There are some things you simply don’t farm out — and national security is one of those things

I am cheap.  Very cheap.  That means that I’m a bargain hunter.  I like used books and cheap clothes.  I prefer to buy American but, if my pocketbook tells me that America isn’t a good deal, I’ll usually follow my pocketbook.  Usually, but not always.  If buying something from another country would put me in danger, I don’t do it.  That’s why I don’t buy canned goods or, indeed, anything that goes in my mouth, from China.  The t-shirts may be shoddy, fading and ripping quickly, but they won’t poison me.  The food just might.  (I’d like to avoid Chinese honey, too, which is chock full of antibiotics, fungicides, and industrial pollutants, but the fact is that most of the major manufacturers that use honey as an ingredient buy cheap Chinese honey.)

Not only will I avoid products that will harm me, I’m also unlikely to pay someone for service if I know that the person’s agenda is hostile to mine.  You don’t have the local thief install your burglar alarm.  I don’t even need active hostility to back off.  I also won’t buy service from someone who doesn’t have a vested interest in doing a good job for me.

None of the above is rocket science.  It’s good old-fashioned common sense — which, of course, is the one thing government lacks.  This current administration, especially, seems to go out of its way to abandon common sense.

I mention all this now because of a news story that the MSM is ignoring, but that should matter to everyone concerned both with American national security and with the American economy.  Here’s the deal:

There may be additional heartening employment news in the same sector [Boeing got an air tanker deal], following a request by the U.S. Air Force to identify suppliers for a new kind of airplane that can perform the light attack and armed reconnaissance (LAAR) missions that are being requested by our military leaders.

The new aircraft’s purpose is to allow our U.S. pilots to more effectively execute the tactics, maneuvers and procedures that are needed for the type of counter insurgency warfare that we are currently seeing in Afghanistan and other conflict zones around the globe. In turn, these American pilots will train their partners and developing nation counterparts to fly these same planes and defend themselves, with a goal of reducing the need for U.S. military presence in the region.

Two companies are vying for the Air Force contract — Hawker Beechcraft, a Kansas-based company, and Embraer, a Brazilian owned and operated company.

The Red State article to which I linked explains that Hawker Beechcraft has a good history and a good product.  I’m sure that’s true.  I’ll even stipulate that Embraer also has a good history and a good product.  My question, though, is why in the world our government, which has never before been constrained by bargain shopping and common  sense, is willingly giving another country the blueprints for and access to one of our military products?

Here’s a perfect anecdote to illustrate my concerns:  Think back to 1976 and the Entebbe rescue mission.  The Israeli military’s raid on Entebbe to rescue hostages is one of the great stories of derring-do, intelligent planning, heroism, and creative thinking.  But it was also made possible by one significant fact:  More than a decade before the hostage-taking, an Israeli company had built the airport.  This meant that Israel had the plans.  As it happened, back in 1976, the fact that a non-Ugandan company had this type of information was the best thing that could have happened, helping the good guys win, and soundly defeating and humiliating the bad guys.

In this case, though, we’re the good guys.  I’d classify the Brazilians as the neutral guys for now, although their decision to follow in our footsteps and elect an anti-capitalist president is worrying.  While I believe and hope that Americans can and will shake off the Obama’s pernicious socialism, it’s not so clear that Brazil will.  If Venezuela is any guide, once socialism is firmly ensconced in a Latin American government, that government is no friend of ours.  Even without that specific scenario, though, the fact is taht one never knows what will happen in another country.  Right now, we’re witnessing events in the Middle East that caught the West entirely flatfooted.  Today’s friend is tomorrow’s enemy.

The whole friend/enemy thing is tolerable if you’re talking about buying t-shirts and canned foods or tables and cars from your frenemy, but it comes much more fraught when you’re talking about national security.  The optimal situation is one in which no country, Brazil included, knows too much about a “new kind of airplane that can perform the light attack and armed reconnaissance missions that” are part of modern American military tactics. Ten years from now, when the world has shifted, we may find ourselves bitterly regretting placing that information in another’s hands.

In addition to the security angle, there’ s also a matter of steering tax dollars, especially during a big recession.  It’s one thing for the marketplace to make decisions about where the money flows.  If I want to send my money to China, well, that’s my choice.  If enough people do that, than China gets rich or American companies figure out how to compete.  The government, though, is not the marketplace.  We’re not talking millions of customers making market-responsive decisions.  Instead, we’re talking about a huge, unwieldy, unresponsive bureaucracy taking millions and millions of dollars that taxpayers are forced to hand over to the government, and then sending it far, far away from the taxpayers.  This makes sense if the American market cannot supply the product — but we know that, in this case, the American market, made up of American taxpayers, is perfectly capable of providing the product.  There is therefore, no economic reason to ship our security over seas.

My congress people are Barbara Boxer, Dianne Feinstein and Lynn Woolsey.  In other words, contacting them is about as useful as using tweezers to move mountains.  If you’re in a district that boasts slightly responsive congress people, though, let them know your concerns about this deal.  Sending military airplane manufacturing out of the country is bad for national security and bad for the economy.

Is it wrong to agree with Rand Paul? Not when he talks about government spending, it isn’t.

I find Ron Paul abhorrent, and I worry about Rand Paul, who seems like a slightly more polished version of Daddy.  Nevertheless, even creepy people can be right, as Rand Paul is about government spending.

His point, basically, is that Republicans and Democrats are battling over bandage quality, rather than actually treating the wound.  The only place in which Paul departs from reality is to complain that military spending has slightly more than doubled since 9/11.  He seems to forget that, since 9/11, the military has been fighting a very active, two-front war.  That’s going to require more money than a peace-time military.

Life in the nanny state

I was reading Rick Steves’ Italy 2011 (the 2010) version, when I was surprised to learn this little fact on page 21:

Because Europeans are generally careful with energy use, you’ll find government-enforced limits on air-conditioning and heating.  There’s a one-month period each spring and fall when neither is allowed.

For those of us in Marin who have been fussing about PG&E installing smart meters on their houses (something that happened to our house, will she nil she), that little paragraph is a stark harbinger of the future in the nanny state.

If you need any further reminder of what it’s like to have the government make all your decisions for you, Bruce Bawer chimes in with this one:

In Norway, all wine and spirits are sold in government-owned stores dedicated strictly to that purpose.  The stores — which collectively are known by the cozy name vinmonopolet, or “the wine monopoly” — are open from 10 to 6 on weekdays and 10 to 3 on Saturdays. They’re closed on Sundays and on all sorts of holidays. Around Christmas and Easter they’re closed for days at a stretch.

The number of stores is limited, determined not by market demand but, in good socialist fashion, by government fiat. In Oslo, a sprawling city with a population of over half a million, there are only 26 stores. And the prices — thanks to taxes designed to discourage potential customers and punish those who do buy — are the world’s highest. Norwegians go to Sweden to purchase cheaper intoxicants than they can get at home – and for the same reason Swedes go to Denmark, Danes to Germany, and Germans to Italy.

The Democrats are working on a similar situation, not with alcohol, but with food itself.  Michelle Obama’s obesity crusade isn’t about self-control, it’s about government control.  Mayor Bloomberg has already given New Yorker’s a taste for this kind of medicine:

Daily Caller reporter Matthew Boyle draws our attention to the fawning coverage Politico reporter Amy Parnes gives to Michelle Obama’s crusade against obesity. Parnes. Boyle argues, might as well be regarded as an unpaid press agent on the First Lady’s behalf. Parnes in particular wants to criticize conservatives who have taken aim at the First Lady’s self-chosen cause as another manifestation of the nanny state. But who can deny that the authoritarian left has our menus in its gunsights? From Mayor Bloomberg’s ban on transfats and war on salt in New York City to bans on sodas and other treats in public schools to the documentaries and pressure groups attacking McDonald’s, is the idea of extending government regulation to our food choices that far-fetched? Our nannies have already proposed taxing certain politically-incorrect foods at a higher rate. And if they come for our donuts, won’t our guns be next?

I’ll leave you to contemplate the irony of our gluttonous first lady, the one who dines in fatty style wherever she goes, attempting to control American eating habits.

Many years ago, one of my first slow steps across the Rubicon happened when, in 1979, I met a Russian woman who had managed to immigrate here because she fell in love with an American exchange student studying in Moscow.  The thing that struck her most was the choice in stores.  Russian stores had no choice.  You bought what the government made available.  In America, you bought what the market made available.  She would amuse herself by going into Safeway and just standing there, drinking it in.

Cross-posted at Right Wing News

Liberal makes lemonade from Obama’s lemon of a budget

It’s not often I get the pleasure of laughing out loud when I read a “serious” political piece, especially one from an Obama acolyte, but I have to admit that this one completely lifted my mood.  The author, David Kendall, at heart, seems to be an honest soul because he recognizes that there is nothing serious about the President’s proposed budget.  If he was less blinded by ideology, he might use that knowledge to understand that either (a) the President is an idiot or (b) the President has made the first move in a very dangerous game of chicken, with the United States standing in for the car that’s heading for the cliff.  Honesty, though, does not equal clarity and intelligence, so Kendall takes another tack altogether, and that’s what had me laughing.

What Kendall argues, with a perfectly straight face, boils down to this:  the budget is a great thing because its awfulness sparks a necessary dialog:

A president’s budget is only as good as the debate that it engenders. After all, Congress doesn’t even have to vote on it, and it rarely does.

Measured by this standard, President Obama’s budget is a resounding success. Republicans have tagged it as a job-killer. Deficit hawks say it doesn’t go far enough. Budget doves fear the impact of cuts to heating assistance and numerous other programs.

Even with the criticism, it nudges the debate forward. It brings Democrats to the table with tough but necessary cuts that move away from stimulus spending. It challenges Republicans with long-term investments to unclog highways, expand exports and produce clean energy. And it tees up a debate about entitlements and taxes by making it clear that incremental changes aren’t enough to bring the debt down to previous levels.

You can read the rest here, in which Kendall essentially gives his opinion what he would do if he controlled the budget.

All I could think as I read Kendall’s gushy lemonade was “Silly me, I thought that proposed budgets from the executive office were meant to be serious efforts to manage the nation’s finances. It never occurred to me that the President’s duty apparently began and ended with getting a good conversation going.”

Equality of opportunity, not equality of outcome

In 1832, Andrew Jackson vetoed a bill granting a new charter to the Second National Bank.  In a statement justifying that veto, he wrote a stirring statement defending equality of opportunity, and acknowledging how ridiculous it is to pretend that government can force equality of outcome:

It is to be regretted that the rich and powerful too often bend the acts of government to their selfish purposes. Distinctions in society will always exist under every just government. Equality of talents, of education, or of wealth can not be produced by human institutions. In the full enjoyment of the gifts of Heaven and the fruits of superior industry, economy, and virtue, every man is equally entitled to protection by law; but when the laws undertake to add to these natural and just advantages artificial distinctions, to grant titles, gratuities, and exclusive privileges, to make the rich richer and the potent more powerful, the humble members of society-the farmers, mechanics, and laborers-who have neither the time nor the means of securing like favors to themselves, have a right to complain of the injustice of their Government. There are no necessary evils in government. Its evils exist only in its abuses. If it would confine itself to equal protection, and as Heaven does its rains, shower its favors alike on the high and the low, the rich and the poor, it would be an unqualified blessing.

Democrat, Corruptocrat!

Democrats are the friends of big business, Conservatives are the friends of small business. Democrat government inevitably ratchets its way to corruptocracy.

If you don’t agree with this, can we at least agree that Democrats favor highly regulated economies and societies and conservatives don’t?

Let me explain with two examples.

1) The Wall Street Journal recently ran a story about how the EPA has decided that milk, because it contains 4% butterfat, should be regulated under the same environmental control standards as petroleum. Consequently, dairy farmers will have to file Federally approve emergency plans on how to deal with “oil spills” and such. Large dairies (some dairies in California milk 10,000 or more cows at a time) will probably be able to comply. Small dairies (goat and sheep milk farms, Vermont dairy producers etc. ) are just out of luck. I happen to know something about the dairy industry – it’s a highly politicized, highly subsidized industry that operates on very thin margins. I’m sure that they will come to an accommodation with the EPA and Federal Government…at a very steep price, politically and $-wise!

2) As it becomes increasingly clear the degree to which Obama Care really is a pig-in-a-poke, there is frantic activity to opt out of it. The numbers of entities that have received waivers from ObamaCare (other than Congress) magically rose from about 200 to 700+ immediately after the SOTU speech. Those entities are large companies and unions on the inside track. The way you get a waiver is to have a lobbyist obtain it on your behalf. Money exchanges hands. Large companies can afford this, small companies…out of luck! If ObamaCare is so great, why the rush by Congress, favored businesses and union to obtain waivers?

Increased regulation is inversely proportional to lobbying activity. The less regulation there is, the less the need to influence government. The more regulation, the more the need to petition the royal aristocracy at a heavy price. The need to petition our government for redress under regulations fostered by our government is a corrupting influence. If you lack influence and can’t make payment, you are out of the equation. Here in Chicagoland, we know all about this. Here is what happens:

Society sediments into three classes: a) an aristocratic Democrat nomenklatura that controls the regulatory and judiciary structures of society; b) a wealthy, economic class that can afford to exchange favors for regulatory exemptions and waivers…at a price; c) a lumpen proletariat, outside of the power structures, imprisoned into forced into regulatory straight-jackets (taxable prey…if you will) that they will never be able to escape unless willing to surrender at the price of their souls. It is this last class that pays the bills for the others. This isn’t new…despite its “progressive” tag, it’s a regression to 19th Century economic “shakedown” realities.

My entire career, I have been a champion of entrepreneurs and small companies. They are vital to our society and economy, as innovators, risk-takers and employers. I would hate to see this glorious period end as we slouch toward third-world corruptocracy.

I know that Democrats mouth have historically mouthed platitudes about looking after the “little guy”. I would like to think that only the truly moronic and armchair philosophers walled into their temples of abstract theory can fail to see how Orwellian and corrupting these platitudes are.

Have we as a nation arrived at a point where we can stop this from happening or is it inevitable? A Jewish relative once remarked that no Jew sleeps without two shoes under his bed stuffed with a roll of cash, in case of a quick getaway. I am starting to understand his point.

Comparing apples and oranges — federal projects old and new

Rumor has it that the President is going to use the State of the Union address to call for more government spending.  Much more government spending:

President Barack Obama will call for new government spending on infrastructure, education and research in his State of the Union address Tuesday, sharpening his response to Republicans in Congress who are demanding deep budget cuts, people familiar with the speech said.

Mr. Obama will argue that the U.S., even while trying to reduce its budget deficit, must make targeted investments to foster job growth and boost U.S. competitiveness in the world economy. The new spending could include initiatives aimed at building the renewable-energy sector—which received billions of dollars in stimulus funding—and rebuilding roads to improve transportation, people familiar with the matter said. Money to restructure the No Child Left Behind law’s testing mandates and institute more competitive grants also could be included.

When one questions the wisdom of a government spending binge during a recession, many Democrats and Progressives will point to the wonders of government spending during the 1930s and the 1950s.  Those spending binges got people off the streets, and left America with dams, post offices, a national highway system and other true infrastructure benefits.  They see Obama inaugurating the third American golden age of infrastructure building, something that will leave us with the solar plan equivalent of the Hoover Dam or an interstate highway.

Putting aside the fact that dams and roads were proven necessities that genuinely served the interests of citizens, as opposed to unproven technologies that mostly benefit select special interests (solar and wind farms, for example), there’s something very important that all the Lefties are forgetting:  government now doesn’t function as government did then.

Back in the good old Roosevelt and Eisenhower days, government actually was a surprisingly efficient engine of change.  Hoover Dam, for example, took only four and half years to build.  The government came, the government saw, and the government conquered.  The staggering bureaucratic nightmare that haunts any government project nowadays simply didn’t exist then.  Safety oversight was minimal.  (It was seen as unexceptional that 100 men died building the dam.)  Special interest groups were nonexistent.  Indeed, the Code of Federal Regulations that we all know and fear now didn’t even get it’s start until the Roosevelt administration.  It was in its infancy during Hoover Dam’s construction — too small yet to impair efficiency.

The 1950s infrastructure boom was also less hampered by the CFR.  It existed in pretty much the same state in the 1950s as it did in the 1930s.  It only got its second wind in the 1960s.  The 1950s projects were aided by the fact that America was one of the few viable economies in the world after WWII, and by the massive availability of post-War labor.

It would be foolish of me to deny that there are virtues to having some regulations.  The thought of 100 people dying to build a federal project nowadays is horrifying to modern sensibilities.  One also wants structures that meet certain standards.  Otherwise, God forbid there’s an earthquake under a federal project, it will flatten as quickly as buildings do in Iran or China or Mexico, or other countries in which cheap, safety-free building is normative.

There is a happy medium, though, and our government has traveled too far in the direction of over-regulation.  If you’ve ever had the exquisite pain of reading the CFR, you realize that federal regulations are so detailed and overwhelming, so stultifying and initiative killing, so inflexible and deadening, that they’ve gone far beyond protecting workers and providing some semblance of standardization for federal projects.  Instead, they are the quintessential example of the “perfect being the enemy of the good.”  With their relentless drive for perfection, they destroy cost-effectiveness, efficiency, and speed.  All federal projects are now federally mandated boondoggles, ensuring only that federal employees will have jobs in perpetuity.

And just so that you can appreciate that I’m not exaggerating about the paralyzing detail of the CFRs, here are the rules for safe wooden ladders on a job site.  (And you can be assured that any construction requires wooden ladders.)  I have no opposition, of course, to safe ladders — indeed, I encourage them — but this type of obsessive specificity is costly and gives federal inspectors a ridiculous amount of power over any job site, even as it turns the people on site into thoughtless automatons:

[Code of Federal Regulations]
[Title 29, Volume 5]
[Revised as of July 1, 2010]
From the U.S. Government Printing Office via GPO Access
[CITE: 29CFR1910.25]

[Page 122-124]

TITLE 29–LABOR

CHAPTER XVII–OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY AND HEALTH ADMINISTRATION, DEPARTMENT

PART 1910_OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY AND HEALTH STANDARDS–Table of Contents

Subpart D_Walking-Working Surfaces

Sec. 1910.25 Portable wood ladders.

(a) Application of requirements. This section is intended to prescribe rules and establish minimum requirements for the construction, care, and use of the common types of portable wood ladders, in order to insure safety under normal conditions of usage. Other types of special ladders, fruitpicker’s ladders, combination step and extension ladders, stockroom step ladders, aisle-way step ladders, shelf ladders, and library ladders are not specifically covered by this section.
(b) Materials–(1) Requirements applicable to all wood parts. (i) All wood parts shall be free from sharp edges and splinters; sound and free from accepted visual inspection from shake, wane, compression failures, decay, or other irregularities. Low density wood shall not be used.
(ii) [Reserved]
(2) [Reserved]
(c) Construction requirements. (1) [Reserved]
(2) Portable stepladders. Stepladders longer than 20 feet shall not be supplied. Stepladders as hereinafter specified shall be of three types:

Type I–Industrial stepladder, 3 to 20 feet for heavy duty, such as utilities, contractors, and industrial use.
Type II–Commercial stepladder, 3 to 12 feet for medium duty, such as painters, offices, and light industrial use.
Type III–Household stepladder, 3 to 6 feet for light duty, such as light household use.

(i) General requirements.
(a) [Reserved]
(b) A uniform step spacing shall be employed which shall be not more than 12 inches. Steps shall be parallel and level when the ladder is in position for use.
(c) The minimum width between side rails at the top, inside to inside, shall be not less than 111/2 inches. From top to bottom, the side rails shall spread at least 1 inch for each foot of length of stepladder.
(d)-(e) [Reserved]
(f) A metal spreader or locking device of sufficient size and strength to securely hold the front and back sections in open positions shall be a component of each stepladder. The spreader shall have all sharp points covered or removed to protect the user. For Type III ladder, the pail shelf and spreader may be combined in one unit (the so-called shelf-lock ladder).
(3) Portable rung ladders.
(i) [Reserved]
(ii) Single ladder. (a) Single ladders longer than 30 feet shall not be supplied.
(b) [Reserved]
(iii) Two-section ladder. (a) Two-section extension ladders longer than 60 feet shall not be supplied. All ladders of this type shall consist of two sections, one to fit within the side rails of the other, and arranged in such a manner that the upper section can be raised and lowered.
(b) [Reserved]
(iv) Sectional ladder. (a) Assembled combinations of sectional ladders longer than lengths specified in this subdivision shall not be used.
(b) [Reserved]
(v) Trestle and extension trestle ladder. (a) Trestle ladders, or extension sections or base sections of extension trestle ladders longer than 20 feet shall not be supplied.
(b) [Reserved]
(4) Special-purpose ladders.
(i) [Reserved]
(ii) Painter’s stepladder. (a) Painter’s stepladders longer than 12 feet shall not be supplied.
(b) [Reserved]
(iii) Mason’s ladder. A mason’s ladder is a special type of single ladder intended for use in heavy construction work.
(a) Mason’s ladders longer than 40 feet shall not be supplied.
(b) [Reserved]
(5) Trolley and side-rolling ladders–(i) Length. Trolley ladders and side-rolling ladders longer than 20 feet should not be supplied.
(ii) [Reserved]
(d) Care and use of ladders–(1) Care. To insure safety and serviceability the following precautions on the care of ladders shall be observed:
(i) Ladders shall be maintained in good condition at all times, the joint between the steps and side rails shall be tight, all hardware and fittings securely attached, and the movable parts shall operate freely without binding or undue play.
(ii) Metal bearings of locks, wheels, pulleys, etc., shall be frequently lubricated.
(iii) Frayed or badly worn rope shall be replaced.
(iv) Safety feet and other auxiliary equipment shall be kept in good condition to insure proper performance.
(v)-(ix) [Reserved]
(x) Ladders shall be inspected frequently and those which have developed defects shall be withdrawn from service for repair or destruction and tagged or marked as “Dangerous, Do Not Use.”
(xi) Rungs should be kept free of grease and oil.
(2) Use. The following safety precautions shall be observed in connection with the use of ladders:
(i) Portable rung and cleat ladders shall, where possible, be used at such a pitch that the horizontal distance from the top support to the foot of the ladder is one-quarter of the working length of the ladder (the length along the ladder between the foot and the top support). The ladder shall be so placed as to prevent slipping, or it shall be lashed, or held in position. Ladders shall not be used in a horizontal position as platforms, runways, or scaffolds;
(ii) Ladders for which dimensions are specified should not be used by more than one man at a time nor with ladder jacks and scaffold planks where use by more than one man is anticipated. In such cases, specially designed ladders with larger dimensions of the parts should be procured;
(iii) Portable ladders shall be so placed that the side rails have a secure footing. The top rest for portable rung and cleat ladders shall be reasonably rigid and shall have ample strength to support the applied load;
(iv) Ladders shall not be placed in front of doors opening toward the ladder unless the door is blocked upon, locked, or guarded;
(v) Ladders shall not be placed on boxes, barrels, or other unstable bases to obtain additional height;
(vi)-(vii) [Reserved]
(viii) Ladders with broken or missing steps, rungs, or cleats, broken side rails, or other faulty equipment shall not be used; improvised repairs shall not be made;
(ix) Short ladders shall not be spliced together to provide long sections;
(x) Ladders made by fastening cleats across a single rail shall not be used;
(xi) Ladders shall not be used as guys, braces, or skids, or for other than their intended purposes;
(xii) Tops of the ordinary types of stepladders shall not be used as steps;
(xiii) On two-section extension ladders the minimum overlap for the two sections in use shall be as follows:

————————————————————————
Overlap
Size of ladder (feet) (feet)
————————————————————————
Up to and including 36……………………………….. 3
Over 36 up to and including 48………………………… 4
Over 48 up to and including 60………………………… 5
————————————————————————

(xiv) Portable rung ladders with reinforced rails (see paragraphs (c)(3) (ii)(c) and (iii)(d) this section) shall be used only with the metal reinforcement on the under side;
(xv) No ladder should be used to gain access to a roof unless the top of the ladder shall extend at least 3 feet above the point of support, at eave, gutter, or roofline;
(xvi) [Reserved]
(xvii) Middle and top sections of sectional or window cleaner’s ladders should not be used for bottom section unless the user equips them with safety shoes;
(xviii) [Reserved]
(xix) The user should equip all portable rung ladders with nonslip bases when there is a hazard of slipping. Nonslip bases are not intended as a substitute for care in safely placing, lashing, or holding a ladder that is being used upon oily, metal, concrete, or slippery surfaces;
(xx) The bracing on the back legs of step ladders is designed solely for increasing stability and not for climbing.

[39 FR 23502, June 27, 1974, as amended at 43 FR 49744, Oct. 24, 1978;
49 FR 5321, Feb. 10, 1984]

This is no way to run a business, and it’s even worse when you think about the fact that the above regulation covers only one type of ladder.  Multiply this level of regulation out to include the design process, the bidding process, the hiring process, and the myriad details of actual job construction, and you can bet your bottom dollar that it means that no new infrastructure that the feds pay for will be built with the speed of the Hoover Dam or our national transportation system.  The golden age of federally built infrastructure is dead and gone.

Cross-posted at Right Wing News

How do we get out of this?

If the U.S. and our government were a business, we would already have been declared insolvent. Here’s why:

On our 2009 P/L (profit & loss) statement, our annual Federal expenditures amounted to about $3.5 trillion, against revenues (tax receipts) of $2.1 trillion. If history is guide, the $1.4 trillion gap between revenues and outlays will increase rather than decrease in subsequent years. Mind you, this is only at the Federal level…we haven’t included state and municipal financials, which add more black crepe to an already dismal picture.

How much could government revenues be expected to increase in order to plug this gap? The traditional conservative approach has been to grow the economy, using incentives: more growth = more profits = more tax revenues. The traditional Liberal/Left approach has been to increase taxes: more taxes = more government spending = more economic growth (!?).

In my view, we have traveled to a point far, far beyond these arguments: neither approach suffices.

The U.S. Gross Domestic Product (GDP), or “gross sales revenues”, is approximately $15 trillion.

If the U.S. operated as a business, national disposable income (meaning, after-tax income, or “net income” on the P/L statement) approximates $10 trillion, according to Euromonitor.com [http://www.euromonitor.com/factfile.aspx?country=US].

This is the total money available to be recycled back into the economy by the private sector, either through direct purchases (income-stimulating reinvestments) or capital formation (savings and investments).

Now, to close the Federal revenue gap would in the most basic of terms require taking an additional $1.4 trillion (14%) -PLUS out of our national disposable income in the form of taxes. Why “plus”?

Because government isn’t efficient: any monies taken in by the Federal government are inevitably depleted as they cycle through various government agencies before they can reach their target.  Unlike electronic transfers between bank accounts, only a small fraction of tax receipts go to their intended target. The rest is lost through government overhead and waste (I repeat myself).Thus, it will take considerably more than $1.4 trillion in tax revenues to close a $1.4 trillion budget gap.

In response to the obvious question this raises: yes, we could borrow this, but all borrowing does is defer payment of this sum at a stiff price (i.e., interest).

Eventually, payments must come from disposable income.

Let’s consider the national balance sheet:

A first-rate article by Kevin Williamson in the National Review (June 21, 2010) catalogued our country’s debt obligations as follows:

1) National Debt – $14 trillion (Williamson argues that this is vastly understated due to “funny money” accounting by the government)

2) State and Local Debt – $2.5 trillion (which the Feds will ultimately absorb). According to some, we already face massive impending municipal bond failures.

3) Unfunded government worker pension funds (federal, state and local) – $3.0 trillion. In large part, these are “unfunded” because governments expropriated their assets by borrowed against them, my corrupted state of Illinois being a prime culprit. Directly or indirectly, this cost will eventually be absorbed by all taxpayers.

4) Unfunded liabilities for all of our nation’s “we care about you but want someone else to pay for it” programs  (i.e., Medi/Obamacare, “Pharmacare”, Medicaid and Social Security) – $106 trillion (using Present Value). According to Williamson, this is more-than twice the total private net worth of the U.S. Even if we all individually sold-off all of our belongings (assets), we still couldn’t cover these obligations.

So, in sum, we have a “business” (USA Inc.) with negative-$1.4 trillion in net revenues and a balance sheet debt of $125.5 trillion. Williamson adds in a few more odds and ends to round-up the value to $130 trillion. And we haven’t even touched corporate and consumer debt.

Hmmm…how about some perspective?

According to a McKinsey & Co. report, world financial assets in 2008 (prior to two subsequent years of asset deflation) totalled $178 trillion. http://www.mckinsey.com/mgi/publications/gcm_sixth_annual_report/executive_summary.asp

I’ve looked long and hard for this number because it is admittedly “fuzzy math”, but the best estimate that I could come up for the total estimated tangible asset (book) value of the United States economy is $188 trillion. These are, for the most part, non-liquid assets…they cannot be simply sold off for cash-in-hand.

Source: http://rutledgecapital.com/2009/05/24/total-assets-of-the-us-economy-188-trillion-134xgdp/

In sum, USA, Inc. long ago exceeded its debt capacity.

As a bond holder of USA, Inc., would your next step be to:

a) invest in USA, Inc.

b) ask for a bankruptcy court to reorganize the corporation and restructure its debt obligations

c) liquidate and auction off its assets to cover its debt obligations to bond holders?

Ergo my conclusion: we are insolvent! There is no way that we will ever find the money to pay off these obligations. It just doesn’t exist, not within the U.S and not in the world economy. I anticipate option (b) — reorganization of debt. Of course, in this scenario, the shareholders (citizens, taxpayers) get left with crumbs (or “haircuts”, in financial parlance).

According to Democrat thinking processes, we should raise taxes. However, even doubling our total Federal, state and local tax receipts wouldn’t cover our income shortfall and debt service obligations, especially in the face of rising interest rates. Moreover, this  would crush the economy, ergo our ability to generate future tax revenues. It would kill the golden goose. In the meantime, the solution appears to be…print huge sums of money and get us into even more debt.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PTUY16CkS-k

Looking at the Republican approach, growing the economy by lowering tax rates buys time, but I don’t see how we could possibly grow the economy enough to dig us out of this hole…or is my imagination too limited? Brazil’s economy grew about 10% last year, but then their starting base was much lower. Maybe Rep. Paul Ryan sees it differently.

Which leads me to the inescapable conclusion: the large majority of us will end up absorbing significant haircuts to our asset holdings as part of our inevitable national  and economic debt restructuring. My vote for the most likely targets of restructuring are: a) public employee pension funds; b) social security and Obamacare benefits; c) bond holders, via a national default a-la-Argentina…all inclusive. Bernanke’s QE2 movement  signals that massive inflation is already in the works.

Each of these steps spells disaster. In my view, it’s not a question of “if” but “when”.

So, as we begin this New Year, what are your ideas as to how we can climb out of this hole?

Do we invest Rep. Paul Ryan (R., Wis.) with dictatorial powers in order to implement his road map? Is that enough? (note: this is tongue-in-cheek, for those of you that don’t know me).

What do you think will happen if public employee pension fund obligations are shaved to 25% or less of current obligations? Do we become another UK, France or Greece and descend into anarchy? How do we prevent this from happening?

Many of us Bookworm Room aficionados, from comments gathered over the years, are either in retirement or seriously planning retirement….how will we / should we and others of our generation react to massive cuts in Social Security and ObamaCare? I note that some 25-30% of adults approaching retirement age have supposedly accrued virtually no retirement savings and individual net worth is likely to continue to decline in tandem with housing values. Plus, leading members of the Democrat regime have already made it known that it would like to strip me and thee of any anticipated inheritance incomes. What is to happen to them (us)?

What happens if the U.S. defaults on its bond obligations?

Or, am I all wet in my analysis? Although I do boast a corporate-finance-related degree, I do not pretend to be anything other than a hobby economist. Please, oh please, convince me that I am totally wrong in my analysis.

For balance, I do not think the prognosis is all doom and gloom, although I believe that we are in for a very rough ride. Our country faced similar difficulties early in our history and we got through them. I think the party is over, but I also think we have the wherewithal to climb out of the mess all of us have created, even if we cannot yet discern the way out. I am trying to understand how best to weather the storm.

Either way, please share your thoughts.

Forewarned is forearmed.

“I always feel like somebody’s watching me….”

Remember that Rockwell song from the 1980s?  “I always feel like somebody’s watching me….”  It turns out that, if you’re having any dealings with the FCC, that feeling is right on the money.  I just received the following email from a friend:

I just called the FCC and asked for info on how to make my comment on net neutrality.

I didn’t give my name.

I immediately got an email back from them regarding how to make consumer comments.

I hadn’t given them my email.

I called them back and it turns out that the FCC complies a dossier, record of every call you make to them. The operator read out my entire history of communications to the FCC over the years. I told her that I didn’t volunteer my name nor my email during today’s call call and I said this is the conduct of a police state. She was tying in my comments to add to my dossier. She made it seem like it was just some emotional concern I had and that there was no substance to it. I asked her who was responsible for this. She said Congress.

This terrifies me.

Getting Republicans off the spending dope

Mitch McConnell proved himself, really proved himself, when it came to the omnibus spending bill.  Kimberly Strassel explains:

This week Democrats unveiled a $1.2 trillion omnibus, legislation as pure an insult to the electorate as it gets. It was a 1,924-page monstrosity that nobody had time to read. It took 11 spending bills that Democrats couldn’t be bothered to pass individually and crammed them into one oozing ball of pork and bad policy, going beyond even the obscene budget of 2010.

Yet to this legislative Frankenstein Democrats carefully attached the spenders’ equivalent of crack cocaine. To wit, omnibus author and Hawaii Democrat Daniel Inouye dug up earmark requests that Senate Republicans had made in the past year (prior to their self-imposed ban) and, unasked, included them in the bill. He lavished special, generous attention—$1 billion worth of it—on some reliable GOP earmark junkies: Mississippi’s Thad Cochran got $512 million; Utah’s Bob Bennett, $226 million; Maine’s Susan Collins, $114 million; Missouri’s Kit Bond, $102 million; Ohio’s George Voinovich, $98 million; and Alaska’s Lisa Murkowski, $80 million.

The effect of this dope—just sitting there, begging for a quick inhale—on earmarkers was immediate. Two seconds into the sweats and shaking hands, nine Republicans let Mr. Reid know they’d be open to this bill.

[snip]

That [the omnibus bill’s passage] didn’t happen, but only because Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell accomplished a mini Christmas miracle. The Kentuckian devoted yesterday to making the arguments—both principled and political—to the Spending Nine. He was ultimately persuasive enough, and the earmarkers wise enough, to pull back their support. A very unhappy Mr. Reid was forced to yank the omnibus last night. He will now work with Republicans on a short-term funding bill, a process that should give the incoming GOP House far more influence over upcoming spending decisions.

Statism in a nutshell

I have friends who have taught in inner city schools.  Without exception, they have told me that, if a child’s parents are drug-addled, the school lunch may be the only meal the child gets.  There is a tremendous virtue to feeding starving children.

Having said that, I found revealing a statement Michelle Obama made after her husband signed the Healthy Hunger-Free Kids Act, a law that buffs up school lunch programs at the expense of food stamps (emphasis mine):

[W]hen our kids spend so much of their time each day in school, and when many children get up to half their daily calories from school meals, it’s clear that we as a nation have a responsibility to meet as well,” Mrs. Obama said. “We can’t just leave it up to the parents. I think that parents have a right to expect that their efforts at home won’t be undone each day in the school cafeteria or in the vending machine in the hallway. I think that our parents have a right to expect that their kids will be served fresh, healthy food that meets high nutritional standards.”

That’s statism in a nutshell, isn’t it?  “We can’t just leave it up to the parents.”  This absolves the state of any responsibility for protecting children whose parents no longer care for the children.  It’s so much easier, instead, just to push all parents aside.  This global approach has the purity of Occam’s Razor.  There are no unnecessary details.  Instead, there’s just a fundamental power grab.

Is this for real or not?

Do you think this story is real or a hoax?  If real, it’s terribly disturbing.  If it’s a hoax, well, it’s also terribly disturbing that someone would do something like that.  Right now, Noisy Room is assuming it’s real but, because NR is committed to honest reporting, any useful information one way or another would probably be appreciated.

Your Democrat government at work

I think Nancy’s new motto should be “La, la, la!  I caaan’t hear you!”

We’ll spend your money no matter what

I wasn’t paying attention to this, but it turns out that San Francisco, which already has a fairly comprehensive public transportation system, wants another 1.7 miles underground — at a cost of $1.6 billion.  Think about it.  That cost is almost one million one hundred million for every tenth of a mile.

Now, I know you’re all thinking what I’m thinking:  If San Franciscans are fool enough to spend that kind of money on 1.7 miles, that’s their problem.  Except it isn’t.  You see, the feds have stepped in.  They committed $942 million of that amount (way more than half), and have already given the City $72 million.

What makes it even worse is that (a) the City has no money to meet even its own obligations; and (b) the City’s public transportation ridership is falling, not rising.  What’s fascinating is that, despite these hurdles, which one would assume would doom the project, San Francisco is working hard to find the funds (where, I don’t know), and go forward.

As I said, if San Francisco wants to dig a deep economic hole in order to dig another hole under the City, so be it.  What hacks me is that I’m funding this Progressive boondoggle.  Arrgh!

Did I find a crack in someone’s armor? Another conversation with a liberal

I was talking with my lib friend yesterday (the same one who said Tuesday’s vote would inaugurate fascism in America), when he opined that Boehner had said something incredibly stupid.

“What?” I asked.

“He said something along the lines of ‘the American people want us to lower spending and create more jobs.'”

I replied, “Well, that makes sense to me.”

My friend sneered.  “Do you know how many jobs the government creates?”

“Yes, I do,” I answered.  “I also know that all government jobs are paid for by taxpayer money.  And I know that right now, on average, government workers earn more than private sector workers, and that’s not even including the pensions.  That makes it a Ponzi scheme, because there’s eventually not going to be enough money to pay for government workers.”

Silence greeted me.

The Left transforms Civil Rights, so that it’s no longer freedom FROM government, but total control BY government

Civil rights are much discussed lately, primarily because Progressives with bully-pulpits are furious that Glenn Beck held a rally at the Lincoln Memorial on the 47th anniversary of Martin Luther King’s famous civil rights rally at that same location.  To hear them tell it, in the wake of the “Civil Rights Movement,” civil rights are entirely a black thing, and whites who parade around in the civil rights mantel are manifestly racists.

It says much about the Orwellian twists the Progressive mind takes that its spokespeople can, with a straight face, confine civil rights to a single race.  The whole Progressive concept is oxymoronic, because civil rights, by definition, extend to all citizens within the civitas, not just citizens of a specified color.  (And isn’t that the point King was trying to make?)  The idiocy emanating from the Left might be merely amusing, but for the fact that the Left is working out to ensure that this definition applies to all future generations.  After all, it was Arne Duncan, Obama’s Education Secretary, who appeared at Al Sharpton’s poorly-attended counter rally to announce that education is “the civil rights issue of our generation.”

All of this points to the fact that, in the years since Martin Luther King’s pivotal moment in the sun, the Left has redefined civil rights into a concept that would be utterly alien to Martin Luther King — and that is alien to most people who aren’t Progressives or self-styled “liberals.”  It’s therefore time, in Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius’ memorable words, for some “reeducation.”

To me, and perhaps to you, “civil rights” are those inherent rights that automatically extend to all citizens in a free country.  Thomas Jefferson articulated the broadest outlines of these rights in the Declaration of Independence:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

Jefferson stated unambiguously that these unalienable rights — the ultimate civil liberties, if you will — do not come from government.  They exist independent of government.  Government’s job is not to create those rights, but to safeguard them.  Government cannot hand them out, not can it take them away.  They just are.  And if government fails to provide the proper safeguards or, worse, itself threatens these unalienable rights, it is not the rights that are illegitimate, it is the government.

Very soon after the American Revolution ended, our Founders recognized that the federal government needed some guidance if it was to maintain its legitimacy and provide a stable structure for its citizens without destroying their rights.  To that end, in 1791, the Founders enacted the Bill of Rights (i.e., the first ten amendments to the United States Constitution).  They are short and sweet, and are notable for the way in which, rather than extending government power, they severely restrict its power over citizens:

Amendment 1 – Freedom of Religion, Press, Expression.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Amendment 2 – Right to Bear Arms.

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Amendment 3 – Quartering of Soldiers.

No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.

Amendment 4 – Search and Seizure.

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Amendment 5 – Trial and Punishment, Compensation for Takings.

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Amendment 6 – Right to Speedy Trial, Confrontation of Witnesses.

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.

Amendment 7 – Trial by Jury in Civil Cases.

In Suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.

Amendment 8 – Cruel and Unusual Punishment.

Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

Amendment 9 – Construction of Constitution.

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Amendment 10 – Powers of the States and People.

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

To summarize in modern English, our “life, liberty and pursuit of happiness,” “unalienable rights” that come from “the Creator,” are preserved only if we have a federal government that, as to the citizens within its borders:

• has “no desire to make windows into men’s souls” (1st Amendment);
• allows them to speak freely, whether the government likes that speech or not(1st Amendment);
• allows a press unconstrained by government threats or requirements(1st Amendment);
• let’s them to rally together (1st Amendment);
• listens to their concerns (1st Amendment);
• lets them arm themselves (2nd Amendment);
• protects them from the reach of the government’s own military and police (3rd and 4th Amendments);
• makes the home inviolate, with the burden on the government to prove a pressing need to breach that privacy (4th Amendment);
• ensures that a citizen suspected of a crime is held only subject to a clearly stated charge, is prosecuted only once, is brought swiftly to trial, has a fair trial, may have the facts of his case judged by his peers, and cannot be bullied to convict himself out of his own mouth (5th, 6th and 7th Amendments);
• establishes that, in any case, not just a civil one, the citizen may have a jury of his peers and may not lose his life, liberty or property without a full, fair trial (7th Amendment);
• prevents the government from stealing private property (5th Amendment); and
• never inflicts cruel or unusual punishment on any citizen (although the reference to capital crimes in the 5th Amendment indicates that execution does not fall within those parameters) (8th Amendment).

All of the above are the explicitly stated limitations the Founders placed upon the federal government.  It took eight amendments to drive those points home.  But to reiterate just how severely constrained the United States’ federal governments’ power is vis a vis the citizens within its borders, the Founders made two further points:  While the amendments are to be understood to control the federal government, they cannot be read to mean that American citizens have only those rights enumerated in the first eight amendments (9th Amendment).  Instead, those ostensibly stated affirmative “rights” are actually limitations on the government.  All else remains to a free people.

And if that isn’t clear enough, the 10th amendment says that, unless the Constitution specifically reserves an affirmative right for the federal government, or prohibits it to a state, all other rights — the universe of rights, whether or not articulated — belong to the states or the people within those states.

This is small government writ large.  Civil rights mean small government, with the government limited primarily (although not entirely) to protecting citizens from itself.

Martin Luther King understood this.  The Civil Rights movement was a stand against overt government encroachment on the rights of black people.  The Southern States, ignoring the Declaration’s acknowledgment that all men inherently possessed civil rights, used the government as a weapon against the black people within its borders.  The real problem blacks faced wasn’t that their fellow white citizens behaved hostilely, and even murderously, towards them.  Had the government fulfilled its policing responsibilities and stepped forward to protect those citizens, Jim Crow would have been a short-lived phenomenon.  The real problem was that Southern government itself encroached on citizens’ freedom.

It was Southern government that legislatively segregated schools, segregated housing, segregated business establishments, segregated marriages and enacted barriers between blacks and ballots.  It was Southern government that was a “Form of Government [that had become] destructive of these ends [life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness for black people],” making it the civil  “Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.”

In the sixty years since the Civil Rights movement, the Left has entirely perverted the whole notion of civil rights.  Civil Rights as the Founders intended meant the right of all citizens, regardless of race, color, religion, sexual, gender, etc., to be free of government constraints (although the government’s police powers certainly required the government to protect citizens when others amongst them worked to injure them or constrain their basic freedoms).  Civil Rights as the Left demands it has become an all powerful government that is responsible for redistribution wealth, property, access to government and even happiness, from whites to blacks.

Cross-posted at Right Wing News

Misspent government funds

If you subscribe to the WSJ, I urge you to read Liberalism and Public Works, which uses Chris Christie’s decision to shut down the tunnel project as a springboard to explain that liberal entitlement programs have destroyed public works programs:

To govern is to choose, or ought to be. And the reason New Jersey and so many other states can’t afford new “infrastructure” is because the politicians who’ve been running the state have blown the budget on everything else. For years, Democrats in Trenton have steered ever-more state revenues to government employees and their pensions, while squeezing state spending on the core purposes of government such as roads. Mr. Christie is telling them that the jig is up, and that a government that tries to do everything ends up doing nothing well.

That pretty much nails it. What’s really funny is that it’s the Big Government types who think of the economy as finite, which is why they’re so focused on redistribution. Capitalists understand that a healthy, relatively unbound economy can raise the standard of living for everyone, while Marxists see the money in an economy as perpetually limited, which requires government to decide who is entitled to its benefit. That same Big Government person, however, sees the government budget as endless, capable of being supplied in perpetuity by the same people whose wealth the government relentlessly steals.

Presidential Education

We have enjoyed spirited discussions on these pages with Book’s question about universities and the values thereof.

A recurring theme that I hear among Liberals is one of educational snobbery. I heard this with regard to G.W. Bush (despite his Harvard MBA) and now we hear it about Sarah Palin and other conservative candidates that may one day run for President.  Educational credentials will be an issue. Should they?

To lay my own opinions right out on the table, I admire Sarah Palin and do hope she runs – to me, she embodies many of the qualities that I always admired about American women when looking at my country from an overseas (expat) perspective. Those qualities include strength, “can do” practicality and a self-assuredness that looks adversity straight in the face. Plus, she can shoot straight. She was one of Alaska’s all-time most effective governors in just 2-1/2 years. Her autobiography on those years describes someone with exceptional tenacity and people management skills.

Her qualities, however, are the product of her life experiences. The fact that she was expected by her parents to go to university and pay 100% of her expenses and did so at various institutions is a major plus, not a negative. For me, her real life practical accomplishments say far more than her limited educational experience. And, for the sake of Book’s daughter, her (not Alaskan but North Central states) accent is no more a barrier to me than Gov. Christie’s New Jersey accent, JFK’s Boston accent or Bush’s Texan accent…I love accents!). To me, it is practical real-world experience that counts, not formal education. If anything, formal education is a barrier.

So, just how important is education for U.S. presidents? I note that some of our greatest presidents had little or no advanced education. George Washington, Abraham Lincoln and Harry S. Truman never went to university. Ronald Reagan got an undergraduate degree in economics from tiny Eureka College in the middle of the corn and soybean fields of Illinois. By contrast, our worst presidents were some of our best educated: Woodrow Wilson (Ph.D. professor), Jimmy Carter (nuclear engineer), Bill Clinton (Rhodes Scholar) and, now, Barack Obama (Ivy League elitist lawyer).

So, how important is formal education to being a good President? What are the Presidential qualities that a university can or cannot impart? How do we best counter these arguments from the Liberal /Left…not for the sake of the Lefties (whose egos remain immune to reason) but for the sake of all others trying to make up their minds on this issue?

“If you’re a normal, thinking, breathing human being….”

New Jersey missed out on $300 million in federal “Race to the Top” education funds.  It turns out that the state DOE filled out the application wrong.  But before you start ripping Chris Christie for government mismanagement, check out his masterful, and simultaneous, acceptance of responsibility and attack against the feds:

His approach, by the way, has “good lawyer technique” written all over it.

All About Money

One of the things that I try to understand is the Great Divide between today’s Liberals and conservatives that has left us talking past one another on policy issues. Frankly, I have concluded that discussion with Liberals is often futile because we attribute different meanings to words and concepts.

One of those concepts, I suspect, has to do with “money”.  Let me throw the following proposition on the table for discussion:

Liberal /Lefties view “money” as a fixed, tangible quantity with intrinsic value, like gold coins, for example. Thus, the value of money is intrinsic to the lucre itself, be it coins or dollar notes. Conservatives, on the other hand, see “money” more abstractly as representing “created value”…as scrip or IOU on value created or received. As economists put it, money is a “medium of exchange” for value. So, for liberals, “money” is something tangible to that must be amassed by taking from someone else’s stash. For conservatives, “money” is something more abstract that must to be created (i.e. goods or services) directly (e.g., wages) or indirectly (e.g., inheritance) through the creation of “value”.

How might this color our perceptions of one another?

1) When people like Bill Gates amass a large quantity of money by creating products that many people wish to purchase, conservatives view Gates’ money as a reflection of the value that he created and contributed others. No hard feelings there – it’s a fair exchange. A Liberal/Lefty, however, sees only Gate’s amassed pot of lucre that appears disproportionately high compared to the lucre stored in other peoples’ pots. They see this imbalance as patently unfair, especially since this lucre was transferred from other peoples’ modest stashes into Bill Gates’ already whopping big stash: Bill has more, all of his customers have less.

2) When money is needed to achieve a desirable social or governmental goal, a conservative recognizes that such money needs to be generated somewhere to pay for this goal. This can only be done by either drawing down existing value (confiscating peoples’ lucre) or by creating new  ‘value” that can be taxed (i.e., growing the economy). A Liberal/Lefty doesn’t make this connection – they see the process simply as one of either redistributing the existing lucre from other peoples’ pots or creating new lucre by printing more money. The problem of printing new lucre, of course, is that it is still underwritten by a fixed quantity of value – expanding money supply representing a fixed value means that each dollar is worth less. We call that inflation.

I can’t tell you how many times Liberals have looked at me with puzzlement when I have asked where they expect to get the money for their favored social programs.

3) De-linking “money” from the process of wealth creation makes it easy for Liberal/Lefties to confuse using tax money to pay for unemployment checks, dance troupes or road repair as “economic stimulus”. You are, after all, taking lucre sitting idle in some peoples’ pots and putting that lucre into other peoples’ pockets to spend on purchases. Unfortunately, the fact is that such activities do not in themselves create new value. This cannot therefore “grow” the economy.

What do you think? Am I onto something? And, if so, what other aspects of the Great Divide does this help to explain? Does this help or hinder us in discussing our differences with the Liberal /Left?

A history lesson about your Social Security card and benefits *UPDATED*

Danny Lemieux sent me an email regarding Social Security that I reproduce here.  I know that the bit about the “not for identification” is true, because I have in front of me my card, which has that message, and my children’s cards, which don’t.  I do not know if the rest of the email message is true, and trust that, if it’s not, you will correct me.  Snopes, interestingly enough, has no word on this one:

Subject: History Lesson on Your Social Security Card

Just in case some of you young whippersnappers (& some older ones) didn’t know this. It’s easy to check out, if you don’t believe it. Be sure and show it to your family and friends. They need a little history lesson on what’s what and it doesn’t matter whether you are Democrat or Republican. Facts are Facts.

Social Security Cards up until the 1980s expressly stated the number and card were not to be used for identification purposes.

Since nearly everyone in the United States now has a number, it became convenient to use it anyway and the NOT FOR IDENTIFICATION message was removed.

Franklin Roosevelt, a Democrat, introduced the Social Security (FICA) Program. His promises are in black, with updates in red.

1.) That participation in the Program would be Completely voluntary [No longer voluntary],

2.) That the participants would only have to pay 1% of the first $1,400 of their annual Incomes into the Program [Now 7.65% on the first $90,000, and 15% on the first $90,000 if you’re self-employed],

3.) That the money the participants elected to put into the Program would be deductible from their income for tax purposes each year [No longer tax deductible],

4.) That the money the participants put into the independent ‘Trust Fund’ rather than into the general operating fund, and therefore, would only be used to fund the Social Security Retirement Program, and no other Government program [Under Johnson the money was moved to the General Fund and Spent], and

5.) That the annuity payments to the retirees would never be taxed as income [Under Clinton & Gore up to 85% of your Social Security can be Taxed].

Since many of us have paid into FICA for years and are now receiving a Social Security check every month — and then finding that we are getting taxed on 85% of
the money we paid to the Federal government to ‘put away’ — you may be interested in the following:

Q: Which Political Party took Social Security from the independent ‘Trust Fund’ and put it into the general fund so that Congress could spend it?

A: It was Lyndon Johnson and the democratically controlled House and Senate.

Q: Which Political Party eliminated the income tax deduction for Social Security (FICA) withholding?

A: The Democratic Party.

Q: Which Political Party started taxing Social Security annuities?

A: The Democratic Party, with Al Gore casting the ‘tie-breaking’ deciding vote as President of the Senate, while he was Vice President of the US

AND MY FAVORITE:

Q: Which Political Party decided to start giving annuity payments to immigrants?

A: That’s right! Jimmy Carter and the Democratic Party. Immigrants moved into this country, and at age 65, began to receive Social Security payments! The Democratic Party gave these payments to them, even though they never paid a dime into it!

Now, after violating the original contract (FICA), the Democrats turn around and tell you that the Republicans want to take your Social Security away!

And the worst part about it is uninformed citizens believe it! If enough people receive this, maybe a seed of awareness will be planted and maybe changes will
evolve. Maybe not, though. Some Democrats are awfully sure of what isn’t so — but it’s worth a try. How many people can YOU send this to?

Actions speak louder than bumper stickers.

UPDATE: Please see comment 10, which has some links and extra facts to show that the Republicans are not without sin in the degradation of Social Security.

UPDATE II:  If you just stumbled across this post recently, I hope you enjoyed it.  And if you’re interested in conservative political and social writing, I also suggest checking out my more recent posts, which you can find at my home page.

Random fascinating stuff out there, plus a few opinions of my own about the California Academy of Sciences *UPDATED*

Although it’s been open for more than a year now, I went for the first time today to the newly rebuilt California Academy of Sciences in Golden Gate Park.  My visit there was an interesting contrast to my first visit, some years ago, to the newly rebuilt De Young Museum in Golden Gate Park.

Although I can’t find it now (I think it was on my old Word Press blog), my review of the De Young Museum was that, on the outside, it looks like a series of stacked chicken coops but that, on the inside, it is an exceptionally lovely museum, with beautiful flow and lighting.  And since I go to see the art and not the exterior, it’s basically a very satisfying experience to visit the place.  It makes the art accessible, which is all one can ask for.

I have the exact opposite view of the newly rebuilt Academy of Sciences.  On the outside, the designers managed to create a facade that is both classical and streamlined in a very modern way.  It nestles contently on the eastern side of the Park’s main concourse, and is a chic, appealing visual treat.  Inside, however, it is utterly chaotic.  Various exhibits all seem to struggle to occupy the same space.  There is no flow whatsoever, which is disastrous for a building that is meant to cater, not only to crowds, but to crowds composed, in significant part, of highly kinetic little children.

The underground aquarium, for example, is a maze of short tunnels, each of which has exhibits placed randomly in the center of the walkway, as well as along the sides.  Tossed about by the milling crowds, it is impossible to discern where one is or what one is seeing.  Although I grasped, intermittently, that there was some overarching geographic organization (e.g, fresh water, salt water, tide pools, etc.), everything was so noisy and chaotic, I couldn’t make sense of the exhibits.  The old Academy may have had a pokey rectangular layout, but it sure was easy to move through, to see things, and to understand.

Nor has the Academy improved the food problem that always vexed it.  For as long as I can remember, the old Academy offered vile food at a shabby underground food court dominated by a stuffed grizzly.  The new Academy now has three food venues:  a fancy hot dog stand, a buffet style restaurant, and a very pricey restaurant.  Oh, did I say that only the last named was very pricey?  Forgive me.  They all are.  If you want anything more than a $3.00 pork bun, feeding a family of three in the Academy will run you close to $50.  The prices are justified by the fact that everything is organic this and organic that, but the fact is that the all-organic ham and cheese sandwich tastes remarkably like an ordinary ham and cheese sandwich, only $4.00 more than I usually pay.  Of course, the food prices are consistent with the admission prices.  It cost me almost $50.00 to take my two kids there, which is a pretty hefty price tag for an experience that left me with an eyeball popping headache.

The new Academy also disappointed me for a very personal reason:  they’ve done away entirely with the old gem and mineral collection.  Although not of the scale or caliber of the amazing gem and mineral collection at the New York Museum of Natural History, this was a lovely, little gathering of precious, semi-precious and simply interesting stones.  For me, it was always one of the highlights of a visit to the Academy, and I sorely missed it today.

Speaking of all-powerful centralized government, if you haven’t thought long and hard about the implications of Obama’s appointing a “Food Czar,” you should.

What I also disliked about the Academy (and what I also dislike about the newly, and nicely, refurbished San Francisco Zoo), is the hectoring tone all these places take.  In the old days, the message was, “Aren’t these natural wonders great?”  Nowadays, the relentless message is “These natural wonders are great, but you’re destroying them by your very existence.”  I don’t take kindly to spending massive amounts of money only to be insulted.

The only part of the Academy that I thought was wonderful, although it too had design problems, was the rain forest dome, which was almost, standing alone, worth the price of admission.   It’s a clear plastic dome that has a spiral walkway that takes one up through three levels teaming with trees, plants, birds, butterflies, moths, frogs and lizards.  It’s truly beautiful and really well done.  The only down side is that the only way to get out is to stand in line at the very top, waiting for an elevator.  The lines are long and chaotic.  Additionally, since the elevator is at the very top of a rain forest dome, it’s incredibly hot, steamy and, as with the rest of this echo-y, clamorous place, incredibly noisy.

I will say that what made the trip there a much greater pleasure than it would otherwise have been was the fact that I met up with my brother-in-law and niece there.  My two were delighted in the company of their cousin, and I always feel lucky when I get to spend time with my brother-in-law, no matter where that time is spent.  What a nice man he is.

Whining is finished now.  This is where I put in all the links for the things I read today, many of which readers brought to my notice (thank you!), but that I really didn’t get a chance to think about.

I think I am the last conservative blogger in America to link to it, but link to it I will.  You must read Angelo Codevilla’s America’s Ruling Class — and the Perils of Revolution, which pretty accurately spells out the state of American politics.  You won’t be less worried or frustrated when you’re done reading it, but you will be enlightened.

Did I mention whining a couple of paragraphs above?  That’s actually something important to think about.  Although I do it all the time, I’m aware that whining is not an attractive quality.  A couple of PR and public policy experts have figured out that Israel has been whining lately.  The whines are completely righteous and justified, but they fall into a vacuum of ignorance.  Listeners are not sympathetic.  It turns out that the effective way for Israel to deal with her plight is to do exactly what the Palestinians and their fellow travelers have been doing for so long:  she needs to demonize the opposition.  And what’s so great about this tactic is that, rather than making things up, as her enemies do, all that Israel has to do is broadcast the opposition’s actual words and deeds.  When people see what Israel is up against, as opposed to just hearing how Israel suffers, they become remarkably more sympathetic to Israel’s situation and dire security needs.

By the way, those same Palestinians who have managed to convince just about everyone in the world that the Israelis are worse than Hitler, have managed to hide from the world’s view the fact that, with Israel as their enemy, they are living high on the hog, enjoying standards far in excess of those Arab Muslims in lands that don’t have the good fortune to have Israel as their next door neighbor and enemy.

I loooove Andrew Breitbart.  Seriously.  I’m just crazy about the guy.  I think he is one of the most brilliant political thinkers in America right now.  He’s figured out what the PR folks are talking about:  show the opposition’s ugly side, using real footage of them being really ugly.  And to that end, immediately after the NAACP made waves complaining about unprovable and almost certainly non-existent Tea Party racism, he came out with actual footage of vile racism courtesy of — the NAACP.  Genius.  Sheer genius.  Here’s just one example of the ugly, discriminatory race obsession that characterizes the NAACP and its fellow travelers:

UPDATE:  Andrew Breitbart jumped the gun.  The snippet he got was taken out of context and, when put back into context, shows Sherrod explaining that, having once been a racist, she’s learned the error of her ways.  It also appears that the NAACP audience, which should have been the real focus of this video, as the video was a counter-attack to the NAACP’s decision to lambaste the Tea Party on racism grounds, murmurs approvingly when Sherrod reveals her new, enlightened views of race.

If you need it, here’s a little more on the Democrats’ entire ugly obsession with race, one that turns on its head Martin Luther King’s vision of an America in which people are judged, not by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character.  Oh, and here’s one more thing about that race obsession, and how Obama’s administration uses it to consolidate power, while sowing civil dissent.

When I wrote my post about burqas as a weapon, not just a type of clothing, I dragged in discussions of mosques and minarets too.  I entirely forget to mention in that article the mosque that is plotted for Ground Zero.  Pat Condell did not forget:

Even the New York Times periodically recognizes that federalizing school funding with no regard whatsoever for the situation at the ground is unfair, disruptive and damaging.  What staggers me is that these same NYT types are incapable of recognizing an overarching principle, which is that reactive government closer to home is always more understanding than directive central government far away.

Whether you’re in the military or not, don’t believe this administration when it claims to love the military and cries crocodile tears over its sufferings.

It took me almost half a lifetime to figure out that the NRA has always been right:  “If guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns.”  I needed to see crime rates soaring in London, in Chicago, and in Washington, D.C., as well as the chaos in post-Katrina New Orleans neighborhoods that did not have gun owners to finally understand this simple principle.  More and more, statistics are revealing the obvious:  a law-abiding, armed citizenry is safer than a law-abiding unarmed citizenry.  Contrary to liberal fears that arms will automatically turn us into Liberia or some equally horrific anarchic society, it’s clear that what effects such a change is leaving arms only to the criminals.

Paul Ryan argues that now is the time for Americans to choose their destiny

Parallels between Obama’s green economy plans and, well, other governments’ economic changes

Obama plans to use brute force legislation to turn America into a green economy.  To do this, he is going to use the government’s police and economic power to break the backs of the oil and coal industries.  It occurred to me that (at least) three other governments have used brute force to change their country’s economies.

Stalin decided to break the backs of the farmers, and to industrialize the Soviet economy.  Estimates are that 35 million died.  Mao decided to break the backs of the farmers, and simply reallocate resources “equally.”  Estimates are that 50 to 100 million died.  Mugabe decided to reallocate Zimbabwe’s farm wealth from whites to blacks.  Overnight, Zimbabwe went from being Africa’s bread basket to being just another African basket case, with people starving in the streets.  (I don’t know the mortality rates arising from Mugabe’s policies.  Do any of you?)

Economic changes work wonderfully when driven by market forces.  When driven by government ideologies, the results, so far as I can tell, are invariably death, despair and poverty.

Comments?

And a little bleg:

A Marxist indictment of capitalism — and why the indictment must be wrong

The Anchoress posted at her blog a semi-animated video by a self-avowed Marxist explaining why Marxism, not capitalism, will save the world.  I have to admit that I didn’t watch it.  It wasn’t the content that drove me away, it was the choppy visuals, which trigger migraines.  Having just beaten back a migraine, I wasn’t willing to go for round two.  If you want to watch it, though, please do so, here.

Without having seen the video, though, I can still tell you that anything it says is fallacious, to the extent that it tries to argue that Marxism is a better system than Capitalism.  I know this because I’ve had a lifetime to consider that argument.

My father, who was raised a Communist before dying a Reagan Democrat, kept believing to the day he died that Communism could somehow work, if it was just done right.  The problem, in his Communism steeped brain, was that the Russians, and the Chinese, and the Cubans, and the North Koreans just weren’t doing it right.   Back in those days, since I was young, and hadn’t refined my thoughts, I argued with him simply by reiterating that because Communism hadn’t yet been done right, no matter the time or place tried, that alone was a pretty good indication that it couldn’t be done right.

Those arguments are long gone, but I have finally distilled the principles that, in my mind at least, establish conclusively that Marxism, which draws all power away from the individual and vests that power in the State, can never be done right.  A few epigrammatic statements about the State are all I need:

• The State has no conscience.
• The State will always put its collective survival ahead of the living, breathing “cogs” that animate it (and it will dehumanize those cogs to the status of disposable cockroaches if need be to maintain its survival).
• The State is incapable of rapid response to changing situations (with the federal response to the Gulf Spill being the ultimate example of the rigidity that renders it incapable of abandoning its perfect standards in the face of an overwhelming amount of spilled oil).
• An all-powerful State, without any competition, has no incentive to provide good service, whatever that service may be (health care, housing, etc.).  Competition is the spur to quality.
• Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely.  This was true before Lord Acton said it, and it will be true in perpetuity.  If you vest all power in the State, you inevitably have, not only absolute corruption, but you have absolute corruption with unfettered life-and-death power over every living and breathing “cog” under its control.

Your comments about either the Anchoress’ video or my conclusions?

Cross-posted at Right Wing News

The problem is Washington, D.C. — by guestblogger Sally Zelikovsky

[Note from Bookworm:  As of now, the video embed of Pete Stark you’ll see in the post below has only 97 hits.  It should have a million hits.  Pete Stark is, and always has been, an exceptionally nasty piece of work.  However, Democratic acts in Washington make it clear that what he says is what they think.  Also, please note his disdain and dislike for the people he represents and for Americans in general.  And now, back to Sally….]

Do you doubt whether or not your representatives are listening to you?

Do you question their sincerity in doing their job?

Do you wonder if they truly understand what their responsibilities are in representing their districts in Washington DC?

Do you suspect that your representative has nothing but disdain for the average American citizen?

Do you hear rumors about representatives maligning and mocking their constituents, not taking them seriously and being woefully misinformed on the issues important to every day Americans, the guys and gals on Main Street?

If you answered “yes” to any of the above questions, then watch this representative in action and see for yourself, firsthand, what Washington DC thinks of you.

The problem is not Main Street or Wall Street.  It’s Pennsylvania Avenue and Capitol Hill!

[Bookworm here again:  For those of you who don’t know who Sally Zelikovsky is, especially those of you who are Bay Area conservatives, please check out the Bay Area Patriots website, which is her baby — and a lovely baby it is.]

Ageless principles from Ronald Reagan

This is Ronald Reagan’s 1964 “Time for Choosing” speech.  What’s fascinating about it is that, while some of the details are dated, the overarching principles are as fresh today as they were almost 50 years ago.  That’s because freedom is an ageless concept, and that’s what Ronald Reagan is articulating.  As we watch our Federal government increasingly erase our individual liberties, we should pay ever more attention to Ronald Reagan’s understanding of the relationship between a free American and his (or her) federal government:

Why Obama Wants You to “Turn On, Tune Out, and Drop Out” — by Guest Blogger Robin of Berkeley

To:  American Citizens
From:  Your Government
Date:  Today

It has come to our attention that citizens on your side of the aisle (“WN’s”, aka Wing Nuts) are doing a lot of talking.  What in the world are you gabbing about?

Talk Radio, talking amongst yourselves, chatting on the Internet.   What is with you people?  Haven’t you ever heard of:   “Turn on, Tune in, and Drop Out?”

This government feels that all this talking is in direct violation of the First Amendment.  Regulations Czar Cass Sunstein is working out the details.

In the meantime,  your government is issuing the following directive regarding inappropriate conversation topics.    Because we are the most transparent government in the history of humankind, we will also include a comprehensive list of acceptable topics.

Unacceptable Topics:

1. Radical Islam:

Why are you WN’s making a big fuss about Islam?  Muslims are conservative, religious people with big families.  Aren’t they just like Christians, only their wives aren’t as hot?

President Obama is working night and day to befriend our Muslim neighbors.  In fact, he may or may not be one of them.

Didn’t you people ever listen to Mr. Roger’s Neighborhood?  Remember a stranger is just a friend you haven’t met yet.

Your judging and criticizing our new friends’ lifestyle is not acceptable in any way, shape or form.   Thus, we are requiring the following new terminology, effective immediately:

“Jihad” — instead please use the term, “religious freedom.”

“Honor killings” — “family values”

“Terrorists” — “freedom fighters”

“Clitoridectomies” — “cosmetic surgery”

2.  Undocumented Workers:

Again, you WN’s are a bunch of sourpusses.  What is wrong with having a bunch more pals from South of the Border?  You act like some of them are drug runners, rapists, kidnappers, and thieves.

Didn’t you people learn to share as children?  The Obama Administration has simply embraced what your mom and dad taught.  We want you to share your emergency rooms, wages,  public schools, and health care with these new friends.

3.  President Obama:

Again, all these questions:  Where was Obama born?  Were his parents Communists?  Where are his school records?  Is he a Muslim?  Why doesn’t he like America?  What are his ties to domestic terrorist Bill Ayers?

Blah, blah, blah.  Yada, yada, yada.  All you need to know is this:  He’s black.  He’s cool.  He dances, he parties, and he has amazing pecs.   And, most importantly, he is not George W. Bush.

This information satisfies liberals — why not you?

4.  The Czars:

Yes it’s true that President Obama has appointed over 30 (sorry, we’ve lost count) Czars.  No, they are not vetted by Congress.   Yes, many appear to be card-carrying socialists or recent discharges from a psych ward.

However, this secret cadre of Czars is absolutely essential to this administration’s agenda.  How in the world can the Democrats radically transform America if you busybodies are all up in their business?

5.  Criticism of Congress:

Public approval of Congress keeps reaching new lows.  Why all this distrust?   When there was a Republican government,  any and all attacks,  demonstrations, and ambushes were necessary.

But this is a Democratic government.  We are the good guys.  When the Democrats are in office, the country can relax.  Leave the driving to us, dude, and take a chill pill.

6.The Mainstream Media:

You people have objected loudly to the MSM’s  swooning over Obama.  Aren’t you being a tad unfair?

Yes it’s true that reporters have been head over heels for Barack.  But these reporters are living, breathing human beings.  Don’t they have needs and desires like any other person?

7.  Misogyny on the Left:

Some of you keep criticizing the Left’s bad treatment of women.     Yes, it’s true that it’s been open season on women, like objectifying Sarah Palin and abusing Michelle Malkin.  True, the Left is not known for giving women any respect.

I hate to break the news to you, ladies.  But liberals don’t give a whit about sexism.  The only “ism” that’s making headlines is racism.

Sexism is so 1970’s.

8.  Black on White (and Asian) Crime:

Yes the statistics are alarming.  But that’s only if you actually read them and publicize them.

True, in San Francisco, 85% of the strong arm robberies are blacks against Asians.   And yes, there have been reports that blacks murder whites at 50 times the rate of the reverse.   There were over a million violent black on white crimes in 1992, compared to over 100,000 white on black crimes.

And we’ll concede that the gang culture, enabled by liberalism, glorifies violence toward others, particularly police and women.    Of course, it’s true that liberal attitudes have so infected the schools and the courts that the perps barely get a slap on the wrist.

But let me make one thing perfectly clear:  this is an unacceptable topic.   Why?  I think you know why by now, you racist.

Acceptable Topics

There are many topics that all citizens are free to discuss at will.

George W. Bush — especially his association to the Prince of Darkness.

Sarah Palin — particularly how crazy she is.

Israel — as long as words like “occupier” and “apartheid” are used.

Tea Parties — especially ties to Neo Nazis and the KKK.

Sincerely,

Your Government

Robin is a licensed psychotherapist and a recovering liberal in Berkeley.   She has written numerous articles for American Thinker.  You can send her an email at robinofberkeley@hotmail.com.

Pyramid schemes — so simple even a child can understand them

Today, I told my children, who are 11 and 12, about pyramid schemes.  Since it’s always easiest for me to focus on people, I started my story with the first famous American pyramid schemer:  Charles Ponzi, who gave his name to the whole racket.

I explained the Ponzi scheme to the kids in the simplest of terms, using very easy math:  I told them that Ponzi promised his first investors that, if they gave him their money, he would give them double that amount back.  (I actually don’t know if he promised to double the money, but it was an easy concept for the kids to grasp.)  Excited by the prospective of money for nothing, these people readily handed their money to Ponzi.  They were the first tier of investors.

Ponzi then went out and found a larger number of investors, who also gave him their money.  These were the second tier of investors.  He took the money he received from the second tier, and gave it to the first tier.  The first tier was very happy.  Having done nothing, they nevertheless doubled their investment.  Many of them came back for more, reinvesting their money, and joining the third tier of investors.  With the money from that third tier, Ponzi paid off, big time, to the second tier.

This went on quite happily for a while, I told the kids, but then something inevitable happened:  Ponzi stopped finding a sufficient number of new investors whose fresh funds could pay off his old investors.  Since Ponzi was just moving money around — he was not providing a service or creating goods — the only thing that kept the money flowing was fresh blood.

So, I asked my attentive little audience, what happened then?  My 12 year old was quick with a reply:  “The whole system collapsed.”  Smart child.

Before I was even able to go on from them, my 11 year old, eyes suddenly widening, announced, “That’s like what the government does.  It takes money from people who work, and gives it to people who don’t work.”   Really smart child.

(By the way, I am absolutely not making this up.  That’s the story I told, and that is verbatim how my children responded, no editing, no augmenting.)

I leave you with a replay of Chris Christie, who speaks about the Day of Reckoning that will be inevitable unless we sharply turn away from the Progressive government’s giant Ponzi scheme:

Oh, I have one more “by the way,” apropos Gov. Chris Christie.  As you know, I believe lots of uninformed Americans voted for Obama, not because of his qualifications, but because they were swept away by the rapture of voting for the first black president.  I also read somewhere that a candidate in Texas is running, not on her actual qualifications for the job, but on her promise to the voters that, if they vote for her, she’ll be the first transgendered whatever it is she’s running for.

I mean, honestly, the way the media frames elections lately, the most important thing is to push the identity politics side of someone’s candidacy as the primary consideration, trumping all other matters.  So how about all of us starting a campaign for Chris Christie, promising Americans that, if he wins, he’ll be the first rotund president in the 21st Century, and the first since William Howard Taft?

After all, considering how badly people of weight are treated in America, it seems to me that Christie is already well on his way to wearing the victim moniker so beloved of the press.  The only problem, of course, is that Christie might, just might, be offended by victim/identity politics status, and might actually want to run on issues and competency.

Homeless man has better grasp of economics than Democrats

This is an amazing snippet of a homeless man — who must be sorely tempted by the welfare state — recognizing that the only way to relieve him from the burden of economic disaster is to get the government out of the economy:

For those liberal trolls who have found this website, let me explain to you what one savvy homeless man understands, and what no liberals seem to grasp:  Governments do not create goods.  Governments do not create wealth.  Governments print money (and, when they print too much, they create inflation).  Governments do have the power to take money from the wealth creators, and then to create make work so that people look as if they have meaningful jobs, but this is a giant Ponzi scheme.  Suck enough wealth out of the private sector for these pretend jobs, and you eventually end up with lots of pretend jobs and no wealth.

Hat tip:  Hot Air

Is this any way to run a country?

From the Heritage Foundation:

According to best estimates, the collapsed Deepwater Horizon oil rig is pumping about 210,000 gallons of oil into the Gulf of Mexico every day. But don’t worry, President Barack Obama has appointed an “independent” commission to investigate the spill. Our federal government will post an estimated $1.5 trillion budget deficit this year, and our debt is projected to equal 140 percent of gross domestic product within two decades. But don’t worry, President Obama has appointed a debt commission to solve the problem. Our nation’s southern border has degenerated into a violent, lawless and lethal zone. But don’t worry, Congress wants to empower a new commission to control the problem. And millions of Americans don’t know whether or not their health plan will be exempted from Obamacare. But don’t worry, faceless bureaucrats at the Department of Health and Human Services are already hard at work determining whether or not you will be allowed to keep your current health insurance.

Is this any way to run a country? Should the President of the United States be passing off responsibility to “independent” commissions? Should Congress be passing off responsibility for securing our nation’s borders to an unaccountable commission of experts? How is any of this consistent with our nation’s First Principles or the United States Constitution? It’s not.

Read the rest here.

The political ad everyone is talking about

This guy joins Gov. Christie as someone who doesn’t pull his punches.  Alabama voters are going to have some fun at the polls:

Your chance to have at least some say in government spending.

Cool.

UPDATE:  Thanks, Cottus.  The typos I make, of course, are meant to ensure that, despite my impressive pedigree (which, Obama-like, I’ll keep hidden from you and, instead, I’ll just repeat that it really is as impressive as I say it is), I’m still one of “the little people.”