A DISCOURSE ON POLITICS AND ECONOMICS
Are you the hapless moron the Left considers you to be?
Do you believe the wealthy are not paying their fair share?. Are individuals with an effective tax rate of 15% a drag on society? Should investments be taxed at the same rate as income?
If you answered yes to any or all of the above, hustle back to your village; it's missing its idiot.
Don’t fret, though. Understanding a few simple facts can elevate you to respected elder status.
First, wealthy people often have a lower effective tax rate because the bulk of their earnings tend to come from investments. As a nation, we’ve chosen to tax investment at a lower rate—not because of a devious bias toward those with available capital, but because investing has risks and attracting investment dollars is VERY beneficial to society—particularly to the middle and poorer classes.
Let me address the risk element first. An investment is often taxed differently than earned income (e.g. salary) because one, you don’t have to invest so inducements help, and two, its value can decrease. In fact, it can go to zero. So, in order to get individuals and businesses to voluntarily risk their capital, it is advisable to reward them with a lower tax rate (should the investment increase in value) to compensate for the risk that it might very well decline. That’s common sense. Rational people/businesses are willing to jeopardize their capital when they perceive the potential gain to be worth risking the possible loss. It can be hard to justify putting money into a chancy endeavor when even if it makes money (often a long shot), half the gains or more will be taxed away. That’s normally not a bet for the prudent.
So, what about the ‘VERY beneficial to society’ part?
I said that investment is good, and others say it all the time. But why? Can’t we just work hard, collect our salaries, and go home? Sure, but doing so en mass would have catastrophic consequences for our culture and standard of living. A few examples are in order.
Consider municipal bonds. Municipal bonds are the way in which local communities, cities, and states acquire the capital necessary to fund various essential services and large projects (e.g. water/sewage treatment plants, roads and bridges, schools, etc.). These types of undertakings are hugely expensive and almost always not able to be paid for out of available funds. They frequently need to be completed now, but paid for over time via debt instruments (i.e. bonds)—not unlike the way most people purchase cars and homes. If there was not a vibrant market (properly incented) for municipal bonds, these towns, cities, and states would have to pay orders of magnitude more to attract the capital necessary to fund their projects. What does that mean in simple terms? Instead of paying a 4, 5, or 6% interest rate on a loan, a city might be forced to pay 10, 15, or 20%. Why? Because when there are fewer interested buyers of a municipal bond (lower demand) due to less favorable tax treatment, the cost (i.e. interest rate) of reducing the bond supply is increased considerably. Such a dramatic increase in the cost of capital would obviously have a devastating impact on the locale in question—likely manifested in a material reduction of services and infrastructure improvements. And concomitantly, a substantial cutback in jobs tied to the provision of said services and infrastructure improvements.
How about corporate stocks and bonds? Corporate stocks and bonds are generally the ways in which companies, particularly those in the expansion phase, fund growth. And growth means more jobs—up and down the supply chain. Just like with municipal bonds, if the market for corporate instruments is not robust, then the cost of acquiring the necessary expansion capital for companies rises substantially. Elevated costs translates into fewer/smaller investments in new plant and equipment and/or a reduction in hiring. The bottom line is a net negative impact to the economy through higher product/service prices and scarcity of jobs.
The story is just the same for mortgage securities. If banks and other holders of mortgages can’t get them off their books (i.e. sell them), they have less capital available for additional lending and other GDP-enhancing activities. So, when the supply of a good/service (i.e. money available to loan in the form of a mortgage) is constrained, steady or increasing demand will drive up its price (i.e. mortgage rate). In case you’re still confused, that means higher mortgage rates and all of its economic activity reducing consequences.
Got it?
Try to see through the moronic populism of the Left and politically motivated and destructive nonsense of Newt Gingrich and others on the Right.
Actions have consequences.
You think you might want to stick ...<< MORE >>
Time to take a step back boys. Yeah you, GOP presidential candidates.
You are misguidedly, whether of you own volition or because of media prodding, spending a ridiculous amount of time focused on each other—and the completely insignificant.
As I recall, this election was supposed to be a referendum on Barack Obama's abject incompetence, his lack of leadership, and his efforts to turn the United States into a European-style social welfare state. Your job was simply to make the case for limited government fiscal conservatism as the best/only path back to prosperity.
Got it?
Stop diddling as home burns!
You missed another opportunity tonight. Two stories that hit the wire today could have been used quite effectively to draw the contrasts necessary to put your party in the White House come November.
It was reported earlier (and of course ignored by the mainstream media) that Illinois is falling farther and farther behind on its debt. More importantly, their situation has become increasingly precarious subsequent to a 67% increase in the state's personal income tax rate and a 45% bump in the corporate rate. The Dems, needless to say, promised these hikes would be a panacea for the state's budgetary ills. And oh by the way, the Illinois powers that be ostensibly refused to cut spending, too.
So, let me see if I have this straight. Illinois raised taxes, didn't cut spending, and things got a whole lot worse. Funny, that's exactly what fiscal conservatives say will happen each and every time the Left beats the drum for higher taxes and more spending. One more concrete example of a Liberal policy proven dead wrong.
Ya think that might have been a worthwhile debate topic?
How about Moon Beam Jerry Brown's call for higher taxes in California? Yep, the Governor of the state with the highest or second highest tax burden (and one of the highest debt loads) wants another pound of flesh...and guess who he wants it from? You figured it out—the wealthy. Hmm, do you think that people worth a boat load of money will have much of a problem picking up and establishing a primary residence in Nevada, or Washington, or Florida, or one of the many other zero state tax states? Or perchance Arizona...where the rate is less than half that in California? And how about California-based businesses? Think they're all going to want to stick around? What do you suppose will happen to the tax base then? Debt explosion anyone?
Would it not have made sense to point out that Obama is using and wants to continue to use the toxic byproduct from the Illinois/California petri dish that happens to be killing Europe and has been infecting liberal orthodoxy here for decades?
What the hell, let's spend more time tearing down capitalism.
That should do the trick.
January 10th, 2012 will be the 236th anniversary of the initial publication of Thomas Paine's seminal pamphlet, Common Sense—inarguably a chief catalyst for the American Revolution gaining support from the colonial masses.
Paine provided a simple and easy-to-understand rationale for freedom from British rule. His straightforward approach brought average Americans into the political debate.
In 2012 who is going to free us from an overly oppressive government?
Well, more that two centuries post Common Sense, it's time for each and every one of us to take responsibility and channel some Thomas Paine. A little common sense would go a long way, particularly given the current state of the country and world.
Sounds like a pretty good New Year's Resolution.
Let's make ourselves the final arbiter of what's right and wrong. We have the capacity to strip away the biases of the media, politicians, their operatives, and others—to look at the facts, then apply a basic reasonableness test to partisan arguments.
Forget about the who and focus on the what.
Is it common sense to believe that continued U.S. government spending at European or near-European levels won't have the same catastrophic consequences?
Is it common sense to believe that soldiers trained to put country ahead of self and handle the most dangerous circumstances imaginable with calm and balance can't tolerate colleagues who have a sexual orientation different from their own?
Is it common sense to believe that the government, rather than private sector, is going to be the answer to our economic woes?
Is it common sense to believe that programs and departments whose funding has increased upwards of 100% over the last 3+ years can't have their budgets cut by 50% or more?
Is it common sense to believe we cannot safely expand the production of our vast domestic energy resources while simultaneously attempting to explore the viability of various alternatives?
Is it common sense to believe that "entitlement" programs that have one person collecting for every two or three paying in, as opposed to the 30 or 40+ that used to pay in for each recipient, are sustainable without reasonable reforms?
Is it common sense to believe we are better off as a country with a leader (and movement) who cynically and irrationally looks to divide us, rather than one who understands we all flourish when there is optimism and a respect for what has made us great?
Is it common sense to believe that a nation can prosper with a government that believes it is the first best option to fix everything that ails us, down to the most minute detail (e.g. 40,000 new rules and regulations took effect on 1/1/2012)?
I resolve to make sure that facts and common sense always determine my positions.
How about you?
Have a happy and rewarding New Year!
We’re all really, really stupid. At least that’s what Fox News appears to think. Why else would they keep forcing Donald Trump on us?
Trump knows damn well he’s not going to run for President, and so does Fox. I guarantee you Roger Ailes considers the odds of a Trump candidacy to be prohibitive. And, in the very off chance he did decide to throw his hat in the ring, do caricatures automatically warrant extensive and serious coverage?
C’mon Fox; you’re supposed to be better than this.
Apparently, their perception of what drives ratings is now more important than honest analysis. It’s offensive to be played for a fool. I feel like a Democrat.
Don’t get me wrong, Fox has always been about the ratings, but the stories they’ve pushed and the angles they’ve pursued have typically had a certain authenticity. Sure, they were frequently overdone and/or overhyped, and maybe even cherry picked, but at least they seemed rooted in the truth.
Let’s be honest; FNC is rarely balanced (hard to deny the slant); however, it has consistently been fair. I’m ok with that...as long as the facts are well-supported and the opinions honest.
But now it’s time to call bullshit. I’m not putting up with the Trump nonsense any longer (and haven’t been for a while). For the past few weeks, as soon as Trump appears, or his “possible” candidacy is mentioned, I change the channel and keep it changed for the remainder of the day.
Yeah, I know; I’m not exactly lighting myself on fire in the town square, but some protests have humble beginnings. Hopefully it will catch on. If you agree, feel free to pass this along.
Fox, right now you’re on probation.
Get your act together, or…
You’re fired!
I am an effete intellectual, skilled in condescension. I build model bridges to nowhere out of toothpicks lifted from Air Force One.
I excite constituents with my jaunty jogs to the podium, and take over entire industries with the swipe of a pen. I can bowl a 37…left-handed.
I bow down to dictators and persecute allies. I’m loved in third-world countries…and in all 57 states.
I give healthcare waivers to unions and the shaft to corporations. My Attorney General is Fast and Furious.
I’m a uniter who divides; a role model who smokes; and an environmentalist with an enormous carbon footprint. I look awesome in a bicycle helmet.
I’ve been known to throw out the first pitch…and get it almost halfway to the plate. I can beat Sarah Palin three out five falls.
I give a 10 minute speech in an hour, and answer three press conference questions in 90 minutes. I read a teleprompter with one eye tied behind my back.
I can change the tone in Washington. Acoustical engineers marvel at my genius.
I walk on water in Hollywood and eggshells in Israel. My administration has more czars than a Romanov family reunion.
I can golf after a tsunami, and down a large cone on Martha’s Vineyard while the economy is burning.
I'm cool as a cucumber and smart as a whip. Just ask anybody and MSNBC. I’ll send a thrill up your leg and a shiver through your wallet. Fat cats tremble in my presence.
I can't go to my right on the basketball court, and won't in the court of public opinion. In college, I dated Warren Buffett.
The Laws of Economics do not apply to me.
I’m your boogie man. That’s what I am.
Sincerely,
Barack Obama
In a New York Times editorial published today, Warren Buffett is back up on his high horse lecturing the great unwashed about how he and his super rich buddies should be paying higher taxes. It’s outrageous, he pontificates, that his effective tax rate is substantially lower than that of those pulling down a small fraction of his enormous income. I know, I know, you’ve seen this movie before. Ole Warren relishes the opportunity to do this roughly every six months or so to demonstrate to his effete friends that he is not only a swell guy, but the undisputed king of the oh-so-enlightened Left.
The implication, of course, is that our financial woes would largely go by the wayside if he and his uber-wealthy friends would simply be required to kick in a little more. What a patriot.
Unfortunately, there’s a fly in the snake oil that Buffett is selling. But, if you’re going to be Obama’s top economic b*tch in the private sector, I guess that’s how the game is played.
You see folks, the numbers just don’t add up. The feckless, lapdog mainstream media won’t tell you this. They’re out spreading the Buffet gospel as proof that there is little/no need to veer off the social democracy path Obama and his acolytes have placed us on. We can fund all their Utopian ideals on the backs of the “wealthy.”
Sorry. Wrong.
Here’s the part where fiscally liberal eyes glaze over. The facts are just so troublesome to the quixotic.
In 2008, the federal government collected roughly (before refunds) $1.175 trillion from individuals and couples filing jointly. The top 1% (those making over $380,000), accounted for 38% of the $1.175 trillion total. If their tax rate was raised to 100%—that’s right; if the top 1% paid every cent of what they earned—the government would only collect an additional $938 billion. That’s about 56% of this year’s Obama deficit. That assumes, absurdly I might add, that the top 1% would be motivated to earn at the same clip even though they’d be required to give it all to the government.
Furthermore, the amount collected would be even more insignificant given that Buffett is suggesting higher taxes “just” for those making over $1 million and $10 million, rather than the $380,000 threshold represented by the top 1%.
Still think it’s not a spending problem?
Shamefully, Buffett, Obama, the mainstream media, and the professional Left continue to inflict this canard on the masses—people who generally don’t have the time, inclination, or wherewithal to dig up the facts.
Their shamelessness doesn’t stop there. They also tell us that job creation was strong and deficits were lower during the Kennedy and Clinton administrations when taxes were higher. Again, they rely on specious arguments targeted at an economically ignorant general populace. They neglect to point out that Kennedy dramatically decreased taxes, making them substantially lower than those of competing economic powers (i.e. England and other Western European countries); thereby attracting capital and stimulating growth.
With respect to Clinton, they fail to acknowledge that he benefited from three of the largest bubbles (Internet, Telecom, and Y2K) in the history of the world, and more importantly, that globalization had yet to fully take flight—so the options for deploying risk capital were still ostensibly limited to the United States and a few other not-so-enticing countries.
Finally, they don’t comprehend that investment capital is taxed at a lower rate than incomes because it is at risk—meaning it can go down…all the way to zero in some cases. If we don’t properly incent people to take the chances necessary to grow our economy and create jobs, where would we be as a nation, and what kind of social safety net could we possibly provide?
Today, geo-political/economic demographics are dramatically different. There are a myriad of global alternatives insofar as the deployment of investment/risk capital is concerned. What fiscal liberals consistently fail to understand is the mobility of money in a global economy. One can simply look within our own country to see that dollars flow to where they are treated most favorably (e.g. businesses, as well as hundreds and thousands of mega and not-so-mega rich moving out of high tax states like NY, NJ, and CA to the sun belt states that offer a much, much lower tax burden).
If the media were not slanted, the real story resulting from Buffett’s Op-Ed would be the ...<< MORE >>
Is there any more evidence necessary that the economy is going to hell in a handbasket than today’s 6.66% decline in the S&P. That’s right, 666; The Number of the Beast. Coincidence? You make the call.
Just to be safe, I’d keep the President away from thin ice. And somebody should shave Tim Geithner’s head, pronto.
If the reaction to the ongoing debt crisis is any indicator, the devil is not just in the details, but apparently also in the thought processes of those calling for more Keynesian stimulus (i.e. another payroll tax holiday, an extension of unemployment benefits, and subsidization of infrastructure projects). Yep, more government spending to cure a spending problem. Brilliant. Exactly how many times does the medicine have to fail before its prescribers realize they’re killing the patient? I mean, c’mon. It’s crapped out three times since 2008 alone. Pro-growth anyone?
To paraphrase Churchill, a nation that thinks it can spend itself into prosperity is like a man standing in a bucket and trying to lift himself up by the handle.
It’s just hard to fathom. How do people keep clinging to something so clearly wrong? Why can’t they realize they’re in an abusive relationship and simply cut the cord? Big Government is beating the hell out of them…and by extension, all of us, too.
Paging Dr. Phil!
On second thought, get an exorcist. They just might need the Hell (capital ‘H’) beat out of them.
Don't snicker. It may possibly be the last resort, and it could provide the President with the one excuse he’s yet to trot out—"The devil made me do it."
What a day!
I bet the President’s head is spinning. Let’s hope anyway.
P.S. Note of caution to Paul Krugman’s New York Times colleagues: Beware of projectile green vomit.
What's it gonna be tomorrow—2010 budget agreement or a government shutdown? And how will the skirmish impact the budgeting process for 2011 and beyond?
The Democrats, it would seem, are in a pay now or pay-later-type situation. Intellectually, they should agree to historic cuts (particularly in the 2011 budget) and absorb a short-term backlash from their liberal constituency, rather than stand in the way of the austerity virtually everyone understands is necessary to prevent us from devolving into a Greek-like economic meltdown.
At least In the former scenario they can attempt to share credit for averting a fiscal disaster of epic proportions, and concomitantly, make a credible case for relevancy in 2012, particularly to Independents. Should they instead be seen as blocking the path toward critical deep cuts (back to the slightly more reasonable levels of the recent past), they run the stark risk, after the country's inevitable fiscal reckoning, of marginalizing their party for a generation or more. A Herbert Hoover redux?
Having said all that, when was the last time Democrats made a decision that wasn't predicated on the political machinations of the here and now?
The Dems long-standing class warfare strategy has painted them into a corner with respect to drafting a responsible budget (not to mention successfully extricating us from the recession).
Their zero sum approach of pitting businesses and the wealthy against everybody else has led to the longest economic contraction in decades and most anemic rebound in history. Unfortunately, they are using that same losing formula to inform their budgeting strategy. Instead of a zero sum game, how about zero-based budgeting?
The grand irony of Obama's economic philosophy is that the more government attempts to lift the lower and middle classes (by wittingly or unwittingly holding down the upper), the deeper the hole it digs for those it purportedly strives to help most.
Apparently, Obama not only walks on water, he thinks he can selectively control the depth of the tide for each and every boat on that water.
The data doesn't lie. Obama's policies have had the most negative impact on the less fortunate. For example, the top 5% of earners now account for 37% of consumer outlays. That's up from around 30% when he took office. Don't be fooled. The uptick on the high end is not because the wealthy are spending more. They're not. It's because all classes have been practically paralyzed by the business-hostile policies that have choked off opportunity. The rich adapt. Others cannot.
What Obama and his Democrat colleagues need to recognize, but likely will not, is that all the slack is out of the system. Years and years of extreme wasteful excess have gotten us to the tipping point. There's no more room to buy political favor with the purse strings.
The doomsday scare tactics that the Dems love to toss around in response to calls for cuts to their pet programs will only come true if we allow the fiscal insanity to continue.
If congress and the President would eat a little of the budgetary restraint dog food the American people have choked down over the past few years, maybe Grandma and Grandpa won't have to.
Happy New Year and a wish for smaller, more efficient and effective government in 2011 and beyond.
A guy can dream; can't he?
True to his nickname, Snarlin' Arlen Specter did not disappoint Tuesday when he stood on the Senate floor and delivered what he called "...not a farewell address but rather a closing argument."
His remarks were classic Specter...bitter, often angry, and as always, sanctimonious. He lectured, ostensibly (and pompously), that his brand of independent, post-partisan, civil statesmanship is the recipe for what ails our dysfunctional and divided congress/country.
On the surface, that is a defensible, albeit simplistic and naive viewpoint. The issue, however, is not the message, but the messenger. You see, with Arlen, it's mostly been about Arlen. And his inflated opinion of himself. He's a purebred, and virtually all others are mutts...or so he seems to think.
From his long-winded questioning of Supreme Court nominees; to his frequent soliloquy's on the Warren Commission (he authored the single bullet theory); to his common appearances on the Senate floor and in front of the camera discussing issues of the day, he's been much more pontificator than effective legislator.
Perhaps it doesn't help that he looks as if he has more cotton in his cheeks than Marlon Brando playing the Godfather.
When he switched parties in 2009, he sealed his fate as not a purebred, but rather a standard drunk-with-power pol who doesn't know when to get off the stage. Just another narcissistic professional politician who is egomaniacal enough to believe that the country would be in trouble without his indispensable wisdom.
The ultimate irony, of course, is that despite his repeated finger pointing and jawboning about dyspeptic, ideologically rigid colleagues who are dragging us and our system down, it has actually been Specter and other career elected officials who are at the root of our system's ills.
Unlike the result of his questionable analysis of the Kennedy assassination, Specter was taken down by voters perched on thousands of grassy knolls, repulsed by his do anything say anything odious effort to cling to power.
In the end, his Emile Zola "J'accuse" approach was not exculpatory. Instead, it highlighted his boundless hypocrisy. Thank goodness for Alfred Dreyfus that he did not have Arlen Specter as an advocate.
...<< MORE >>
Can't wait, though, for the ultimate irony on November 2nd—the self-proclaimed populists being driven from office by a populist uprising.
Touche voters.
Nor does he understand:
To be fair, he does understand some things, like:
Yep, upon further review, it's pretty clear that his latest excretion is relatively trivial in the grand scheme of things. So, nevermind.
Someone, anyone... please drape a blanket over nutty Uncle Harry's legs and wipe away the drool that's running down his neck.
Honorable mention: My golf partners at this weekend's and next's events.
...<< MORE >>Ya think the storyline might be a bit different, and/or pursued with a touch more vigor, from/by the mainstream media?
Just sayin.
And John Lennon thought he was a dreamer? Guess he was right...he wasn't the only one.
Did you happen to catch President Obama's question and answer session the other day with workers at an advanced battery technology manufacturer in North Carolina?
A woman by the name of Doris Ravis (from South Carolina) asked the following rather straight forward question, "...in the economic times we have now, is it a wise decision to add more taxes to us with healthcare? Because we are over-taxed as it is."
Pretty simple, right? Nope. As we've learned over these past fifteen months or so, there is no such thing as a straight answer to a simple question with Barack Obama. In fact, as his policies have become more convaluted, his explanations have become more incomprehensible. Maybe I'm just not smart enough.
Obama's response to poor Doris may have been his masterpiece, however—all glorious 17 minutes 12 seconds and 2500 words.
Already several minutes in and aimlessly meandering about (or so I thought), he put forward this gem in trying to explain why insuring 30 million additional people doesn't have to cost more money:
But let me give you an example. If you’ve got a house and you’ve got a big hole in your roof, and it’s raining and snowing through that roof and there are some people who are inside the rooms where the roof is okay and they’re nice and warm, and then you got a few — your family members in that room where there’s a big hole in the roof and they’re shivering, and they’re cold — if you repair the roof, that’s going to cost some money. But if all the water damage from your floors and all the heat that’s going out of the roof, you count all those savings, over time it may turn out that it actually is saving you money and, by the way, all those family members now are warm, too. You’re not the only one who’s warm, right? That’s essentially what we’re trying to set up.
Ahhh, now I get it.
The president also helped to clear up any confusion over COBRA:
See, those of us who have health care right now ask ourselves, well, is this something that should be a priority right now, but anybody here who lost their job and then COBRA ran out, or COBRA wasn’t subsidized the way the Recovery Act made sure COBRA paid 65 percent of the cost of COBRA — and if you had somebody at home who was sick, or you had a child who got sick, you’d suddenly say to yourself, well, now I see the need.
Boy, I think I'm finally catching on to Obamanomics. COBRA paid 65 percent of the cost of COBRA. All these years and I never realized I could pay my American Express bill with my American Express card. Brilliant!
Please read the transcript or watch the video, because I've only been able to scratch the surface of our president's complex, multi-dimensional policy analysis.
More than anything, though, what his response helped me to realize is that mere mortals cannot hope to understand the answers to questions either posed by or to South Carolinians. Apparently, the respondents are operating on a much higher plane than us.
As such, I now have a whole new respect for Miss Teen South Carolina 2007, Lauren Caitlin Upton.
When she was posed with the question, “Recent polls have shown that a fifth of Americans can’t locate the US on a world map. Why do you think this is?” I initially had no idea of the intellectual, socioeconomic, geopolitical, and metaphysical significance of her answer.
So, with the help of our president, I've been able to begin to contemplate the deeper meaning of her elegant prose:
“I personally believe, that U.S. Americans,
are unable to do so,
because uh,
some, people out there, in our nation don’t have maps.
and uh…
I believe that our education like such as in South Africa,
and the Iraq,
everywhere like such as…
and, I believe they should uh,
our education over here,
in the U.S. should help the U.S.
or should help South Africa,
and should help the Iraq and Asian countries so we will be able to build up our future,
for us.”
Magnificent!
Lauren Caitlin Upton for President, 2012.
And, maybe Big Government is the ticket?
Nah.
And, the new Republican Party color is a whiter shade of pale.
But of course, Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, and Barack Obama are the same old big-government-lovin' libs they've always been. Some things never change.
219 is the new 666.
George Bernard Shaw said, "We learn from history that we learn nothing from history." How true; for today, the United States is reliving a 21st century French Revolution of sorts.
Like the French Revolution, the Obama Revolution began with noble intentions and was kindled by comparable root causes—including mismanaged wars, decreasing capacity to meet domestic obligations, mounting national debt, and class warfare.
In 1789, the rise of Enlightenment ideals, popularized and promulgated by the likes of Rousseau, Voltaire and others, helped to foment a sense of unrest and growing desire for upheaval. In the mid-2000's, a comparable feeling of dissatisfaction and want of change permeated America.
Like 1789, aspirations for change in the mid-2000's were initially driven by deep discontent with the performance of those in power, then later catalyzed by emerging charismatic voices for transformation.
In 2006 the American electorate "stormed the Bastille" and planted a flag, expressing a profound disdain for how government was operating. It wanted something better. In fact, it insisted on something better—someone equipped to coalesce the disparate interests of a political class spun out of control and unable to address the needs of a country facing increasingly intractable problems.
The King, Bush 43, was neutered, and his court (Republican congress) was exiled. In swept Barack Obama—Robespierre in an Armani suit.
Robespierre, as explained in the 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica, was a "bright young theorist but out of his depth in the matter of experience." Further describing Robespierre, the encyclopedia continued, "the Committee of Public Safety gave him power, which he hoped to use for the establishment of his favourite theories, and for the same purpose he acquiesced in and even heightened the horrors of the Reign of Terror. It is here that the fatal mistake of allowing a theorist to have power appeared."
So, although the French Revolution removed a failing monarchy, it replaced it with a radical democratic republic, and an even more poisonous climate, highlighted by the Reign of Terror where rival political factions executed enemies with impunity. Today, public opinion and the ballot box have replaced the guillotine as the method of choice for purging unwanted politicians. On Tuesday, the metaphorical guillotine dropped on twelve months of tone deaf, hubristic one-party rule. The people spoke loudly—damning the failed promise of bipartisanship, the drastic lurch to the left, and the Reign of Economic Terror.
The French Revolution played out over ten years and led to several additional decades of turmoil as the country struggled to find its identity and settle on an appropriate form of government.
Things did not end well for Robespierre. The idealistic and once promising leader attempted suicide and was subsequently executed. He contributed to and was unable to contain the wild excesses of a movement that morphed into an unruly and unrestrained mob.
Although many in his party are doomed, there is still time for President Obama to avoid a 21st century version of Robespierre's fate, repudiation at the ballot box.
Will he be able to set aside his largely rejected ideology and do the peoples' business, or will he stubbornly and self-destructively continue to pursue his own "theories?"
Marx said, "History repeats itself, first as tragedy, second as farce."
Let's hope not.
...<< MORE >>
On the first day of Christmas,
my Obama sent to me
A TARP for the E-CON-O-MY.
On the second day of Christmas,
my Obama sent to me
Two curdled loves,
And a TARP for the E-CON-O-MY.
On the third day of Christmas,
my Obama sent to me
Three mensch men,
Two curdled loves,
And a TARP for the E-CON-O-MY.
On the fourth day of Christmas,
my Obama sent to me
Four galling nerds,
Three mensch men,
Two curdled loves,
And a TARP for the E-CON-O-MY.
On the fifth day of Christmas,
my Obama sent to me
Five Bi-den gaffes,
Four galling nerds,
Three mensch men,
Two curdled loves,
And a TARP for the E-CON-O-MY.
On the sixth day of Christmas,
my Obama sent to me
Six nominees a-backtracking,
Five Bi-den gaffes,
Four galling nerds,
Three mensch men,
Two curdled loves,
And a TARP for the E-CON-O-MY.
On the seventh day of Christmas,
my Obama sent to me
Seven acolytes a-tingling,
Six nominees a-backtracking,
Five Bi-den gaffes,
Four galling nerds,
Three mensch men,
Two curdled loves,
And a TARP for the E-CON-O-MY.
On the eighth day of Christmas,
my Obama sent to me
Eight prompters prompting,
Seven acolytes a-tingling,
Six nominees a-backtracking,
Five Bi-den gaffes,
Four galling nerds,
Three mensch men,
Two curdled loves,
And a TARP for the E-CON-O-MY.
On the ninth day of Christmas,
my Obama sent to me
Nine clunkers clunking,
Eight prompters prompting,
Seven acolytes a-tingling,
Six nominees a-backtracking,
Five Bi-den gaffes,
Four galling nerds,
Three mensch men,
Two curdled loves,
And a TARP for the E-CON-O-MY.
On the tenth day of Christmas,
my Obama sent to me
Ten czars a-regulating,
Nine clunkers clunking,
Eight prompters prompting,
Seven acolytes a-tingling,
Six nominees a-backtracking,
Five Bi-den gaffes,
Three mensch men,
Two curdled loves,
And a TARP for the E-CON-O-MY.
On the eleventh day of Christmas,
my Obama sent to me
Eleven bailers bailing,
Ten czars a-regulating,
Nine clunkers clunking,
Eight prompters prompting,
Seven acolytes a-tingling,
Six nominees a-backtracking,
Five Bi-den gaffes,
Four galling nerds,
Three mensch men,
Two curdled loves,
And a TARP for the E-CON-O-MY.
On the twelfth day of Christmas,
my Obama sent to me
Twelve spenders spending,
Eleven bailers bailing,
Ten czars a-regulating,
Nine clunkers clunking,
Eight prompters prompting,
Seven acolytes a-tingling,
Six nominees a-backtracking,
Five Bi-den gaffes,
Four galling nerds,
Three mensch men,
Two curdled loves,
And a TARP for the E-CON-O-MY!
Legend:
As you've probably noticed, a battle is being waged within the GOP. Having recognized the damage done from eight years of regular forays away from its core values, many party faithful and Right-leaning individuals/groups are attempting to reestablish the brand. This intra-party tension is largely a good thing. It clarifies the agenda, and brings to light a litany of past policy decisions, enabling reflection on their impact—good and bad.
The Conservative faction appears to be winning the hearts and minds of a majority of those on the Right. One need not look beyond New York District 23 for clear supporting evidence. The District's Liberal Republican congressional candidate opted to pull out of the race amid a groundswell of support for the third party Conservative. Notably, this was a direct rebuke of local and national party leaders who endorsed the Republican, despite her Left-leaning positions, completely misreading the depth of discontent for Big Government politics.
What is most interesting, though, and what you need to be on the lookout for, is how this is going to play out in the media.
The spin machine is cranking up. Those on the Left, which includes a preponderance of the mainstream media, are and will be working hard to define and discredit the Conservative movement. Their primary method, of course, is to characterize the Conservative faction as radical and extreme. You will hear those words used over and over in a matter-of-fact fashion—the inference being that every clear-thinking individual understands this—you should, too; it requires no further examination.
Well, actually it does.
All parties have their fringe, but that's not what we're talking about here. True Conservative views are actually held by a plurality, if not majority, of the country. Said views are, by definition, mainstream. In a recent national poll, 40% self-identified as Conservative, as opposed to less than 20% who categorized themselves as Liberal.
What is radical about wanting to put power in the hands of the people, rather than the government?
Is it radical to be for personal responsibility, free trade, property rights, the rule of law, a strong defense, state and local rights, and not a lot more government than is necessary to protect us and provide a reasonable social safety net?
Are those beliefs more or less radical than:
Don't stand for this political and media tactic. Let your displeasure be known. It is perfectly legitimate not to share the Conservative philosophy, but it is dishonest to portray that point of view as radical or extreme.
...<< MORE >>
Let me tell you a story about what government-run healthcare might be like. It's not for the faint of heart, so please be sure that small children and the elderly are kept at a safe distance.
Playing the role of faceless, feckless, and friggin' incompetent bureaucrats is Cox Communications, our cable and Internet service provider here in Scottsdale.
Allow me to set the scene for our little novella.
Act I
We were scheduled to arrive at our home in Scottsdale on Wednesday, the 14th. The prior evening we contacted Cox and arranged for them to reconnect our cable and Internet service the following day, Wednesday. They informed us it would be done sometime between 7AM and 7PM. That seemed like kind of a big window, but what the hell, we were leaving 40 something degree miserable Pittsburgh weather behind for the near perfect conditions of the north Sonoran desert. Life was good...or so we thought.
As planned, we did land in Scottsdale on Wednesday afternoon. Not surprisingly, the weather was beautiful. Low 90's and not a cloud in the sky. After collecting our luggage, we were whisked away by our good friend and neighbor, Frank, to a little piece of paradise called Troon North. Life was good...and getting better.
The 30 minute or so drive to our home reminded us of our good fortune and just how beautiful it is in the Southwest. We reach our destination, trundle up to the front door, unlock and open it, and are greeted by the fresh cut flowers Frank's wife, Kathy, placed inside. Could it get any better? Why yes it could, Kathy also left us a box of cereal and half gallon of skim milk. Beautiful! I can take care of my cereal fix without having to make a trip to the store. I'm certain this is how King's live.
Of course, being the web junkie that I am, my next move was to ascertain if the cable and Internet had been turned back on. I found a TV remote, pressed the power button and saw nothing but static. Damn! Ok, life might not be perfect, but it was still pretty dang awesome. A quick glance at my Blackberry told me that there were still two hours remaining before 7PM. No need to worry, right? I was quickly and pleasantly distracted when Frank and Kathy informed us that they prepared dinner and we could come over as soon as we were ready. Shortly thereafter we moseyed the 20 yards over to their home and were treated to a terrific dinner under the stars on their patio overlooking the first fairway of the Monument course at Troon North. Forget Kings, this is how the Gods must live.
After a great dinner with some terrific wines, we returned home. By now, it was well past 7PM, so I was ready to kick back, relax, and settle into my nightly routine of cable news, piano practice, and surfing the Internet. Let's see; where's that remote? Ahhh, there it is. Click. Damn!!!
Act II
The following is an abridged account of at least twenty conversations (no joke), spread over two days, with various Cox representatives and supervisors. It is not embellished in any way.
Cox: Hello, how may I help you?
Chuck: My cable and Internet were supposed to be turned back on yesterday. Unfortunately, they weren't. I need it done ASAP today.
Cox: Account number please?
Chuck: We don't have an account number, yet, because the service has not been reestablished.
Cox: Address?
Chuck: Address provided.
Cox: Name on the account?
Chuck: As I mentioned, we don't have an account, yet.
Cox: Name associated with previous account (before seasonal service was disconnected)?
Chuck: Angela Dietrick, my wife.
Cox: Is Angela available?
Chuck: Yes, hold on.
Angie: This is Angela.
Cox: Is this Angela Dietrick?
Angie: Yes.
Cox: What is your account PIN?
Angie: As my husband mentioned, we don't have an account, yet, so we don't have a PIN.
Cox: Last four digits of your SSN?
Angie: Digits provided (phone handed back to Chuck).
Cox: May I put you on hold?
Chuck: Yes.
Cox (several minutes later): How may I help you?
Chuck: Did I just get transferred?
Cox: I don't know. How may I help you?
Chuck: This is Chuck Dietrick, do you have my information?
Cox: Account number please?
Chuck: We don't have an account, yet, but you should have other information for us.
Cox: Address where service is to be connected?
Chuck: Address provided.
Cox: Name on the account?
Chuck: We don't have an account, yet, but Angela Dietrick was the name on the previous account.
Cox: Is Angela available?
Chuck: Hold on.
Angie: This is Angela.
Cox: Is this Angela Dietrick?
Angie: Yes.
Cox: Account PIN?
Angie: We don't have an account, yet, so we don't have a PIN. The last four digits of my SSN are XXXX. Here's my husband again.
Chuck: Can you please get a technician to our home as soon as possible since nobody showed up yesterday.
Cox: You said a technician was supposed to be there yesterday?
Chuck: Yes. I'm sure you must have a work order that can be checked.
Cox: One moment please. Yes, here it is. It says the technician couldn't get in the gate.
Chuck: We provided the gate code when we arranged for the service to be reconnected.
Cox: Oh, here it is. Is the gate code 1234?
Chuck: Yes. Is that what went on the technician's work order?
Cox: Hold on; let me check. Ok, here it is. It says, 9284. Hmmmm. That's odd. Guess we somehow transposed an incorrect ...<< MORE >>
Wasn't the picture of President Obama riding a bike on Martha's Vineyard without a helmet telling? Sure, we're all allowed an indiscretion here and there; nevertheless, it does provide a window into the hypocritical existence of politicians, particularly the ones who pontificate most about what's right for others...but conveniently exempt themselves.
Is it any wonder why limited government is so important? The more we have to endure duplicitous policies, and their proclivity for bankrupting us and eroding our personal liberty, the worse off we are as individuals and a nation. You don't have to look far and wide to recognize that very few, if any, of our self-righteous representatives actually walk the walk.
They love to demonize corporate executives for using private jets, but are quick to turn around and attempt to authorize hundreds of millions of dollars worth of luxury planes for themselves.
They're terrific at moralizing and extolling the wonders of family values, like Senator Vitter and Governor Sanford, but don't hesitate to grab a little action on the side for themselves.
They're ready to force healthcare coverage down the throats of the general populace, but not willing to use that same coverage.
They're responsible for writing tax laws and overseeing the IRS, like Messrs Rangel and Geithner, but don't find it necessary to pay their own fair share.
Sure, not putting on a helmet is rather trivial in the grand scheme of things, but it does help to remind us that government is at its worst when it endeavors to legislate behavior and co-opt personal responsibility. We are much better served when government focuses on protecting its citizens and removing barriers that hinder individuals and organizations from achieving their potential.
Like in the movie, Easy Rider, the purpose of the journey is to achieve freedom.
Someone, please tell that to "Captain America"...er...President Obama.
...<< MORE >>