What Do Conservatives Want?

So, over at the HQ this morning, commenter jwest raised an interesting point.  His comment is too long to quote in its entirety, but the gist seems to be this:  Conservatives, especially in the blogosphere, are too ready to pull out the Long Knives whenever one of our allies (actual allies- a Perry, or Walker, or Cruz, or Lee) makes a tiny misstep.  So we should probably make some decisions, as a movement, about where we really stand.

So here are some areas he highlighted, and my thoughts on them (all quotes: sic; I'm not a proofreader).  I'll follow up with a couple more at the end.

1: Immigration/Border

On immigration, has anyone defined what the word "amnesty" means? We can't simply say "follow existing law", because than entails kicking in doors at 2am and dragging mothers away from their children (which looks bad on the evening news). It would be good to have a well written position on what true conservatives want.

Amnesty means "officially not administering just punishment for a crime."  Any "path to legalization" or "path to citizenship" is Amnesty.

Step 1 (before anything else) secure the border (or take real, substantive steps to secure it).  Step 2 Make explicit that illegal aliens are not eligible for any federal benefit, reduce Medicaid payments to States who pay State benefits for illegal aliens.  Step 3 Come down like "a ton of rectanular building things" on any employer- large or small- found to be hiring illegals.  Step 4 expedite deportation hearings, stop releasing illegals into their own recognizance.

2: ObamaCare/Health Care/Health Insurance

On healthcare, certainly everyone wants Obamacare repealed, but that's not a position. Never in the history of the U.S. has the government been able to give citizens free shit and then turn around and take it back. Those who think this is an option just aren't being serious. We need a conservative plan on what is going to replace Obamacare.

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

The federal government has no authority over health care/health insurance.  The only space where the feds have authority is to end the prohibition on interstate sale of insurance.  Would consider making personal health insurance tax deductible, just like employer coverage... but that has issues (since I want the tax code to be much less complex).

3: Defense (esp. Defense Budget)

On defense, some are taking the position that patriotism can be gauged by how much we spend on the military. Others know that at some point, enough is enough. It's hard to make the case of being a budget hawk while handing out blank checks. We should nail this down so that voters know where we're at.

I'm sorry, Hawks, we don't have money.  I don't want to cut defense spending, but neither can we let it grow (or, at least, grow much).  Let's fix the procurement process, cut out the "diversity" stupidity, and see any other avenues available to make the defense budget more efficient.  If that's still not enough, *then* we can talk about more money.

4: Social Security

On Social Security, for decades the holy grail of the conservative side of the aisle was a plan to privatize SS. If this is still the plan, it could be marketed in such a way as to gain the black vote. Of course, our side needs to agree on plan first.

One-time payment of "your" SS money into an IRA.  Retirement planning is your business, not Daddy Government's.  For current or near retirees, we'll have to figure out a plan.  Some kind of phase-out will be necessary, but not sure exactly how that would work.

I'll add on top of that:

5: Taxes

A massively simplified tax code.  Flat tax, fair tax, even a progressive/graduated tax which is simple to understand would be far better than what we have today.  I don't think, realistically, we'll ever get a true "flat tax," and the "fair tax" scares me unless we can repeal the 16th Amendment.  Repeal the estate tax, drop corporate taxes to around 15%, stop taxing capital gains (and maybe dividends).

6: Budget

A balanced budget amendment is way over-due in this country.  Texas has one in our State Constitution, and it has contributed to tax surpluses (since people and especially businesses know that there aren't huge deficits, Texas is seen as very tax-payer friendly).

What are your thoughts?  Jwest is right- the sooner the *base* figures out our starting point, the easier it will be to judge when someone has deviated from it, and to what degree- thus (hopefully) preventing some of the circular firing squads which have led to the last two disastrous Republican presidential candidates.

But... but... Shut Down!!!!

Oh.  My.  Lord.

Not this again.  Apparently the reason Republicans are caving on the budget talks is they're afraid the Government will shut down again.  Well, guess what geniuses, it might.  Guess what else?  Too bad.

First off, despite what the MFM and inside-the-Beltway types believe, the shutdown earlier this year did not actually hurt Republicans.  Here in Middle America, most people were for it.  Secondly, there's no reason you can't parley this into being the Democrats fault.  Yes, it might be hard, but so what?  You can even do it by sounding more reasonable than they do.

Now, for those who don't know, the issue is (once again) the debt ceiling.  OMG, if we don't raise the debt ceiling we can't pay our bills!!

Let's not discuss the absurdity of that statement.  Maybe I'll get to it in a future post.  Let's just look at just one possible Republican tactic.  I call it "raising the debt ceiling."

Look, I'm as fire-breathing as the next Ultra-Con, and I don't like raising the debt ceiling.  However, as a practical matter, ObamaCare is going down in flames, and we really don't want anything to give the President cover on that.  We don't want him to be able to distract the public from the train-wreck that is ObamaCare.

So, we say this:  "Alright, we'll raise the debt ceiling by 2 Trillion dollars.  That should last us at least one more full year."  And that's it.  No discussing budgetary matters ("that's settled law") no fee increases, nothing.  Republicans should simply say, "You're right, it would be irresponsible not to pay our debts, we'll agree to increase the debt ceiling by 2 Trillion dollars."

Then, when Chrissy Matthews spews the Democrat talking points of "you want to shut down government!" a simple rejoinder of, "Chris, we've agreed to raise the debt limit with no other preconditions.  So how is that wanting to shut down the government?"  What, really, can the Democrats say?  "But we want to increase spending?"  "But Democrats won't vote for that?"  It will become quite clear to everyone that it is the Democrats agitating for a shutdown because they don't like sequester- not Republicans.

Okay, fine, we can't ask for more budget cuts.  I don't like that, but I can accept it.  That doesn't mean we have to agree to budget increases.  The budget is set for FY2014 and FY2015- by sequester.  So the only reason to "shut down" the government is over the debt limit.  So let's take that off the table.  At the very least we can turn it around so that anyone with half a brain (I know this excepts most Democrats, but they weren't going to be on our side anyway) will understand that it is the Democrats "shutting down" the government, not Republicans, which would take away most, if not all, of any "cover" they would hope to gain.

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.

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.

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.

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."

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.

Leviathan Government: "Feed Me!"

Bloomberg news is reporting that the SCOAMT thinks the US Government needs more of your money.  In related news, they are also reporting that water is wet.

The actual article is a smorgasbord of the SCOAMT being completely ignorant on the economy.  Ready for this America?  Just remember: you elected him.

1) Apparently increasing taxes will help grow the economy.  Every economist since ever says "Wha?"
2) Unemployment went up because "We cut military spending."  Well, yes you did, but you increased spending elsewhere.  And if "government spending" were what made jobs, we'd already be at ~5% Unemployment by now.  Did that happen and I just didn't notice?
3) Death Panels?  Yeah- they're real: "[SCOAMT] said the government can cut health-care costs..."

Seriously, this man has all the economic acumen of a grasshopper, and all the brains of a balloon animal.

State of the State

WARNING: LONG POST AHEAD

Today, Governor Rick Perry gave his State of the State Address.  Using this opportunity, he called for things conservatives want, and which- if Liberals' goals were truly what they claim- Liberals would support as well.

Here is the quick run-down:
The whole tone is set in this set of acknowledgements:

You have realized a simple truth: bureaucracy doesn't stimulate the economy, it gets in the way.

Texans succeed not because of bureaucracy, but because you, Dr. Allen, have ensured we have accountable, rigorous public schools.

Texans succeed because you, Chairwoman Zaffirini, have helped create a system of affordable, accessible higher education.

Texans succeed because you, Chairman Seliger, have given them the freedom to do more with the money they earn, and when private employers have more to spend, both the private and public sector benefit.

Texans succeed because you, Rep. Lozano, have given employers the freedom to innovate and expand with consistent, predictable and sensible regulation.

And Texans succeed because you, Rep. Creighton and Sen. Huffman, have let job creators know they won't be frivolously dragged into court and held hostage by individuals seeking to make a quick buck.

Get government out of the way, keep schools accountable to their students and their parents, control costs at public intuitions of education, keep taxes low, and protect business owners- especially small business owners.

Then an accomplishment that should make the enviro-nazis happy, but won't:

We lowered ozone levels by 23 percent between 2000-2011, and cut industrial NOx gas emissions by 60 percent over that span.

We'll get to his proposals after the break->

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. 

Brave, Brave, Brave Sir Boehner

I would really love to get into staring contests with any Republican US Congressman or Senator.  I'm pretty sure I could beat them all.  Certainly President SCOAMT and the Democrats do every time.

Late last night, the Republicans caved on the Fiscal Cliff negotiations and traded away their only hole card- tax rate hikes- for the promise that maybe, possibly, sometime in the future, the Democrats will consider spending cuts.  If they feel like it.

This is like the political version of "Henry the VIII."  The next verse really is the same as the first, and it really doesn't get better; it only gets worse.

The Republican dominated House voted for the Democrat-controlled Senate's "Fiscal Cliff" bill which does not actually address the fiscal cliff at all.  However, because Republicans are about as clear sighted as Mr. Magoo, they were unable to articulate that the Cliff was not some artifact of current law (the automatic tax hikes and fiscal sequestration).  The Cliff is a flaw inherent in our current system that means that at some date, possibly in the not-to-distant future, we'll simply run out of money.

Not that we'll run out of currency; that is impossible since we print our own.  But currency is not money.  Money is an abstract representation of the value of the productivity of the people.  The more currency their is, the less it represents that money (we call that "inflation").  But, at some point, there simply will not be enough valuable productivity to pay all of our bills. 

When that happens, the whole house of cards will come tumbling down.

Now, since money is a fixed thing- dependent directly upon the value of the productivity of the people- it is impossible (or at least incredibly improbable) that taxation, either more or less of it, will address the fiscal cliff in any significant way.  The only thing that is sure to work is getting spending under control.

And Republicans let our best chance at doing just that slip right through their fingers.

However, to have done so would have required courage.  Addressing spending would have required Republicans to put up with being vilified, and pilloried.  It would have required them to stand up against both the Democrats and the Democrat's even more Liberal allies in the Media.  It would have required clear and coherent explanation of the actual nature of the problem.

Instead, like Brave Sir Robin, Speaker John Boehner decided that "compromise" was more important than principle.  He decided to bravely run away from a confrontation, because he was more afraid of possible negative consequences to himself than he was of the guaranteed negative consequences for the economy, and for the American People.

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!?

Let. It. Burn.

House Republicans are already preparing to capitulate to Barack Obama on tax increases.  When he rejects that offer, then they'll come back with tax increases and another increase to the debt ceiling, providing him everything he wants.  In addition, John Boener and GOP leaders are removing fiscal conservatives from their places on House committees.  This is all just more evidence that the GOP is dead as a conservative party.  So let it burn.

But what does "let it burn" mean?  Well, I think it means different things to different people, so I'll explain what I mean, and you can chime in in the comments (hint, hint).

First, "let it burn" does not mean a complete disengagement.  If it looks like things really can be turned around, we have to be willing to rush to the point of conflict to turn things around.  However, it does mean not spending one more minute defending the Republican party.  Not one more dime sent to the RNC or any Republican incumbent. 

It also means disengaging, as much as possible, from the coming economic collapse.  Taxes are going to go up.  Growth is already anemic, and higher taxes will just cripple the economy further.  This means a collapse is very seriously nigh, and we must be prepared.

We must be prepared for the collapse itself.  This means making as sure as possible that you have the means to take care of your family during the collapse.  Form informal groups and cooperatives with others, banding together to see your families through the tough times ahead.  I have a family farm I hope to have operational before the collapse, if it holds off long enough.  Food, shelter, and clothing are the most important things you can secure.  If you can do that through a job that pays well enough, that's fine.  If you can't, then you need to find a way to provide those things.

We must be prepared for the possible societal collapse.  That sounds alarmist, but it is an entirely possible consequence.  Over 51% of the voting public in the United States voted for Barack Obama, who promised them no end to their free stuff.  Once the economic collapse comes, their free stuff goes away anyway.  With luck, enough progress will be made politically that "the masses" will be willing to wait for economic relief.  If there isn't, then our Society, with 60+ years of class warfare rhetoric, 40+ years of racial warfare rhetoric, and an especially divisive President is ripe for societal unrest.  Part of being prepared for that unrest is the same as being prepared for the economic collapse.  Food, water, shelter.  Add physical safety and you're okay.  Another part, though, is being ready to lead.  Which leads us to the third thing we have to prepare for.

We must be prepared to rebuild.  Whether "just" an economic collapse, or a complete societal collapse, those who have prepared are most likely to come out of the trouble in a better situation.  Their preparations will give them advantages over their unprepared neighbors.  This means those unprepared neighbors will look to them for relief.  Those neighbors will either look to the prepared as leaders, or as targets.  If properly prepared, we can be seen as leaders and guide the rebuilding.

Let it burn is as much a path and strategy as anything.  It requires preparation and commitment.  It is not simple resignation and a complete disengagement from the economy, society, and culture.  It is an acknowledgement that "it" is going to burn anyway, and a prioritization of limited resourced based on that realization.

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.

One of These is Not Like the Others

Here, check out these links:
* 401(k) Plans on the Chopping Block
* Home Mortgage Interest Deduction on the Chopping Block
* Rand Paul: Why must we raise taxes to reform entitlements?

Hmm... one of those is not like the others. 

In fact, Rand Paul is one of the few voices of fiscal sanity remaining.  As friend Vic over at the AoSHQ would point out, our budgetary problems are not revenue problems.  They're spending problems.  Yet, because the assumption is that all money comes from the Government, it is a very short step from there to believing that any budget problems are because the government gives away too much "revenue" by having tax breaks.  It's an equally short step from the government being the source of money to the Government then being morally obligated to take care of everyone's needs.

And that's exactly where our national discourse is at the present time.  At least 52% of voters believe that it is the job of Government to ensure that everyone is cared for.  In short, they believe in redistribution of wealth.  This is what must be addressed.  We must get people to see that the ever expanding roll of government, that is: spending, is the problem.

These are two completely different visions.  If wealth comes from the people, then the government is morally obligated to confiscate as little as possible, but the people are morally obligated to provide for themselves; the government cannot rob Peter to pay Paul.  On the other hand, if wealth comes from the government, the government is morally obligated to take care of the people, and the people are morally obligated to work for the good of the State.

So the question we must put to people, then, is where they believe wealth comes from, and why.  If someone believes that wealth comes from the government, why do they believe that?  If they believe wealth comes from the people, then why do they believe that?  Similarly, we have to seek out people who believe the inherently contradictory ideas that wealth comes from the government, but the government is not then obligated to care for the people (I know of none of these sort), or people (a surprisingly large number) who (at least claim to) believe that wealth comes from the people, but that the government has an obligation to provide for the people's needs.  Then we must ask them why they believe those ideas.

I do not know their answers, and could not even begin to speculate.  Those notions are so foreign to me that I can't understand them at all.  Nevertheless, it is our duty, as Conservatives, to find such people and educate them on the reality.  Either money comes from government, and we have no defense against the government taking everything for which we labor, or money comes from the people, and the government has no obligation to directly provide for the needs of the people.

Denis Kucinich- Good Riddance

Among the wise decisions made in Redistricting in 2010 was the decision of the Ohio Legislature to redistrict Denis Kucinich out of a seat in the House.  As if he's determined to prove that, Mr. Kucinich seems to be doubling down on some typical Democrat idiocy.

Today, Politifact, which should really have its own laugh-track, has a piece out trying to paper over some stupid statements by Mr. Kucinich.  Despite their desperate flailing, however, they miss some important things.  Now, I really recommend you go read the whole thing.  Everyone needs a laugh once in a while.  But I'd like to focus on one particular piece of stupidity from Mr. Kucinich:

"The way the federal funding system works," Kucinich said, "is that if we give a tax break in one place, we need to replace that lost income from somewhere else, like with higher taxes from the rest of us. In other words, this tax break is a massive subsidy for the junk food and fast food industry."

This is typical Liberal ignorance.  It has, as its premise, the same idea that has been opposed here and other places many times- that the Government is the right and proper owner of all the wealth of the nation, and that it merely deigns to let us keep part of what we earn.  This is a dangerous idea, besides being inherently tyrannical.  It's tyrannical, because it views the citizenry as slaves of the State.  It's dangerous for two reasons.  First, if the State succeeds in making that the basic premise of all tax, and therefore all government, policy, then it will drive wealth producers away, meaning there's less wealth in the first place.  Second, the only logical conclusion from that premise is that Government must confiscate all wealth, and dole it out "fairly" to the citizenry.  Besides a quick collapse, this is likely to lead to a real, bullets flying, people dying revolution.

The Government does not own any wealth.  It must take what is uses from the produce of its citizenry, seizing some portion of their wealth.  While taxation in some form is necessary, it should not be confused with being right, or good.  Giving tax breaks for certain activity does not deprive the government of money, it abstains from appropriating that wealth from the private sector.

Whatever else Kucinich said- and it was all stupid- it all breaks down because of this one fatally flawed premise.