it were, consumer spending is one of the mainstay signs of a confident and expanding economy. Emanuel has stated that this administration is more interested in promoting saving and investment. It should probably be noted that when this administration says “investment,” it means that people should send their money to Washington and allow Washington to spend it on programs and projects which it deems worthy.
In the last week, the Dow Jones Industrials have been in a nosedive. And yet, it does not appear that the Obama administration is concerned in any way. Indeed, the nosedive is directly related to his policies. One way to look at the stock market is to see it as the “experts” opinion as to what the economy will look like in 9 months or a year. And yet, even after Obama passed his stimulus plan and witnessed a minor crash of the market in its wake, he has now proposed an unprecedented expansion in spending and sent the market once again into retreat. One can only conclude that Obama is not concerned about the market or about business, but rather is more interested in advancing his own agenda where the government assumes a larger and larger role in people’s lives. One clear example of this attitude can be seen in the fact that it appears that America will have the largest corporate tax rate on earth when all is said and done. The message is being sent: We do not want business in America. Let us all hope the Obama presidency is less than “successful.”
Obama has nominated a fourth tax dodger to his administration. Ron Kirk, former mayor of Dallas, failed to included a series of speaking fees in his income and he later claimed deduction for the cost of his season tickets to Dallas Maverick games! Kirk has since agreed to pay $10,000 in back taxes.
Change we can believe in? Nah, just the same old thieves and crooks Washington has always known. But what did you expect, an ethical politician from Chicago?
Add to that Doublethink: “Its not nationalization, its protecting the taxpayer’s interests.” A la Harry Reid discussing the potential take over of insolvent bank Citi Group by Uncle Sam. We can also include President Obama in the Ministry of Truth for his statement that he will slash the budget deficit in half. He said this on the heels of increasing the deficit by nearly a trillion dollars! Under Obama, the deficit climbed from $1.2 trillion or nearly $2 trillion and he hasn’t been president for even 100 days yet! Let me get this straight, we can only save ourselves by spending more and increasing the deficit, yet “We cannot simply spend as we please and defer the consequences.” Which is it, Mr. Obama?
I now leave you to spend some quality time with Jim Rogers.
RSS
It’s customary to make fun of Washington for shutting down completely at the slightest dusting of snow, but I think by the time you hit two feet of accumulation, it’s pretty understandable that stuff just isn’t going to happen here. Plus, it’s Saturday.
increase in the history of history. Perhaps you missed it; the news tended to focus only on the passing of a pop singer of doubtful moral character to the exclusion of a number of other stories. Can anybody tell me what ever happened with that 
