CHUCK DIETRICK'S POLI-NOMICS

"Just Give 2012 A Pass"

Chuck Dietrick — Mon, 13 Feb 2012 05:47:19 GMT

Good old Thomas Friedman is at it again.

In his latest column he chastises the Republican party for letting “itself become the captive of conflicting ideological bases: anti-abortion advocates, anti-immigration activists, social conservatives worried about the sanctity of marriage, libertarians who want to shrink government, and anti-tax advocates who want to drown government in a bathtub.”

If that’s his definition of captive, the Dems must be shackled, beaten, and caged by unions, pro-choicers, environmentalists, and anti-globalists?

Also, when did it become extreme to insist that people who cross our borders should do so legally? Or, that government focus on what it’s intended for—national defense, ensuring opportunity, and providing a reasonable social safety net? Also, is it outrageous to believe that some might be quite concerned about the vulnerability of the unborn? After all, aren’t Democrats supposedly advocates for society’s most defenseless?

Guess it’s hard to see the whole picture when your head only turns to the left.

Friedman adds that the current crop of GOP presidential candidates are ill-suited to address America’s three greatest challenges: globalization, huge debt and entitlement obligations, and climate change.

Apparently those are better left to a community organizer. Yeah…one with protectionist, big spending instincts.

He states that we just can’t handle these difficulties with such an "incoherent mix of hardened positions.” And here I thought it was the donkey that’s stubborn. Who knew it’s actually the elephant?

Hmmm. Think he’d include the following among those intractable ideological positions….

-Mitigating some of our energy independence issues by approving the Keystone pipeline, or allowing safe and responsible domestic drilling, or not making the approval of new nuclear facilities a near impossibility, or

-Dealing creatively with our education ills without allowing the teacher’s union to be a showstopper, or

-Attacking the root cause of many of our local, state, and national debt and deficit problems—public sector unions?

The world is not only flat…it’s pretty damn one-sided, too. At least to Tom Friedman and the New York Times.

Friedman goes on in his usual pontifical way to assert that the aforementioned challenges would be eminently addressable if only the folks on the right side of the aisle would be willing to compromise like their willing Democrat colleagues.

He must have been hibernating during the healthcare “debate.” I could be wrong, though. Perchance he’s privy to some Obama magnanimity of which the general public is unaware. It’s possible that Barry gave the Republicans a choice of font for all 2074 pages? Or perhaps he offered to bind the bill on the right, rather than left side?

Most comically, Friedman wonders, because the GOP is “struggling to agree on a presidential candidate,” whether they “shouldn’t just sit this election out—just give 2012 a pass.”

Tom and his media buddies do know about passes...

-Like the one they gave Obama during the 2008 campaign. Who needs a pesky vetting process?

-And the one he’s gotten the past few years. Accountability is for Republicans.

-And the one they’re giving him now. Why govern when you can campaign?

Instead, let's give America a pass.

Elect a Republican.

He Was Practiced At The Art Of Deception

Chuck Dietrick — Wed, 08 Feb 2012 03:31:13 GMT

He…

Really wanted to serve his full six year Senate term…but didn’t.

Really wanted to allow five days of comment before signing bills…but hasn’t.

Really wanted to accept public campaign funding…but didn’t.

Really wanted to close Guantanamo Bay…but hasn’t.

Really wanted to prohibit lobbyists from joining his administration…but didn’t.

Really wanted to ban earmarks…but hasn’t.

Really wanted to negotiate healthcare reform on C-SPAN…but wouldn't.

Really wanted to change the tone in Washington…but hasn’t.

Really wanted to reduce the deficit…but couldn't.

Really wanted to reject Super PAC money…but won't.

Ah, you can’t always get what you want.

But if you try sometimes

You just might find

It’s time for some change.

You know the kind.

The type you can count on.

Really.

I’m tellin’ the truth, babe.

Don’t get fooled again (Whoops, wrong band).

The Jobs Way

Chuck Dietrick — Mon, 30 Jan 2012 23:09:23 GMT

When asked what type of market research went into producing Apple’s iconic products, Steve Jobs famously responded, “None. It’s not the customers’ job to know what they want.”

I get the feeling the same may be true of the most conservative faction of the Republican electorate.

If that includes you…

Have you scratched even one millimeter beneath the surface?

Are you done being swayed by snarky debate rhetoric and glib remarks?

Do you think it might be time to stop acting like a cat chasing a beam of light on the carpet?

Do you want an excuse maker to replace a guy you despise for trotting out every excuse in the book?

Do you want a morally suspect individual now when you considered the President’s morals then (back in the 1990’s) to be disqualifying?

Do you want a leader with zero executive and/or real world experience when the one we currently have is so clearly in over his head?

Do you want to trade a guy who hinted he could stop the oceans from rising and the earth from warming for one who’s promising the moon—literally?

You may be confused about what you want. That’s understandable. But, you’re going to like what you get.

So wake up. The iMitt is here.

It doesn’t have the flashiest user interface, and it’s not something you thought you needed, but it’s going to bring a sea change. Count on it.

Sorry, it won’t put a thousand songs in your pocket.

But it will make the economy take off like a rocket.

Think Different.

One Idiot At A Time

Chuck Dietrick — Tue, 24 Jan 2012 00:38:27 GMT

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 it to the rich (despite the fact that the top 1, 5, and 10% account for 40, 60, and 70% of tax revenue)? Well, the least affected people will be the rich. Instead, you’ll be crushing everybody else--the folks who need government services, new and better schools, a mortgage, a car loan, a small business line of credit, or a job.

And oh by the way, you’ll be hurting unions and the elderly, too—whose pensions are levered to all of the aforementioned investment vehicles…and some others I neglected to cite.

Next time someone tries to hit you with the ‘fairness’ argument, KO him/her with the facts.

There are a whole lot of "villages" out there. Educate one idiot at a time.

Don’t worry; they're not endangered. There are still 535 of them in the Capitol…and a bunch more on Pennsylvania Avenue.

Back To Basics

Chuck Dietrick — Fri, 20 Jan 2012 04:49:01 GMT

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.

Burnt Toast

Chuck Dietrick — Tue, 10 Jan 2012 03:17:39 GMT

You just can't go there.

Forget the third rail. Newt just licked his finger and stuck it right in an electrical outlet.

He's toast in my book...burnt toast.

The nature of his criticisms of Romney's actions while at Bain Capital are disqualifying. No self-respecting fiscal conservative can possibly take him seriously now.

When Republicans start recklessly and maliciously tearing down Private Equity (PE) it's game over.

It's bad enough that such a small fraction of Americans understand the importance of PE, let alone how it operates, and its considerable benefits to our economic well-being.

In a world where President Obama's class warfare rhetoric is one of the most dangerous and destructive elements to emanate from a presidency full of nonsensical bombast, it is outrageous for Gingrich to feed that beast.

On the bright side, Romney does have an opportunity to use the attacks as a means to clearly demonstrate the absurdity of the entire Private Equity/class warfare argument from Newt and the Left. He should put it in terms that every American can comprehend, and expose the mendacity of his critics and those stoking the class warfare embers.

First, cut the knees out from under media proponents of, and adherents to, the ostensible notion that it's wrong to restructure businesses and fire people in the process.

Should the New York Times, Boston Globe, and other major newspapers not have let go of thousands of employees when the market dynamic for print media changed dramatically over the past decade or two? Would it have been better to march their full staffs right over a cliff than to save the businesses and the many thousands of remaining jobs represented therein? Ones that would have otherwise gone away.

What about the electronic media? The major networks have had dramatic downsizings--closing domestic and foreign bureaus and consolidating operations. Should they have allowed their businesses to run into a brick wall, or was it better to steer away from the crash and salvage all the jobs possible?

Aren't all of these 'saved jobs' anyway (using the Obama lexicon)?

How about the Post Office and its over half million employees? Everybody knows it's headed for disaster. Would it be better to restructure it and save tens of thousands of jobs, or let it collapse under its own weight?

Without Private Equity and business restructuring in general, the big will get even bigger. They'll be able to absorb the assets of bankrupted companies and easily take over the weak. Intelligent reorganizations at least give growing and/or troubled companies a fighting chance to remain independent or at least become vibrant parts of healthier organizations.

Romney should explain that if you don't make large sums of money on the winners it makes no sense to take risks--because you'll never make up for the inevitable and costly losers.

The businesses typically targeted by Private Equity have a high probability of failure (or being absorbed) if something isn't done to reinvigorate and recapitalize them. The companies that Romney was involved with at Bain Capital only went bankrupt at a 22% clip. That's a remarkably low failure rate and likely represents a very significant number of saved jobs.

Romney should seize this opportunity to point out Gingrich's argument for what it is--a desperate Hail Mary from a guy who knows better, or certainly should. More importantly, he can use this as a teachable moment (Barry's not the only one who can have one) on why businesses and governments must adapt if they don't want to become extinct. It's simple economic Darwinism.

That should appeal to the Left...after all, they do prefer evolution over miracles.

Caveat Emptor

Chuck Dietrick — Fri, 06 Jan 2012 22:19:51 GMT

A little over three years ago I saw a commercial for a used car dealership. I wasn't necessarily in the market for another vehicle, but the ad was so flashy and clever that it caught my attention. As it turned out, the dealer was a relative newcomer to the business and was working hard to gain a foothold.

One of the cars highlighted in the spot was a classic american sports car--one that I had admired my entire life. The problem, though, was that the car was in significant disrepair. Its previous owner had been careless with maintenance and had damaged it rather substantially in a bad wreck. But fortunately, it wasn't totaled. The dealer was selling it "as is" at a next-to-nothing price, with the understanding that considerable repairs would be necessary.

I was intrigued and went to see the dealer. He told me that if I bought it, he'd get it fixed up and make it better than new. I'd been around the block before and wasn't prone to being fooled by a sweet talking car salesman, but there was something different about this guy. I knew he didn't have a track record, but he talked a really good game and seemed awful darn sincere, to boot. And, he said everything with such confidence that it was hard not to trust him.

So, I bought the car and gave the dealership the go ahead to give me an estimate of the repair costs. The amount nearly blew my socks off. The dealer, however, assuaged my concerns to the best of his ability. He convinced me that something worthwhile hardly ever comes cheaply. Plus, he told me that his repair shop used parts that were far better than the originals. In essence, he guaranteed me that the car would come back better than new--transformed, if you will.

It took a while, but the car was finally ready. The dealer even personally delivered it to my home.

I was giddy with excitement.

Unfortunately, my enthusiasm quickly waned.

I hopped in and took it for a ride. Much to my chagrin, it was riddled with problems. The front-end was mis-aligned; the gas mileage was about one third what it was supposed to be; and the tail pipe was blowing some incredibly noxious fumes...just to name a few of the issues.

Needless to say I took it back to the dealership and complained vigorously.

The dealer said, "...Let us take another shot at the repairs, but you should also really think about purchasing an extended warranty. Vintage cars like this can be fickle and very costly to maintain. It will cost you a little more in the short run, but over time, it will more than pay for itself."

I'm thinking...now he tells me, but I'm all in at this point, might as well go with the extended warranty, too. I walked away with a bad taste in my mouth, but hoped it would all work out for the best.

Well, a week or so later the car was ready again and delivered to my house. It shook a little less. The mileage was marginally better. And, the smoke was not quite as black and billowy. But, it was nowhere near right.

This back and forth to the dealership has gone on for the past three years.

Finally, I decided that enough is enough and marched into the dealer's office.

He says, "What's the problem? The car's running better now; isn't it?"

I said, "Indeed it is, but it's nowhere near the car I know it can be, nor is it the one you promised it would be. Plus, even if the next set of repairs happens to make it run as you swore it would, I just had to endure 3+ years of hell to get to that point when a competent dealership could have made everything right much, much sooner"

He said, "I don't know about any of that, but the important thing is that the car is running better now."

I replied, "You clearly haven't heard what I've been telling you. The car still doesn't operate properly and it has been an enormous expense and inconvenience to me and my family over the past three years."

He responded, "I'm sorry you feel that way, but I don't feel responsible; I've done everything I know how to do. Tell you what, though...let's talk about trading you up to this sweet baby right over here. I am really excited about this car! It's the 2013 model, but can be ordered come November."

Moral of the story: Be really damn careful in November.

Resolve To Use Common Sense

Chuck Dietrick — Mon, 02 Jan 2012 23:31:00 GMT

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!

Time To Call Bullshit

Chuck Dietrick — Thu, 29 Dec 2011 02:52:13 GMT

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!

Rain On The Scarecrow

Chuck Dietrick — Mon, 19 Dec 2011 08:20:31 GMT

Just when you think Eric Holder can't sink any deeper, he does a swan dive right into the "controversy" surrounding voter-identification laws.

You see, the Dems are ginning up all the phony outrage they can over the fact that a number of states have had the audacity to pass laws requiring voters to show identification. Imagine that.

In Liberal land such laws are nothing more than a GOP voter suppression tactic meant to make it more difficult for the poor and elderly to get out to the polls. Forget about the fundamental importance of fair elections.

Sure, it can be challenging for some to secure proper identification, but that doesn't lessen the criticality of protecting the integrity of the voting process.

Integrity, in this context, has two characteristics--each vote cast must be legitimate, and every qualified person who wants to vote should be free to do so.

The poor, of course, are free to vote, and their potential difficulty in getting proper identification is relatively easily mitigated in a couple ways--via political parties, with their sophisticated get-out-the-vote initiatives, and/or with various government-sponsored programs.

We don't stop licensing drivers because it's disproportionately taxing for a relatively small percentage to get to the testing location. There's an overriding safety concern that trumps any such inclination. The solution, just like with elections, is to help those in need gain access, not expose the entire public to unsafe/unfair conditions. Common sense.

In making his not-so-subtle case against the Right, Attorney General Holder employs the standard issue Obama administration strawman argument.

Holder says, "The beauty of this nation, the strength of this nation, is its diversity, and when we try to exclude people from being involved in the process we weaken the fabric of this country."

Try to exclude people?

Of course, this is a specious argument meant to pit minorities and the poor against Republicans. Legitimate and reasonable safeguards against fraud have nothing to do with excluding qualified voters.

As usual, the scarecrow has no brain.

Holder makes another curious argument. He says, "You constantly hear about voter fraud, but you don't see huge amounts of fraud out there."

Setting aside the fact that there are innumerable documented cases of fraud and that we've seen an increasing number of elections decided by slimmer and slimmer margins (making them ripe for manipulation), is this really the argument our Attorney General is making? Wow.

You read about murder, but the actual percentage of people murdered is so small....

Anybody else find it odd that the Democrats want to regulate virtually every aspect of our lives, but are ambivalent (at best) when it comes to issues fundamental to what it means to be a sovereign nation--secure borders and legitimate elections?

When Holder is finally bounced out of office, he should expect a call.

Hello, Eric. This is Vladimir Putin. I've got a big election coming up; how would you like to be my....