It's bad enough that the TSA demands to take naked pictures of us, or subjects us to invasive "pat downs", which includes fondling breasts and rubbing genitalia. Now they've truly outdone themselves.
TSA director, James Marchand recently issued an official directive to TSA agents ordering them to turn the "pat downs" into some kind of game for children.
"Try to make it as best you can for that child to come through. If you can come up with some kind of a game to play with a child, it makes it a lot easier."
He also said that making it a game would become a part of the TSA's training.
Child abuse experts are not amused. As Ken Wooden, founder of Child Lures Prevention, points out:
Telling a child that they are engaging in a game is one of the most common ways that sexual predators use to convince children to engage in inappropriate contact. Children don't have the sophistication to distinguish between a pat-down carried out by an airport security officer and an assault by a sexual predator. The TSA policy could desensitize children to inappropriate touch and ultimately make it easier for sexual offenders to prey on our children.
How can experts working at the TSA be so incredibly misinformed and misguided to suggest that full body pat downs for children be portrayed as a game? To do so is completely contrary to what we in the sexual abuse prevention field have been trying to accomplish for the past thirty years.
Whichever numskulls at the TSA came up with this idea should be fired. More importantly, the manner in which the TSA conducts all of its business needs to be closely examined.
Isaac Yeffet, who was formerly in charge of security for Israel's El Al Airlines has made it very clear that the TSA's entire approach is misguided. As a result, the TSA is actually endangering us, not making us safer.
El Al Airlines spends their time looking for people who might be a threat to us. They do this by determining common characteristics (including travel habits) of terrorists and then spending more time interviewing and searching the people who have those characteristics than other passengers.
The TSA on the other hand spends their time patting down 3 year old girls, taking dirty pictures of 40 year old nuns, and abusing 70 year old men with artificial limbs and colostomy bags looking for things. Sure, the TSA finds a lot of things -- shaving cream, shampoo bottles, and maybe even an occasional Lady Gillette. Have they ever caught a terrorist trying to board an airplane? No.
Things have gotten so bad that even Republican Congressmen who voted to create the TSA are now calling for it's abolition. I agree.
Airline security should be placed in the hands of the people who have the most to lose from a terrorist attack -- the airlines themselves. Banks, Armored Cars, and even shopping malls provide for their own security. Airlines should be allowed to do them same. We'd all be safer as a result.
Sunday, December 5, 2010
Friday, December 3, 2010
Unemployment Skyrockets, Obama Flees Country
The new unemployment figures were released today. Unemployment rose to 9.8%.
We've now had 19 straights months of unemployment over 9%, which is the worst record since the Great Depression.
So what did Obama do? He snuck out of the White House in the middle of the night and flew to Afghanistan.
I guess he thought he'd be safer there than in front of the U.S. press.
We've now had 19 straights months of unemployment over 9%, which is the worst record since the Great Depression.
So what did Obama do? He snuck out of the White House in the middle of the night and flew to Afghanistan.
I guess he thought he'd be safer there than in front of the U.S. press.
Thursday, November 11, 2010
Even more on Radical Tax Reform
I was asked a question about tax rates on another forum. Here is the question and my answer:
What do you think the tax rate that maximize revenue is?
Great question and it depends on circumstances, including what kind of deductions (loopholes) we have. Today, we have deductions that don't contribute to the overall health of the country.
Federal tax revenues have ranged from a little over 17% of GDP to a little over 19% of GDP for a few decades. This includes when the top rate was 70% and when the top rate was 28%.
Bush lowered tax rates without eliminating tax deductions. Reagan never did that. When Reagan lowered tax rates twice (top rate went from 70% to 50% in 83 and then to 28% in 86) he also eliminated deductions.
After Reagan, tax rates increased and more deductions proliferated. We had a recession. Then Clinton / Gingrich cut the capital gains rate. We had an economic boom as a result.
The problem today is that most politicians are economic illiterates. The left says punish the "rich" with high taxes and the government will have money to spend on "social justice". The right claims that cutting any taxes will stimulate an economic boom. Neither of these positions is correct.
The best approach is to lower tax rates and reduce tax deductions. Reagan believed this. Bill Bradley believed this. Jack Kemp believed this. Jerry Brown believed this. And now Obama's debt commission believes this. It's a bi-partisan belief. Economic illiterates don't understand this. They are in control. That's the problem.
I will trade tax deductions for lower rates any time. I will also trade consumption taxes for taxes on innovation and production anytime. These are the right things to do for the country. Unfortunately, there are politicians who are either too stupid or too power hungry to do this. That's the problem.
What do you think the tax rate that maximize revenue is?
Great question and it depends on circumstances, including what kind of deductions (loopholes) we have. Today, we have deductions that don't contribute to the overall health of the country.
Federal tax revenues have ranged from a little over 17% of GDP to a little over 19% of GDP for a few decades. This includes when the top rate was 70% and when the top rate was 28%.
Bush lowered tax rates without eliminating tax deductions. Reagan never did that. When Reagan lowered tax rates twice (top rate went from 70% to 50% in 83 and then to 28% in 86) he also eliminated deductions.
After Reagan, tax rates increased and more deductions proliferated. We had a recession. Then Clinton / Gingrich cut the capital gains rate. We had an economic boom as a result.
The problem today is that most politicians are economic illiterates. The left says punish the "rich" with high taxes and the government will have money to spend on "social justice". The right claims that cutting any taxes will stimulate an economic boom. Neither of these positions is correct.
The best approach is to lower tax rates and reduce tax deductions. Reagan believed this. Bill Bradley believed this. Jack Kemp believed this. Jerry Brown believed this. And now Obama's debt commission believes this. It's a bi-partisan belief. Economic illiterates don't understand this. They are in control. That's the problem.
I will trade tax deductions for lower rates any time. I will also trade consumption taxes for taxes on innovation and production anytime. These are the right things to do for the country. Unfortunately, there are politicians who are either too stupid or too power hungry to do this. That's the problem.
More on Radical Tax Reform
More on Obama's Deficit Commission...
The idea of simplifying the tax code by lowering tax rates and eliminating deductions is not a new one.
In the 1970s, an economics professor from Canada (Art Laffer) demonstrated that there are two rates that will produce the same revenue. A tax rate of 0% will produce the same revenue of a tax rate of 104% or higher, namely ZERO revenue. However, a 10% rate and a 90% are not inequivalent. Imagine a skewed bell curve. A 10% rate might produce the same revenue as 80% or 90% or 95% or some other high rate. It depends on a lot of things. Reducing rates can produce higher revenue by stimulating economic activity, but it depends on where the rate is in the context of the condition of the economy.
Second, there are a lot of serious people who believe that the current tax code severely distorts economic activity to the detriment of America. Should we give people a tax break for buying a big house? Probably not. Should we give them a break for taking a risk and investing in a new business? Yes, if we care about the long-term competitiveness of the U.S. economy. Unfortunately, the current tax does the opposite. We deduct big mortgages and tax capital gains. That's part of the problem.
The GOP was almost in complete agreement while Reagan and Clinton were Presidents that we needed radical tax reform in this direction -- either a flat rate income tax with limited deductions or completely replacing the income tax with a national sales tax. Jerry Brown agreed with this in 1992 too (Art Laffer was his economic advisor.)
We all had great hope when the GOP took control of the Presidency while keeping control of both Houses of Congress for the first time since before the Great Depression. Unfortunately, all discussion of radical tax reform died a quick death during the Bush administration. Bush was too busy creating new social programs like Medicare Part D and No Child Left Behind to be bothered with such trivia as the long term competitive nature of America.
The idea of radical tax reform is not dead. It has now made a surprising comeback in the Obama Deficit Commission.
Sure, there are partisan hacks like Sean Hannity who will piss and moan about the proposals just because Obama created the commission. However, it will be the left-wing of the Democrat Party who will have the biggest problems with this proposal. They are already out in force.
The idea of simplifying the tax code by lowering tax rates and eliminating deductions is not a new one.
In the 1970s, an economics professor from Canada (Art Laffer) demonstrated that there are two rates that will produce the same revenue. A tax rate of 0% will produce the same revenue of a tax rate of 104% or higher, namely ZERO revenue. However, a 10% rate and a 90% are not inequivalent. Imagine a skewed bell curve. A 10% rate might produce the same revenue as 80% or 90% or 95% or some other high rate. It depends on a lot of things. Reducing rates can produce higher revenue by stimulating economic activity, but it depends on where the rate is in the context of the condition of the economy.
Second, there are a lot of serious people who believe that the current tax code severely distorts economic activity to the detriment of America. Should we give people a tax break for buying a big house? Probably not. Should we give them a break for taking a risk and investing in a new business? Yes, if we care about the long-term competitiveness of the U.S. economy. Unfortunately, the current tax does the opposite. We deduct big mortgages and tax capital gains. That's part of the problem.
The GOP was almost in complete agreement while Reagan and Clinton were Presidents that we needed radical tax reform in this direction -- either a flat rate income tax with limited deductions or completely replacing the income tax with a national sales tax. Jerry Brown agreed with this in 1992 too (Art Laffer was his economic advisor.)
We all had great hope when the GOP took control of the Presidency while keeping control of both Houses of Congress for the first time since before the Great Depression. Unfortunately, all discussion of radical tax reform died a quick death during the Bush administration. Bush was too busy creating new social programs like Medicare Part D and No Child Left Behind to be bothered with such trivia as the long term competitive nature of America.
The idea of radical tax reform is not dead. It has now made a surprising comeback in the Obama Deficit Commission.
Sure, there are partisan hacks like Sean Hannity who will piss and moan about the proposals just because Obama created the commission. However, it will be the left-wing of the Democrat Party who will have the biggest problems with this proposal. They are already out in force.
Obama Deficit Commission Leaks Recommendations - Surprising Tax Rate Reduction
Yesterday, Obama's Deficit Commission leaked some of their proposed recommendations.
The Deficit Commission is bi-partisan group created by President Obama to come up with recommendations on how on to reduce (and presumably eliminate) deficit spending over the next decade. The commission's members were appointed by the President as well as the Democrat and Republican leaders in the House and Senate. Some of the GOP's rising stars, including Congressman Paul Ryan and Senator Tom Coburn, are members of the commission.
The draft proposal calls for cutting $4 trillion from the projected deficits over the next 10 years. Nancy Pelosi, Congressman Rick Weiner, and many others on the left immediately declared the draft as unacceptable. To date, most Republicans have had a more cautious reaction.
The spending cuts in the commission's report aren't even close to being deep and broad enough to balance the budget in 10 years. They didn't touch Obamacare because the members had "healthcare fatigue" after last year. They are waiting too long (2075) to make very minor changes to Social Security. They don't do much about spending in the Departments of Agriculture, Commerce, Eduction, Energy, and Labor. Yes, they are proposing to close 1/3rd of U.S. overseas military bases and bravo to them for that. But, the proposal will NOT balance the budget in 10 years. They need to propose more to be credible.
However, their tax proposals are much more interesting.
Obama's deficit commission proposes to reduce the top income tax rate to 23%. That's a 36% cut from the current 36% top rate and a 42% cut from 39.6% (where the rate will be if the Bush tax cuts expire). It would also collapse the current six income tax rates (10, 15, 25, 28, 33, 36) to three rates (8, 14, and 23). Plus it eliminates the alternative minimum tax and cuts corporate tax rates. The U.S. currently has the second highest corporate tax rates in the world. Obama's commission proposes to reduce the top corporate tax rate from 36% to 26%.
Mostly, they propose to "pay for it" by eliminating deductions.
The GOP has wanted to flatten rates and eliminate deductions for 30+ years. Reagan did this twice -- once at the beginning of 1980s when the top rate was cut from 70% to 50% -- and again in 1986 when President Reagan teamed up with Democrat Senator Bill Bradley to cut the top rate from 50% to 28%, while eliminating deductions.
One deduction Obama's commission wants to eliminate is the deduction for jumbo mortgage loans over $500,000. Subsidizing consumption at the expense of innovation and production (including the purchase of expensive homes) is not the right thing to do if we want to have a healthy, competitive, economy. But this is exactly what the current U.S. tax code does. Of course, people certainly should be able to buy a million dollar plus home if they can afford it, but the tax code shouldn't subsidize consumption over innovation and production.
The commission's report is very mixed. On the one hand, it demonstrates cowardice because they propose to wait until most of us are dead to fix Social Security. On the other hand, it demonstrates some courage given that they were created by a Democrat President and still propose to dramatically reduce income tax rates, including rates on the "rich". Overall, I am actually encouraged by this report. But they need to do a lot more on spending.
The Deficit Commission is bi-partisan group created by President Obama to come up with recommendations on how on to reduce (and presumably eliminate) deficit spending over the next decade. The commission's members were appointed by the President as well as the Democrat and Republican leaders in the House and Senate. Some of the GOP's rising stars, including Congressman Paul Ryan and Senator Tom Coburn, are members of the commission.
The draft proposal calls for cutting $4 trillion from the projected deficits over the next 10 years. Nancy Pelosi, Congressman Rick Weiner, and many others on the left immediately declared the draft as unacceptable. To date, most Republicans have had a more cautious reaction.
The spending cuts in the commission's report aren't even close to being deep and broad enough to balance the budget in 10 years. They didn't touch Obamacare because the members had "healthcare fatigue" after last year. They are waiting too long (2075) to make very minor changes to Social Security. They don't do much about spending in the Departments of Agriculture, Commerce, Eduction, Energy, and Labor. Yes, they are proposing to close 1/3rd of U.S. overseas military bases and bravo to them for that. But, the proposal will NOT balance the budget in 10 years. They need to propose more to be credible.
However, their tax proposals are much more interesting.
Obama's deficit commission proposes to reduce the top income tax rate to 23%. That's a 36% cut from the current 36% top rate and a 42% cut from 39.6% (where the rate will be if the Bush tax cuts expire). It would also collapse the current six income tax rates (10, 15, 25, 28, 33, 36) to three rates (8, 14, and 23). Plus it eliminates the alternative minimum tax and cuts corporate tax rates. The U.S. currently has the second highest corporate tax rates in the world. Obama's commission proposes to reduce the top corporate tax rate from 36% to 26%.
Mostly, they propose to "pay for it" by eliminating deductions.
The GOP has wanted to flatten rates and eliminate deductions for 30+ years. Reagan did this twice -- once at the beginning of 1980s when the top rate was cut from 70% to 50% -- and again in 1986 when President Reagan teamed up with Democrat Senator Bill Bradley to cut the top rate from 50% to 28%, while eliminating deductions.
One deduction Obama's commission wants to eliminate is the deduction for jumbo mortgage loans over $500,000. Subsidizing consumption at the expense of innovation and production (including the purchase of expensive homes) is not the right thing to do if we want to have a healthy, competitive, economy. But this is exactly what the current U.S. tax code does. Of course, people certainly should be able to buy a million dollar plus home if they can afford it, but the tax code shouldn't subsidize consumption over innovation and production.
The commission's report is very mixed. On the one hand, it demonstrates cowardice because they propose to wait until most of us are dead to fix Social Security. On the other hand, it demonstrates some courage given that they were created by a Democrat President and still propose to dramatically reduce income tax rates, including rates on the "rich". Overall, I am actually encouraged by this report. But they need to do a lot more on spending.
Friday, November 5, 2010
What Should Obama Do Now?
After Tuesday's historic election, the pundants and politicians are all speculating on whether or not Obama will "pull a Clinton" by moving to the center and working with the GOP.
There is a lot of speculation on what that might look like.
I have a suggestion. Obama's deficit commission is due to report on Dec 1. He should take their report and dump it in Boehner's lap. Then Obama should do a hard sell, telling the American people that: A.) it is a bi-partisan recommendation, B.) it reduces the deficit, and C.) and we need to pass it now to fix the economy.
That would put the GOP on the spot. They would be forced to come to grips with the bill and either pass it or try to explain why they won't.
Unfortunately, I don't think Obama will do this because there will be spending cuts in the bill that Obama won't like. So, it is very likely that he will muck with recommendations by gutting the spending cuts and adding more taxes. At that point, the GOP will be in the driver's seat until 2012, because they will be able to correctly claim that Obama only cares about growing government, not balancing the budget and fixing the economy.
Why do I believe that Obama won't "pull a Clinton"? Because Obama and Pelosi are already running around claiming that the election was not a referendum on their failed policies. In spite of the fact that Obama has been on television morning, noon and night for the past 18 months selling his stimulus and healthcare bills, the Democrats keep claiming that the American people just don't get it.
It's not the American people who don't get it. It's Obama and Pelosi. Their delusional state doesn't bode well for America over the next two years.
There is a lot of speculation on what that might look like.
I have a suggestion. Obama's deficit commission is due to report on Dec 1. He should take their report and dump it in Boehner's lap. Then Obama should do a hard sell, telling the American people that: A.) it is a bi-partisan recommendation, B.) it reduces the deficit, and C.) and we need to pass it now to fix the economy.
That would put the GOP on the spot. They would be forced to come to grips with the bill and either pass it or try to explain why they won't.
Unfortunately, I don't think Obama will do this because there will be spending cuts in the bill that Obama won't like. So, it is very likely that he will muck with recommendations by gutting the spending cuts and adding more taxes. At that point, the GOP will be in the driver's seat until 2012, because they will be able to correctly claim that Obama only cares about growing government, not balancing the budget and fixing the economy.
Why do I believe that Obama won't "pull a Clinton"? Because Obama and Pelosi are already running around claiming that the election was not a referendum on their failed policies. In spite of the fact that Obama has been on television morning, noon and night for the past 18 months selling his stimulus and healthcare bills, the Democrats keep claiming that the American people just don't get it.
It's not the American people who don't get it. It's Obama and Pelosi. Their delusional state doesn't bode well for America over the next two years.
Wednesday, November 3, 2010
Voters to Obama: Take Your Spending and Shove It
The voters sent a clear message last night: We don't like what Obama and the Democrats have done to us over the last two years. We're not going to take it any longer. So, take your big government spending and shove it.
The breadth and depth of the Democrat's defeat was unimaginable just a couple of months ago.
The GOP will pick up 63 to 65 House seats -- the largest turnover since WWII. Not only were the Democrat classes of 2006 and 2008 largely purged from the House, several long time Democrat Congressmen (like Ike Skelton) were defeated.
The GOP won almost 700 state legislative seats. (I thought I was being optimistic when I predicted at least 300). 20 or 21 state legislatures will change party control, just in time for redistricting. North Carolina and Alabama have GOP state legislatures for the first time since the 1870s.
Several governors races are still too close to call, including Oregon and Minnesota, which the Democrats were supposed to win handily.
The GOP won at least 6 Senate seats. Rand Paul won by double digits. Marco Rubio had a larger than expected margin. One of the most liberal members of the Senate (Russ Feigngold) was handily defeated. We'll see what happens in Colorado and Washington.
The GOP elected the first female Latino governor (Susana Martinez), the first female Indian governor (Nikki Haley), and two other women governors (Mary Fallin and Jan Brewer). The GOP also elected three Latino Congressmen, including a woman (Jaime Herrera) from my state. They also elected and two black Congressmen. We'll see if they are allowed into the Congressional Black Caucus.
The only bad news for the GOP is that three successful business women (Meg Whitman, Carly Fiorini, and Linda McMahon) went down in flames as did Christine O'Donnell, and Sharron Angle. What a surprise given that they were viciously attacked as extremists, whores, bitches, psychos, and worse by the Democrats and their cronies in the media. Feminists everywhere must be so proud of their great triumph in defeating these women with their vulgar slurs.
The big question is what will Obama do now? Will he try to work with the GOP House like Clinton did after the GOP picked up 54 seats in 1994? My guess is that he won't. Obama is too much of a leftist ideologue. He also doesn't have any experience working with an opposition. Obama will likely try to use executive orders to push through his radical agenda on things like carbon emissions, while continuing to demonize the GOP as obstructionists.
Democrats who predict that the GOP will just sit back and do nothing are kidding themselves. That may be what Mitch McConnell wants, but he isn't calling the shots. The House is in charge of the GOP agenda. There are enough Tea Party candidates elected last night to push through pretty much whatever they want and send it to the Senate.
There are 21 Democrat Senators up for reelection in 2012. Many of them are in solidly red states while others are in states that swung heavily to the GOP yesterday. That includes Joe Manchin of West Virginia who just won a special election by running television ads in which he used a rifle to shoot holes in Obama's cap-and-trade bill. It's doubtful that they will continue to follow Obama off of a cliff.
On the GOP side, people like Rand Paul, Marco Rubio, Jim DeMint and others will not be content to simply block and filibuster legislation. These people have an agenda and they are they are going to try to push it.
It would not surprise me at all to see a coalition of scared Democrats and GOP Tea Partiers in the Senate pass a fair amount of legislation on taxes, spending cuts, and fixes to Obamacare.
We should also expect to see the new GOP Governors and State Legislators push through their own reform agenda to fix their economies, failing schools, and tort systems.
Last night was an election of historic proportions. Now, the real work begins.
The breadth and depth of the Democrat's defeat was unimaginable just a couple of months ago.
The GOP will pick up 63 to 65 House seats -- the largest turnover since WWII. Not only were the Democrat classes of 2006 and 2008 largely purged from the House, several long time Democrat Congressmen (like Ike Skelton) were defeated.
The GOP won almost 700 state legislative seats. (I thought I was being optimistic when I predicted at least 300). 20 or 21 state legislatures will change party control, just in time for redistricting. North Carolina and Alabama have GOP state legislatures for the first time since the 1870s.
Several governors races are still too close to call, including Oregon and Minnesota, which the Democrats were supposed to win handily.
The GOP won at least 6 Senate seats. Rand Paul won by double digits. Marco Rubio had a larger than expected margin. One of the most liberal members of the Senate (Russ Feigngold) was handily defeated. We'll see what happens in Colorado and Washington.
The GOP elected the first female Latino governor (Susana Martinez), the first female Indian governor (Nikki Haley), and two other women governors (Mary Fallin and Jan Brewer). The GOP also elected three Latino Congressmen, including a woman (Jaime Herrera) from my state. They also elected and two black Congressmen. We'll see if they are allowed into the Congressional Black Caucus.
The only bad news for the GOP is that three successful business women (Meg Whitman, Carly Fiorini, and Linda McMahon) went down in flames as did Christine O'Donnell, and Sharron Angle. What a surprise given that they were viciously attacked as extremists, whores, bitches, psychos, and worse by the Democrats and their cronies in the media. Feminists everywhere must be so proud of their great triumph in defeating these women with their vulgar slurs.
The big question is what will Obama do now? Will he try to work with the GOP House like Clinton did after the GOP picked up 54 seats in 1994? My guess is that he won't. Obama is too much of a leftist ideologue. He also doesn't have any experience working with an opposition. Obama will likely try to use executive orders to push through his radical agenda on things like carbon emissions, while continuing to demonize the GOP as obstructionists.
Democrats who predict that the GOP will just sit back and do nothing are kidding themselves. That may be what Mitch McConnell wants, but he isn't calling the shots. The House is in charge of the GOP agenda. There are enough Tea Party candidates elected last night to push through pretty much whatever they want and send it to the Senate.
There are 21 Democrat Senators up for reelection in 2012. Many of them are in solidly red states while others are in states that swung heavily to the GOP yesterday. That includes Joe Manchin of West Virginia who just won a special election by running television ads in which he used a rifle to shoot holes in Obama's cap-and-trade bill. It's doubtful that they will continue to follow Obama off of a cliff.
On the GOP side, people like Rand Paul, Marco Rubio, Jim DeMint and others will not be content to simply block and filibuster legislation. These people have an agenda and they are they are going to try to push it.
It would not surprise me at all to see a coalition of scared Democrats and GOP Tea Partiers in the Senate pass a fair amount of legislation on taxes, spending cuts, and fixes to Obamacare.
We should also expect to see the new GOP Governors and State Legislators push through their own reform agenda to fix their economies, failing schools, and tort systems.
Last night was an election of historic proportions. Now, the real work begins.
Friday, October 22, 2010
Obama: A captive of his own history
As we approach the 2010 mid-term elections, the GOP is poised to make big gains in the House of Representatives, State Governors offices, and State Legislatures. The GOP will also likely pick up several seats in the U.S. Senate, but not enough to gain a majority.
Few people predicted this outcome when Barack Obama took office less than two years ago.
So what happen? In short, Obama and the Democrats blew it. They took a bad situation, created by George Bush, and made it worse.
It didn't have to be this way. In spite of some of some my more partisan friend's opinions to the contrary, the left does come up with some good ideas on occasion. However, most of those ideas never get implemented because of the left's dependence on government employees unions for their political muscle.
So, what would a strong, center-left agenda actually look like? Here are a few examples how Obama could could have put such an agenda together:
A.) Education, education, education.
Everyone knows that are nation's schools are failing. It's not only our inner-city schools. American schools in general are under-serving our kids as evidenced by our drop out rates as well as math and science test scores, compared to the rest of the developed world. Davis Guggenheim (a liberal) just released a movie "Waiting for Superman" which digs into the issues our public school system faces. Everyone should see this. When you do, it will scare the hell out of you.
We cannot compete in a increasing technological world with drop outs who don't know much about math and science.
Money is not the problem. America spends more money per student than all but two other countries. As a percentage of GDP, America spends more on education than most of the countries who have better results than we do.
Democrats have come up some great ways to reform the system. Charter schools are public schools where the parents and principals, not bureaucrats, are put in charge. The first Charter schools were implemented in Minnesota (a liberal state). Magnet schools are schools for the best and brightest, which focus on a specialized area, like math and science. Governor Jim Hunt (D-NC) put a huge focus on Magnet schools in the 1970s. They were a key to attracting tech companies to the Research Triangle in Raleigh. I'll add in Vocational schools for high school kids who aren't going college. Instead of having them waste their time in film appreciation classes, they could be learning a skilled trade that will help them and society.
These are Democrat ideas that work.
Obama could have used the "stimulus" to champion educational reform. After the 2008 election, he certainty had the political capital to do so. Instead, he just showered "stimulus" money on the teachers' unions to "save" their jobs for one year, without any significant reform at all.
B.) Infrastructure, infrastructure, infrastructure.
Our aging infrastructure is crumbling. In many places it hasn't kept up with population growth. A real center-left agenda would have used a big part of the "stimulus" money to build a world-class, 21st infrastructure for the U.S. -- roads, bridges, tunnels, airports, shipping ports, and more. Yes, a few infrastructure projects were funded, but the funding was a tiny, small part of the stimulus. Instead, Obama used most of the "stimulus" money to bail out government employee's unions to "save" their jobs for one year.
C.) Simplify, simplify, simplify
Our tax system is a mess. We have the highest corporate tax rates in the world, yet many corporations escape paying taxes. We have a progressive personal income tax system, yet the wealthiest American generally pay a lower percentage of their income in taxes than do the middle to upper-middle class. Complying with our Byzantine tax system costs the American economy several hundred billion dollars a year.
It doesn't have to be like this.
When Jerry Brown ran for President in 1992 he advocated scrapping all federal taxes and replacing them with a 13% flat rate income tax and a 13% VAT. No deductions. No loopholes. Ralph Nader had a similar proposal in 2004.
Every study has shown that a flat rate tax would collect more money from the super rich because the loopholes would be gone. It would also save Americans and our companies hundreds of billions of in tax preparation fees each year. And it would do a lot better job "stimulating" the economy than Obama's "targeted" tax cuts.
Obama could have really provided some vision here and gotten a whole bunch of Republicans to join in. But he didn't. Instead, he relegated himself to spewing class warfare rhetoric while arguing about whether or not the top tax rate should be 36% or 39%. It's just pitiful.
The bottom line
There are many other proposals that a visionary center-left government could have undertaken, that would have gained broad support in the country, and been successful in really moving the country forward.
Unfortunately, Obama is not a visionary. He is a captive of his history -- a past of associating with people like 1960s radical Bill Aires, union thug Andy Stern, and racist Jeremiah right, all of whom who do nothing but brood about their class and race grievances.
This is why Obama has failed. This is why the country is failing. This is why we will see a significant political change next Tuesday.
Few people predicted this outcome when Barack Obama took office less than two years ago.
So what happen? In short, Obama and the Democrats blew it. They took a bad situation, created by George Bush, and made it worse.
It didn't have to be this way. In spite of some of some my more partisan friend's opinions to the contrary, the left does come up with some good ideas on occasion. However, most of those ideas never get implemented because of the left's dependence on government employees unions for their political muscle.
So, what would a strong, center-left agenda actually look like? Here are a few examples how Obama could could have put such an agenda together:
A.) Education, education, education.
Everyone knows that are nation's schools are failing. It's not only our inner-city schools. American schools in general are under-serving our kids as evidenced by our drop out rates as well as math and science test scores, compared to the rest of the developed world. Davis Guggenheim (a liberal) just released a movie "Waiting for Superman" which digs into the issues our public school system faces. Everyone should see this. When you do, it will scare the hell out of you.
We cannot compete in a increasing technological world with drop outs who don't know much about math and science.
Money is not the problem. America spends more money per student than all but two other countries. As a percentage of GDP, America spends more on education than most of the countries who have better results than we do.
Democrats have come up some great ways to reform the system. Charter schools are public schools where the parents and principals, not bureaucrats, are put in charge. The first Charter schools were implemented in Minnesota (a liberal state). Magnet schools are schools for the best and brightest, which focus on a specialized area, like math and science. Governor Jim Hunt (D-NC) put a huge focus on Magnet schools in the 1970s. They were a key to attracting tech companies to the Research Triangle in Raleigh. I'll add in Vocational schools for high school kids who aren't going college. Instead of having them waste their time in film appreciation classes, they could be learning a skilled trade that will help them and society.
These are Democrat ideas that work.
Obama could have used the "stimulus" to champion educational reform. After the 2008 election, he certainty had the political capital to do so. Instead, he just showered "stimulus" money on the teachers' unions to "save" their jobs for one year, without any significant reform at all.
B.) Infrastructure, infrastructure, infrastructure.
Our aging infrastructure is crumbling. In many places it hasn't kept up with population growth. A real center-left agenda would have used a big part of the "stimulus" money to build a world-class, 21st infrastructure for the U.S. -- roads, bridges, tunnels, airports, shipping ports, and more. Yes, a few infrastructure projects were funded, but the funding was a tiny, small part of the stimulus. Instead, Obama used most of the "stimulus" money to bail out government employee's unions to "save" their jobs for one year.
C.) Simplify, simplify, simplify
Our tax system is a mess. We have the highest corporate tax rates in the world, yet many corporations escape paying taxes. We have a progressive personal income tax system, yet the wealthiest American generally pay a lower percentage of their income in taxes than do the middle to upper-middle class. Complying with our Byzantine tax system costs the American economy several hundred billion dollars a year.
It doesn't have to be like this.
When Jerry Brown ran for President in 1992 he advocated scrapping all federal taxes and replacing them with a 13% flat rate income tax and a 13% VAT. No deductions. No loopholes. Ralph Nader had a similar proposal in 2004.
Every study has shown that a flat rate tax would collect more money from the super rich because the loopholes would be gone. It would also save Americans and our companies hundreds of billions of in tax preparation fees each year. And it would do a lot better job "stimulating" the economy than Obama's "targeted" tax cuts.
Obama could have really provided some vision here and gotten a whole bunch of Republicans to join in. But he didn't. Instead, he relegated himself to spewing class warfare rhetoric while arguing about whether or not the top tax rate should be 36% or 39%. It's just pitiful.
The bottom line
There are many other proposals that a visionary center-left government could have undertaken, that would have gained broad support in the country, and been successful in really moving the country forward.
Unfortunately, Obama is not a visionary. He is a captive of his history -- a past of associating with people like 1960s radical Bill Aires, union thug Andy Stern, and racist Jeremiah right, all of whom who do nothing but brood about their class and race grievances.
This is why Obama has failed. This is why the country is failing. This is why we will see a significant political change next Tuesday.
Wednesday, August 4, 2010
Anti-incumbent sentiment marches on!!!
An ex-Gateway executive (Rick Synder) came out of nowhere to win the GOP nomination for governor of Michigan. He beat two professional politicians - the Michigan Attorney General and a U.S. Congressman.
He won the nomination with a substantial margin.
At this point, the GOP establishment has to be soiling their pants.
A friend of mine, who knew I grew up in Michigan, asked me if I knew Rick. Here's how I responded:
No, I don't know him. I'm not even sure how Gateway and Michigan and fit together. I think Gateway came out of South Dakota. Now they are in San Diego.
I'm typing this on a 3 month old Gateway laptop, which is amazing given that Dell nearly put Gateway out of business 10 years ago. Now Dell is suffering under enormous quality problems, with brain dead management that purposefully shipped faulty products. Sounds likes the Detroit auto companies in the 70s, doesn't it?
This is what I love about the unfettered free market -- if you get too big for your britches, another company is going to come and kick your rear end. Who benefits? We do! I was hesitant to buy the Gateway but I did because the capabilities it offered were much cheaper than the competition. I love it.
No, Bush's big corporate bailouts are not the free market. This is one of many reasons why I really dislike the GOP -- they've made people believe that their crony capitalism is the free market. It's not. The Democrats do the same thing, and it's just as bad or worse, but they don't pretend that it's the free market.
This primary season is turning out to be a real turning point for our country. So far, we've tossed our 4 incumbent Congressman and 3 U.S. Senators in the primaries! When was the last time that happened? More importantly, outsiders like Rick Synder are capturing their party's nomination all over the country.
I hope that Snyder wins and brings his business sense to government. This is the only way that Michigan will recover and move forward.
I also hope that the outsiders who've managed to win their party's nomination across the country are successful in the fall.
The GOP establishment needs to be put out of business by the competition just like any business who has lost touch with their customers.
He won the nomination with a substantial margin.
At this point, the GOP establishment has to be soiling their pants.
A friend of mine, who knew I grew up in Michigan, asked me if I knew Rick. Here's how I responded:
No, I don't know him. I'm not even sure how Gateway and Michigan and fit together. I think Gateway came out of South Dakota. Now they are in San Diego.
I'm typing this on a 3 month old Gateway laptop, which is amazing given that Dell nearly put Gateway out of business 10 years ago. Now Dell is suffering under enormous quality problems, with brain dead management that purposefully shipped faulty products. Sounds likes the Detroit auto companies in the 70s, doesn't it?
This is what I love about the unfettered free market -- if you get too big for your britches, another company is going to come and kick your rear end. Who benefits? We do! I was hesitant to buy the Gateway but I did because the capabilities it offered were much cheaper than the competition. I love it.
No, Bush's big corporate bailouts are not the free market. This is one of many reasons why I really dislike the GOP -- they've made people believe that their crony capitalism is the free market. It's not. The Democrats do the same thing, and it's just as bad or worse, but they don't pretend that it's the free market.
This primary season is turning out to be a real turning point for our country. So far, we've tossed our 4 incumbent Congressman and 3 U.S. Senators in the primaries! When was the last time that happened? More importantly, outsiders like Rick Synder are capturing their party's nomination all over the country.
I hope that Snyder wins and brings his business sense to government. This is the only way that Michigan will recover and move forward.
I also hope that the outsiders who've managed to win their party's nomination across the country are successful in the fall.
The GOP establishment needs to be put out of business by the competition just like any business who has lost touch with their customers.
Friday, July 9, 2010
BRAVO to Ann Coulter
Bravo to Ann Coulter for calling on neo-commies like Bill Kristol to STFU with regards to Micheal Steele's comments on Afghanistan.
RNC Chairman Michael Steele said that America had every right to dispatch the al-Queda presence in Afghanistan, but that it was crazy to bog American troops down in a no-win situation in Afghanistan. The unruly Afghans could not be subdued by the Brits or Soviets. More importantly, our real enemy -- al-Queda -- has moved on to Pakistan, Yemen, and Somalia.
Steele is right. It's absolutely foolish to continue to waste American lives and money in Afghanistan.
We can accomplish our continued goals there by bribing a handful of warlords, using a fraction of the money and American lives that we'll spend on Obama's direct military action. We did it with Egypt -- bribing them to make nice with Israel. Over the last 30 years, the amount of money we spent on Egypt to achieve some amount of peace in the middle is tiny compared to what we've spent on Afghanistan in the last few years.
It's about time that real conservatives stand up to the big government neo-commies in the GOP and their demented foreign policy (not to mention their crazy "government greatness" philosophy at home).
BRAVO to Ann Coulter for joining (and given her position, leading) the growing conservative dissent to the neo-commies war mongering foreign policy.
I am more encouraged than ever that we are heading for real, positive change.
Thank you Ann.
RNC Chairman Michael Steele said that America had every right to dispatch the al-Queda presence in Afghanistan, but that it was crazy to bog American troops down in a no-win situation in Afghanistan. The unruly Afghans could not be subdued by the Brits or Soviets. More importantly, our real enemy -- al-Queda -- has moved on to Pakistan, Yemen, and Somalia.
Steele is right. It's absolutely foolish to continue to waste American lives and money in Afghanistan.
We can accomplish our continued goals there by bribing a handful of warlords, using a fraction of the money and American lives that we'll spend on Obama's direct military action. We did it with Egypt -- bribing them to make nice with Israel. Over the last 30 years, the amount of money we spent on Egypt to achieve some amount of peace in the middle is tiny compared to what we've spent on Afghanistan in the last few years.
It's about time that real conservatives stand up to the big government neo-commies in the GOP and their demented foreign policy (not to mention their crazy "government greatness" philosophy at home).
BRAVO to Ann Coulter for joining (and given her position, leading) the growing conservative dissent to the neo-commies war mongering foreign policy.
I am more encouraged than ever that we are heading for real, positive change.
Thank you Ann.
Wednesday, May 26, 2010
The Value of Property Rights in Society
Recently, Kentucky Senate candidate Rand Paul made quite a stir in suggesting that a portion of the 1964 Civil Rights Act was misguided.
His comments have caused an enormous flurry of misrepresentations in the mainstream (left-wing) media.
Paul made a couple of interesting points that were completely missed by the unthinking left.
First, that government policy was a driving force behind discrimination. From "separate but equal" to the fact that most of the KKK leadership were elected Democrat party officials, government was a large contributor to segregation and other discriminatory evils.
Second, that markets ultimately will do a much better job at ensuring equality of opportunity, justice, and fairness than the government. For example, why did Apple, Microsoft, HP and IBM start providing spousal benefits to their gay employees? Because government made them do it? NO. Sure, there are laws TODAY in some cities and states today that mandate this, but the whole movement started with high tech business who were competing in the market for scarce resources. Apple for example took a lot of heat in some states (like Texas, where they had sales offices)for leading this, but they stuck to their guns and did it anyway.
What do you think would happen to a business today if it refused to service some demographic segment? Their competition would put them out them out of business very quickly. (Yeah sure, there would be a few backwaters where these types of small businesses might survive, but they are largely irrelevant in the grander scheme of freedom, so who cares?)
Paul's reflections had nothing to do with racism. His comments were all about the value of property rights in creating and sustaining a free, prosperous, and decent society. Of course, the brain dead left just doesn't get it because they have never understood why property rights are indispensable to freedom. This is why the left always fails.
That's the bottom line.
His comments have caused an enormous flurry of misrepresentations in the mainstream (left-wing) media.
Paul made a couple of interesting points that were completely missed by the unthinking left.
First, that government policy was a driving force behind discrimination. From "separate but equal" to the fact that most of the KKK leadership were elected Democrat party officials, government was a large contributor to segregation and other discriminatory evils.
Second, that markets ultimately will do a much better job at ensuring equality of opportunity, justice, and fairness than the government. For example, why did Apple, Microsoft, HP and IBM start providing spousal benefits to their gay employees? Because government made them do it? NO. Sure, there are laws TODAY in some cities and states today that mandate this, but the whole movement started with high tech business who were competing in the market for scarce resources. Apple for example took a lot of heat in some states (like Texas, where they had sales offices)for leading this, but they stuck to their guns and did it anyway.
What do you think would happen to a business today if it refused to service some demographic segment? Their competition would put them out them out of business very quickly. (Yeah sure, there would be a few backwaters where these types of small businesses might survive, but they are largely irrelevant in the grander scheme of freedom, so who cares?)
Paul's reflections had nothing to do with racism. His comments were all about the value of property rights in creating and sustaining a free, prosperous, and decent society. Of course, the brain dead left just doesn't get it because they have never understood why property rights are indispensable to freedom. This is why the left always fails.
That's the bottom line.
Wednesday, May 12, 2010
Fed Audit and Greece Bailout
The Senate passed a bill calling for a one time audit of the Federal Reserve to scrutinize the $2 trillion in emergency loans that the Fed provided to some of the nation’s biggest banks.
The bill was a very watered down version of bill that passed in the House, which would have enabled the Government Accountability Office (GAO) to audit every item on the Fed’s balance sheet, including all credit facilities and all securities purchase programs. An amendment to expand the Senate bill to match the House's failed to pass. Still, this is a good first step as it would enable the GAO to audit at least some Fed actions for the first time in history.
The government's bailout of Wall Street points to a huge problems in our financial system and even larger problems with the control that Wall Street has over politicians in both parties.
Conceptually, Wall Street exists to support the needs of other businesses. When businesses need capital to start up or expand, they can get the money in one of three ways: A.) from their own savings, B.) through borrowing (debt), or C.) by selling a portion of the business to others (equity).
What does this have to do with derivatives, credit default swaps, or even the whole concept of "selling the market short"??? The short answer is nothing whatsoever. All of these things are nothing more than gambling. Goldman Sachs and their ilk have turned our financial system into Las Vegas. Like Vegas, the system is rigged so that the House wins 98.5% of the time.
The one difference between Las Vegas and Wall Street is when a casino in Vegas goes belly up, Washington doesn't rush in with our money to bail them out.
Unfortunately, the situation is about to get even worse. The U.S. government is taking part in the $1 TRILLION Greek bailout both through the IMF and also through the Federal Reserve, which is shipping dollars to Europe to help stabilize the Euro. Of course the money won't be used to put the country on the right path. Instead, it will be given to lazy union members who'd rather sit arounding sipping Ouzo, while bad mouthing America, than work.
I've been to Greece a couple of times. It's a beautiful country that has been completely destroyed up by decades of political corruption.
Why is it our responsibility to pay for their mistakes? Oh, because the country might "melt down". GOOD. The country SHOULD melt down because maybe then the politicians will be forced to confront their problems and eliminate the costly welfare state that has been sucking the life blood out of their country.
We have our own problems too. They are on a much grander scale than Greece's.
17% of our workforce is unemployed or under employed. Our official debt has reached $13 trillion, which is a whopping 90% of GDP -- almost as bad as Greece's. Unfunded entitlements in Social Security, Medicare, Obamacare, and government pension plans top $130 trillion -- more than $438,000 per person. Government spending at all levels is approaching 40% of GDP, which is not far behind "socialist" France at 44%.
With all of these problems confronting us, how dare the politicians hand our money to Greece. How dare they?
Greece and the rest of the PIGS (Portugal, Ireland, Greece, and Spain) caused their own problems. It's time for them to deal with it.
We created our own problems too. It's time for us to boot the SOBs out of office who are making things worse.
The bill was a very watered down version of bill that passed in the House, which would have enabled the Government Accountability Office (GAO) to audit every item on the Fed’s balance sheet, including all credit facilities and all securities purchase programs. An amendment to expand the Senate bill to match the House's failed to pass. Still, this is a good first step as it would enable the GAO to audit at least some Fed actions for the first time in history.
The government's bailout of Wall Street points to a huge problems in our financial system and even larger problems with the control that Wall Street has over politicians in both parties.
Conceptually, Wall Street exists to support the needs of other businesses. When businesses need capital to start up or expand, they can get the money in one of three ways: A.) from their own savings, B.) through borrowing (debt), or C.) by selling a portion of the business to others (equity).
What does this have to do with derivatives, credit default swaps, or even the whole concept of "selling the market short"??? The short answer is nothing whatsoever. All of these things are nothing more than gambling. Goldman Sachs and their ilk have turned our financial system into Las Vegas. Like Vegas, the system is rigged so that the House wins 98.5% of the time.
The one difference between Las Vegas and Wall Street is when a casino in Vegas goes belly up, Washington doesn't rush in with our money to bail them out.
Unfortunately, the situation is about to get even worse. The U.S. government is taking part in the $1 TRILLION Greek bailout both through the IMF and also through the Federal Reserve, which is shipping dollars to Europe to help stabilize the Euro. Of course the money won't be used to put the country on the right path. Instead, it will be given to lazy union members who'd rather sit arounding sipping Ouzo, while bad mouthing America, than work.
I've been to Greece a couple of times. It's a beautiful country that has been completely destroyed up by decades of political corruption.
Why is it our responsibility to pay for their mistakes? Oh, because the country might "melt down". GOOD. The country SHOULD melt down because maybe then the politicians will be forced to confront their problems and eliminate the costly welfare state that has been sucking the life blood out of their country.
We have our own problems too. They are on a much grander scale than Greece's.
17% of our workforce is unemployed or under employed. Our official debt has reached $13 trillion, which is a whopping 90% of GDP -- almost as bad as Greece's. Unfunded entitlements in Social Security, Medicare, Obamacare, and government pension plans top $130 trillion -- more than $438,000 per person. Government spending at all levels is approaching 40% of GDP, which is not far behind "socialist" France at 44%.
With all of these problems confronting us, how dare the politicians hand our money to Greece. How dare they?
Greece and the rest of the PIGS (Portugal, Ireland, Greece, and Spain) caused their own problems. It's time for them to deal with it.
We created our own problems too. It's time for us to boot the SOBs out of office who are making things worse.
The Incumbent Purge is Underway!
Over the weekend, three term Republican Senator Bob Bennett failed to win a spot on the GOP primary ballot in Utah. Yesterday, Congressman Alan Mollohan failed to win the Democrat nomination in West Virginia. Over the next few months, at least a dozen additional incumbents could lose their seats in the primaries. Among them are three Senators -- Blanche Lincoln, Arlen Specter, and John McCain.
Specter typifies what's wrong in Congress. The guy has been locked away in the District of Columbia for 45 years. The world was a very different place when Specter got to Congress in 1965. At this point, he's completely clueless about most everything. He also doesn't have any philosophical foundation or moral center. All he cares about is hanging on to power.
McCain is so scared that he recently released a disgusting, disingenuous, and pandering television ad about the border, in which he completely reversed his long held positions on illegal immigration. JD Hayworth is currently behind McCain in the polls, but fortunately the Arizona primary isn't until August. By then, McCain's famous temper will have torpedoed his campaign.
In Kentucky, conservative-libertarian Rand Paul holds a double digit lead over the establishment hand picked candidate Trey Grayson in the GOP Senate primary. Grayson used to be a Democrat, who supported Bill Clinton. That didn't stop former Vice President Dick Cheney, Senate leader Mitch McConnell, and much of the rest of the GOP establishment from endorsing him. Why? Because they are scared to death that Paul will be an independent voice who will not go along to get along.
The slaughter in the general election in November is likely going to be much larger. House Republican Leader John Boehner claims that as many as 100 House seats are up for grabs. I'm not a big Boehner fan, but I agree with him on this -- there is an anti-incumbent furor that could result in as much as 20% of the House turning over this year. All of the losses won't be on the Democrat side.
If unemployment stays around 10%, there will be another slaughter in 2012. This isn't only bad news for Barack Obama. Establishment types like Mitt Romney will likely be causalities as well.
This is all great news. The voters are finally waking up and throwing the bums out.
Unfortunately, Americans usually don't pay much attention to the goings on in the District of Columbia. They are this year and they did in 1994, but generally they don't.
In the absence of a diligent electorate, we need term limits. Unfortunately, regardless of who controls Congress, elected politicians are not going to pass a law, let alone a Constitutional amendment to limit their power in any way. That's the big problem.
I for one am looking forward to seeing large numbers of incumbents in both parties being booted from office this year and in 2012. Those that remain will be so scared that they will clean up their acts and do what we want -- at least for a short period of time.
Specter typifies what's wrong in Congress. The guy has been locked away in the District of Columbia for 45 years. The world was a very different place when Specter got to Congress in 1965. At this point, he's completely clueless about most everything. He also doesn't have any philosophical foundation or moral center. All he cares about is hanging on to power.
McCain is so scared that he recently released a disgusting, disingenuous, and pandering television ad about the border, in which he completely reversed his long held positions on illegal immigration. JD Hayworth is currently behind McCain in the polls, but fortunately the Arizona primary isn't until August. By then, McCain's famous temper will have torpedoed his campaign.
In Kentucky, conservative-libertarian Rand Paul holds a double digit lead over the establishment hand picked candidate Trey Grayson in the GOP Senate primary. Grayson used to be a Democrat, who supported Bill Clinton. That didn't stop former Vice President Dick Cheney, Senate leader Mitch McConnell, and much of the rest of the GOP establishment from endorsing him. Why? Because they are scared to death that Paul will be an independent voice who will not go along to get along.
The slaughter in the general election in November is likely going to be much larger. House Republican Leader John Boehner claims that as many as 100 House seats are up for grabs. I'm not a big Boehner fan, but I agree with him on this -- there is an anti-incumbent furor that could result in as much as 20% of the House turning over this year. All of the losses won't be on the Democrat side.
If unemployment stays around 10%, there will be another slaughter in 2012. This isn't only bad news for Barack Obama. Establishment types like Mitt Romney will likely be causalities as well.
This is all great news. The voters are finally waking up and throwing the bums out.
Unfortunately, Americans usually don't pay much attention to the goings on in the District of Columbia. They are this year and they did in 1994, but generally they don't.
In the absence of a diligent electorate, we need term limits. Unfortunately, regardless of who controls Congress, elected politicians are not going to pass a law, let alone a Constitutional amendment to limit their power in any way. That's the big problem.
I for one am looking forward to seeing large numbers of incumbents in both parties being booted from office this year and in 2012. Those that remain will be so scared that they will clean up their acts and do what we want -- at least for a short period of time.
Saturday, April 24, 2010
Jim Bunning endorses Rand Paul and gives him $2,000
It's nice to have a true conservative, who is also one of the great major league pitchers of all time on your side!
Who are the neo-commies and Dick Cheney backing? A ex-Democrat hack who supported Bill Clinton. This demonstrates how f'd up the GOP really is.
Who are the neo-commies and Dick Cheney backing? A ex-Democrat hack who supported Bill Clinton. This demonstrates how f'd up the GOP really is.
Monday, April 5, 2010
Tea Party: All Noise and No Muscle?
The AP is running a story today that paints the Tea Party movement as being largely ineffective. One Republican consultant characterized them as making a lot of noise, but having no no muscle.
The smarmy little Republican operative who said that may very well wind up eating his words. There is still plenty of time between now and 2012 for a new Ross Perot type candidate to emerge and get in front of this thing.
Perot was largely a creation of the media, starting with Larry King. Half way through the campaign he went nuts and quit, and then re-entered the race. However, people were so angry at H.W Bush that Perot won 19% of the vote anyway.
People are every bit as angry today, starting with W. Bush, Wall Street, the Congress, and now Obama. The Tea Party is a ready made movement for a right-of-center populist candidate to leverage. I think Sarah Palin knows this and is paving the groundwork to make it happen.
Palin was the first GOP leader to endorse the third party congressional candidate in NY23. She has endorsed Rand Paul for Senate in Kentucky over the establishment, neo-con candidate. Her husband used to be a member of the Alaska Independence Party. A couple of weeks ago, she stunned GOP sycophant Sean Hannity by saying that third party conservative candidates are a good thing because: A.) they provide us with more choice and B.) they help keep the GOP candidates in-line. After their disastrous performance under Bush, we all know that the GOP needs to be kept on a short leash. Sure Palin made a campaign appearance with McCain, but this was a political payback for McCain putting her on the ticket in 2008.
The GOP has a nasty habit of letting people have their turn at the Presidential nomination. Reagan lost the 1976 primary but wound up as the candidate in 1980. Bush lost in 1980 but was the candidate in 1988. Dole lost in 1988 but was the candidate in 1996. No serious 1996 contender ran in 2000, but McCain lost in 2000 and he was the candidate in 2008. Everyone knows that it's Romney's turn next. Palin knows this too, which is why I think she is laying the groundwork for an independent campaign in 2012.
Palin may or may not be the best choice. It's still not clear that she has what it takes to go the distance. Who else is there? Former New Mexico Governor Gary Johnson looks set to run, but he has little national exposure. I like the idea of having a successful business person like Perot in the race. Unfortunately, most high profile technology executives are liberals. We certainly don't want anyone from Wall Street in front of this movement. Donald Trump? He made some noises about running a few years ago, but then bailed out.
So unless someone emerges from the ether over the next year, it's probably Palin or no one. If it's no one, we're going to get stuck with RINO Romney and nothing much will change.
The smarmy little Republican operative who said that may very well wind up eating his words. There is still plenty of time between now and 2012 for a new Ross Perot type candidate to emerge and get in front of this thing.
Perot was largely a creation of the media, starting with Larry King. Half way through the campaign he went nuts and quit, and then re-entered the race. However, people were so angry at H.W Bush that Perot won 19% of the vote anyway.
People are every bit as angry today, starting with W. Bush, Wall Street, the Congress, and now Obama. The Tea Party is a ready made movement for a right-of-center populist candidate to leverage. I think Sarah Palin knows this and is paving the groundwork to make it happen.
Palin was the first GOP leader to endorse the third party congressional candidate in NY23. She has endorsed Rand Paul for Senate in Kentucky over the establishment, neo-con candidate. Her husband used to be a member of the Alaska Independence Party. A couple of weeks ago, she stunned GOP sycophant Sean Hannity by saying that third party conservative candidates are a good thing because: A.) they provide us with more choice and B.) they help keep the GOP candidates in-line. After their disastrous performance under Bush, we all know that the GOP needs to be kept on a short leash. Sure Palin made a campaign appearance with McCain, but this was a political payback for McCain putting her on the ticket in 2008.
The GOP has a nasty habit of letting people have their turn at the Presidential nomination. Reagan lost the 1976 primary but wound up as the candidate in 1980. Bush lost in 1980 but was the candidate in 1988. Dole lost in 1988 but was the candidate in 1996. No serious 1996 contender ran in 2000, but McCain lost in 2000 and he was the candidate in 2008. Everyone knows that it's Romney's turn next. Palin knows this too, which is why I think she is laying the groundwork for an independent campaign in 2012.
Palin may or may not be the best choice. It's still not clear that she has what it takes to go the distance. Who else is there? Former New Mexico Governor Gary Johnson looks set to run, but he has little national exposure. I like the idea of having a successful business person like Perot in the race. Unfortunately, most high profile technology executives are liberals. We certainly don't want anyone from Wall Street in front of this movement. Donald Trump? He made some noises about running a few years ago, but then bailed out.
So unless someone emerges from the ether over the next year, it's probably Palin or no one. If it's no one, we're going to get stuck with RINO Romney and nothing much will change.
Tuesday, March 30, 2010
A Constitutional Convention to overturn Obamacare?
South Carolina Lieutenant Governor Andre Bauer is asking the state legislatures to call a Constitutional Convention to overturn Obamacare.
34 State Legislatures would have to agree to call the Convention. State Legislatures would appoint delegates to the Convention. Each state would get one vote. Any amendments drafted by the Convention would have to be ratified by 38 State Legislatures.
Healthcare isn't the only issue that the states have with the federal government.
5 states have passed the Firearms Freedom Act which declares that the federal government has no authority to regulate firearms that are produced and solid within their states. Several other State Legislatures have introduced the bill.
Most of the states in the west have thumbed their noses at the federal government by passing medical marijuana in spite of federal drug laws.
In addition, unfunded federal mandates have become a rallying cry for several states, who are sick and tired of the federal government's unfunded orders. 49 states have introduced or already passed 10th Amendment resolutions which affirms the states's sovereign rights under the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution.
The government has been using the Interstate Commerce clause to trample on the 10th amendment since at least the Roosevelt administration. In recent years it has gotten significantly worse.
The Interstate Commerce Clause was originally created to ensure that states didn't erect protectionist barriers against other states. Unfortunately, it has become the statists' main method of usurping power from the states and the people.
Lieutenant Governor Bauer is right. It's time for the states to call a Constitutional Convention, which at the very least drafts an amendment that clarifies the powers that the federal government has under the Interstate Commerce clause. Those powers are limited to ensuring open trade between the states.
Until this done, the states can bellyache all they want but they aren't going to make any headway with the growing Leviathan in the D.C.
34 State Legislatures would have to agree to call the Convention. State Legislatures would appoint delegates to the Convention. Each state would get one vote. Any amendments drafted by the Convention would have to be ratified by 38 State Legislatures.
Healthcare isn't the only issue that the states have with the federal government.
5 states have passed the Firearms Freedom Act which declares that the federal government has no authority to regulate firearms that are produced and solid within their states. Several other State Legislatures have introduced the bill.
Most of the states in the west have thumbed their noses at the federal government by passing medical marijuana in spite of federal drug laws.
In addition, unfunded federal mandates have become a rallying cry for several states, who are sick and tired of the federal government's unfunded orders. 49 states have introduced or already passed 10th Amendment resolutions which affirms the states's sovereign rights under the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution.
The government has been using the Interstate Commerce clause to trample on the 10th amendment since at least the Roosevelt administration. In recent years it has gotten significantly worse.
The Interstate Commerce Clause was originally created to ensure that states didn't erect protectionist barriers against other states. Unfortunately, it has become the statists' main method of usurping power from the states and the people.
Lieutenant Governor Bauer is right. It's time for the states to call a Constitutional Convention, which at the very least drafts an amendment that clarifies the powers that the federal government has under the Interstate Commerce clause. Those powers are limited to ensuring open trade between the states.
Until this done, the states can bellyache all they want but they aren't going to make any headway with the growing Leviathan in the D.C.
Friday, March 26, 2010
NATO rejects Russian appeal to eradicate opium fields in Afghanistan
This is the dirty little secret of the Afghan war. When they were in power, the Taliban almost completely eradicated the opium trade. Since the U.S. government deposed them, Afghanistan has once again become the largest exporter of heroin in the world.
In rejecting the Russian request, U.S. officials stated that the "Afghan drug problem had to be handled carefully in an effort to avoid alienating local residents".
When was that ever a concern in Columbia or Mexico???
In rejecting the Russian request, U.S. officials stated that the "Afghan drug problem had to be handled carefully in an effort to avoid alienating local residents".
When was that ever a concern in Columbia or Mexico???
Friday, February 26, 2010
How Your Government "Protects" You
There was segment on this on Stossel (Fox Business Channel) last night. It was about an experimental implant for a degenerative eye disease that has shown great promise in helping some bind people see.
The doctor who created the implant has already spent 7 years and $50 million conducting FDA trials which have demonstrated that the implant works. Now the FDA wants more – another $100 million and trials that will last another 3 years.
There are too few customers for the treatment to warrant spending another $100 million on trials. So, investors won't fund the effort. The doctor is going to stop pursuing it.
A potential patient, Stephen Lonegan, was on the show who has an eye disease that could be helped by the implant. He said he wants the treatment and will take whatever risk is involved. Some FDA bureaucrat said no. They said that their restrictions are for his own safety. Stephen said: "There's nothing safe about going blind. I don't want to be made safe by the FDA. I want it to be up to me to make the decision myself."
So this poor guy is going to go blind as a result of the decision of some mindless government bureaucrat following the rules of some impersonal, uncaring government bureaucracy.
In the meantime, all we heard from the Democrats at yesterday's so-called healthcare summit is how evil insurance companies are forcing little old ladies to do things like use their dead friend's false teeth (seriously, this was a topic of discussion).
Joseph de Maistre once said that "every nation has the government it deserves". Well, here it is...
The doctor who created the implant has already spent 7 years and $50 million conducting FDA trials which have demonstrated that the implant works. Now the FDA wants more – another $100 million and trials that will last another 3 years.
There are too few customers for the treatment to warrant spending another $100 million on trials. So, investors won't fund the effort. The doctor is going to stop pursuing it.
A potential patient, Stephen Lonegan, was on the show who has an eye disease that could be helped by the implant. He said he wants the treatment and will take whatever risk is involved. Some FDA bureaucrat said no. They said that their restrictions are for his own safety. Stephen said: "There's nothing safe about going blind. I don't want to be made safe by the FDA. I want it to be up to me to make the decision myself."
So this poor guy is going to go blind as a result of the decision of some mindless government bureaucrat following the rules of some impersonal, uncaring government bureaucracy.
In the meantime, all we heard from the Democrats at yesterday's so-called healthcare summit is how evil insurance companies are forcing little old ladies to do things like use their dead friend's false teeth (seriously, this was a topic of discussion).
Joseph de Maistre once said that "every nation has the government it deserves". Well, here it is...
Thursday, February 25, 2010
McCain Trying To Regulate Nutritional Supplements Once Again
John McCain has introduced yet another bill to get the FDA to regulate nutritional supplements. The Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 321) could deny Americans freedom of access and mandate a doctor’s prescription for many dietary supplements.
Nutritional supplements have been under attack for a couple of decades. Every few years there is a push to regulate them. Fortunately, those efforts have always failed in the past.
Suzanne Somers has been fighting FDA control of suppliments for some time. As she correctly points out, the FDA did an internal study of themselves a couple of years ago and basically came to the conclusion that they lack the scientific capability and competence to evaluate new drugs and medical devices. A big reason why prescription drugs are so costly in America is because the pharmaceutical companies are at the mercy of the incompetent FDA, who takes too long to conduct drug trials.
Mandating that the FDA regulate nutritional suppliments will drive up their cost, as it has for pharmaceuticals. It will also deny Americans the freedom to do what they think is best to keep themselves healthy.
Obviously, we do need an independent body to verify the safety of potentially dangerous prescription drugs and the claims made by their manufacturers. However, that doesn't mean that we need the government to do it.
Have you ever looked at a piece of equipment or a label on an electrical chord and seen the letters UL? Underwriters Laboratories is private company that certifies products for safety and compliance with standards. Manufacturers pay UL to certify their products so that both the manufacturers themselves and their customers know that the company has delivered a safe, quality, product that is compliant with the relevant standards. The range of things they certify is stunning -- appliances; building materials; chemicals; equipment related to the production and distribution of food, water, and energy; high tech equipment; medical devices; and more.
If a product UL certifies turns out to be unsafe, the consumer can seek redress from both the manufacturer and UL. So, UL has every incentive to ensure that the products they certify are safe. Can you sue the FDA for allowing a dangerous drug on the market? Not really.
We could apply the same type of model to pharmaceuticals. Yes, require pharmaceutical companies to get certification for their new drugs. But allow private companies like UL and others to compete to provide that certification. The certification companies would complete by keeping up with the science and latest testing techniques, which would streamline the certification process, speed time to market, and lower drug costs. In the end, we'd also be safer with competing private certification companies than we are with the incompetent bureaucrats in the FDA.
The answer to the the mess the FDA created is right in front of us, but once again, neither political party is willing to make any real changes to the system at all.
In the meantime, we all need to tell the politicans to keep their sticky fingers off of our vitamins.
Nutritional supplements have been under attack for a couple of decades. Every few years there is a push to regulate them. Fortunately, those efforts have always failed in the past.
Suzanne Somers has been fighting FDA control of suppliments for some time. As she correctly points out, the FDA did an internal study of themselves a couple of years ago and basically came to the conclusion that they lack the scientific capability and competence to evaluate new drugs and medical devices. A big reason why prescription drugs are so costly in America is because the pharmaceutical companies are at the mercy of the incompetent FDA, who takes too long to conduct drug trials.
Mandating that the FDA regulate nutritional suppliments will drive up their cost, as it has for pharmaceuticals. It will also deny Americans the freedom to do what they think is best to keep themselves healthy.
Obviously, we do need an independent body to verify the safety of potentially dangerous prescription drugs and the claims made by their manufacturers. However, that doesn't mean that we need the government to do it.
Have you ever looked at a piece of equipment or a label on an electrical chord and seen the letters UL? Underwriters Laboratories is private company that certifies products for safety and compliance with standards. Manufacturers pay UL to certify their products so that both the manufacturers themselves and their customers know that the company has delivered a safe, quality, product that is compliant with the relevant standards. The range of things they certify is stunning -- appliances; building materials; chemicals; equipment related to the production and distribution of food, water, and energy; high tech equipment; medical devices; and more.
If a product UL certifies turns out to be unsafe, the consumer can seek redress from both the manufacturer and UL. So, UL has every incentive to ensure that the products they certify are safe. Can you sue the FDA for allowing a dangerous drug on the market? Not really.
We could apply the same type of model to pharmaceuticals. Yes, require pharmaceutical companies to get certification for their new drugs. But allow private companies like UL and others to compete to provide that certification. The certification companies would complete by keeping up with the science and latest testing techniques, which would streamline the certification process, speed time to market, and lower drug costs. In the end, we'd also be safer with competing private certification companies than we are with the incompetent bureaucrats in the FDA.
The answer to the the mess the FDA created is right in front of us, but once again, neither political party is willing to make any real changes to the system at all.
In the meantime, we all need to tell the politicans to keep their sticky fingers off of our vitamins.
Wednesday, February 24, 2010
A few thoughts on tomorrow's Healthcare Summit
Tomorrow is Obama's big healthcare summit. Many Republicans rightfully believe that this is some sort of political set up. I agree. Obama's strategists have convinced him that the GOP doesn't have any ideas so they concocted this forum in the hopes of exposing their lack of real ideas to the American people.
My view is that the GOP needs to come to the summit ready to aggressively push a reasonable and rational plan for fixing what ails our healthcare system.
A lot of the problems with the healthcare system originate in the state governments. The GOP likes to mention our litigious tort system. This is clearly a state-driven problem. The states have caused other problems as well, for example:
1.) Most states have legislated minimum types of coverage for health plans. Like everything else the government gets its sticky fingers into, what winds up as part of the "minimum coverage" is largely decided by special interests. So, if I don't want to pay for acupuncture or massage therapy, tough luck -- these must be included in the plan by law, which makes the plan more expensive.
2.) The issue with not being able to offer insurance across state lines is also largely the fault of the states that restrict the companies that get to offer health insurance in their states. Of course political payoffs, like campaign contributions have nothing whatsoever to do with who gets to offer insurance and who doesn't.
3.) Finally, most states have legislated out all creativity and innovation from the insurance industry. For example, a couple of months ago a clinic in New York started offering unlimited patient visits for a flat fee of $75 a month. Everyone thought this was a wonderful idea, except the brain dead state government who said it was illegal to do this because that would make the clinic an insurance company.
This is actually a larger problem than just healthcare. All heavily government regulated industries are laboring under foolish laws that makes them uncompetitive in an increasingly competitive world.
The country needs legislation, or maybe even a constitutional amendment that forbids federal, state, and local governments from granting monopolies to businesses or doing anything else that restricts businesses from entering markets. (Professional licensing, etc. would still be okay as long as it was applied uniformly to everyone.)
If we unshackle the creative and competitive nature of the American people, the big problems that we have today won't be so big tomorrow.
My view is that the GOP needs to come to the summit ready to aggressively push a reasonable and rational plan for fixing what ails our healthcare system.
A lot of the problems with the healthcare system originate in the state governments. The GOP likes to mention our litigious tort system. This is clearly a state-driven problem. The states have caused other problems as well, for example:
1.) Most states have legislated minimum types of coverage for health plans. Like everything else the government gets its sticky fingers into, what winds up as part of the "minimum coverage" is largely decided by special interests. So, if I don't want to pay for acupuncture or massage therapy, tough luck -- these must be included in the plan by law, which makes the plan more expensive.
2.) The issue with not being able to offer insurance across state lines is also largely the fault of the states that restrict the companies that get to offer health insurance in their states. Of course political payoffs, like campaign contributions have nothing whatsoever to do with who gets to offer insurance and who doesn't.
3.) Finally, most states have legislated out all creativity and innovation from the insurance industry. For example, a couple of months ago a clinic in New York started offering unlimited patient visits for a flat fee of $75 a month. Everyone thought this was a wonderful idea, except the brain dead state government who said it was illegal to do this because that would make the clinic an insurance company.
This is actually a larger problem than just healthcare. All heavily government regulated industries are laboring under foolish laws that makes them uncompetitive in an increasingly competitive world.
The country needs legislation, or maybe even a constitutional amendment that forbids federal, state, and local governments from granting monopolies to businesses or doing anything else that restricts businesses from entering markets. (Professional licensing, etc. would still be okay as long as it was applied uniformly to everyone.)
If we unshackle the creative and competitive nature of the American people, the big problems that we have today won't be so big tomorrow.
We Can't Balance the Budget without cutting Overseas Military Expenditures
The U.S. government is facing annual trillion dollar plus budget deficits as far as the eye can see. Economists warn that in 10 short years interest payments on the debt will consume a whopping 80% of all federal tax revenue. This is not sustainable. Long before we reach that point, the U.S. government will have to devalue the dollar and/or default on the debt, making us all poorer in the process.
There are plenty of ways to squeeze money out of domestic programs. We don't need 29 federal welfare programs. We don't need the departments of Education, Agriculture, Labor, or Commerce. Does anyone know what the Commerce Department does anyway??? The poorly managed Post Office loses $5 billion a quarter. It should be privatized. We need to take a hard look at all domestic spending.
However, one fact is becoming increasingly clear -- it is not possible to balance the federal budget without reducing the size of our overseas military expenditures.
Our current global defense posture is a relic of the Cold War. The Cold War ended more than 20 years ago when the Soviet Union collapsed in 1989. Maintaining Cold War era defense programs and commitments detracts us from meeting the actual threats that we face today. It is also heavily contributing to our enormous annual budget deficits.
Unfortunately, reform will be very difficult. Here's why: the GOP's electoral coalition was largely built around defending us from the communists. So, the GOP is going to be very hesitant to make any changes that could jeopardize that coalition.
After the Soviet Union fell in 1989, a few people on the right like Pat Buchanan started making noises about bringing the troops home from Europe and Japan. This scared the heck out of the GOP establishment, especially the neo-conservatives. So, they started beating the drums against so-called "Red" China (which in many ways is actually more capitalistic than the U.S. is today)
The sad fact is that 9/11 saved the neo-conservatives and the Cold War coalition because they could stand up and say: "see, the world is still a dangerous place and you need us to protect you".
Fortunately, people are starting to wake up to the fact that al Queda is not a country that we can invade and subdue, like we did to Germany and Japan during World War II. Instead, al Queda is a roaming band of bad guys who can easily pack up their things and move elsewhere. We invade Afghanistan so they move to Pakistan. We invade Pakistan and then they go to Yemen. If we invaded Yemen, they would high tail it to Somalia. On and on...
The so-called "war on terror" is a prescription for endless war, growing government power at home, and a mounting pile of debt that will quickly bankrupt the country.
Think about this real hard: Does it make sense for us to borrow money from the Europeans to protect the Europeans? Does it make sense for us to borrow money from the Saudis to protect the Saudis?? Does it make sense for us to borrow money from the Chinese to protect Asia from the Chinese??? This is exactly what we are doing. It's insane.
It's time to bring the troops home from Europe and Japan. The European Union collectively has a higher GDP than does the U.S. Japan is the second largest national economy in the world behind the U.S. (China will likely pass Japan this year.) These are rich countries who are more than capable of defending themselves. So why are we borrowing money to subsidize their defense???
If the Saudis want us to protect them and their oil fields, let's have a national debate on whether or not we should. If we do, then the Saudis can pay us with free oil to keep them safe.
It's also time to find a better way to protect ourselves from the terrorists than costly foreign wars without end. A good place to start would be to reform the failed Border Patrol and the TSA to reduce the chances of another attack at home.
The rapidly mounting debt should be a huge wake up call for all Americans. Obama's measly little spending freeze on discretionary domestic programs won't do a thing to solve the problem. The GOP doesn't even have a plan. If and when they come up with one, it likely will not contain any serious assessment of our costly overseas military commitments. That's a big problem for our future.
There are plenty of ways to squeeze money out of domestic programs. We don't need 29 federal welfare programs. We don't need the departments of Education, Agriculture, Labor, or Commerce. Does anyone know what the Commerce Department does anyway??? The poorly managed Post Office loses $5 billion a quarter. It should be privatized. We need to take a hard look at all domestic spending.
However, one fact is becoming increasingly clear -- it is not possible to balance the federal budget without reducing the size of our overseas military expenditures.
Our current global defense posture is a relic of the Cold War. The Cold War ended more than 20 years ago when the Soviet Union collapsed in 1989. Maintaining Cold War era defense programs and commitments detracts us from meeting the actual threats that we face today. It is also heavily contributing to our enormous annual budget deficits.
Unfortunately, reform will be very difficult. Here's why: the GOP's electoral coalition was largely built around defending us from the communists. So, the GOP is going to be very hesitant to make any changes that could jeopardize that coalition.
After the Soviet Union fell in 1989, a few people on the right like Pat Buchanan started making noises about bringing the troops home from Europe and Japan. This scared the heck out of the GOP establishment, especially the neo-conservatives. So, they started beating the drums against so-called "Red" China (which in many ways is actually more capitalistic than the U.S. is today)
The sad fact is that 9/11 saved the neo-conservatives and the Cold War coalition because they could stand up and say: "see, the world is still a dangerous place and you need us to protect you".
Fortunately, people are starting to wake up to the fact that al Queda is not a country that we can invade and subdue, like we did to Germany and Japan during World War II. Instead, al Queda is a roaming band of bad guys who can easily pack up their things and move elsewhere. We invade Afghanistan so they move to Pakistan. We invade Pakistan and then they go to Yemen. If we invaded Yemen, they would high tail it to Somalia. On and on...
The so-called "war on terror" is a prescription for endless war, growing government power at home, and a mounting pile of debt that will quickly bankrupt the country.
Think about this real hard: Does it make sense for us to borrow money from the Europeans to protect the Europeans? Does it make sense for us to borrow money from the Saudis to protect the Saudis?? Does it make sense for us to borrow money from the Chinese to protect Asia from the Chinese??? This is exactly what we are doing. It's insane.
It's time to bring the troops home from Europe and Japan. The European Union collectively has a higher GDP than does the U.S. Japan is the second largest national economy in the world behind the U.S. (China will likely pass Japan this year.) These are rich countries who are more than capable of defending themselves. So why are we borrowing money to subsidize their defense???
If the Saudis want us to protect them and their oil fields, let's have a national debate on whether or not we should. If we do, then the Saudis can pay us with free oil to keep them safe.
It's also time to find a better way to protect ourselves from the terrorists than costly foreign wars without end. A good place to start would be to reform the failed Border Patrol and the TSA to reduce the chances of another attack at home.
The rapidly mounting debt should be a huge wake up call for all Americans. Obama's measly little spending freeze on discretionary domestic programs won't do a thing to solve the problem. The GOP doesn't even have a plan. If and when they come up with one, it likely will not contain any serious assessment of our costly overseas military commitments. That's a big problem for our future.
Tuesday, February 23, 2010
Germany wants U.S. to remove its Nuclear Weapons
There is a report out today that Germany wants the United States to remove its nuclear weapons from German soil, with officials describing them as a "relic of the Cold War". Conservative German Chancellor Angela Merkel issued a written policy statement to her party starting: "We will advocate within (NATO) Alliance and with our American allies the removal of the remaining nuclear weapons from Germany".
This is exactly right. Th Soviet Union died in 1989. There is no more credible state-sponsored international communist threat. Russia and the Germans are good friends.
Maintaining our Cold War defense posture detracts us, in terms of both focus and money, from meeting the actual threats that we face today.
So, why in the heck do we continue to spend our tax money supporting something that is not wanted and not needed??? I'll tell you why -- because we are living in a hidebound country, controlled by special interests (including, but not limited to defense contractors), who are completely resistant to any and all change.
Put modernizing our defense strategy on a long list of changes that need to be made to our illustrious government in the District of Columbia.
This is exactly right. Th Soviet Union died in 1989. There is no more credible state-sponsored international communist threat. Russia and the Germans are good friends.
Maintaining our Cold War defense posture detracts us, in terms of both focus and money, from meeting the actual threats that we face today.
So, why in the heck do we continue to spend our tax money supporting something that is not wanted and not needed??? I'll tell you why -- because we are living in a hidebound country, controlled by special interests (including, but not limited to defense contractors), who are completely resistant to any and all change.
Put modernizing our defense strategy on a long list of changes that need to be made to our illustrious government in the District of Columbia.
Sunday, February 21, 2010
Hatch worried that the Tea Party will tear GOP apart
Orin Hatch has been bellyaching that the Tea Party threatens the GOP establishment. He joins a growing chorus of GOP regulars who are becoming very worried about the consequences of Tea Party activism. GREAT!!! They should be worried. While there are a small handful of good people in the GOP, most of the SOBs in the party need to get booted from office along with the Democrats.
I cast my first vote in 1980. I voted for Reagan. For 20 years, I listened to GOP excuses. Reagan couldn't cut spending in the 1980s because he had a Democrat congress. Gingrich and the GOP Congress couldn't cut spending in the 1990s because they were laboring under a Democrat President. For 20 years I said: I want to see the GOP run it all so that they can make the changes they talk about.
Well, now we've seen the GOP run it all under Bush and it wasn't a pretty site.
They created the first new entitlement program since LBJ. They initiated the largest federal intrusion into the classroom in history. They created the largest pork barrel programs the world has ever seen. According to the Heritage Foundation, Bush oversaw Hurricane Katrina "victims" spending OUR TAX MONEY on things like Caribbean vacations, Dom Perignon champagne, Girls Gone Wild videos, and at least one SEX CHANGE OPERATION. They embarked on a costly, demented, and belligerent foreign policy that has left America weaker in the world.
As a result, they turned a balanced budget into a massive annual deficit. They doubled the national debt and had to borrow a TRILLION dollars from the Chinese to do so. They collapsed the economy. Then they gave Wall Street Banksters $700 BILLION dollars of OUR TAX MONEY, which was promptly used to lavish bonuses on FAILED executives.
Of course, one could point out that Obama is even worse, but to do so would be missing the entire point, which is: Both parties are sprinting towards hell. I don't want to go to hell. I want someone to turn around and go the other way. The GOP has shown that they won't. That's the problem.
I cast my first vote in 1980. I voted for Reagan. For 20 years, I listened to GOP excuses. Reagan couldn't cut spending in the 1980s because he had a Democrat congress. Gingrich and the GOP Congress couldn't cut spending in the 1990s because they were laboring under a Democrat President. For 20 years I said: I want to see the GOP run it all so that they can make the changes they talk about.
Well, now we've seen the GOP run it all under Bush and it wasn't a pretty site.
They created the first new entitlement program since LBJ. They initiated the largest federal intrusion into the classroom in history. They created the largest pork barrel programs the world has ever seen. According to the Heritage Foundation, Bush oversaw Hurricane Katrina "victims" spending OUR TAX MONEY on things like Caribbean vacations, Dom Perignon champagne, Girls Gone Wild videos, and at least one SEX CHANGE OPERATION. They embarked on a costly, demented, and belligerent foreign policy that has left America weaker in the world.
As a result, they turned a balanced budget into a massive annual deficit. They doubled the national debt and had to borrow a TRILLION dollars from the Chinese to do so. They collapsed the economy. Then they gave Wall Street Banksters $700 BILLION dollars of OUR TAX MONEY, which was promptly used to lavish bonuses on FAILED executives.
Of course, one could point out that Obama is even worse, but to do so would be missing the entire point, which is: Both parties are sprinting towards hell. I don't want to go to hell. I want someone to turn around and go the other way. The GOP has shown that they won't. That's the problem.
Monday, February 15, 2010
Mounting debt points to dire consequences ahead
We learned last week that the Social Security system is finally paying out more each year than it is taking in. As a result of Carter raising Social Security taxes in the 70s, the Social Security system has been taking in more money than it was paying out over the last 30 years. Of course, the money wasn't being saved for a rainy day. Instead, the kleptomaniac politicians pilfered it to pay off special interests, including big agribusinesses, Wall Street Banksters, and other large corporations who don't want to compete in the market; leftist "community organizers" like Acorn; government union bosses; corrupt university scientists studying "climate change"; welfare queens; and an endless parade of other leeches. The politicians' theft of the Social Security surpluses masked the true magnitude of annual budget deficits for more than 30 years. Now those surpluses are gone.
Government economists predict that even when (if?) we come out of this recession, the growing demands of the baby boomers on Social Security and Medicare will force the debt to keep piling up.
Honest people have been warning about entitlement spending for more than 30 years. For a long time, nothing was done to reform anything because every time someone tried to tell the truth the left would demagogue the issue, accusing the reformers of being heartless sadists who wanted to throw grandma into the snow without her shawl.
To make matters worse, the last two knuckleheads in the Oval Office have made the situation even worse. George Bush created the first new entitlement since LBJ (a costly prescription drug program for the elderly). Not to be outdone, Obama created a $1 trillion "stimulus" bill that failed to stimulate anything except the salivary glads of power hungry politicians. He also proposed (and hopefully has failed) to expand government healthcare entitlements from 50% of healthcare spending today to 100%.
Given the endless orgy of spending, government economists predict that interest on the debt will gobble up a whopping 80% of all federal revenues by 2020. EIGHTY PERCENT. There won't be any money left to do anything else.
We're not going to be able to just switch out the Congress and make a few tweaks to the system like we did in 94. It's too late for that. Given that the politicians are too corrupt and cowardly to make real changes, we are looking a a grim future ahead.
Mark my words, one or more of these three things WILL happen long before 2020:
A.) The government will undertake a massive tax increase (probably in the form of a Value Added Tax) that will cripple the economy even further and decimate middle class living standards.
B.) The government will create a hyperinflation to pay off the debt with worthless dollars, and wipe out what remains of middle class savings and investment.
C.) The government will default on its debt and collapse the global economy.
All empires come to an end. Thanks to corrupt politicians, lobbyists, and Wall Street bankstes,the post WWII American empire may be next. That's not necessarily a bad thing. It all depends on what comes next.
One path points us in the direction of freedom. It requires that we stand up to the federal government and reassert our rights with state nullification of federal laws (which is already happening in a few states with regards to gun control), a constitutional amendment that strictly limits federal power (including closing the "interstate commerce clause" loop hole, which has been used by the politicians to get their grubby little fingers into every aspect of our lives), repeal of the 16th and 17th amendments (which are the root cause of our problems), and potentially secession, if need be.
The other path -- of more government spending and debt -- could very easily end up with a strong man in charge of the country. Remember, the hyperinflation in Germany directly led to the ascension of Der Führer. That's the last thing we need.
We're on an uncharted course, at least for America. But we can learn from history and the mistakes that other countries have made. Hell, we can learn from the mistakes that other countries are making TODAY, namely the PIGS -- Portugal, Ireland, Greece, and Spain. Frankly, the U.S. situation is about as dire as theirs in terms of debt to GDP ratio. The only difference is that the U.S. is such a large and important country that it will take longer before our day of reckoning arrives. Make no mistake, it will arrive, and when it does it will be even worse than theirs because there will be no one left to bail us out.
It's long past time to learn from history and get our fiscal house in order. The magic question is whether or not we will learn.
Government economists predict that even when (if?) we come out of this recession, the growing demands of the baby boomers on Social Security and Medicare will force the debt to keep piling up.
Honest people have been warning about entitlement spending for more than 30 years. For a long time, nothing was done to reform anything because every time someone tried to tell the truth the left would demagogue the issue, accusing the reformers of being heartless sadists who wanted to throw grandma into the snow without her shawl.
To make matters worse, the last two knuckleheads in the Oval Office have made the situation even worse. George Bush created the first new entitlement since LBJ (a costly prescription drug program for the elderly). Not to be outdone, Obama created a $1 trillion "stimulus" bill that failed to stimulate anything except the salivary glads of power hungry politicians. He also proposed (and hopefully has failed) to expand government healthcare entitlements from 50% of healthcare spending today to 100%.
Given the endless orgy of spending, government economists predict that interest on the debt will gobble up a whopping 80% of all federal revenues by 2020. EIGHTY PERCENT. There won't be any money left to do anything else.
We're not going to be able to just switch out the Congress and make a few tweaks to the system like we did in 94. It's too late for that. Given that the politicians are too corrupt and cowardly to make real changes, we are looking a a grim future ahead.
Mark my words, one or more of these three things WILL happen long before 2020:
A.) The government will undertake a massive tax increase (probably in the form of a Value Added Tax) that will cripple the economy even further and decimate middle class living standards.
B.) The government will create a hyperinflation to pay off the debt with worthless dollars, and wipe out what remains of middle class savings and investment.
C.) The government will default on its debt and collapse the global economy.
All empires come to an end. Thanks to corrupt politicians, lobbyists, and Wall Street bankstes,the post WWII American empire may be next. That's not necessarily a bad thing. It all depends on what comes next.
One path points us in the direction of freedom. It requires that we stand up to the federal government and reassert our rights with state nullification of federal laws (which is already happening in a few states with regards to gun control), a constitutional amendment that strictly limits federal power (including closing the "interstate commerce clause" loop hole, which has been used by the politicians to get their grubby little fingers into every aspect of our lives), repeal of the 16th and 17th amendments (which are the root cause of our problems), and potentially secession, if need be.
The other path -- of more government spending and debt -- could very easily end up with a strong man in charge of the country. Remember, the hyperinflation in Germany directly led to the ascension of Der Führer. That's the last thing we need.
We're on an uncharted course, at least for America. But we can learn from history and the mistakes that other countries have made. Hell, we can learn from the mistakes that other countries are making TODAY, namely the PIGS -- Portugal, Ireland, Greece, and Spain. Frankly, the U.S. situation is about as dire as theirs in terms of debt to GDP ratio. The only difference is that the U.S. is such a large and important country that it will take longer before our day of reckoning arrives. Make no mistake, it will arrive, and when it does it will be even worse than theirs because there will be no one left to bail us out.
It's long past time to learn from history and get our fiscal house in order. The magic question is whether or not we will learn.
Friday, February 12, 2010
Short, open letter to Glenn Beck
Glen,
A few minutes ago you told a caller not to worry about people going back to sleep after the next election. I disagree.
In 92, the country was every bit as angry as they are today. The result? We gave Ross Perot 19% of the popular vote -- the second highest total of any third party candidate in the 20th century (Teddy Roosevelt won 27% of the vote as a Progressive candidate in 1912. We did this even after we knew he was crazy (remember the whole "Bush is going to sabotage my daughter's wedding" thing???). If Perot had the type of voter concentration that Wallace did in 68, he could have swept the west the sent the election to the Congress.
Fortunately, people stayed angry for two more years and we swept the GOP into control of the Congress.
The GOP congress did a great job in the 90s. But then most people went right back to sleep. They stayed asleep when George Bush and his GOP congress escalated spending faster than any President since LBJ, created the first new entitlement program since LBJ, and initiated the largest federal intrusion into the classroom in history.
It took one of the worst economic collapses in our lifetimes to wake people up again.
My view is that we are in deep trouble for a long time. I am afraid that it is too late to simply elect some new people who can tweak the system and make it all better. We may have to entirely reboot the system from the bottom with a new a constitutional convention that puts the politicians into there place. Regardless of what happens this year and in 2012, we are in for a long, scary ride.
A few minutes ago you told a caller not to worry about people going back to sleep after the next election. I disagree.
In 92, the country was every bit as angry as they are today. The result? We gave Ross Perot 19% of the popular vote -- the second highest total of any third party candidate in the 20th century (Teddy Roosevelt won 27% of the vote as a Progressive candidate in 1912. We did this even after we knew he was crazy (remember the whole "Bush is going to sabotage my daughter's wedding" thing???). If Perot had the type of voter concentration that Wallace did in 68, he could have swept the west the sent the election to the Congress.
Fortunately, people stayed angry for two more years and we swept the GOP into control of the Congress.
The GOP congress did a great job in the 90s. But then most people went right back to sleep. They stayed asleep when George Bush and his GOP congress escalated spending faster than any President since LBJ, created the first new entitlement program since LBJ, and initiated the largest federal intrusion into the classroom in history.
It took one of the worst economic collapses in our lifetimes to wake people up again.
My view is that we are in deep trouble for a long time. I am afraid that it is too late to simply elect some new people who can tweak the system and make it all better. We may have to entirely reboot the system from the bottom with a new a constitutional convention that puts the politicians into there place. Regardless of what happens this year and in 2012, we are in for a long, scary ride.
Thursday, January 21, 2010
Why should we trust them again?
House minority leader John Boeher was on Michael Medved's show today. In response to a caller's question, Boeher said that the the GOP did indeed have a health care proposal. He gave the URL where it was posted.
REALLY??? I'll bet that most people have no idea that the GOP has a health care plan. Of course Boehner didn't articulate AT ALL what was actually in the plan.
Reagan and Gingrich understood something that Boehner doesn't -- being shy and keeping things quiet is NOT how one wins in the marketplace of ideas.
The sad fact is that the current GOP members in Congress lack the kind of great leadership and communication skills that they had in the 1990s under Newt Gingrich, Dick Armey, and Bill Archer. Not only did those guys accomplish a lot (welfare reform, capital gains tax cut, balanced budget, etc), they also set the stage for what would happen when the GOP took control of the Presidency. I remember the big debates between Armey and Archer on how they would scrap the current tax code in favor of either a flat rate income tax or a national sales tax. Even "moderates" like Pete Domenici (R) and Sam Nunn (D) came up with their own version of radical tax reform (a “consumption-oriented” income tax).
ALL reform (let alone talk of even more radical reform) died in January 2001 when George Bush became President. Instead, George Bush and Karl Rove tried to emulate the Democrats by buying votes with the first new entitlement program since LBJ and the largest federal intrusion into the classroom in history. It didn't work and they got booted out of office. Boehner was part of the mess that Bush made.
The result was inevitable -- the Democrats now control the federal government and are doing everything possible to make it even larger.
I am so VERY happy that Scott Brown won in Massachusetts. It signals that virtually everyone except the most brain dead socialist is waking up to reality. However, this doesn't mean that we should automatically trust John Boehner and the Bush GOP sell-outs again. We need to take it candidate-by-candidate and really take a hard look at whether or not they going to return power to the people or continue to consolidate government in the hands of a few elitists.
REALLY??? I'll bet that most people have no idea that the GOP has a health care plan. Of course Boehner didn't articulate AT ALL what was actually in the plan.
Reagan and Gingrich understood something that Boehner doesn't -- being shy and keeping things quiet is NOT how one wins in the marketplace of ideas.
The sad fact is that the current GOP members in Congress lack the kind of great leadership and communication skills that they had in the 1990s under Newt Gingrich, Dick Armey, and Bill Archer. Not only did those guys accomplish a lot (welfare reform, capital gains tax cut, balanced budget, etc), they also set the stage for what would happen when the GOP took control of the Presidency. I remember the big debates between Armey and Archer on how they would scrap the current tax code in favor of either a flat rate income tax or a national sales tax. Even "moderates" like Pete Domenici (R) and Sam Nunn (D) came up with their own version of radical tax reform (a “consumption-oriented” income tax).
ALL reform (let alone talk of even more radical reform) died in January 2001 when George Bush became President. Instead, George Bush and Karl Rove tried to emulate the Democrats by buying votes with the first new entitlement program since LBJ and the largest federal intrusion into the classroom in history. It didn't work and they got booted out of office. Boehner was part of the mess that Bush made.
The result was inevitable -- the Democrats now control the federal government and are doing everything possible to make it even larger.
I am so VERY happy that Scott Brown won in Massachusetts. It signals that virtually everyone except the most brain dead socialist is waking up to reality. However, this doesn't mean that we should automatically trust John Boehner and the Bush GOP sell-outs again. We need to take it candidate-by-candidate and really take a hard look at whether or not they going to return power to the people or continue to consolidate government in the hands of a few elitists.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
