#Brexit and Donald Trump

First: Congratulations to the People of Great Britain for their courage and commitment to self-rule and local governance.  I'm glad they voted to leave the European Union; it's in their best interests.  The days ahead will be hard, and at every bump in the road talking heads will tell them how "it's their own fault" for choosing independence.  To a degree they're right: independence, self-rule, these things are hard and not without difficulty.  But they are worth far more than the fake "security" of being ruled from afar.

As the English withdrawal from the European Union is analyzed and constantly second-guessed, let me submit to you that it was inevitable, and it shows that Donald Trump has a much better chance to win in November than the Talking Heads would have you believe.  See, I believe that Brexit and the Rise of Trump are both based on the same thing - the realization by the People that their so-called leaders have failed in their actual duties.

National governments have basically two jobs - ensure a "level playing field" inside their borders and protecting their citizens from non-citizens.  That's it.  Both of these are predicated on one foundational idea that the West seems determined to abandon: "Us First."  A nation's government should always, as its first priority, put the well-being and interests of its citizens over the well-being and interests of non-citizens. 

Whether that's non-naturalized immigrants living within its population, foreign threats, foreign business, or even just healthy old international competition, a national government's first priority should be "what is in the best interests of my citizens?"

That's a harder question to answer sometimes that it might seem.  Are trade terriffs on imports good?  How about a lax or strict immigration policy?  What about (any given) war?  Not always easy.

Sometimes, however, it is easy.  Is illegal immigration good for a nation's citizens, or bad?  Bad.  There's not even a question here.  Is unchecked immigration from majority muslim countries good, or bad?  Bad.  Again, not even a question - when your best answer is "we don't know they're a threat," you're not arguing that it's good, just that it might not be as bad as feared.  Ergo: bad.

Now, most people don't even think of these things in these terms.  I'm pretty sure the average Englishman doesn't think in terms of terriffs and duties, or immigration policy.  What they do think of is: how easy it is to find a job (harder with lax immigration, and even harder with massive illegal immigration)?  How good is my standard of living (worse with poor trade policy and massive immigration)?  How safe am I in my home (worse with Muslim Terrorists moving easily about the globe, worse with illegal immigrants)?

And that brings us back to our own shores and Donald Trump.  Donald Trump resonantes with people because he understands* these things.  He understands them in his bones.  Look at his campaign slogan: "Make America Great Again."  That says it all in four words.  America was great "before."  What is "before?"  Well, that's up to the individual.  But it's not great now.  So let's make it great again. 

Let's put Americans first.  Let's say that the well being of American businesses, the American worker, is more important to us than the well being of Iraqis, Afghans, Israelis, Austrialians, the British, Canadians, or anyone else.  Let's get control of our borders - all four of them, and stop importing unskilled workers to compete with our own unskilled workforce (what, you think we didn't have one?  Everyone starts "unskilled").  Let's stop immigration from majority Muslim countries - we owe them nothing - until either Mohammedanism can tamp down on its more violent tendencies or we can find a way to screen out the terrorists.  Let's stop engaging in wars to benefit others and not ourselves.  If American boys and girls are going to die, let's make it to the benefit of the country they serve, and not just someone else.

And that's where the leaders of Great Britain (not the EU) and the United States have failed.  By allowing massive immigration (usually without requiring assimilation), we import unskilled workers to compete with our own unskilled workforce.  The EU member nations are importing terrorists - and it won't be too long before one gets over here.  The so-called leadership of Great Britain and the United States has failed to put their own citizens first, and the citizens are crying "no more."

Of course, they also said (as late as yesterday), that the Brexit would fail.

Will Donald Trump win in November?  I don't know.  People are saying he has no chance.


* - Understanding is not the same as agreeing with or supporting.  Personally, I believe he does both, but whether or not he agrees with or believes in "America First," it is clear that he - unlike the talking heads and Washington Establishment - at least understands it.

Enough

Here, go read this.

Now, I'm not going to go over anything Drew says there.  Read the whole thing, it's worth it.

So what we have here is the GOP, once again, trying to have their cake and eat it, too.  The Chamber of Commerce really likes Amnesty.  They've made no attempt to hide that fact.  The Chamber of Commerce is a big Republican donor.  No one has tried to hide that fact, either.

So when the SCOAMT enacted Executive Amnesty, the CoC and the Republican establishment were jubilant (in private, anyway).  The CoC gets what it wants (amnesty) and Republicans get to pretend that they had nothing to do with it and no way to stop it.

Except then November 2014 comes along, and Republicans retake the Senate- largely on promises to stop ObamaCare (how's that going?) and Executive Amnesty, so the GOP is in a bind.  If they actually act on their promise, they tick off the CoC and lose donation money.  If they do nothing, they tick off the base and become the minority party again.

So rather than showing some moral fiber, making a decision, and explaining it like men, they hide behind this pathetic move attempting to be seen as trying to do something, while their actions actually make it impossible for anything to be done.

A commenter at the HQ summed it up like this:

"Or to paraphrase Rudy Giuliani, 'They do not love the American people.'"

This is correct.

The rest of this post goes out to the few Republicans who *do* love the American people.

Please join us.  Various pundits, bloggers, and commenters have mentioned a 3rd party.  The Republican party is going the way of the Whigs- they care too much for their privilege and "unity" than they do doing what is right.

It is time for a 3rd party.  It is a time for you, you remnant of the Conservative Right, to stand up and say "No more."  While you support Mitch McConnel and John Boehner even simply by wearing the same party label, you are supporting people who are willing to sacrifice the American People to their privilege.

You must disassociate with them.  You must form your own bloc, your own Party.  If you lead, there are countless Conservatives who will follow.  You will be amazed at the support.

If you love this country- if you love her people- you will stand for what is right, even though the cost will be high.  The cost will be so much higher if you do not.

Who Abandoned Whom?

So, I got this in my email today.

Now, normally I get these emails and I just ignore them.  If I decide I want to give money, I will.  I don't give money to the RNC for lots of reasons, but those have been *my* reasons and I've kept them to myself.  However, accusing me of "abandoning the Republican Party" is a bridge too far.

You know what Mr. RNC Treasurer Tony Parker?  You asked for it, you're getting it.

When I was a kid in the 80s, I believed, with the innocence of youth, that the Republican Party was a conservative party.  How could I not?  Ronald Reagan was president.  My Conservative (yes: Christian) parents loved him.  My father (in banking) never bought into the idea that the S&L crash was due to too little government.  The Republicans had reduced taxes, and, if they had also increased spending, at least it was spending on conservative things, right?

Then came the 90s.  I got a little older.  I was still a kid, still innocent, but I was pretty sure that raising taxes wasn't the conservative option, whatever George HW Bush had said.  And I'd been taught lying was bad (Read my lips).  Both George HW Bush and Bob Dole were certainly better than Bill Clinton- a draft-dodging womanizer (at best)- who never met a government program he didn't like, but I was beginning to see that things weren't so clear as I'd believed when I was (yet) younger.

My first Presidential election was in 2000.  I enthusiastically voted for George W Bush.  He'd been my governor, I knew I liked how Texas was running, I figured we'd be back to conservatism after 8 years in the Prog/Commie desert.  And things started out well.  The crash of 2000 happened (that no one remembers), and President Bush responded as he should have- by cutting taxes and putting money back in the hands of the citizenry.  If he also gave some of my money to people who already didn't pay taxes... well, the economy was in a slump.

And after September 11th, 2001, I was incredibly glad he was at the helm.

But George Bush was never Conservative.  Maybe "conservativist" might be a better term, but really he was always a big government progressive who happened to believe in slightly smaller government than the Democrats.  The Patriot Act passed at his insistence.  The Department of Homeland Security quickly started stepping on the Constitution.  No Child Left Behind and Medicare Part D both passed and were signed by President Bush.

For 2001, and the immediate aftermath, I was still young enough to believe that "as long as people we can trust" were in charge, the law giving them the power to trample on the Constitution would not be abused.  I have since come to realize the error in that thinking was flawed.  For one thing, people we trust will not always be in charge.  For another, you should never trust government in the first place.

I've grown wiser since then.  It's been nearly 13 years since Muslim Terrorists flew airplanes full of our neighbors, brothers, sisters, parents, and children into three buildings -and attempted another- in the largest single attack on US Soil in history.

And what does the RNC Stand for now?
1- They stand for big government.  I have never heard a Republican on the national stage- except for Presidential debates, which don't count (words are cheap) call for an end to the grossly unconstitutional government overreach which exists.  Find me the Constitutional Authority for the EPA, DoE (either one), No Child Left Behind, Medicaid, Medicare, Social Security, or any other big government program.  The Constitution is short, I'll wait. 

Republicans don't want to shrink government.  They don't want it out of our lives as much as possible.  They want it under their control.

2- They stand for amnesty.  Over and over Republicans have tried to force amnesty (under the Orwellian term "comprehensive immigration reform") down the nation's throat.  We don't want it.  A nation which cannot or will not control its borders is not a nation.

And what do Republicans stand against?

1- They stand against small government.  If you are for big government, you cannot be for small government.  QED.

2- They stand against border control and sane immigration policy.  See above.

3- Most importantly: They stand against their own constituents.  Over and over since 2010, engaged Republican voters at a grass-roots level have shown their displeasure with the current status quo by selecting actual conservative candidates to run against incumbents.  Some of those were... ill advised.  But some were not.  Some were men and women quite capable of winning their elections.  How did the RNC respond?

When they engaged in the primary at all, they always did so on the side of the incumbent.  I suppose that's fair enough.  But what did they do *after* the primary?  Well, when the incumbent won, they proceeded to rub Conservatives' noses in the fact that their candidate lost, and then immediately called for "party unity."  When the incumbent lost, they gave words of faint praise, and then mostly did nothing.  That was bad enough.

But then came the Mississippi run-off between Thad Cochrain and Chris McDaniel.  In that race, the Republican National Committee shat upon Conservative Republicans from a great height.  When Republican Leadership bought ads smearing Chris McDaniel as a racist homophobe- the very same deceitful attacks Democrats use- they were saying to Conservatives across the nation: "We don't want you.  We don't value you.  We don't think we need you to win."

To which I say, "Fine.  Then you won't have me."

I will vote for Republicans in my Great State of Texas.  I will vote for Ted Cruz- one Republican who does seem to get it.  I reserve the right- if the Republican Party stops trying to urinate on me and tell me it's precipitation- to vote for whoever is the Republican nominee in 2016.

But the RNC will never see another dime from me.  And if the candidates are not as conservative as I am, they will not get my vote.  If they're too Progressive, I'll vote Democrat.

No more.  You have pushed me too far, and you will push me no further.

Burn it down.
Scatter the stones.
Salt the earth where it stood.

The Monarchy Moment

When is the moment that men looked up and realized they had a king?  At what point did tribes- until then living freely (if, in many places, violently) suddenly realize that one man literally had the power to decree their deaths?  Because America is getting close to that moment.

Barackahanen I has been acting especially Imperial over the last several weeks, and no one with power to do so is saying "boo" about it.  It seems he modifies the written law of ObamaCare on a near-daily basis, fitting whatever whim he has that day.  Now he is "encouraging" Insurance Providers to allow people who get insurance through the exchanges to carry their insurance until sometime in January without payment.  That is, that they would have insurance coverage starting Jan 1, but would not pay for siad coverage until sometime later in January.

And the King hath spoken.

How does the King respond to those who question his policies?  By using the power of the State to intimidate them into silence.

This is an incredibly dangerous moment for America.  Either someone with some amount of power will oppose Barackahanen I, or we will all become serfs answering to the King and his Vassals.  If the President can merely decree law, and if he can modify private contracts, and if he can use the State to silence anyone who would criticize him, then we no longer live in a Republic, but we are ruled by a Despot.


h/t. Ace of Spades

Wait. "Compromise" IS a Bad Word

Compromise: a change that makes something worse and that is not done for a good reason

So, Paul Ryan has agreed to sell out Conservatives because Democrats might say mean things about Republicans.  Again.  The "compromise" bill to which Mr. Ryan agreed will increase discressionary spending for FY 2014 from the ~970 Billion that was written into the 2011 Budget Act by about 300 Billion dollars (to approximately 1,025 Billion).  FY 2015 spending would go up from there.

We are told that this is a "compromise" between House Republicans and Senate Democrats.  See, Democrats wanted to spend All The Money, so anything less than that is a win, right?  Wrong.  Even after the sequester cuts (which could have been avoided by Democrats negotiating in good faith), our debt has still grown.  When your out-go is higher than your income you have a problem, and the politicians in Washington, DC refuse to address the problem.

As pointed out on the PowerLine blog, the sequester itself was a "compromise."  So why must it now be the Republican's starting position?  Shouldn't Republicans honestly contend for what their constituents want- a balanced budget?  Had Mr. Ryan started from that position, we might have had a "compromise" that was an actual "meeting in the middle."  Had Mr. Ryan, or any Republican, really, been able to articulate why even sequester level spending is still too high, perhaps the new "compromise" would have been to lower spending again.

Instead, by using sequester as the starting point, the new plan increases spending and taxes.

But that, perhaps, is the worst part.  You see, the plan not only increases taxes, but it hides them.  No politician in his right mind would vote to increase the income tax rate.  Despite what the MFM would have you believe, we're still muddling along in a financial quagmire.  We might not meet the technical definition of a Recession, but for many families, a Recession is still their reality.

But rather than decrease spending, Washington Politicians want to increase spending.  Mr. Ryan, having run as a Budget Hawk, can't do that without somehow being able to say he's "decreasing the deficit" and obvious tax increases are off the table, so what can he do?  Hike "fees."  There is also some talk of decreasing Federal Employee pensions but a) I'll believe that when I see it and b) the numbers talked about there are inconsequential in relation to the size of the budget.

Some will claim that by raising "fees" Mssrs. Ryan and Murray are giving people a way to avoid taxes.  Aren't fees a "usage tax?"  Well yes, and then again no.  For one thing, Mssrs. Ryan and Murray don't want you to forego the activities they will now be taxing a higher rate.  They want you to do more of those things (which is counter-intuitive and, frankly, stupid, but whatever).  For another, the things they've chosen are activities it is hard to avoid.

Certainly I can choose to drive on vacation instead of fly, but what about a business traveler?  I have known and worked with a fair number of people who lived and worked 3 weeks out of every 4 in Illinois, and the other week in Texas.  If they had to drive instead of fly, that would be a huge cost to them and the company.  So they'll suck up the extra fee.  So will many families on vacation (who really wants to spend 4 days of a 7 day vacation in a car?).

Indeed this is a "compromise," but not in the way Mr. Ryan would have you believe.  This is a cave, a capitulation.  It is a complete forfeiture of Fiscally Conservative principle.  Spending does not need to increase faster (remember, even the sequester was a cut in the rate of growth, not a "cut" as you and I understand it).  Spending needs to decrease.  Failing that, it certainly needs to increase yet slower than it is.

But the Republicans are afraid Democrats and the Media (BIRM) will say mean things about them.  So of course their first and only option is to sell out Conservatives.  Again.

Adverse Selection v Moral Hazard

Winner: Moral Hazard.

What the heck am I talking about?  ObamaCare.  Specifically, we're discussing the fact that ObamaCare requires that the young and healthy make up a significant portion of enrollees.  For ObamaCare to "succeed" in any sense of the word (right now, it's failing in every sense of the word), young, healthy people must sign up in droves, paying much higher premiums for much worse coverage than they could have gotten just a year ago.  Those who already had insurance will often look at the new numbers and say, "never mind."  Those who didn't already have coverage are not suddenly going to think it's a great idea to pay yet more than they'd already rejected.

The choice to do something against your own good is called "Adverse Selection."  ObamaCare relies heavily on Adverse Selection by Millennials.

On the other hand, we have "Moral Hazard."  Moral Hazard is a situation in which one makes different decisions based on the "rules" in order to gain the maximum benefit at the minimum cost.  In the world of D&D we call this "min-maxing."  With ObamaCare the idea looks like this- insurance companies cannot reject me because of any health reason, and preexisting conditions must be covered.  Given the high premiums for substandard benefits compared to the low level of "punishment" that is the Penalty (or Tax, if you're CJ John Roberts) for non-compliance with the individual mandate, it makes far more sense to go without insurance and the penalty.  If you *do* happen to get sick (in a way that costs more than your premium and deductible combined) then you can sign up for insurance at that time and, poof, you're covered.

This is a no brainer.  Why would a healthy Millennial buy insurance through the exchanges?  Pay higher prices for less coverage just so some geriatric patient in Walla Walla can afford their meds?  Obviously the people who wrote this law don't understand human nature (except they do- more on that in a minute).  Oh, certainly some will buy.  Some will think it's a "hedge against disaster" (but, by the current rules, it's not).  Some will think it's "the moral thing to do" (really?  I'm morally obligated to buy insurance so some other guy's insurance will be cheaper?  Wouldn't it be cheaper for me just to send him 50 bucks a month?)  But the vast majority will look at their ever-diminishing buying-power (thanks ObamaNomics!) and make the practical decision to forego insurance.

If this were a boxing match, Moral Hazard would win in 1.2 seconds.  Or would be ejected for hitting below the belt.  One or the other.

Now, previously I stated that the people who wrote ObamaCare don't understand human nature.  That was what we call "dramatic license" or "a lie."  Of course they understand human nature.  In fact, they're counting on it.  Remember what Obama himself said- ObamaCare would be "a first step" to single payer.

Never forget that is their end goal.  They PLAN for ObamaCare to fail.  They want Medicaid overloaded so that the states can't cope.  They want private companies that sell through the exchanges to go under.  They want everything to collapse so that the American People will yell "Save Us!!!!" and then they can implement single payer.

In response, we have two options.  The first is to try to overcome human nature and go all-in on ObamaCare.  Make it work despite itself.  The problems with that plan don't even bear investigating, but let's just say they're myriad.

The second option is to make sure everyone knows that A) ObamaCare is a complete failure, B) Democrats own it completely, and C) that it is those same Democrats who will come in with "single payer" to make it all better.  That is, we have to expose the ploy now, not wait until Democrats are already calling for single payer.  Just as we called out all of the flaws in ObamaCare starting 3 years ago, now we ALSO have to call out their next move.

Conservatives (and coincidentally Republicans) have a lot of credibility on this right now.  Everyone knows Conservatives were saying exactly what has happened would happen.  Even the MFM has to admit it- albeit in terms of "they sabotaged the law!!!!"- so when Conservatives are challenged about single payer being the next step, it should be fairly easy to rejoin, "Just like we were wrong about you not being able to keep your plan or your doctor?  Just like we were wrong about premiums going up and benefits going down?"

If we don't use that credibility now- if we don't establish it as firm fact- then the Democrats will win on the issue.  Single Payer- and all its nightmarish horror- will become law in the United States of America.  Possibly in my lifetime.

Why "Income Inequality" Is Important

I know that the SCOAMT would like to change the subject from ObamaCare to "the minimum wage."  He thinks that's a better option for him.  Heck, maybe it is.  But I find myself drawn to point out something that might be obvious to some, but certainly isn't to others: they're the same discussion.

Remember, the putative "point" of ObamaCare was to "bend the cost curve down" and "make health care more affordable."  Indeed, the very name of the actual bill says so: "The Affordable Care Act."  And what, exactly, is the point of that if not to address that great bogeyman of the Left- Income Inequality?

Which means that any discussion of the minimum wage by Democrats is based on the same foundation as their discussions about "universal health care," or "welfare," or any number of other things.  And they're all based on a faulty understanding of money.

For some reason- perhaps laziness, perhaps malfeasance, perhaps true ignorance- Democrats continue to insist that all of these things are the same: money and currency, and cost and value.  This is hogwash.

Money is not the same as currency- else the exchange of currency would be a static thing.  If money were the same as currency, a British Pound would always be worth exactly 1.2 US Dollars (or whatever exchange rate).  Instead, we find that currency exchanges fluctuate, now 1 pound is worth 1.2 dollars, now it's worth 1.3, now it's worth 1.1.  Obviously there is something other than the currency which is actually being exchanged here.

Cost is not the same as value.  If it were, the economy could not grow at all.  All exchanges would be either detrimental to one party or, at best, they would be neutral.  If cost were the same as value, then either I (as the seller of some thing) must over-charge to see a profit, or I must under-charge (thus incurring a loss), or I must charge exactly my cost (thus seeing no benefit from the sale).

It is important to note that most liberals know all of this.  Just listen to them discussing the economy.  At one moment they'll tell you "the economy is not a zero sum game" and the very next they'll say, "but it acts like it."  They'll say, "such-and-such adds value to what-have-you" and then they'll decry "profiteering" (as though selling things for profit were akin to being a pirate).

Yet, they act as though they believe these things they obviously know not to be true.  Raising the minimum wage only makes sense if money and currency are the same thing.  Price controls (which are what ObamaCare amounts to) only work if cost is the same thing as value.  "Income Inequality" is only a bad thing if money is the same thing as currency and cost is the same as value.

Since neither of those things is true, then "Income Inequality" cannot be a bad thing.  Indeed, it is a good thing.  That "Income Inequality" is one of the major drivers of any market economy- even one as fettered by regulation and red-tape as ours.  People on the bottom seek to rise to the top.  Thus (if they know the truth that money != currency and cost != value), they seek to become more valuable to their employer (or their customers) while also obtaining more capital (that is: money).  Those who succeed are made "richer" those who fail are made "poorer."

I am not going to engage in a defense of capitalism's record on charity.  Such defenses have already been made, and only the willfully ignorant believe that capitalism does not care for the poor better than socialism.

However, I will point out that the fact that those who fail to become more valuable are made poorer is a driver in the economy.

They are a driver in that the poor still need things.  Thus capitalists seek ways to serve those needs- providing low-cost alternatives to higher-cost goods.  Since the rich didn't get that way by wasting money, they often *also* seize on these lower-cost alternatives, further enriching society in general.

They are a driver in that, absent some perverse incentive, the poor are encouraged by their very "poor-ness" (virtually no one in the USA is "in poverty") to become more valuable.  As they strive to become more valuable, more value is added to the economy, and everyone (including the "poor") benefit.

They are a driver in that, being currently less valuable than others, they can provide low-cost services.  A fry-guy job at QuickyBurger for $7.50/hr is better than no job for $0.00/hr.  By providing those low cost services, the "poor" make services cheaper than they otherwise would be AND make themselves more valuable.

Considered another way- what if there were no "income inequality?"  What if, as the Democrats claim to dream, suddenly the fry-guy at QuickyBurger is making the same as a Personal Banker at MegaBank Corp, who is making the same as a software developer for MegaSoft Industries.

Well then, what personal value is it for someone to put forth the effort to become a banker or a software developer?  Being a fry-guy isn't the most rewarding career, but it's certainly much easier with far less stress (in general) than being a banker or a software developer.  Why pay for certifications or go to school for 4+ years when doing so will have no benefit?  I mean, I can pay several hundred to a couple thousand dollars for classes and certification (to tens of thousands of dollars for a college degree), but then I'm making the same amount as the fry-guy.  What's the point?

For there to be software developers and bankers and electricians and so forth to have any incentive to learn those trades, there must be some value to them.  That is, there must be the promise of more income than they'd get as the fry-guy.  In short, the "challenge" to "remove income inequality" is the quest to destroy an economy- to make an "economy" full of fry-guys and empty of bankers, software developers, and electricians.

This? Again?

So Liberals, fresh off the stunning success of ObamaCare, are now agitating for an increase in the minimum wage to "fix" the economy.

Any Conservative can spout off the talking points:

• The REAL Minimum Wage is Zero!
• Raising the Minimum Wage increases unemployment!
• Raising the Minimum Wage leads to inflation!

And so forth.

But let's get past the talking points for a moment, and actually think about *why* raising the minimum wage is a bad idea.  Sure, the real minimum wage really is zero.  Sure, it really does increas unemployment (or, at least, slows hiring).  Sure, it really does lead to inflation (through increased costs, rather than through increased money supply).

But one of those is a tautology, and the other two are effects.  Instead, let's consider some foundational ideas.  Those things are true, but so (at least on the surface) are the liberal's talking points.  So let's look at the real world.

That is, let's look again at what "money" and "wages" really are.

First off- money.  I've pointed out before that those ones and zeros in your bank account are not money.  Neither are those dollars or coins in your pocket.  The latter is "currency" which is merely an abstraction of money.  The former is an abstraction even of currency.

Money, at its base, is the representation of the value of capital.  Sometimes that capital is "real" (that is- stuff or land), sometimes it is "labor" (that is- a person actually doing something).  Nevertheless, "money" is essentially an abstraction of "I'd like to trade this half-pound of apples for that loaf of bread."

Wages, then, is money- that abstraction- given in exchange for labor.  That means- however much currency is exchanged, you are only giving someone the value of their labor.  Now, market distortions (such as a "minimum wage") can mess with that to some extent and for a time.  Ultimately, however, money is like water- it will find its level.

So let's consider what "raising the minimum wage" really does.  It states, arbitrarily, that the currency representation of the value of the labor of the fry-guy at QuickyBurger is now $10.00/hr.  Will that make the fry-guy at QuickyBurger able to buy more stuff?  Over the short-term, it will.  Over the long term, the value of a fry-guy is the value of a fry-guy, and that value is not enough to be a bread-winning career.  So the Economy (that gigantic, chaotic abstraction) will eventually find it's equilibrium, and the fry-guy at QuickyBurger will be in the same place he was before.  Sure, gas will cost $15/gal, and the "value menu" will be the "$5.00 value menu," but ultimately he'll be where he was before- needing roommates to have an apartment and not being able to afford most of the "finer things" in life.

Now, how do I know this to be true?  Because I've lived it.  Most of us have.  When I was a kid, minimum wage was $5.15/hr.  Someone working a minimum wage job could just about afford a cheap car payment, gas, and some minor bills (say, a credit card).  That was about it.  Today, someone making $7.50/hr can afford... a cheap car payment, gas, and some minor bills.  That's about it.  So if we raise the minimum wage to $10.00/hr, then in a couple of years, someone making $10.00/hr will be able to afford a cheap car payment, gas, and some minor bills.

On the other hand, when I was a kid, someone making $7.50 an hour could afford a cheap car payment, gas, some minor bills, and could go in with one or two other people and afford a decent apartment.  Now, someone making $10.00/hr can afford a cheap car payment, gas, some minor bills, and can go in with one or two other people and afford a decent apartment.

Now, even cold-hearted capitalists like me will admit that someone making minimum wage can't support themselves, let alone a family.  The difference is that capitalists (cold-hearted or otherwise) also recognize that the kind of work for which you get paid minimum wage is not the kind of work you should be doing for a career.  It doesn't have the value of a job that you could have for a career.

My first job was a minimum wage, part-time job at a pizza joint while I was in high school.  My second job (starting right as I got out of high school) paid slightly better (about $6.50/hr, IIRC) as a bank teller.  Obviously, "bank teller" provided more value than "pizza joint bus boy."  My next job was making $10.00/hr.  And, with a few exceptions due to Life Happening, that has been my progression.  Now as a 30-something with a wife, two kids, two cars, two dogs, and a mortgage, I'm making enough money that my wife works only because she wants to (and part-time, at that).  It took effort, it took hustle, and it took gumption, but I did it.

I couldn't have done it without those early jobs.  They taught me things- from showing up on time (and even early), to how to deal with coworkers I didn't like, to how to argue with a boss and win.

So rather than focusing on the wage which won't change however we represent it in currency, let's focus on the actual problem- people holding entry-level jobs who are trying to make them be careers.  That is something we can fix, and we don't need legislation to do it.  All that we need to fix that is education, and I'm not even talking about public schools here.

But, of course, that won't happen.  It won't happen because the Democrats can't let it.  One of the biggest weapons in their arsenal is that they supposedly care for "the poor" more than Republicans.  If they admitted that Republicans have been right this entire time and that raising the minimum wage doesn't actually help (and really harms) lower income workers, they'd lose that weapon.  And Democrats don't care about the poor.  The only care about how the poor vote.

Consider it this way- if you really cared for the poor, wouldn't you do everything you could to raise them up and make them better- so that they could support themselves without your help?  So what do you call it when you're doing everything you can to make them believe that they're incapable of taking care of themselves and that you're the only one who can protect them?

An Open Letter to Rick Perry

Honorable Governor,

I have written to you before on diverse subjects, though all linked by one theme: Liberty.  Thus it is not particularly surprising that I find myself writing again on the same subject.  Thomas Jefferson once said that "the Tree of Liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants."  I hope that he was mistaken.  I hope that the Tree of Liberty, once firmly rooted in good soil, will thrive without such a watering.

But even if I am correct, and Mr. Jefferson wrong, it requires good soil.

Governor, the soil around the Tree of Liberty is dying.  I, and those like me, have no power to correct this.  You, and those like you, do.  When people like me decide to revive Liberty's tree, we have only one option.  My mind shudders from that idea so violently that I dare not even name it.  Politicians however, especially Governors, have much more power.  With greater power comes greater finesse with which it can be wielded.

You may be wondering at this preamble.  Why would I take such a serious, even desperate tone?  It is to impart upon you the weight of my feeling.  And not just mine.  Uncounted, and perhaps uncountable, numbers of Texans see what is going on in the United States, and we want it stopped. 

You and the other governors have the ability to stand against this rogue regime which calls itself the Barack Obama administration and protect the American people.  Perhaps you even have the power to refresh the Tree of Liberty without blood. 

The offenses of this administration against Liberty are almost innumerable.  They began almost from the day Mr. Obama was sworn in in 2009, starting with the GM Bailout which subverted established law and stole rightful remuneration from secured bond holders, while giving power over a private US company to the union which destroyed it, and to the federal government.

The so-called "stimulus" bill was simply a way to steal money from taxpayers and funnel it to the President's allies and pet causes.  The Orwellian named "Affordable Care Act" threatens our very lives, placing them in the hands of unnamed, unaccountable bureaucrats.  The IRS and EPA leak sensitive data on disfavored parties.  The government suppresses speech it does not like- holding up applications for 501(c)3 and 501(c)4 status- making it harder for groups to raise funds.  If that is not enough, they then also target the President's enemies for audits and other harassment.  Anecdotal evidence suggests all federal agencies are in on this as well, from the FBI to HHS to OSHA.

Now, we learn that the federal government has retrieved, by warrant, the phone records of every domestic phone call on the big carriers.  It is true that the Patriot Act allows for some domestic spying under very strict circumstances and very specific cases.  That is fine for true national security needs.  However, the NSA spying via PRISM and the Telecom warrants would be massive violations of all Americans' rights, even if the warrants did not make all the data so gleaned admissible in criminal trials.

I am sure I do not need to tell you, but as this is an open letter, I feel the need to inform others who may read this.  A warrant is a legal document which, in essence, proclaims that the government believes a particular person to be guilty of a particular crime.  That is why, as the 4th Amendment to our US Constitution declares, "and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

This should make it clear that the warrants for all calls made on the Verizon, or AT&T, or Sprint networks are nothing less than the most massive fishing expedition in US jurisprudence history.  Whatever judge signed such warrant should be immediately impeached- though that is an issue for our US Representatives and Senators.

Combined with the above abuses, how can anyone call the current administration legitimate?  It is a tyrannical regime which seeks to silence opposition while raining favors on its cronies.  It is no longer a government "of the people, by the people, and for the people."

Governor, I beseech you- you, and your fellow governors who love liberty, protect us from this tyrant, this despot.

It is within the power of the State of Texas to provide legal safety for her People.  It is within her power to reject those laws and decrees from the federal government which are not in line with the constitution.  It is within her power shelter our Liberty.

There are 30 States with Republican Governors.  There are 33 States which are refusing to implement the Exchanges required by The Affordable Care Act.  I beg you meet with the governors of those states, along with our own Senators and Representatives to the US Congress- Re-assert the powers of the States.  Re-assert the powers of the People.  Destroy this tyrant state which has been built since the days of Franklin Roosevelt.  Burn it down.  Scatter its stones.  Salt the earth where it stood.

May God bless you, Governor.  May He bless you, the People of this State and this nation, and may God bless Texas.

 

In humble sincerity,

Allen Goodner

Arlington, TX

NBC - "Charity is Bad"

Apparently, to the intellectual vapor-weights at NBC, Government Welfare is good, but private charity is bad.  That is the only take-away I can get from this piece about the West, TX fertilizer plant explosion.  You see, since Texas is a low tax, low spending, low regulation state, most of the victims of the blast are having to *gasp* rely on relatives, friends, and their community to get back on their feet.

Some of them -prepare yourselves, this is shocking- may even receive charitable (that is: "free") health care.

If only there were some way that taxpayers could involuntarily be put on the hook for... these things... that... they're already getting?

Seriously, I don't get what NBC (or the "experts" they sought out) thinks is wrong here.  Why should people in Beaumont or Amarillo be on the hook (involuntarily) for a fertilizer plant explosion in West?  Charitable contributions are pouring in.  Even NBC acknowledges that.  No one is going to the State with their hand out and being turned away- no one is going to the State with their hand out.  By way of example:

“I haven’t had any calls requesting assistance,” said Eva Cruz Hamby, who heads health services for McLennan County.

No.  Calls. For.  Assistance.

And somehow this is bad?

Of course it is.  If the nation heard about this in a positive light- a community, state, and nation coming together without any appreciable government assistance, people might get the idea that the Government shouldn't be in the charity business.  We can't let the Knights of Columbus and the Red Cross take care of everything; people might decide that those taxes that are going to various offices of emergency management, or paying for FEMA might be being wasted or something.  Heaven forbid that the American people be self-reliant and able to take care of their own affairs without Government intervention.

In its breathless reporting that nearly 1/4 of Texans don't have health insurance, it simply glosses over the fact that 100% of them have access to health care.  Every county has a county hospital which will provide care regardless of ability to pay.  Even most private hospitals (not-for-profit or otherwise) will do the same.  For the times when that isn't enough, other charities pay for people, neighbors help neighbors.

But to the idiots at NBC, this is a bad thing.  Because it proves the lie that the Government must be responsible for taking care of you.

This is Capitalism

And Corporations hate Capitalism

Some time ago, I cut my cable (well, for TV) and started using a service called "PlayOn" which allows me to watch internet TV.  It serves all my needs (I only watch OTA broadcasts for sports anyway) quite well.  However, many people do not like such services (PlayOn is not the only one), because they do not provide live TV.  If you want live TV, you're limited to what's available with your antenna, or you have to keep cable (or satellite, or whatever).

Or, rather, you did.

Let me introduce you to a cool company of which few (if any) of you have heard: Aero.  It seems the minds behind Aero were also rather distressed at the idea live sports were only available if you had cable, satellite, or if they were OTA in your area.  So they did something about it.  They capture the OTA signal, digitize it (well, it's already digital now- maybe I'll get into the irony of that later), and pipe it through the internet into your home.

Now, right-thinking, entrepreneurial types look at that idea and say, "Why didn't I think of that?"  The big Media Corporations look at it, and say "No!  Thou shalt not!"

At the root of their argument is the idea that they, and only they, should be allowed to transmit their content outside a given viewing area.  Their argument fails, unless they want to take PlayOn, AppleTV, GoogleTV, Hulu, and a host of other groups to court.  See, these other groups have been doing exactly what Aero will be doing, with the exception of sporting events and with the exception of "live," for quite some time.

Now, I don't want to get too far into the weeds about the legal argument here, but it is important background information.  In fact, the Media Corporations have made exactly this argument, and so far no court has agreed with them.  They don't have to broadcast OTA.  Given that they broadcast OTA, that content is "free."  The media company's only option (currently) is to stop broadcasting over the air.  They could move to a subscription only model.

However, Big Corporations are actually anti-capitalist.  Well, many Big Corps are.  Using Government interference, they force competitors out of business.  It's true all the time.  If you ever hear of GE or P&G or Exxon or whoever "supporting" new regulation, the reason is that regulation will be difficult for them to follow, but it will be impossible (or near enough so) for smaller competitors to follow.

And the same is true here.  News Corp is threatening to take all their content to subscription only.  That would be dumb, but it's their right (I like Bones; I don't like it enough to subscribe to cable for it.  I like NFL football; I don't like it enough to subscribe to cable for it.)  Most other companies, however, are threatening something much more ominous:

“If Aereo’s model is ultimately upheld,” Stifel Nicolaus analysts Christopher King and David Kaut wrote in a recent note, it could force “the broadcast/content companies to seek Congressional relief.”

Yes, you read that correctly: rather than compete with new services, rather than find some way to offer the same service at a price people are willing to pay, the media companies will "seek Congressional relief."  That is, they will seek to change the law in a way that benefits them and hurts its competition- not to mention consumers.

As of now, there is no legislation that I know of about this.  But it's something to keep an eye on.  Competition is good for consumers.  Big Corporations are not.

Tyranny in Small Things

Austin, the Capitol City of my Great State of Texas, recently passed a ban on plastic grocery bags.  Now everyone is supposed to use reusable (that is: cloth) bags instead.  This is being hailed as a win for the environment, because those plastic bags were so terrible.

Man, I'm so old I remember when plastic bags were the "environmental" choice, since those eeeevil paper bags came from trees.  (Hint to liberals: when something literally does "grow on trees," that's not a bad thing.)  So now the plastic bags are no longer in favor, so we must change to cloth bags.

Now at least one City Council member in the City of Dallas wants to implement the same thing in that city.  This is why conservatives in Texas should not turn a blind eye to the bad things the Austin does; eventually some idiot will try to bring those bad ideas to our own cities.

Now, I don't actually have a problem with reusable bags themselves.  They are a breeding ground for disease, but they're cloth.  They'll survive the clothes washer just fine.  Wash 'em every couple of weeks and you'll be fine.  Double wrap your meat, and wrap your produce, and you can go even longer between washings.  I use them at Aldi (I don't even buy all of my groceries there, and they've cut my grocery bill about in half), because Aldi (as a private enterprise) encourages their use.  I'm fine with that.

On the other hand, I also like plastic bags.  They're convenient.  They're light.  I don't have to turn around and go back home when I realize I didn't bring any with me. 

On top of that, they're every bit as "reusable" as my cloth bags.  I don't reuse them for groceries, but we keep one in our minivan to put trash in.  I used to carry a couple in my kids' diaper bags (thank God they're both out of diapers now- those things are expensive), for accident containment.  I use them as a "lunch box" for work.  I've used them to line trash cans in the house, paint buckets, and all kinds of things.

They save me a lot of hassle. 

In short, it really annoys me that people are now telling me I shouldn't be able to use them.  So let me ask this: are you targeting plastic trash bags next?  Plastic trash bags are, well, plastic, too.  Am I going to have to change out my plastic trash bags for paper?  For canvas?  If not, then you'll excuse me if I don't believe your objection to the plastic trash bags is about the environment; rather, it's about your desire to control ever facet of my life.

Blow that.

It is not the government's job to mandate that I use reusable grocery bags.  It is not the government's job to make sure I recycle.  It is not the government's job to force me to do anything.

This seems like a tiny thing, but it really isn't.  The Government has already taken over health care.  Just ask your doctor how much of a pain ObamaCare is.  Ask your insurance provider.  Government wants to rule every part of your life, and this is simply another facet.  It seems minor, but the door it opens is huge.

Update & Scienceyist Alert:
FotB tsrblke sends along this little nugget.  Turns out that those "reusable bags" are actually worse for the environment than plastic bags anyway.  And that assumes that someone is just using the plastic bag once and then throwing it away.  It gets even worse (for the canvas propagandists) if you reuse even just 40.3% (well less than half) of your plastic bags just once. 

Fithy Quislings

I don't know enough curse words to capture my sentiment upon reading this story.  It seems GOP Leadership (for whatever that is worth) has decided they "don't need no steenking Conservatives," and that they will be willing to pass Democrat Legislation, marginalizing the majority of their own caucus.

Once my immediate, word-stealing rage dies down (it flares back up every time I re-read the article), I have a couple of things to point out.

First: When grass-roots conservatives were calling to remove Boehner as speaker, we were pooh-poohed and told that of course Speaker Boehner was the best man for the job.  Often this pooh-poohing came from the same Conservative representatives now at risk of being frozen out. 

That is not to say that we expected this kind of betrayal.  Squishy "moderate" stances?  Sure.  Outright betrayal of principle?  Not so much.

Second: The current House Leadership is not Conservative.  Oh, I think a Conservative or two snuck into the upper echelons somehow, but the vast majority of them are not now, nor have they ever been Conservative.  They don't care about "We, the People."  They care about themselves, their own power, and their privilege. Anything which jeopardizes that must be dealt with.  Unfortunately, they seem to believe the best way to secure that power and privilege is to side with Democrats in making us serfs, or at least peasants (I don't think they quite view us as chattle.  Yet.)

Third: The House has fallen into the old trap.  It's one that grass-roots conservatives had hoped to avoid when we hoped to get rid of Boehner.  It goes like this: "We have to do something!  If we're not passing legislation, we're not doing our job!!!!"

In many ways this is the most important point.  Conservatives know that Congress can do its job best by doing nothing in most cases.  Pass a budget; confirm appropriations; oversee the Executive branch.  That's all Congress should be doing in most cases.  However, as full-time legislators, they believe their job is to write (well, vote on, I'm pretty sure none of them has written their own in quite some time) legislation.  That mindset is the only one that could have produced this quote:

“It is better if the House does their work,” said McCarthy. “We should be sending bills to the Senate.”

This, as Ben Shapiro notes, is tantamount to a declaration of War on Conservatives.  The Moderates in Congress want their power.  They want to be invited to the best parties.  They want yet more government expansion.  In fact, the only place Moderates disagree with Liberals is the pace.  Liberals want More Government Now! Moderates want More Government Slowly!

After the initial publication of the Big Government article, Rep. McCarthy's office contacted Breitbart News and whined:

In a statement to The Hill, McCarthy spokesperson Mike Long said: "Whip McCarthy strongly supports returning to regular order to bring legislation to the floor that has the support of a majority of the majority. Insinuation to the contrary is completely false."

Of course "Whip McCarthy strongly supports returning to the regular order."  "Strongly supports" is not "is committed to," and in no way is that statement a rejection of the original report.  Whether Boehner and Cantor agree is unclear, but it seems unlikely that the Majority Whip would have made such an inflammatory statement without the blessing of his bosses.

Oh, and if this finds its way into Rep. McCarthy's hands:  before you even think of "crossing the aisle" and enact gun control remember this: I'm a Texan.  Consider well the meaning of "come and take it."

Maybe this is why he focuses on what you eat

Because Mayor Bloomberg has no clue how economics, let alone MATH!, work.

On one hand, it's nice that there are even some Democrats saying not to panic.  It's a refreshing change.  On the other, there's so much stone-cold stupid packed into that statement, I'm moderately surprised Mayor Bloomberg ever figured out how to breathe.

“We are spending money we don’t have,” Mr. Bloomberg explained. “It’s not like your household. In your household, people are saying, ‘Oh, you can’t spend money you don’t have.’ That is true for your household because nobody is going to lend you an infinite amount of money. When it comes to the United States federal government, people do seem willing to lend us an infinite amount of money. … Our debt is so big and so many people own it that it’s preposterous to think that they would stop selling us more. It’s the old story: If you owe the bank $50,000, you got a problem. If you owe the bank $50 million, they got a problem. And that’s a problem for the lenders. They can’t stop lending us more money.”

Okay, let's unpack that, first.

"We are spending money we don't have."  Yes, Mr. Bloomberg, that's the problem.  Spending money you don't have is bad.

“It’s not like your household. In your household, people are saying, ‘Oh, you can’t spend money you don’t have.’ That is true for your household because nobody is going to lend you an infinite amount of money. When it comes to the United States federal government, people do seem willing to lend us an infinite amount of money.

No, Mr. Bloomberg, the reason living on credit alone is bad is not that people will stop lending you money.  The reason is that eventually you're going to have to pay it back.  Once the bill comes due, there's not much you can do.  Oh, as long as you can keep your head above water (or buy a long enough snorkel), you can keep borrowing today to pay previous debts.  But that's just a "turtles all the way down" argument.  Eventually something will happen.  You'll miss a payment.  Checks will clear in an unexpected order causing your bank account to overdraw.  When that happens, it won't matter how much you owe- the people you borrowed from are going to come looking for their money back, and they won't accept "sorry, I don't have it, come back Tuesday."

That is every bit as true for the Government as it is for families.  The Federal Government might be able to borrow money indefinitely in theory, but Reality will not be denied and something will give.  When that happens, the whole house of cards will come down.  It'll make the Great Depression look like boom years.  If you think the lenders won't stop lending us money just because we owe them a lot, you don't understand how this whole "lending/borrowing" thing works.  Eventually one or more of three things will happen.

1) We'll miss a payment.  Do not underestimate how bad for the entire world economy "The USA Missed A Payment" could be.  Much of the world financial crisis in the Great Depression was because Germany "missed a payment."  If 1920s Germany could do that, imagine what 2013 America could do.

2) A lender simply will not be able to lend us more money.  This is a major problem with fiat currency: it gets too far divorced from money.  People look at a dollar bill and think of it as money.  They don't understand that it is only currency- the "money" is the labor which that dollar represents.  Money is finite.  At some point there will not be enough left to lend us more.

3) A lender will cease "throwing good money after bad."  At some point, a lending country (say, China) will decide to cut their losses.  Yes, us not paying them would be bad.  If, however, they believe we'll never repay them anyway, why make the situation worse by lending us yet more money?  What good would that do them?

If any of those things happens, the whole house of cards falls down.  And we're way too close to that edge for comfort.  By the way: a major US Figure (as the Mayor of NYC is) saying "Oh, they have to lend us the money, and we don't have to worry about paying it back?"  Yeah, that's a good way to get other countries looking seriously at option #3.

“Listen, I’ve worked now in government for 11 years,” he said. “One of the problems is the definition of ‘waste.’ You think the programs that I want are waste. And I think the problems that you want are waste..." 

No, Mr. Bloomberg.  No one is talking (seriously) about ending whole programs.  We should be, but we aren't.  Therefore the definition of waste is pretty narrow- money which is supposed to be used for a specific purpose which is not being used for that purpose.  Money that pays high-ranking NEA or SEIU members to go on vacation (on the public dime) is "waste."  Dollars spent deciding if a watched pot really ever does boil are "waste."  It's actually fairly simple.

Though, if you want to talk about whole departments or programs, I'd be willing to compare notes with you.

Finally, he says this:

"Everything we have was put in by Congress, signed by the president. There was a reason for it, or a constituency for it. Most of the tax breaks are designed to encourage or discourage economic activity.  There’s a reason for it.”

And there's your problem.  Virtually every part of our tax-code is now designed to encourage or discourage some kind of economic activity.  It is policy via taxation.  What the tax code should be doing, of course, is seeing to it that our government has enough money to operate.  To what extent it should operate is a separate- but highly important- question.  Regardless of the answer to that tangential question, it should be obvious that when we implement policy via taxation that's bad.  It leads to the kind of bloated, incomprehensible tax system that we have today. 

Nice State You Got There...

Be a shame if something were to... happen... to it.

That is the not-so-subtle meaning of this letter from The White House to the Great State of Texas.  Yes, your State received a similar one as well.  It details the specific cuts the White House will have made if Sequester goes through.  Note that all of these cuts are from actual operations.  Somehow not one mention is made of fewer vacations for the President.  Somehow not one mention is made of fewer "fact finding missions" or reduced salaries rather than cut jobs.  Not one mention is made, in short, of cutting anything that isn't useful.  No, all the cuts will be targeted specifically to make the sequester as painful as possible, just so that the Traitor in Office can blame Republicans again.

I'm not going to review all the cuts, though you should do so to see what I mean.  What I am going to do is look at the introduction to the letter, so you can see how this is operating exactly like a protection racket.  If you don't want to click over, I'll be quoting the whole thing.

Impact of March 1st Cuts on Middle Class Families, Jobs and Economic Security: Texas

Okay, let's stop there.  I know, it's just the title, but it's important.  Note the tone the letter is already taking.  "Oh, these cuts will have an 'impact' on Middle Class Families!"  No scare-mongering there.  None. At. All.

Unless Congress acts by March 1st, a series of automatic cuts -- called the sequester -- will take effect that threaten hundreds of thousands of middle class jobs, and cut vital services for children, seniors, people with mental illnesses and our men and women in uniform.

Note the blame of congress here.  The President came up with the sequester.  He recommended the sequester.  He signed the bill that created the sequester into law.  Yet now Congress must act.  There's not a single thing he could do.  He's powerless!  Of course, he could target cuts at unnecessary expenditures.  But this is President Dumbo.  He's not going to do that.

There is no question that we need to cut the deficit, but the President believes it should be done in a balanced way that protects investments that the middle class relies on.  Already the President has worked with Congress to reduce the deficit by more than $2.5 trillion, but there's more to do.  The President has put forward a balanced plan to not only avoid the harmful effects of the sequester but also to reduce the deficit by more than $4 trillion in total.  The President's plan meets Republicans more than halfway and includes twice as many spending cuts as it does tax revenue from the wealthy.  For details on the President's plan click here [link not reproduced].

Note the wording here: "cut the deficit."  Democrats would have you believe, despite sixty-plus years' evidence to the contrary, that raising tax rates is a legitimate way to "cut the deficit."  It is not.  It does not work.  It has never worked.  It will not ever work.  The Government is spending more money in a year than you could get if you taxed every US Citizen into poverty and beyond.  The only thing we have not seriously tried in modern times are real spending cuts.

Note also two further obfuscations.  That "$2.5 Trillion" is partially projected savings from winding down military involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan and partly projected savings from ObamaCare.  However, the first is not "savings."  Not spending money you weren't planning to spend anyway is not "cutting."  The second is a lie.  It is a known lie.  Everyone who doesn't live under a rock knows it's a lie.

Then there's that last line: "The President's plan meets Republicans more than halfway and includes twice as many spending cuts as it does in tax revenue from the wealthy."  This single line is so chock-full of errors its almost deserves its own post.  I'll hit them quickly- 1) SCOAMT promised 3:1 spending cuts to tax increases during the election.  That he's now proposing 2:1 is not "meeting Republicans more than halfway," it is moving the goalposts.  2) Notice that tax rate hikes are called by their new Orwellian Name "tax revenue."  Never mind that they won't bring in any appreciable additional revenue.  3) The tax hikes the President are proposing don't hurt the wealthy.  He himself has admitted it.  His point in closing the supposed "loophole" for "corporate jets" (which is actually normal tax law anyone can use- if you buy a special uniform for work, you get exactly the same tax-cut.  It's a business expense that can be written off your taxes) is that it will prevent the rich from buying new jets.  That doesn't hurt the rich.  It does hurt the middle class workers whose livelihood depends on the rich buying those jets.

Unfortunately many Republicans in Congress refuse to ask the wealthy to pay a little more by closing tax loopholes so we can protect the investments that are helping grow our economy and keep our country safe.  By not asking the wealthy to pay a little more, Republicans are forcing our children, seniors, troops, military families, and the entire middle class to bear the burden of deficit reduction.  The President is determined to cut spending and reduce the deficit in a balanced way, but he won't stick the middle class with the bill.  The President is willing to compromise, but on behalf of the middle class he cannot accept a deal that undercuts their economic security.

How many lies can they pack in to one paragraph?  Let's see:
1) Republicans are not refusing "to ask the wealthy to pay a little more."  The know the wealthy- the working affluent, as I like to call them, are already paying nearly (and sometimes more) than 50 cents of every dollar to various levels of government.  If you ask them to pay more, they'll either just quit making money, or move elsewhere.  Don't believe me?  Ask California and New York. 

2) "Investments" is Democrat-ese for "spending," and "helping grow our economy and keep our country safe" is Democrat-ese for "F*ck you.  Pay me."  The sequester is a drop in the bucket.  It comes out to somewhere between 1 & 2% of current spending.  You cannot convince me that needed services have to be impacted.  That is a choice Democrats are making, not one Republicans are forcing.

3) "Republicans are forcing our children, seniors, troops, military families, and the entire middle class to bear the burden of deficit reduction."  "Everything he just said is Bullsh!t."  I've already gone over this- this is Democrats' choices, not Republicans.  One of the proposed cuts (by Republicans) was to cut congressional salaries.  Nancy Pelosi refused those because her high station deserved the money she's making, and how dare you look at the your Betters, peasant?

4) "but [the SCOAMT] won't stick the middle class with the bill."  Once again, this is a lie.  The President has already raised tax rates on the middle class.  He wants to do worse by raising the minimum wage (which will make everything more expensive and increase unemployment further).  And, again, those "tax loopholes" he wants to close are things the middle class use every year.  Every time you take the mileage deduction for your work car, or deduct the cost of your uniform from your taxes, you're using exactly the same "loophole" the "wealthy" are using for their corporate jets.

5) "The President is willing to compromise..." once again: moving the goalposts is not "compromise."  He promised 3:1 (which Republicans said they might reluctantly support depending on the details), now he's offering 2:1.  That's not compromise.  As for "a deal that undercuts their economic security," maybe he could look at his own economic policies before he tries to blame Republicans.  He might also look at his own (well documented) roll in the Mortgage Bubble.

Our economy is continuing to strengthen but we cannot afford a self-inflicted wound from Washington.  Republicans should compromise and meet the President in the middle.  We cannot simply cut our way to prosperity, and if Republicans continue to insist on an unreasonable, cuts-only approach, Texas risks paying the price.

There we have it.  First, a couple more lies: "Our economy is continuing to strengthen..." well, maybe if you work in Government.  It's still really freaking tough for the rest of us.  "We cannot simply cut our way to prosperity,"  yes, we can.  We've done it before.  See the late 19-teens and what became known as "the roaring 20s."  That was "cutting our way to prosperity."  It wasn't the first time we did it, either, though I'm pretty sure it was the last.

But then there's the clincher: "Texas risks paying the price."  See, the SCOAMT can't allow cuts that won't hurt, because this is a scam.  He- not Republicans- is holding the middle class hostage.  He- not they- can target cuts so that they trim "fat" instead of "muscle."  He- not they- can move back toward the middle- his original proposal which had already been accepted in principle- 3:1 cuts-to-taxes.  Most Republicans would have jumped on that in a second in January.  That's what the President said in the campaign, the President was re-elected, obviously the people supported that.  But now he has moved the goalposts to 2:1 cuts-to-taxes.  That's after we've already increased taxes on everyone who makes a paycheck, and already increased the top marginal tax rate.  The President would like you not to remember that those things happened at his insistence.

This is no different from a Mob Boss saying that if you don't pay your protection money, he "can't be held responsible for any damages," while his enforcers are right there ready to knock your display cases over and start a fire in your shop.  This is all the President's doing.  For him to attempt to blackmail Republicans this way is beyond outrageous. 

Don't lean on the Republicans.  Support them.  Tell them "more please."

Heretics Must Be Silenced

BenK over at the AoSHQ linked this story this way, "Remember You Stupid Right Wingers, The Dems Don't Want To Take Your Guns."  That perfectly sums up the article.  But I want to point out something that should be obvious, but still needs to be pointed out.  The hostile tone the article takes toward gun-owners.

You see, the NRA obtaining (that is to say: someone leaked it to them) the article and then daring to use it in advertising "underscores the no-holds-barred battle underway as Washington's fight over gun restrictions heats up."  Also, we're reliably informed that "the White House has not proposed and does not support" gun confiscation.  See, ABC said so, so it must be true.

But maybe we should make our own determination.  When the Vice President is recommending you commit a felony offense rather than actually defend yourself, maybe the White House is not the most trustworthy source on what they want to do.  So let's look at those proposals.

Proposal One- "Universal Background Checks."  Essentially this would do nothing.  Democrats claim it would close the "gun-show loophole."  Problem: the gun-show loophole does not exist.  If a licensed dealer sells you a firearm, they're supposed to do a background check.  Even if you want to sell your gun privately to some other person (called "private transfer") that's supposed to be done via an intermediary who has their FFL.  Now, those private transfers don't require the same background checks that direct sales do, but you're unlikely to sell your gun to someone who isn't supposed to have one anyway.  And background checks won't stop gifts and "boating accidents."

In short, if someone who is not legally permitted to own a firearm wants a firearm, they're already barred from that with enough redundant systems to make the straight forward purchase of a gun, even privately or at a gun show, difficult.  They are already more likely just to go to the black market or use other means to obtain one illegally. 

Proposal Two- Limiting magazine size.  First, as the memo points out, this is just silly.  Among other things, magazines are easy to manufacture if you have just a little bit of skill at machining.  That's not exactly a ubiquitous skill, but neither is it terribly rare.  Beyond that, though, is the fact that there are already millions of those magazines already in private hands.

Now, let's say that the government were somehow able to just make all the "bad" magazines go away.  What then?  Well, it means an aggressor has to prepare a little more, buy a few more magazines, and that's about it.  It does not take that much time for a well prepared aggressor to change magazines.  If you were hoping to "rush him," all you're doing is volunteering to be the next one shot.

Proposal Three- banning new sales of "assault weapons."  We've already gone over the fallacy of that term, but let's recap- an assault rifle is a selective-fire rifle capable of firing more than one bullet per pull of the trigger.  "Assault Weapons" are weapons Democrats think "look scary."  It would not be difficult for Remington, or Colt, or Ruger, or any other arms manufacturer to take a barrel capable of firing the .223 bullet used by an AR-15, and marrying it to a stock that looks more like a traditional hunting rifle.  Add a magazine and make it semi-automatic (like Ruger does with it's .22LR 10/22) and now I have a weapon that is exactly the same as the "Evil Black Rifle" called an AR-15.  Only I can call this one the "fluffy bunny" and it would be just fine.

And that's before we look into how many are already in private hands, how making them illegal won't stop criminals, etc.

At bottom, none of the proposals on the table does a thing to make people any safer.  Indeed, it makes them more vulnerable by preventing law-abiding citizens from having the means to defend themselves.  None of these proposals will take a single gun off the streets.  None of them will stop a single rifle already in private hands from being used.  None of them will make weapons any less available to criminals. 

If you want to do that, you have to completely disarm the citizenry.  That is the only option.

Now, either the SCOAMT and his administration really don't have any plans to confiscate guns, which just goes to show how fundamentally unserious they are, or they're lying.  Now, I might be willing to buy "unserious," but I don't think that's it.  Gun control to the point of gun confiscation has been a Liberal wet-dream for decades.  This is proven by how much they howl when gun-rights advocates point out when people defend themselves with guns.  It is proven by how little coverage those events get.  It is proven by how little coverage the continual blood-bath in Chicago gets (did you know they had 3 school shootings last year?  All three with 10+ victims?  Why haven't we heard about that from "no one can have a gun outside the home" Chicago?).

Liberals want to take your guns.  They're smart enough to know better than to admit that outright.  And when it gets stated and backed up with evidence, they will do anything they can to silence the opposition, and make the people pointing out their goal the bad guys.  Thus the article.

ABC is lying to you.  The White House is lying to you.  They do want you disarmed.  Don't believe different.

Sequester: Just Do It

Much time and energy has been spent trying to explain to US Citizens why the Fiscal Sequester would be a Very Bad Thing(TM).  Once again, our feudal lords are holding our physical security and health hostage so that we will agree to give them yet more power, yet more money.  We're being told that money for USDA Inspectors will be cut, so either our food supply will be limited (because inspections can't be done) or will be less safe (because they're done but hurried).  We're being told that money for the TSA will be cut, so that it will take even longer at the Airport to get on your plane.  We're being told that money for the Military will be cut, so our national security will be weaker.

I say bring it on.  All of it.  Bring the pain.

If what it takes for the Federal Government to have less power over my life is to strangle the USDA, the TSA, and the Military (largely civilian contractors, but make no mistake- active duty military operations will be hampered), then so be it.  At this point, I am much more concerned about the power the Federal Government has over me than I am about whether or not my food has disease.

After all, what on earth did we do before the USDA?  What, you mean people weren't simply falling dead in the streets?  Food-borne disease was either mild or rare (and sometimes both)?

What on earth did we do before the TSA?  Oh, get on planes much more quickly, with less hassle?

The only one of these that concerns me is the US Military, and that's more of an abstract worry.  If we are weak enough long enough we can expect more attacks against the United States, our allies, or our interests.  But even that is a mid-to-long-term worry.  It won't happen immediately.

No one has an option which will cut the budget enough.  No one.  No one will confront the sacred cows of Entitlements, which are now more than 50% of US Federal Government spending.  No one will consider cutting the Federal Department of Education.  What business does the US Government have in educating kids in Santa Fe?  No one will consider cuts to the agencies which provide no useful service, but only expand Government power because the point is to keep the Government as powerful as possible.

So, go with the sequester.  It's the only plan on the board with real, substantive cuts.  And we're taxed enough already.

Liberal Locusts

No, not grasshoppers.  Locusts.

Yesterday, I talked about liberals being the prison guards (and sometimes willful prisoners) in Socrates' Cavern.  Today, I want to look at the idea of Liberals as Locusts.

What do I mean?  Well, like Locusts, Liberals (especially Rich Liberals, but all of them really) like Big Government.  They vote for big government, and a huge welfare state.  As a result, the government then hikes taxes, and institutes all kinds of nanny-state regulations, strangling business.  Eventually (sometimes slowly, sometimes quickly) the state begins to fail, all of the resources have been exploited, and Liberals move on to the next state.

For instance: in the 60's, California was a relatively Conservative state.  Ronald Reagan was Governor there beginning in 1967 (elected in 66).  He enacted welfare reform (which increased benefits, but decreased recipients).  Reagan was then succeeded by Jerry Brown (yes, that Jerry Brown) in 1974.  Thus began the swift decline of California.  Taxes went up, services went up, taxes went up some more.  And now businesses and "the rich" are fleeing California in droves.

If this were the only example, it might be accepted as an anomaly.  It is not the only example, however.

In the 1990s and early 2000s (and probably before) Colorado was a fairly conservative state.  They voted for Bush in 2000 and 2004, for example.  However, during those years many of those same Californians fleeing the decline of their State saw Colorado as a prosperous state, and decided they wanted some of that.  So they moved there.  Lucky for Colorado, they had already passed a Constitutional Amendment capping growth in Government Spending.  Nevertheless, Colorado, once a reliable Red State, is now reliably blue.  They voted overturned their Republican majorities in 2006.  In 2008 and 2012 they voted for Barack Obama. 

The amount of damage Colorado can suffer (currently) is fairly low.  Because of that prior law, there's only so much money the State has to spend, which limits the monkeying with their taxes somewhat.  All it takes, though, is a repeal of that Amendment, and the Democrats will be truly loosed on the State.

We can look to the East as well.  New York Liberals are fleeing to Florida, making it more Liberal as well.

In both of these cases, when they finally use up all the resources there, they will look elsewhere.  Perhaps my own Texas.  Perhaps Oklahoma.

This is part of the Liberal Ideology.  I don't believe there is any specific plan, here, but it is inherent in how Liberals think.  They believe they are entitled to all of these "services" and so force the Government (really: other taxpayers) to provide them.  When there is no more wherewithal to provide them, or the cost to themselves gets too high, they move on.  And they never learn that the only thing not changing in all of this is their own policies.

Softer Tyranny

Or: How even a 2nd Amendment Defender Can Fall For the Left's Lies

In piece on Law.com, Robert Levy, co-counsel to Dick Anthony Heller (of District of Columbia v Heller) posits that: "Reasonable persons should be able to fashion reasonable restrictions—a framework for gun control in the aftermath of Newtown—without violating core Second Amendment rights."

With due respect to the counselor, he has bought in to many of the left's lies.  Rather than take down each of the specific proposals (which would be pointless anyway, as he provides them in a "pros and cons" format), I'm going to point out some flaws in his premises.

1) "The (2nd Amendment) is not absolute."

As co-counsel to Dick Anthony Heller, I was a vigorous advocate for the right to possess firearms for self-defense. But I understand, as does every rational individual, that the right is not absolute. The Second Amendment does not guarantee a 12-year-old's right to possess a machine gun in front of the White House when the president is walking on the lawn.

Okay, first lets fight that straw-man.  No 12-year-old is (in current culture) going to carry a machine gun in front of the White House at any time- the President being present or otherwise.  Of course the absurd is absurd.  That said, why would a 12-year-old not have a "right to possess a machine gun" other than being a minor in the first place?  Let's put this another way- granted that a 12-year-old should being carrying a gun unsupervised anyway, does a 30-year-old have a "right to possess a machine gun?"

This leads directly into this line: "the right is not absolute."  If that were the case, it wouldn't be a "right."  It would be a "privilege."  The authors of the 2nd Amendment, however, called the ownership and usage (to Keep and Bear) of weapons a "Right."  Rights are, by their definition, absolute.  I have an absolute right to defend my Life.  I have an absolute right to determine my own destiny.  I have an absolute right to accumulate property.  And you will notice that liberty and property (or the more genteel "pursuit of happiness") do not receive the same treatment that the right to self defense does.  The right to self defense is declared sacrosanct: "Shall Not be Infringed."

2) Magazine Size Limits

Firearms experts note that murderers can easily load a second or third magazine in a matter of seconds. Accordingly, limiting magazine size to, say, 10 rounds will not have much practical effect. Perhaps so; but that would also mean individuals trying to defend themselves would not be seriously hampered by a 10-round limit. They too could reload very rapidly.

This is one of "pros and cons" arguments, but it bears special attention.  The point he misses (either willfully or coincidentally) is that those two situations are very different. 

A murderer (say, in an elementary school) is going to have lots of people running away and (importantly) darned few trying to attack him.  Seconds, in an actual fight, are a very long time.  An active shooter isn't in a fight, though.  So a mass shooter has lots of time to reload.  Unless people have suddenly become able to outrun bullets, however, their victims are not going to benefit overmuch from those seconds.

The Korean shop owner, or a woman in her own home, facing multiple assailants is in a distinctly different situation.  There, they are not the aggressor.  As such, even the seconds (~1 - 2) it takes (even longer if you're in California, and so can't have normal one-button magazine releases), can be all the time it takes from the last shot you fired until the first of those (remaining) "multiple assailants" can actually get to you.  So where the seconds are a luxury our mass shooter has, they are not available for someone engaged in fending off multiple assailants.

3) Legalize drugs.

The single most effective option—which is not being discussed at all—would result in a huge reduction of gun violence: Legalize drugs.

No, no it wouldn't.  First off, no one (rational) is considering some gang member or drug dealer who gets shot because of a drug deal gone bad a "victim" of gun violence.  Outlaws are outside the law; they'll find something to fight about anyway.  And it completely ignores (as in: does not even address) the problems inherent in legalizing drugs, especially in our current culture. 

Responsible gun owners already know that guns and alcohol do not mix.  People who are into drugs are not going to be "responsible gun owners" (for the most part), and may not grasp the wisdom inherent in not mixing guns and drugs.

It also assumes that the drug cartels will suddenly "go legit."  No.  Most narco-terrorists are using the "narco" part simply to fund their other activities.  Those activities will still require funding.  Even if drugs are no longer a viable avenue of funding, they'll find something else that is.  So unless you're going to legalize everything (and I mean everything) then you're not going to end drug-related gun violence by legalizing drugs.  You might change it into "Soccer game-fixing related violence," or any number of other things.  But the violence will continue.

4) "Mental Health."
I've already addressed this one, actually.  Who determines who is mentally incompetent to possess a firearm?  How long do those determinations last? 

Now, to be fair to Mr. Levy, he is "on our side" on this one.  My problem is not with him, and he sides with 2nd Amendment advocates, on balance, in his piece.  The majority of his opinion is well formed and well founded.  But if we do not address these points, and expose them as faulty premises and ideas, we will never completely win the argument.  Until we have won the argument, gun owners will be forced to defend their rights every few years, and potentially in a more hostile political/cultural environment than we have currently.

New York Times, On Our Side?

Well, no, not really.  But even the blind squirrel, as they say, occasionally finds a nut.

First, the scenario:  A writer for the NYT, John Broder, took a test drive in a Tesla Model S Sedan.  The cost for this "family car" is $101,000.  He test drove the car from the suburbs of Washington, DC to Milford, CT.  Let's just say it did not go well.

Next, the analysis: This from the Washington Post.  WaPo writer Charles Lane points out the generous federal subsidies (read: taxpayer money) given to Tesla to build and market the Model S.  He points out other analyses where scientists are saying that the electric car is a non-starter, at least for now.

Now, my own take:

I'm actually a fan of the idea of an all electric car.  I don't give a rip about "peak oil" or "global warming."  I'm a tech-geek, and I think an all-electric car is just cool.  If we can add lasers, so much the better.

On the other hand, I also bow to reality.  The reality is that energy storage technology (whether batteries or fuel-cells) simply is not ready for a car that replaces how most people drive.

First, there's the cost.  Electric vehicles, from the Chevy Volt, to the Nissan Leaf, to the Tesla line, are much, much more expensive than their "conventional" counterparts.  I don't think I'd get to $101,000 total cost of ownership on my Toyota Camry in years.  And, let's be honest, in the same amount of time, an electric car would also increase it's total cost of ownership.  You have to pay for the electricity which would power your home-charger.  Unless you want to get home and not go anywhere until you get up to go to work in the morning, you'll have to buy a special charging station.  And that's on top of regular maintenance.  I don't know of an electric engine uses oil (I suspect it does), but I do know brake-pads are brake-pads, and they'll need to be replaced.  Same with parts of the suspension, tires, and so forth.

Second, there's the fact of American driving habits.  Now, maybe if you live in a great big city like NYC, it makes sense to have an electric vehicle.  If your total round trip is going to be 40 miles, you're fine.  For those of us who live in "fly-over country" they're just not practical.  My total commute is about 80 miles a day.  And that assumes I don't have to take any detours, or run any errands.  Certainly that's well within the range of a Tesla (~200 miles, or so), but, then we're back to that price tag.  It is not "well within the range" of a Volt or Leaf.  And that assumes the only places you'll be going are work and home, with the occasional grocery run. 

My parents live over 200 miles away, across the flats of Texas (they live near Abilene, I'm in the DFW Metroplex).  Between here and there is a whole lot of nothing.  The drive, at slightly-over-highway speed takes around 2.5 - 3 hours (thank you, Texas Legislature, for the higher speed-limits).  Using the "high performance" Tesla Model S as your baseline, and using their driving guidance, the trip would take between 3 and 4 hours, not including at least one stop to recharge the battery (about another hour).  What is now (for this Texan) a "Hey, let's go get dinner with my folks" turns into "gee, can we take the two days?  We'll have to do something with the dogs..."  And I'm hardly alone in that.

Now, back to that WaPo article.  Even that talks around some of the problems, and I've been basing my analysis on their rather generous (if still "disappointed") coverage.  Let's look at some quotes:

As an American Physical Society symposium on battery research concluded last June: “Despite their many potential advantages, all-electric vehicles will not replace the standard American family car in the foreseeable future.”

"Potential advantage" is scientist for "Pipe dream."

I accept the president’s good intentions. He didn’t set out to rip off the public. Nor was the electric-car dream a Democrats-only delusion. Several Republican pols shared it, too.

To quote our illustrious Vice President: "That's a load of... stuff."  Consider exactly who got all those green energy subsidies, and to whom they donated.  Yeah, it was a scam from the beginning.  The fact that some Republicans bought into it (note he doesn't point out which Republicans.  Why do I think I will not find Jim Demint or Rand Paul's names on that list anywhere?) does mean it wasn't a scam; it means they got snookered, too.  That, or they were in on the scam.  Possibly both.

Energy Secretary Steven Chu, he of the Nobel Prize in physics, epitomized the regnant blend of sanctimony and technocratic hubris. He once told journalist Michael Grunwald that photosynthesis is “too damn inefficient,” and that DOE might help correct that particular error of evolution.

This is the man behind the boondoggle.  Seriously, he believes that we can "correct" photosynthesis.

Electric cars will almost certainly not replace conventional, internal combustion engine vehicles any time in our lifetimes.  Certainly not in the United States.  Physics has said "no" just as physics said "no" to wind energy and solar energy.  It is time to stop wasting (taxpayer) time and (taxpayer) money on these things.