Let them eat cake

Let them eat cake

http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2013/09/debt-ceiling-showdown-the-fight-of-obamas-life.html

"Obama can't tame the monster he created gradually; he has to kill it completely. Bargaining his way through this crisis would do Obama no good, even if he could get through it by offering up a meager or even symbolic concession. Anything that allows Republicans to believe they can trade a debt-ceiling threat for policy concessions simply creates a new hostage crisis the next time the debt ceiling comes up. This negotiation is Obama's only chance to halt the routinization of debt-ceiling extortion.
Obama's incentive structure is simple, then: Allowing Republicans to default on the debt now is better than trading something that allows them to threaten it later. His best option is to refuse to negotiate the debt ceiling and have the House raise it before October 17. His next best option is to refuse to negotiate the debt ceiling, allow default, and never have to go through it again. Bargaining merely postpones, and worsens, the next default crisis. No negotiated debt-ceiling price is small enough to be acceptable. There is therefore no circumstance under which bargaining for a debt-ceiling hike makes sense, even if the alternative is certain default."

Suppose the Republicans refuse to pass a continuing resolution and the federal government is shut down? Who loses the most? The federal staff is more than half democratic. The Federal employees unions are in the tank for democrats. Like the sequester, the shutdown will show just what extent the Federal government is needed.

The republican can't "tame the monster he created gradually; he has to kill it". Shut the government down and keep it shut down. Reagan said to starve the beast. Let's do it. When they get hungry, the house bills might just get attention in the senate.

By the way, with the government shut down, maybe we won't need a debt limit increase.

Obama needs to acknowledge the House's role in authorizing spending.




Dave Farnsworth

Couldn't have said It better myself

Couldn't have said It better myself

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/sep/26/ted-cruz-obamacare-budget-showdown

"Of course, when it comes to Obama, the GOP's rhetoric has been turned up to "11". Republicans have played on the fears of those who believe Obama is a socialist, Muslim, or a proud native son of Kenya. They have decried his war on political freedom; his war on gun rights; his war on business; his war on the middle class; his war on the nation's future generations; and his surrender to foreign tyrants. And they have portrayed his policies as a fast train to America's destruction – none more so than his signature legislation, Obamacare.

Since 2009, Republicans have practically fallen over themselves to describe a plan to provide health insurance coverage for 30 million people and lower healthcare costs as "the worst thing ever to happen to America".

According to Republicans, Obamacare represents a government takeover of the healthcare system (it's not); it was passed in violation of the will of the American people (it wasn't); it covers illegal immigrants (it doesn't, but it should); it will put government bureaucrats in charge of your healthcare decision (it won't); it is already causing widespread job losses (it's not) and will destroy the economy (it won't)."

The Republican position is well stated, but the "it won't" statements are unsupported.

"government takeover of the healthcare system" - it is, whether in it it's current form, or merely creative destruction to make room for the socialist follow on. It is more likely the destruction since Doctors are being forced out of business. What good is insurance if there are no doctors? The image of Uncle Sam participating in the pelvic examine is exactly on target.

Passed in violation of the will of the American people (it was). 100% of Republicans were opposed, and a number of democrats had to be given hefty bribes to vote yes. In combination, a majority had to be initially against it, plus if the democratic members had had an election just prior to their vote, many would have been gone, as they were in the next election.

it will put government bureaucrats in charge of your healthcare decision (it will, the death panels are alive and well.) The detail in the law, outlawed virtually all existing health plans, leaving only the government formulated versions.

it is already causing widespread job losses (it has). Every 50th employee is at risk. and every employee above 50, is having his role studied since new costs are associated with their staying. Only the government employee is safe, but maybe not due the huge backlash that is still coming.

will destroy the economy (it has) - The government controls the reporting and they have their thumbs on the scale. The reported unemployment is artificially lowered and the "quantitative easing" has artificially inflated stock prices. In the real world the economy has declined and is continuing to decline. Of course the Dims have not succeeded in destroying the economy completely, but that is just because they suck at everything.



Dave Farnsworth

Friedman cry's "Wolf"

Friedman cry's "Wolf"

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/25/opinion/friedman-the-way-we-were.html?ref=opinion&_r=0

"Countries that don't plan for the future tend not to do well there. When you watch the reckless behavior of the Tea Party-driven Republicans in Congress today, you can't help but fear that we'll be one of those. "

There is a plan in place which is being ignored: the US constitution. The plan is for most things to be done by individuals outside of government. The individual is free to optimize his efforts and to succeed or not based on his efforts. If he doesn't succeed, he is leaving the problem to others with good ideas. In the example below, the government is attempting to monopolize the creative effort, which it is not equipped to do.

"Because of the sequester and the fact that the N.I.H. budget has been losing ground to inflation for 10 years, "we will not be able to fund 640 research grants that were scored in the top 17 percent of the proposals we received," said Collins. "They would have been funded without the sequester, but now they won't. They include new ideas on cancer, diabetes, autism and heart disease — all the things that we as a country say are a high priority. I can't say which of those grants would have led to the next breakthrough, or which investigator would be a Nobel Prize winner 20 years from now."

Of those 640 top research proposals, 150 were from scientists financed in a previous budget cycle who had returned to the N.I.H. to secure another three to five years of funding — because they thought they were really onto something and a peer review board agreed. "Now we are cutting them off," said Collins, "so you damage the previous investment as well as the future one."

In 2014, the N.I.H. was planning to offer new money to stimulate research proposals in a dozen areas, including how to speed up the use of stem cells to cure Parkinson's and other diseases, how to better manage pain in sickle-cell disease and how to improve early diagnosis of autism. All were shelved because of the sequester, said Collins: "Why ask people to submit applications we would just have to turn down?""

Several points:
1. the projects defunded were evidently the least likely to provide results, unless the ranking was not correctly done.
2. The planned offerings could have been done in place of another percentage of the lease likely projects to succeed.
3. No administrator would admit the previous years funding was a mistake, so this is a face saving way to kill the dogs (bad projects).
4. a 10% cut should not be so noticeable. What is NIH doing with the other 90%, if there was indeed a cut at all. All cuts are from a projected increase from the previous year.
5. "Scientists" are presumably the tenured professors at major universities. I doubt these are doing much original thought. They are getting paid to publish. I also question whether the results are actually helping the biotech industry as much as the same money spent to relieve those companies from taxes and government interference.


Dave Farnsworth

What if you cry wolf, and no one comes?

What if you cry wolf, and no one comes?

http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2013/09/23/obamacare-gop-debt-ceiling-column/2850061/

"That has risks for everyone. The GOP, of course, didn't do so well in the Gingrich-Clinton faceoff, and many Republican leaders obviously fear a repeat, where they get blamed for the president's refusal to compromise. But for Obama, there are risks, too. One is that the government shutdown happens, and nobody cares much -- which has pretty much been the story of the sequester, our last budget bugbear. Faced with a tiny percentage cut in government, most voters yawned, or cheered, or moved on oblivious. Obama's biggest worry should be that if big government shuts down, the same thing will happen."

"government shutdown happens, and nobody cares much -" oh, that would really be bad. All those DC residents would have to find a real job like in the fracking fields or Texas.



Dave Farnsworth

Who the hell is Mark Salter

Who the hell is Mark Salter


Mark Salter is the former chief of staff to Sen. John McCain and was a senior adviser to the McCain for President campaign. He is the ruling class representative that through Sara Palin under the bus. So when he speaks of playing you for a sucker, he knows what he is talking about.

"And don't worry about Rush Limbaugh and Mark Levin and the handful of your fellow elected officials who tell you only what you want to hear. They'll be fine. Your intransigence is good for their business. But you might discover, as you see how seriously your tactics have set back your progress, that it's they, and not the Republican establishment, who've been playing you for suckers all along. "

Mark, did you conceive of the possibility that this would get this far? The war is not over, and the battle is not yet over.

"Why? Because, dear bravehearts, you don't have the numbers to prevail. You're a minority. You're a minority in Congress and you're a minority in the country. A majority of Americans might tell pollsters they don't like Obamacare, but guess what? They like the idea of shutting down government even less, as every recent survey has shown. And they'll blame Republicans for it -- and make them pay for it."

What if keeping to our principles, makes us a majority in congress, (we are already a majority of the participants in democracy.) . With Mark Salter out of the picture, that could happen.







Dave Farnsworth

It is the Teachers, Stupid

It is the Teachers, Stupid

"http://thefederalist.com/2013/09/23/six-lies-most-people-believe-about-u-s-schools/"

"So, in the spirit of "the truth shall set you free," here are a few lies it's time to dispel about U.S. education. I call them lies because they've been repeatedly publicly disproven but remain driving forces for education policy."

Teachers being subpar, is the reason Jonnie can't learn. Insanity is doing the same things and expecting a different result. The teachers unions, the Education collages, and millions of uninspired teachers, want things unchanged. The Democrat party since the teachers unions, and colleges are their supporters, don't want things to change. both Progressive and Conservative, are misnomers. The Progressives are defending the status quo, and he conservatives are demanding change.

When the Democrats demand no program be cut, and claim thereby protecting the people entrapped by those programs, they are resisting change. When conservatives want new approaches, some only as trials to see what works, they are responding to a changing world. As the world changes only a fool things he can resist any change.


Dave Farnsworth

The Dims are the one percent, in power.

The Dims are the one percent, in power.
http://www.salon.com/2013/09/21/the_gops_hunger_games_vision_of_america/

"American conservatives love to attack anyone who raises the issue of worsening economic inequality for waging "class war." Their compulsion to keep repeating that phrase is revealing in itself; it's like the serial killer in a movie who can't help returning to the scene of the crime. Because the only class war being waged in 21st-century America is the relentless, all-fronts struggle conducted by the rich against the poor."

Obama has said he supports decreasing income inequity even if the poor become poorer. That is anti poor, and elitist. It is not the rich but the powerful who are to blame. The Dims don't need money to be in the one percent, they have other peoples money.

How is richer, a person with a billion dollars, or a person who can reroute a billion to his cronies?

"We could use some of the old-school class warfare in the United States, that's for damn sure. There are occasional glimmers of it, like the Occupy movement, the attempts to organize workers in fast-food restaurants and big-box stores and even, in an ass-backwards kind of way, the Tea Party. But that's a long road, and I'm not holding my breath. The immense material victories of the last three decades, in which the top income-tax rates have been slashed and the richest people have grown immensely richer, were made possible in the first place by an ideological victory whose consequences are even more far-reaching."

There is class war, the progressive ruling elite against everyone else.
Washington is the elitist city on the hill, but not the shining city but the rulers city of Hunger Games.






Dave Farnsworth

Hang tough

Hang tough

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2013/09/21/palin-ted-cruz-defund-obamacare

"Hang in there, Ted and Mike. You have millions of supporters among ordinary hardworking Americans. We support you because you don't shy away from the fray. May your colleagues in the Senate gain the wisdom to support your excellent efforts so that you can see that the view is better from inside the bus than under it.
Oh, and a little reminder to Republican senators up for re-election in 2014: Moose season ends soon, allowing more time on one's hands. So, we'll be watching your on votes very carefully this week."

And all those election consultants who want to work on upcoming campaign even while snickering over their jokes about Sara Palin, go to the Dims and lose for them.


Dave Farnsworth

Get the government out of my life

Get the government out of my life

http://www.latimes.com/opinion/commentary/la-oe-mcmanus-column-house-government-shutdown-20130922,0,6539439.column

"When Boehner described what the American people want from Congress, he left one thing out: They also want their government to solve problems, even if that sometimes requires an uncomfortable dose of compromise. They aren't seeing much of that from the House of Representatives this year."

No they don't. They want to be left alone. . They realize that the federal solutions don't work and are polluted with special interest give always.

The federal government is a waste land of political cronyism and illegal activity. It is time for a timeout.



Dave Farnsworth

Will the Mexican immigrants overwhelm America? No.

Will the Mexican immigrants overwhelm America? No.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324492604579083080268106684.html?mod=WSJ_hppMIDDLENexttoWhatsNewsSecond

"But the U.S. had an inbuilt capacity to accommodate and assimilate outsiders. The Founding Fathers knew they were creating what many now call a multicultural nation. They knew that the 13 colonies had diverse religious and ethnic origins—Puritan New England and Anglican Virginia, Quaker Pennsylvania and Dutch Reform New York. So the Framers of the Constitution provided that the U.S., unlike Britain, would have no religious test for federal office. And the drafters of the First Amendment provided that the federal government could make no law regarding an establishment of religion—which meant leaving alone established churches in the states (Massachusetts' lasted until 1833). The work of assimilation was left to the states as well, and it is significant that the states with the largest immigrant inflow—Massachusetts and New York—were among the first to pioneer universal public schools, where children were encouraged to understand and respect a common civic culture."

"The Framers' formula—limited government and individual rights—hasn't always been applied faithfully in American history, and it wasn't enough to prevent the outbreak of a civil war. But it has provided a ready and useful template for the accommodation of diverse peoples, even as the nation has been peopled by successive and culturally diverse surges of migration."

This discussion is relevant to current political discussion.

A plan for survival.

A plan for survival.

It has become apparent that only losers work for a living. If you work, you are taxed, and more, you are required to calculate your own bill. Now you are required to buy health insurance or add a "tax" to your bill for opting out. If someone hires you and you work over 29 hour per week that business is taxed. Finally, we see the undocumented are not penalized.

In the 60's there was a movement to opt out of the "rat race" in protest. What if we were to become undocumented, as an opt out. There are jobs for the undocumented and it would be to the advantage to the business if you weren't on their head count. You could be your own business.

The US tax system depends on voluntary compliance. Never volunteer.

You would be opting out of all government benefit and also all taxes. (A semi opt out would be to get the benefits ) of course if you get benefits and don't work illegally or otherwise, the government is fine with that. You could do that but the government will try to get you to file income taxes, promising a rebate. This semi opt in is not clearly not in you self interest, but you can bet they will get you in the end. Government never gives the sucker an even break.

Isn't this against the law? The question, is the bulk of the law "against the law". Unconstitutional. Aren't your elected officials failing to represent you? A quick review of the declaration of independence shows we are back to where we started. Civil disobedience would be appropriate due to that.

Personality, I have committed to opt in, with a lifetime of work and due to family obligations. I am left the urge others into being revolting. As an added encouragement realize you are participating in a system transferring money from you to me.

In summary, be flexible. The law is too indecipherable to obey, so keep your head down and be watchful. Non existence may be the way.





Dave Farnsworth

Checks and Balances, Anyone?

Checks and Balances, Anyone?

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2013/09/19/the-gop-is-threatening-murder-suicide-with-new-shutdown-warnings.html

"The Republican Party is destroying America.

Harsh words, yes. But inescapably true. It's a bit of a murder-suicide. House Republicans' willingness to lay waste to the country to satisfy their fringiest faction will ultimately guarantee the GOP irrelevancy as a national party, unless they change their ways. In the meantime, they seem determined to take us all down with them. There isn't even a feint toward decency. In what has become a recurring nightmare, House Republicans are using budget negotiations to play chicken with the stability of the American economy. This time, they want President Obama to agree to defund his signature achievement, the Affordable Care Act. If he refuses to strangle his own baby in the crib, Republicans are happy to retaliate. They'll shut down the government. These are not people with whom one can work."

So goes the rant, but with the modification of a few words, I must agree. The progressive ruling elite, referred to as "us", is indeed in the gun sights, but beltway america isn't America. The Progressive GOP get along, go along leadership is in the position of pulling the plus on "us" (defined as progressive america,) or losing their own seat at the table.

One job of the House of Representatives is to safeguard the finances of the people. They were assigned that responsibility so the people can stop projects that are a bad idea. Obama has been trying to circumvent this requirement since Obmamacare was on the brink of losing due to the election of Scott Brown which removed the Senate ability to repass Obamacare.

Obamacare should have been declared illegal when the supreme court found the fees imbedded to be taxes. Tax legislation must originate in the house to be constitutional. The House has a duty to uphold the constitution. The Supreme Court was not given the power to define the constitution anymore than the other two branches of government.

It is the duty of the House of Representatives to force the other two branches to conform to the constitution. Removing funding is the natural way to do this. A continuing resolution is itself unconstitutional. The Senate's refusal to pass a budget is against the law.

If the spoiled brat says he will hold his breath until he gets his way, is it really the parents fault when he passes out? Maybe it is time for a timeout.



Sent from my iPad

The problem with Income Inequity

The problem with Income Inequity

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/13/opinion/krugman-rich-mans-recovery.html

"A few days ago, The Times published a report on a society that is being undermined by extreme inequality. "

" that the gap between the society's meritocratic ideology and its increasingly oligarchic reality is having a deeply demoralizing effect."
It is the oligarchy, not the income inequity that is to blame. The democrat party's participation in crony capitalism is more to blame. Rich Progressives trying to replace the normal mechanisms with their influence is to blame.

"An aside: These numbers should (but probably won't) finally kill claims that rising inequality is all about the highly educated doing better than those with less training. Only a small fraction of college graduates make it into the charmed circle of the 1 percent. Meanwhile, many, even most, highly educated young people are having a very rough time. They have their degrees, often acquired at the cost of heavy debts, but many remain unemployed or underemployed, while many more find that they are employed in jobs that make no use of their expensive educations. The college graduate serving lattes at Starbucks is a cliché, but he reflects a very real situation."

It is the small number that make it to the 1% that drive the engine of American exceptionalism . That people are having a rough time is not a problem. The liberal tend to remove rough times is more of a problem. Rising inequity is also not a problem if there remains a path for the able and the gifted. The rich now have so much, that the near rich have an equal chance and the poor who are not captives of liberal disincentives, have a sufficient chance, if they are driven.

" In any case, however, whatever is causing the growing concentration of income at the top, the effect of that concentration is to undermine all the values that define America. Year by year, we're diverging from our ideals. Inherited privilege is crowding out equality of opportunity; the power of money is crowding out effective democracy.

So what can be done? For the moment, the kind of transformation that took place under the New Deal — a transformation that created a middle-class society, not just through government programs, but by greatly increasing workers' bargaining power — seems politically out of reach. But that doesn't mean we should give up on smaller steps, initiatives that do at least a bit to level the playing field."

On these last two points, Klugman is 180 deg from reality. Government didn't make America exceptional, and it was already exceptional in the 1700's. The power of money is trapping the american people into complacency- government money. The mechanism of the big money is to control government and the solution is to remove the government's levers of control, so they can't be used by big money.

In summary: a society is being undermined by non exceptional people forcing their will on the public in place of the traditional mechanisms of the american "shining city on the hill"

From the mouths of Babies (intellectually that is)

From the mouths of Babies (intellectually that is)
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/09/opinion/krugman-the-wonk-gap.html?_r=0
Even a stopped clock is right once in a while: Paul Krugman says:

"It's all kind of funny, in a way. Unfortunately, however, this runaway cult controls the House, which gives it immense destructive power — the power, for example, to wreak havoc on the economy by refusing to raise the debt ceiling. And it's disturbing to realize that this power rests in the hands of men who, thanks to the wonk gap, quite literally have no idea what they're doing."

The progressive ruling class can be nullified by removing the inflow of money (and/or credit). That may be a short term loss to the economy, but a longer term gain. In the concept of creative destruction, bad economic structures are destroyed making room for more beneficial ones.

Evidently the conservatives don't have any thinkers equivalent to Krugman. Thank goodness.


Sent from my iPad

Liberty Amendments, a criticism

Liberty Amendments, a criticism


http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/sep/04/mark-levin-originalist-fantasy

"Levin's ideas are not conservative in political philosophy at all, at least in the sense of "standing athwart history and yelling 'stop'". He is liberal to the extreme when it comes to using the tools of the founders beyond what they intended. He seems to confuse his admiration for the logic and writing of our early leaders with ahistorical alignment with them. The Liberty Amendments is heavily larded with passages lifted from their correspondence as well as the Federalist Papers. And by "heavily larded", I mean give-Paula-Deen-pause "larded". Heart attack-inducing larded. You could fry Levin's book and serve it at a state fair."

It is a good sign when the critics can't make a case. "We will lose our hard earned progress". exactly. The constitution was to be more or less permanent, but has been changing using unconstitutional means. If only one is considered it will be worth the effort.

To say the original founders had "dry" words, and ahistorically aligned is the progressive idea of a constant work in progress. A smaller federal government is a good thing, and objecting that the flow of goodies from the federal government will stop, is true, but unpersuasive.


Sent from my iPad

The Free enterprise system beating our oil rich enemies

The Free enterprise system beating our oil rich enemies

http://www.michaelyon-online.com/syria-outrage-is-not-a-strategy.htm

Where the inept diplomacy of the Obama administration is giving away the store, the individual American has beaten them back. The "Hidden Hand" has found a chink in the armor and exploited it, with active resistance of the political cases.

Out enemies depend on oil to get income. The American oil men, thousands of individual operations, are undermining the price of oil. They are even going to China to unlock their shale, thereby removing that market.

"Hydrocarbons account for two-thirds of Russian export revenues and nearly half of its state budget. And until very recently just two regions, Russia and the Middle East, dominated world trade in oil and gas. Russia has regularly boasted of being an "energy superpower". Indeed the whole Putin system is built on channeling hydrocarbon profits to regime supporters, as well as financing domestic military expansion. There were quite a few raised eyebrows at this year's Paris Air Show when Russia showed off its new, expensive, Su-35 high-tech fighter aircraft.

Meanwhile, under President Obama -- and we hasten to note largely independent of and arguably despite U.S. federal policies -- entrepreneurs have created an oil and gas revolution in the American shale fields that undermines Russia's export profits, and perhaps the very survival of Putin's governance."




Sent from my iPad

American alliances are currently not operative

American alliances are currently not operative
http://www.michaelyon-online.com/syria-outrage-is-not-a-strategy.htm

"We must be guided not by our alliance to America, but by our duty to understand that military force should only be used in support of a clear purpose and with a clear objective in mind - in support of our national interest. I am yet to be convinced that there is a strong and clear-cut case that military action will deter the Syrian government from using chemical weapons – nor am I convinced that in 20 years time some other tyrant thinking of using chemical weapons will turn around and say to his or herself "Whoops, better not do that: remember what Obama, Cameron and Hollande did back in the summer of 2013".

Due to incompetence in the US federal government our allies don't and should not trust us.



Sent from my iPad