Beware the Trojan Horse

 Or... "Those aren't spending cuts, Jim."

Jim Kunhenn with the AP doesn't even realize his own bias.  Most people don't, but the AP would have you believe the are not biased, so it is important to realize they are.  It is also important to spot the bias before you fully read an article, so that you can know the author's starting position.

For instance, Jim gets this part right:

"President Barack Obama's proposed budget will call for reductions in the growth of Social Security and other benefit programs while still insisting on more taxes from the wealthy..."  

President SCOAMT's current plan does call for "reductions in growth."

But then he gets this part wrong:

"Obama has also called for limits on tax deductions by the wealthy, a proposal that could generate about $580 billion in revenue over 10 years."  

First off, the limits he's calling for (last time I heard, maybe the new proposal is different), are not "on the wealthy," but rather are on deductions that SCOAMT would you to to believe only the wealthy take.  I have discussed before that this is simply not accurate.  There is no deduction that only kicks in when you're a millionaire.  Rather, there are deductions that people who run their own businesses can take, and (on paper at least) many of the "wealthy" do run their own businesses.  The "Corporate Jet Deduction" is exactly the same deduction that small businesses get to take for their commercial trucks or vans.  It's the same deduction that an IT business gets to take for the computers it buys.

The first part is said because it sounds good for SCOAMT- that is, it makes him sound "reasonable"- and therefore attempts to paint any opposition to the President's proposal as "unreasonable."  The second part was said because it also sounds good for the President, it makes him sound like he out "for the little guy," and therefore any opposition must be out "for the rich."

So, now that we have the issue of his unacknowledged bias out of the way, we can proceed with the rest of the article.  Click over and read it, but here is the main highlight:

A key feature of the plan Obama now is submitting for the federal budget year beginning Oct. 1 is a revised inflation adjustment called "chained CPI." This new formula would effectively curb annual increases in a broad swath of government programs, but would have its biggest impact on Social Security. By encompassing Obama's offer to Boehner, R-Ohio, the plan will also include reductions in Medicare spending, much of it by targeting payments to health care providers and drug companies.

By changing Chained CPI, the President a) gets to monkey (yet again) with the inflation numbers to hide actual inflation, and b) hurt Social Security recipients (the blame for which he would then lay at the feet of Republicans).  The sensible, reasonable way to "fix" Social Security is to cut the bureaucracy, and ruthlessly cut out anyone on SSDI who is capable of any work whatsoever.  I was laid up with back-pain so bad it made me immobile for most of a month recently- I still worked.  Not everyone can do that, but most people who are "disabled" aren't really- they could do work, they just couldn't work that construction job they've had their entire working lives.  It sucks, but that's not really the Government's job to fix.  Don't even get me started on people who are "disabled" because of depression.

Then note the changes to medicare- all in benefits (that is: payments to doctors and pharmacies).  Not even lip-service toward "waste, fraud, and abuse." 

This budget is designed to be a poison pill.  For the SCOAMT, it is a win-win-win.  If the Republicans uniformly (or nearly uniformly) oppose it, then he can blame the "obstructionist Republicans," for four more years.  If some Republicans oppose it, and others support it, he gets to further deepen the divide between the Conservative and Moderate factions of the Republican Party.  If Republicans agree, he gets to hasten the destruction of the political party he views as his enemy, and deepen the mistrust between Republican officials and grass-roots conservatives.

The only way Republicans have any chance of "winning" is not to play.  Remind people that Obama campaigned on 3:1 cuts to taxes, then moved the goal-posts to 2:1 cuts to taxes, and then moved them again to 1:1 cuts to taxes.  Tell people this is unacceptable; that the first might have been agreeable, but that you cannot negotiate with someone who refuses to negotiate in good faith.  Then point out- relentlessly- every chance you get that SCOAMT's cuts are all in services, he never once proposes to cut Government.

The rules of the current game are rigged.  Play a new game.

Small Business Owners React to Obamacare; Leftists Cry

H/T Gabe at Ace of Spades.

Let us stipulate, for the record, that no one enjoys seeing people further impoverished.  That said, I can't help but indulge in some schadenfreude, here.  If I had to guess, I'd say that the "single mother of three" was more than happy that she was going to be able to soak her bargain-basement employer for a high-speed health plan.  I wouldn't even be surprised to find out she was an Obama voter.

Across the nation, economic reality is rearing its inevitable head, and Leftists are crying that "it's not fair!"  Some are even threatening to boycott entire corporations because of the hard decisions franchise owners face.  They are shocked, shocked that small business owners are cutting part-time employees hours to avoid them suddenly being considered "full time" despite not working full-time hours.

What, exactly, did they think would happen?

Well, honestly, most of them didn't.  To most of them, especially rich actors, the economy is magic, and money is merely a talisman used to work that magic.  They have no understanding of the economy, and they believe that it is not understandable.  So when they heard "free health care," and "a right to health care," they never stopped to ponder economic realities like TANSTAAFL, or that the laws of supply and demand stem from the core fact of the scarcity of resources. 

But then there are those who did think about it.  Most of them, I will generously grant, really should have fallen into the first group.  They don't understand economic reality.  Unfortunately, they think they do.  So when they heard "employer paid health care" they thought, "Yeah!  Every worker deserves (oh, how I hate that word- DT) health care!"  To them, those business owners are all just greedy jerks who want to become rich "on the backs of their employees."

Some few, however, thought about economic reality, and understood it.  They are simply evil.  They understood exactly what would happen.  Indeed, they understood that this was the design of the law.  Small business owners, especially restaurant owners (either family restaurants or franchise owners), tend to work on very small margins.  That is, after they've paid their businesses' bills, including payroll, what they actually take home is fairly modest.  Anything that cuts into that margin poses a very serious threat of putting them in a negative feedback loop which would end in bankruptcy and (and this is important) the closing of their business.  What, exactly, do they think will happen to those workers?

See, the point of Obamacare is (as admitted by the Malignant Traitor himself) to be a "Trojan Horse" for single payer.  The Democrats want more people forced out of their insurance and onto the Exchanges.  That is the only possible outcome of all the mandates and fees baked into the law.  Once enough people are forced onto the "Public Option," they'll be able to cry, "See?!  We told you those evil capitalists were only in for the money!  They don't care about you!" and enact single payer.

And once the Government controls your access to health care, the Government controls every facet of your life.

We Do Not Have A Revenue Problem

As the deadline to stop the automatic tax increases and budget cuts collectively known as the "Fiscal Cliff" looms ever larger, we here a lot about "increased revenue."  This is simply 1984 Newspeak for "tax rate hikes."  The only question, it seems, is whether they should be called tax hikes, in which case actual marginal rates would go up, or whether it should be called "closing loopholes," and use the obfuscation of keeping marginal rates the same but removing deductions to increase taxes.  Based on both the Republicans' and Democrats' talking points, you'd think that the United States Government was the orphan Oliver asking, "Please sir, I'd like some more."

This is ludicrous.  The United States does not have a revenue problem, we have a spending problem. 

According to usgovernmentrevenue.com, the United States Government took in 2.486 trillion dollars in 2012.  According to Economy Watch, the projected US GDP for 2012 is 15.880 trillion dollars.  This means that the US Government will take in around 15.6% of GDP in direct revenue.  This a little on the low side, but well within statistical averages for the last several decades.

Taking in roughly 1/7th of the GDP as revenue should be more than sufficient.  The problem is not revenue.  The problem is spending.  For 2012, the US Deficit is projected to be over 1.3 trillion dollars.  That means the United States is spending more than 150% of the revenue it takes in.  Total Debt is projected to be over 16 trillion dollars, or roughly 103% of GDP. 

This is insane.  There is no way, if we confiscated all the wealth from every person living in the United States, that we could pay our bills.  This is like a family making $250,000/yr spending $380,000, and already being over one million dollars in debt.  What has to be cut is spending.  And the biggest drains on the treasury are entitlements, followed by military spending.

Any discussion of the budget that does not include massive cuts to entitlement and (sorry, to say) military spending is simply not serious.  Any discussion of the budget which has as its premise that we need higher revenue is simply not serious.  It is political posturing, and posing for the cameras.  Such discussions are aimed to score political points and harm political opponents.  Anyone engaging in such rhetoric should be immediately dismissed as unserious, at best, and disingenuous at worst.

Speaker Boehner, this means you.