SCOAMT^2

Readers of this blog know that I believe that the President of the United States is a stuttering clusterf*ck of a malignant traitor.  I have been saying the same since shortly after September 11, 2012.

Well, now I have more evidence.  Enter Bowe (pronounced, I’m told, “Bo”) Bergdhal.  Young Mr. Bergdhal was rejected from the French Foreign Legion before joining the United States Army (hey: US Army- you might take that under consideration).  Apparently, he believed that USA, in this case, meant US Aid and was a humanitarian outreach program, as opposed to a military force designed to kill people and break things.

So, upon being deployed to Afghanistan and actually required to fight against terrorists, he decided “this blows” and walked away.  Literally walked away- he left his duty station along with a note (apparently) in which he declared his desire to renounce his citizenship.  Now, the US Army has Views on people who leave their duty stations in the middle of a war.  It’s called Desertion in the Face of the Enemy, and it’s perhaps the second-biggest no-no an Army private can commit.

But, it turns out, this was not the end of his parsimonious behavior.  When US Army forces were sent to apprehend him, they discovered that he specifically wanted to join the Taliban.  This moves from second biggest no-no (desertion) to the biggest no-no: treason.  Providing Aid and Comfort to the Enemy.  That crime for which there is exactly one punishment.  Yes, Bowe Bergdhal is, at best, a deserter who got half-a-dozen of his buddies killed, and at worst a traitor.

So it makes all kinds of sense that the Traitor-in-Chief would release five of our highest-value terrorists from Guantanamo Bay prison to secure his release.  Absolutely.  Hey, we’re only down a net 4 terrorists.  This is also “Aid and Comfort to the Enemy.”  Releasing five guys to do more harm to Americans (because that’s what they want to do) in order to get back one deserter?  Whatever happened to “we don’t negotiate with terrorists?”

Oh, SCOAMT is all over that one, too.  Now, apparently, these enemy combatants taken on the field with no uniforms, answering to no government, and representing no organized military force are somehow POWs.  That deserter? Not a deserter who was taken hostage- but also a POW.  So it’s a POW-swap.  Because King Barakanhanen said so, you racist tea-bagger.

Now, I actually expect this kind of behavior from the Man-Child-in-Chief.  He was under heat for the VA scandal, and wanted something to take that heat off.  As Ace pointed out today, it’s a political decision that Democrats can spin- unlike the VA scandal.  So it makes some sense.

What doesn’t make sense is that Republicans have remained almost uniformly silent on this.  What does it take to get John Boehner and Mitch McConnell fired up?  The President of the United States just arguably committed treason.  He violated several laws to do so- on top of all the other laws he’s already broken, and his general Imperial approach to the Presidency.  If that’s not grounds for Impeachment, what is?

It may already be too late, but Republicans must push back against the SCOAMT.  They must start stone-walling him at every turn.  No more bipartisanship, unless it’s unification against the SCOAMT.  No more pushes for Amnesty.  No more “my friends across the aisle.”  Either the Democrats are with America, or they’re with Barack Hussein Obama.  And the Republicans face the same choice; they are either for America, the Rule of Law, and basic moral decency, or they are with Barack Hussein Obama.

Which is it?

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?

The Case Against Background Checks

So Democrats keep pursuing "Universal Background Checks" for "common sense gun control."  Their primary "Fact" (which happens to be wrong, color me stunned) is that "40% of gun purchases happen without a background check."

Before I point out why background checks are a bad idea, let's go ahead and dispense with this argument.

First, as I pointed out, it's wrong.  Roughly 60% of guns are purchased directly from stores or dealers and require full background checks.  Roughly 30% of guns are obtained via gift or inheritance.  There's already laws against knowingly giving a gun to someone who isn't supposed to have one, so any additional "background check" rules are not going to do squat about that.

That leaves roughly 10% of gun purchases which do not require a background check.  Heck, let's be generous and remove the gift/inheritance demographic completely.  That means (back of napkin math) that our pool goes down to 70% of it's original.  If we assume 100 guns as the original number(this math should scale up, since we're talking real percentages), now we're down to 70 that were purchased at all.  Of those, 60 have background checks, and 10 do not.  Ten is approximately 14.29% of 70, which is far short of 40%.

But 40% sounds scarier, so that's what they're running with.

Now, lets take a look at what this argument is really saying.  It has two false premises.

False premise number one: A new law can stop people from breaking the law. 
As already mentioned, it's already illegal to give a gun to someone who is legally prohibited from having one.  If I give a gun to a known felon, I've broken the law.  Are you suggesting I'm going to be more concerned about breaking the law after your super-double-serious law about background checks passes?

False premise number two: The American people are not trustworthy.
The only reason background checks make sense for purchases at all is that we don't want "crazy people or felons" to have weapons.  That's fine as far as it goes.  However- as proven with the Newton, CT shooting, crazy people can still get guns (see point one about criminals not obeying the law).  The same is true of felons.  So the only reason that 40% number is scary at all is if you believe that a) the only reason someone would purchase in a way that didn't require a background check was to obtain an illegal weapon and b) that if that purchase now required a background check they wouldn't find some other way to obtain a weapon.

If you don't believe both of those things, then it shouldn't matter if that number is 10%, 14%, 40%, or 90%.

Now that we've shown the Liberals don't really have a case for universal background checks, let's consider the case against them.

It comes down to one thing: background checks are de facto gun registration.  Even if I don't mention the specific model of the handgun being sold, the background check alerts the government that Citizen Y has purchased a handgun.  Now the government knows that Citizen Y has a handgun.

Registration is the necessary first step in confiscation.  Not that confiscation will necessarily result (though we know that's their end-game), but that without registration confiscation is completely impossible.

Now, since we know their end-game is complete confiscation- they've said as much in hundreds of ways- then it stands to reason they also know that 100% registration is the only way to get to confiscation.  Since I don't particularly want my guns confiscated, you'll excuse me if I reject the idea of Universal Background Checks.

I trust the majority of my fellow citizens.  In fact, until a specific individual gives me a reason they cannot be trusted, I trust all of them.  It does not bother me one whit if you get a gun without a background check.  Why should my doing the same bother you?

A Fundamentally Unserious Party

So Senate Democrats, for the first time in 4 years, have released a budget proposal.  It's contents are depressingly unsurprising, tax-and-spend policies that Democrats always pursue.  Meh.

However, there were somethings this brings up that we should look at.

From the report:

The plan calls for $975 billion in new tax revenue through closing loopholes and ending deductions and credits benefiting corporations and the country’s highest wage earners.

Like all "tax increases" this is a load of bovine fecal matter.  First off, raising tax rates- whether through marginal rate increases, or "closing of loopholes" never generates much more revenue.  Instead, it depresses GDP.  Oh, certainly, people will have less money to take home, but that won't be because the Government is actually taking in much more.

Then there's that whole "deductions and credits benefiting corporations and the country's highest wage earners."  This, like "tax increases" is complete horse hockey.  The US Tax Code does not give Bill Gates a single deduction for which you could not qualify.  Not one.  It does not give Exxon-Mobile a single deduction for which Joe's Pizzaria down the street could not qualify.  Not one.

That whole line of argument is a lie.  It is a damnable lie and the Democrats and Media should nto be allowed to keep getting away with it.  Closing those "loopholes" will hurt middle-class families far more than it would hurt the rich, and that's not even taking into consideration the fact the Rich have options the middle-class do not regarding wealth management (hint: there's a reason it's called the Income Tax).

Here's another one:

It also calls for $100 billion in new stimulus spending while cutting $1.85 trillion from the deficit over 10 years. The rest of the savings would come through spending cuts.

First, let's assume that they were serious about this (they're not: it's another lie).  Our deficit for last year alone was well over $1 Trillion.  They want to cut that over 10 years.  Yeah, that's serious budget management right there.  As for "spending cuts" they're crying over an approximate 2% cut to the rate of growth from the sequester.  They seriously expect us to believe they're going to cut spending?

Those both lead to this:

Senate Budget Committee Chairman Patty Murray said the budget takes a balanced, “pro-middle-class” approach and argued the country’s economic problems started long before fellow Democrats entered the White House in 2009.

Yeah.  Not so much.  Another bald-faced lie.

And whose fault is all this, you ask?  I'd give you three guesses, but you'll only need one:

“Despite some of the rhetoric you may hear from my Republican colleagues, the Great Recession didn’t start the day President Obama was elected,” said Murray, D-Wash.

Ah, yes.  Boooooosh!  Good to know.

This is fundamentally unserious.  It is designed only to generate spin and run news cycles.  It continues running up the debt and making our situation yet worse.  But the Democrats now would have you believe we don't have a spending problem.  Nope, we're not spending too much, we're spending too little.

It is a fundamentally unserious proposal from a fundamentally unserious party.

Democrats to Gun Owners: You're Insane

That's the underlying assumption behind this proposed "gun control" bill from Florida.  The short version is that they believe anyone who wants to buy ammunition has anger management problems, and should have to undergo anger management courses.

Now, I've alluded to this kind of thinking before, but I cannot explain how powerful this type of thing is.  The new push for gun control is that people who want guns are crazy, and should therefore be disqualified from ever owning a weapon.

This is a very powerful argument for those who are uninformed.  "Well, of course, anyone who wants a gun must be considering violence, why else would they want a gun?"  Responsible gun owners, of course, know that is not the case.  Responsible gun owners are much more likely to walk away from a conflict than non-gun owners.  We understand the heavy burden that goes with gun ownership.

Now, this law is especially insidious for two reasons.  First, it enacts a de facto gun-ban unless you get psychological help every 10 years.  Of course, the National Democrats' next step is to make anyone who has ever sought psychological help ineligible to own a gun.  Funny how those would work together.  Second, it reinforces the idea in the minds of the populace at large that people who own guns are exceptionally violent and should be feared.  It's the same drive behind all the kids getting suspended for doing things like pointing their fingers at someone like a gun, or biting their sandwiches into the shape of a gun (yes, those are both real stories). 

Conservative Legislators cannot content themselves with merely defeating this kind of legislation.  They must make it a laughing-stock.  They must so thoroughly debunk it that no one dares bring it up again.  Why?  Because that is the only way to fight the cultural indoctrination that is Democrats' real objective.  Democrats are smart enough to know that if they moved to take our guns they would be opposed.  So they hope to make people give up their guns willingly- both by making it especially onerous to own a gun in the first place, and to make you appear "weird," "unbalanced," or "violent" by society if you are known to be a gun owner.

Once they have made that image stick in the minds of the public, they believe they can then move openly to confiscate guns.  And, yes, I know they'll deny that.  They'd be stupid not to.  I ask you not to look at their words, but their actions and the logical consequences thereof.

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."

ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ

The Red-Coats are coming.
The Red-Coats are coming.

It's official, Democrats across the nation are waging war against the 2nd Amendment.

US Senate Democrats support reintroducing the "Assault Weapons" Ban- which bans a host of purely cosmetic features.
New York just passed sweeping gun controls, including limits on any magazine size over 7 rounds.
Missouri Democrats have introduced House Bill 545, which would not only ban "Assault Weapons," but would confiscate them.
And New Jersey Democrats just passed 20 gun control bills out of committee.

This must not stand.  As our forefathers before us, we "must hang together, or else we shall all hang separately."

Save that image.  Print it out.  Send it as a post-card to your State Senators and Representatives and to your National Senators and Representatives.  If you feel like including a note specifying why you sent it, please do.  But as of right now I'm calling on every 2nd Amendment defender to flood their State Legislatures and the Federal Legislature with this simple note.  Maybe then they'll get the hint.

Conservatives, Liberals, and Socrates' Cave

In Plato's Republic, he relates a (probably fictional) story about a conversation between Socrates and Glaucon in which Socrates postulates a set of prisoners bound in such a way that they had to face a wall on which shadows of the real world played out.  He first posited that those prisoners, raised thus from birth, would believe what they were seeing to be "the real world."  He further expounded on the difficulties if just one of those prisoners was let free, and then even compelled to see more and more of the real world.  Finally, he suggested what would happen if that prisoner, finally having acclimated to the world outside the cave, returned to that cave to try to educate the other prisoners.

The Wikipedia article on the story is pretty good.  Go check it out before you get to the rest of this post.  I'll wait.

...
...
...

Good.  You're back.

I don't know why I was thinking about this the other day, but I was, and I think I hit on a glimmer of understanding.  People, in general, are those prisoners in the cave.  The Media (by and large) are the ones who stoke the fire, decide what order people cross the bridge, and who make sure the prisoners don't break free on their own (not a hard thing to do, once they're acclimated to their position). 

Conservatives are that prisoner (by and large).  We have, by whatever means, broken free from that imprisonment.  At first it was painful and frustrating.  The world shouldn't work like this.  The world didn't work like this.  But, as time passed and we re-verified our new perceptions, we came to accept the real world for what it is.

Liberals, on the other hand, fall into two or three camps.  The first are the prison guards.  They are in league with the Media (actually, the other way 'round.  The Media is beholden to them), and like the situation as it is.  They want people to remain ignorant.  I won't even say that all of them have wholly nefarious motives.  Some of them really believe that "ignorance is bliss" and that those prisoners "aren't capable" of understanding/coping with/dealing with the real world.  Many of them, however, like the power they exert for its own sake.

The second set of liberals are the people walking on the bridge.  They know what the real world is.  However it happened, they are not in the cave.  Some of them escaped.  Others were never in the cave to begin with.  But they never think of the people in the cave unless something happens to bring them sharply to mind.  They support the prison guards for a variety of reasons.  Some of them believe that the prisoners are dangerous- why, they wouldn't be prisoners if they weren't dangerous.  Some of them believe that the prisoners "deserve it" somehow- they'd never be able to tell you how.  Still others believe that if the prisoners were loosed, their own station would suffer.

The third set of liberals are the prisoners themselves, or are a subset of them.  They are comfortable with what they know, and any attempt to instruct them otherwise is heresy.  They believe that conservatives are crazy, and that our tales of the real world are fanciful, even deranged, projections.  They don't believe in the prison guards, because they've never seen them for what they are.  If they give any thought to the possible existence of the guards, they assume that the guards have their best interests at heart, or are doing what they're doing for some justified reason.

Democrat politicians and the Major Media Outlets are the prison guards.  They have allowed some to be free in the sure knowledge that those can be counted on.  Hollywood "limousine Liberals" and other Celebrity liberals/moderates are the people carrying the bundles.  They know how the world works, because it works that way for them especially (Hollywood gets far more targeted tax breaks (read: any) than "Big Oil").  For their various reasons they either don't consider the plight of the prisoners to be something worth worrying about, or (worse) they believe that it is good for them for people to remain in the dark. 

The few principled liberals (about as common as a Conservative Democrat) are the liberals still chained up.  They believe that (for instance) Government should "take care of the people."  They believe the trite that "hard work should always lead to success."  They believe, deep down, in "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need."  Any attempt to warn them, to teach them, to give even the most minor shake to their illusion will be met with hostility.

There is a Reason it's "The Law" of Unintended Consequences

Via Gabe over at the AoSHQ comes this article from Ramesh Ponnuru at Bloomberg.  Ponnuru's article explores some of the "unintended" consequences of plastic-bag bans.  Among others he points out studies that show a body-count attributable to them.

Now, I don't know enough about the studies to say how rigorous they are, and certainly people should take enough responsibility for themselves to wash their reusable bags.  Neither of those are the point here.  No, the point is that this wouldn't even be a problem without the mandates to use the reusable bags.

I shop at Aldi (well: my wife does most of the shopping, because she loves me and knows I hate it, but you get the point), and I love it.  Their prices are fantastic.  I can feed my entire family (4 people, plus two dogs) on an average of $100/wk because of Aldi and Walmart.  Aldi encourages the use of reusable bags (note: does not require, just encourages).  We have made that choice because we like the savings related to it.

The important thing there is that it is my choice.  I could choose not to shop at Aldi.  I could choose to shop at Aldi, but buy plastic or paper bags from them every time.  I could choose.  People in San Fransisco, and Los Angeles, and other California cities cannot choose.

If I fail to wash my reusable bags and I get sick, that's my own darn fault.  I made choices that led to that decision.  If I knew I was a sloppy kind of person who was never going to wash them, I could choose not to use them at all and save myself the hassle.  Those cities in California have decided that people can't take a look at their own habits and make decisions based on them.  No, they have to have their actions and choices mandated by the city council.

Now, though, we have evidence (however tenuous) that reusable bags are killing people.  And we know the Liberals (for whom California is a bastion) believe in the axiom "If it might save even one life."  So what follows?

In a Conservative State, or even just one still in touch with reality, we'd allow plastic bags back in.  But not so in California.  They'll either do nothing, or they'll Do Something.  These are Liberals: they'll Do Something.

My Guess?  You know those propane cylinder recycling places?  They're usually at grocery stores and some convenience stores.  You can take your empty tank and get a new (or at least full) one much cheaper.  I suspect a mandate along those lines.  Once the mandate kicks in, people will bring in their reusable bags and place them in a large rolling laundry cart, like you might see at a hotel.  They'll get a voucher for the number of bags they brought in.  Then, when they check out, they'll be given that same number of bags "for free" and the grocery store will be required (enforced with inspections from City and/or State health officials) to wash the returned ones.

And the cost will simply be passed to the consumer.  But that will simply be another "unintended" consequence.

On Illegal Immigration

It's just a topical cornucopia today.

So, also big on the national stage at the moment is "Immigration Reform" which we all know is code for "amnesty."  Apparently, some Republicans (including Marco Rubio.  Awesome), think that catering to Democrats on this issue will somehow win them votes with Hispanic voters.  I'm not exactly sure how that's supposed to work.

First off, there's the fact that Hispanics vote overwhelmingly for Democrats.  They're not quite to the Black Community numbers, but a vast majority.  Indeed, it is considered "impressive" that Rick Perry pulls nearly 40% of the Hispanic vote in Texas.  Think about that for a minute.

Secondly, the only people who benefit from amnesty (I don't care what they call it, that's what it is- own it Republicans) are Democrats (who get more voters on a better than 7 : 3 basis) and illegal immigrants.  These immigrants are often poor, usually on multiple forms of Government (that is: tax-payer provided) assistance, and generally not the kind of crowd that is normally going to vote Republican (that is: to have their "free" stuff taken away).

Third, it royally screws over legal immigrants.  For those who have already completed the process, it makes a mockery of the trouble they went through to follow our laws.  For those completing the process now, it says "hey, why bother?  We don't care about our laws, why should you?"  Even those who decide to stick it out are going to be negatively affected as ICE is overwhelmed with paperwork related to enforcing whatever new amnesty is passed.

And what will Republicans get?  Nothing.  Zip.  Zero.  Nada.  Zilch.  Enforcement?  If you're granting Amnesty, what is there to enforce?  Oh, you want me to believe we'll suddenly start enforcing it for any "new" illegal aliens?  You'll excuse me if I'm skeptical.

Now, one of the rhetorical devices Liberals will use to defend amnesty is this line: "What do you want?  We can't deport them all!"

This line gets used so often that it needs to be carefully reviewed.  There are three ways that illegal aliens could be deported.  The method preferred by the enforcement crowd is self deportation.  We believe that if we enforce the laws (more on that in a minute), and stop claiming they should be eligible for tax-payer funded benefits like Social Security, Medicaid, and TANF, that most of them would leave on their own.  They might go home; they might go somewhere else.  Either way they would no longer be here as a drain on our social services.

The second method, and the one Liberals accuse us of supporting is "mass deportations."  Now, this tricky because it could mean one of two things.  What they mean when they say it, though they may not be willing to admit it, is the idea of mass mobilization of LEO in a systematic manner, kicking down doors, throwing smoke grenades, and generally terrorizing the "poor" illegals.  Then anyone who could not prove their citizenship or legal status would be deported.

This is important, because no one is actually advocating that.  It's not on the table.  It's a particularly weak straw-man.

The third method, (and liberals will try to claim that this is "mass deportation" as well- thus trying to confuse the matter) is deportation of illegals as they are identified through other means.  If one is caught driving without a license, or through some other contact with law enforcement, deport them.  The reason Liberals claim this is "the same" as mass deportation is that "it would be deportation on a massive scale."  See?  "Massive scale" = "mass deportation."  QED.

Or not.  To say that it would be "the same" as the more generally accepted definition of "mass deportations" is the same as saying that we have "mass drunk driving enforcement" because there are a lot of drunk driving cases.  Absolutely not.  With the exception of "Driver Checkpoints" (which I believe are unconstitutional), cops are not specifically seeking out drunk drivers, but when they find them they don't hesitate to fine or jail them.  And we don't hesitate, if they plead not-guilty, to try them in a court of law.  The same would be true of immigration.  No one, except possibly ICE agents (whose job it is anyway) would be looking specifically for illegal aliens.  When they are found, however, we should not hesitate to start deportation proceedings.

Which brings us back to the "enforce the law" point.  Yes, we understand that enforcing the law will necessarily result in deportation on a massive scale- either through self deportations or through deportation proceedings or (more likely) some combination of both.  I won't say that it is "the point," but it's definitely a side benefit.  These people are here illegally.  I'm supposed to care if they experience some inconvenience when we enforce the law?  Why?

So let's start with that, first, huh?  Take any form of amnesty off the table.  In fact, take any legislation off the table.  The laws are already written.  We don't need more.  We simply need to enforce the laws that exist.  There's no need for "Immigration Reform."  What is needed is "Customs and Border Enforcement Reform."

Beware Gun Grabbers' Double-Speak

We've heard a lot about Americans' "rich hunting tradition," and evil "assault weapons."  As such, I believe it is necessary to provide a warning against ever accepting their terms as the nomenclature for the gun debate.  Tansnational Progressives (Trannies) (shamelessly stolen from the AoSHQ) like to use words that sound innocuous for things that are bad, and words that sound scary for things that are not.  They love to use double-speak and word games to make it harder to argue against them.

For instance, when a Tranny talks about our "rich hunting tradition," they're a) lying (no such "rich tradition" exists- more in a minute) and b) laying the ground work for banning all guns.  See, if it is true that I don't need ten bullets to kill a dear, it is also true that I don't need a gun at all.  People hunted dear, and even bigger game, with bows and arrows, and with spears and javelines before that, long before gunpowder was even invented.  So if we're going to limit gun ownership based on what is "needed" for hunting, then we can ban guns outright.

Now, to that "rich hunting tradition."  That's bull crap made up by Democrats to give them cover to steal your guns.  While it is true that many people have hunted for a long time, it is a) not something unique to American or Americans, and b) has never been (as far as I can tell) a majority of the population.  And hunting as a purely recreational activity certainly did not first arise in America.  So while it is true that we have had hunters, even recreational hunters, from before the beginning of our nation, to call it a "rich hunting tradition" is a sleight-of-mouth trick to make you equate the 2nd Amendment with hunting- a relationship which simply does not exist.

As for "assault weapons," as the Reason author so ably points out, Trannies don't even know what makes a weapon and "assault rifle."  An assault rifle is a selective fire weapon, meaning it can fire in semi-automatic, burst (usually), and/or fully-automatic modes.  We also call them "machine guns" (though that's not correct either, as machine guns are not typically selective fire, and are only capable of fully-automatic fire).  To be an assault weapon, there has to be a way for me to pull the trigger once, and more than one bullet to come out.  No weapon used in Aurora, CO, or Sandy Hook Elementary met that definition.  So they must actually mean something different.

Based on their words, to them the difference is magazine capacity.  So a weapon holding 7 bullets in New York is just fine, but one holding 8 is suddenly an "assault weapon."  Congratulations owners of virtually all semi-automatic pistols: your handgun is now an "assualt weapon."  So are many bolt-action rifles. 

If they're so willing to defraud the language with these terms, what are they doing with terms like "dangerous person" (a little vague, no?), or "gun safety devices?"

What's Next? "Reeducation" Camps?

Now, this is from Joe ("J-O-B-S. Three letters") Biden, so I suppose we should take it with a grain of salt.  Apparently the Administration is seeking to bypass congress in an unconstitutional twofer.  The Malignant Traitor wants to issue an executive order for gun control.  Unconstitutional 1: what part of "the right of the People to Keep and Bear Arms shall not be Infringed" doesn't he understand?  Unconstitutional 2: Laws are made by congress, silly.  The Executive has no authority, even via Executive Orders to compel or direct the private citizenry in any way, unless specifically granted by statute.  Which statute provides the President the power to do anything about guns I own or wish to own?

Frankly, though, as laughable as this is, it is also highly disturbing.  It is, without overstating the case or being overly outlandish, fascist.  It is, more or less, exactly what a certain poorly-mustached dictator did in Germany.  Other notables who also socialized medicine and disarmed their populace: Mussolini, Mao, Stalin.  Now what do these four have in common?

Oh, yes: mass murder/genocide and evil orders of magnitude greater than just about any other we can find in history, with the possible exceptions of Pharaoh having all Hebrew boys killed during childbirth, and Herod ordering the deaths of every male child aged 2 and under.

And these are the people (probably including Pharaoh and King Herod) that the Malignant Traitor and his Cabinet officials see as inspirational.

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.

This Person Can Vote

I dunno, sweetie.  What on earth might have happened to make your paycheck go down?

After my initial response of hysterical laughter, that simple post made me kind of upset.  I'm just not sure what made me more angry- the fact this woman was doubtless one of the ones calling for more taxes on "the rich," or the fact she was so caught up in the rhetoric of her own side that she failed to see what they were actually doing.

This is the primary problem with the 11th hour nature of the Fiscal Cliff deal.  Because Congress believed it had to [i]do something now![/i] the American People didn't have a chance to see what was in the legislation and let their voices be heard.  Instead, all we got was pablum and talking points.

As a result, we have no spending cuts.  As a result, taxes on everyone with a job are going up.  As a result, job and wealth creators are being punished with yet higher taxes.

And people like this, who undoubtedly think themselves informed, have absolutely no clue. 

Shocker!: Democrats Negotiating in Bad Faith

So, for weeks, if not months, we've heard nothing from Democrats on the "Fiscal Cliff" except for the need to "raise revenue" by which they mean tax rates.  This is such a thoroughly silly idea, that it doesn't even bear the most basic of scrutiny.  For one thing, we don't have a "revenue" problem, we have a spending problem.  For another, raising tax rates does not actually increase government revenue.  If anything, it has a depressive effect by also slowing growth.

Now, however, we finally have some movement on the Democrat side.  They've shifted positions!  Wait, no, that was the goal-posts they just moved.  See, now, it's not enough that we merely raise tax rates on actual job and wealth creators.  No, now we also have to further extend Unemployment Benefits past 99 weeks.  As though nearly 2 years of unemployment was not absurd enough, now it needs to be longer.

Let's assume that Democrats were negotiating, in the beginning, in good faith.  Let's say they really wanted to reduce the deficits and (eventually) start paying down the debt.  Let's further grant that they really believe that increasing tax rates will increase revenues this time, despite its utter failure every time it's been tried in the 40+ years.  Even assuming those things (which aren't true, but go with me here), does it make sense then to further increase spending?

Even if we did have a revenue problem, and not a spending problem, in what world does it make sense to increase spending further when our deficits are already about 10% of GDP, we're already spending nearly 150% of tax receipts, and our debt is over 100% of GDP? 

The short answer: none.  It doesn't make sense.  Increasing spending is the absolute wrong thing to do to close the deficits, even if you grant that increasing tax rates would increase revenue.

If that is the case; it if it is true that increasing spending is absolutely and obviously counter-productive, then it follows that the Democrats were never negotiating in good faith.  They want the Fiscal Cliff.  They want higher taxes on everyone.  They simply assume that the spending will continue.  Since we haven't had a budget in 4 years, but we've been spending anyway, I don't see how they're wrong, either.

Republicans must not budge on this.  Let's go over the fiscal cliff together.  And then, when it's time for another "continuing resolution" to keep spending money we don't have?  Don't do that either.  When it's time to increase the debt ceiling again?  Don't do that, either.

The American People voted for the Fiscal Cliff.  They also voted for deadlock, since they didn't see fit to give the Democrats the house back, or even a filibuster proof majority in the Senate.  Give them what they asked for.

Let it burn.

Yet More BLS BS

So the November Unemployment numbers came out today.  The BLS claims 146K jobs created (just under what's needed to keep up with population growth) and yet somehow unemployment dropped from 7.9% to 7.7%.  Quietly released also were downward revisions in the numbers for both September and October.

Now, beyond the obvious question of how the UE Rate could go down when we're not even employing people at the replacement rate is the question of why the BLS would produce such obviously faulty numbers.  The answer to the first is easy enough.  Part of it is legitimate; yet more people are no longer counted as "unemployed" even though they are, in fact, "unemployed."  Part of it is not.  This number is fairly obviously false, and will be quietly revised downward next month or the month after. 

So the question that remains is "why?"  Why produce these numbers that are, to anyone paying attention, obviously incorrect if not outright fraudulent? 

On this, I have a theory.  It's not exactly a secret that the Bureau of Labor Statistics works for the President.  Prior to the election, they were padding the numbers (thus the quiet downward revisions for September and October's numbers) to help Obama get re-elected.  The Media helped with this, too, by absolutely refusing to analyze the unemployment numbers at all.  But what incentive does the Administration have to lie now?

My answer: the Fiscal Cliff negotiations.  Right now, just over half the country says they would blame Republicans more than Democrats if we re-entered a recession due to the fiscal cliff.  It is my belief that people would blame Democrats more if they knew how bad the economy really was.  If people saw 8%+ unemployment rates, they'd realize that we aren't in some "weak recovery" but still in a recession which has been extended by the disastrous policies of this President.  If people understood that, they would realize that the people who actually want to help them and help grow the economy are the Republicans. 

Any support for increased taxation would evaporate.  The calls for "the rich" to pay "their fair share," would be nonexistent.  People would begin to understand that we do not have a "revenue" problem.  And then the Republicans would have much more power in Congress.  They would have more power because even the Democrat controlled Senate would start feeling the pressure to reduce spending, rather than attempt to raise taxes.  The Democrats would start feeling constituent pressure to reduce regulation, and start loosening the Government's strangle-hold on the economy.

So we get the same "sunny days are here again" news we got prior to the election.  Once we've gone over the fiscal cliff, as Democrats want, we might start seeing real numbers again.  See, then, it will be because those Evil Republicans were just too hyper-partisan and wouldn't just give Obama everything he wanted.  Instead, those Evil, Intractable Republicans wanted Obama actually to negotiate!  In good faith!  How dare they!?

Boehner Preparing to Sell Out

Hint to Congressional Republicans: if you let Speaker Boehner remain as speaker and continue his "leadership," you will succeed in doing something Democrats have been trying to accomplish for at least 30 years.  The complete destruction of the Republican party.

Breitbart is reporting that John Boehner and the House Republicans are considering a "Doomsday" plan to avoid the so-called "Fiscal Cliff."  Basically, they plan to roll over and give Barack Obama exactly what he wants- higher taxes on job and wealth creators, and nothing much else.  Yes, Obama is also calling to increase the debt limit, but we probably won't hit that until after the new congress is sworn in anyway, he knows that Boehner has plenty of time to capitulate on that, too.

Let us be very, very clear, here.  The United States Government does not have a revenue problem.  The US Government took in nearly $2.5 trillion dollars in 2012.  That is more than enough revenue to do everything the Federal Government should be doing, with some (a lot) left over.  To put it in perspective, 2.5 Trillion seconds ago was around 74,000 BC.  What the United States Government has is a spending problem.  Spending, especially on entitlements, must be cut.

Of course, spending cuts are politically difficult, and tax rate increases, especially on the "very wealthy" are politically easy.  Class warfare sells, after all.  Unfortunately for "politically easy" tax rate increases, of any variety, are not the answer.  This is true for a variety of reasons.  For one thing, even if we confiscated all the wealth from every person living in the United States, we couldn't pay our bills.  For another, tax rate increases traditionally reduce GDP, and therefore reduce revenue.  On the other hand, lowering tax rates increases GDP, growing the tax base, and increasing revenues.

Now, I understand we are not going to get tax rate cuts out of any deal.  We have, as the weenies in Congress are so fond of pointing out, "One half of one third of the Government."  So there is no way we "win" this fight.  However, perhaps we should be looking for a "lateral win."  That is, maybe we should change the goal we're pursuing.  We're not going to get tax rate cuts.  We can't even prevent tax hikes (if nothing happens, the old Clinton Rates go back into effect, and the Democrats in the Senate won't even consider something that doesn't allow the top marginal rate to go up).  So let's redefine "victory."

Obama and the Democrats are fond of pointing out to the balanced budgets and surpluses of the Clinton years.  Few realize that the US Government had virtually nothing to do with that.  The Clinton years were the rise of the Internet.  They were the "dot com" bubble which burst just before Clinton left office (people usually forget that part, too).  So, yes, the Federal Government was doing quite well in those years, but that was despite Clinton's economic policies, not because of them.  However, we should embrace their idea.  The Clinton economy was so good, let's go back to all of those tax rates.  All of them.  And, since we're now expecting a return to "Clinton's" (really Newt Gringrich's) balance budgets and even surpluses, we don't need to raise the debt ceiling, either.

In this case, the correct answer is to embrace the reversal of the Bush tax rates.  Don't merely "allow" the Bush rates to expire.  Push a bill fully embracing the return of the Clinton rates.  Push a bill explicitly refusing to raise the debt limit for, say, one year.  Let's really test the Democrat's economic theory.  If they're right, and raising tax rates will increase revenue and decrease the deficit, then it is every American's Patriotic duty to do their part to help, by working even more for the Government than they do already.

Give it one year, and then go back to the table.  One year of Clinton rates, and I'm guessing most of America will support Republican calls for reduced taxation and reduced spending.  And, if not-  Let it burn.

San Bernardino: A Leftist's Dream Made Reality

Somehow, I don't think Mad Max is going to come save the day.

San Bernardino, CA, filed for bankruptcy earlier this year.  Despite what should be protection from their various debt obligations, at least temporarily, the city finds its fiscal situation continuing to deteriorate.  Indeed, their situation seems to be so bad, that the City Attorney, Jim Penman suggested that citizens arm themselves and lock their doors because they simply don't have enough police to protect the citizenry.

The New Mayor of San Bernardino, CA

With respect to the people of California, you asked for this.  Government is only supposed to do a very few things.  Providing police protection is one of those things, but your insistence on forcing your government to provide all kinds of other services, in addition to your love of the abomination that is Public Employee Unions, has led to this. 

Money that does not exist cannot be spent, and what cannot continue will not.  If what you are willing to cut is your police force, then you will be the ones who must supply that protection.  So while your government pays outrageous salaries to its officials, you are the ones on the hook.  Perhaps your children will learn the lessons you obviously have not, and might possibly correct the situation.

Until then, I recommend stocking up on the leather and spikes.  It looks like that's what the fashion-conscious will be wearing after the apocalypse.

Obama: "We Have To Stop The Fiscal Cliff" Reality: Hasn't Met Congressional Leaders in 13+ Days

Above the Post Update
Apparently, these fiscal cliff negotiations are so urgent, they're forcing Barack Obama to change his vacation plans so he can be in Washington, DC, just in case he needs to sign anything.

Just kidding.  He'll be in Hawaii from December 17 through at least January 2- meaning he won't be available to sign any legislation crafted to avoid the fiscal cliff, if any even exists then.

Original Post: 

Q: How do you know Barack Obama is lying?  A: His mouth is moving.
Q: How do you know Barack Obama is about to go play golf?  A: He just called something an urgent priority.

Immediately after winning re-election back on the 6th, Barack Obama immediately returned to form.  That is: he demogogued against the Republicans and then beat feet to avoid any actual work.

Specifically, he claimed that the "Hard work" of averting the "Fiscal Cliff" would have to begin immediately.  He claimed that Republicans were responsible for the fiscal cliff, despite the fact that the vast majority of the deficit spending, both current and future, is due directly to policies he and his complete control of Congress had implemented before the Republicans took over the House in 2011.

Now, via Twitchy, comes word that he has not met with Congressional Leaders in 13 days.

Frankly, I think the American people voted for the fiscal cliff, and I think they should get it good and hard.  Me and mine can trim sails and survive.  It'll suck, but the American people re-elected everyone who devised this lack-of-a-plan in the first place. 

That said, Barack Obama claimed this was a priority.  He claimed that going over the fiscal cliff would be completely unacceptable.  He then insinuated that the only reason we would go over the fiscal cliff is if Republicans were unwilling to compromise.  Now he's not even meeting with them?  If this were such a priority, wouldn't he be meeting with them every day?

Of course, as with everything he says, this is more demagoguery and lies from Barack Obama.  He doesn't want to stop the fiscal cliff.  Why would he, because of John Boehner's incompetence, he gets everything he wants.  He gets to increase taxes on everyone, and not just a little.  He gets to gut defense spending, and Medicare spending.  More importantly he gets to blame it all on Republicans.  You see, they were the ones who didn't "compromise."  They were the ones who "let" it happen.  If they'd just completely capitulated, then... well, he won't explain what would happen, because that's not politically expedient.

Some Republicans and Conservatives have suggested giving Barack Obama everything he wants.  I submit that it will not work.  For once in his miserable life, Harry Reid will actually open up the bill for debate on the Senate floor, and will oppose any attempt at cloture.  He'll claim that the bill is so important, unlike, say ObamaCare, that it must be fully debated and understood.  And then, by the time he finally allows a vote, the bill will be approved too late.  There are all kinds of things the Democrats can do to delay passage of a bill averting the fiscal cliff.  Thanks to their allies in the Mainstream Media, most people will still believe that those evil, intractable Republicans are to blame.