Showing posts with label Budgets. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Budgets. Show all posts

Wednesday, March 12, 2014

The End of the Military? Hardly

No doubt, you’ve all heard about the end of American dominance because of the upcoming military spending cuts. Forget it. That’s bull. Yes, the defense cuts will certainly mean some loss of capabilities, but that’s a meaningless point. What matters is whether or not we still have enough men and material to maintain our dominance over other countries and our superiority on the battlefield. And that we do.

Top of the World Ma!: First, let’s debunk this idea that somehow our budget is being gutted. Even after the cuts being proposed right now, the US will spend more on its military than all of the top militaries in the world combined. Notice the chart below, which is accurate.
But the raw numbers only tell part of the story. Running a military is expensive and you can’t do it in parts. For example, you can’t put to sea with only 10% of an aircraft carrier and buying one plane is not as effective as buying ten. In fact, the military needs to work as a single, complete machine to achieve its full capability. The less of that machine you own, the less capability you get, and it’s not a straight line drop-off.

Said differently, not every dollar spent projects the same value. Ergo, if a nation spends 10% of our budget, that doesn’t mean they get 10% of our capability. It more likely means they get 1% of our capability. So even if all the foreign military budgets combined equal ours, their capabilities don’t.

To give you a concrete example, consider this: the United States is the only country in the world that is capable of projecting force beyond its immediate neighbors. In other words, we are the only country that can transport troops overseas, send hardware, and reach anywhere in the world with our bombers and missiles. Even our big threats Russia and China are incapable of going anywhere their troops can’t drive to or walk to. In fact, even if you took the transport capabilities of every other country and combined them, you still couldn't do what we do. Ditto on navies and air forces and ground troops. Hence, even if everyone else in the world ganged up on us, their total military capabilities simply don’t compete with ours, even if their overall budgets combine to be about the same.

Not As Deep As You Think: Next, realize that the cuts are not as deep as you are being led to believe.

For example, the Army is going to be reduced to 450,000 soldiers: “That’s the lowest it’s been since before World War II!!” Yes, it is, but we were fighting an aggressive foe of equal size at the time – first the Nazis and then the Soviets. There's nothing like that now. Also, there is an apples and oranges number here. In 1940, the entire military (Army, Navy, Marines) was only 458,000. Today, the Army alone will be 450,000 before you add in the Navy, Marines and Air Force. Indeed, even after the cuts, we’ll still have more active duty personnel than any country except China and India.

FYI, the number of aircraft carriers will remain the same at around 11 (depends on how you count them). Russia and China combine for 2.

To give you a perspective, the Army is being cut about 14%. At its current size, our military has been able to fight a 13 year war in Afghanistan and fight a war in Iraq, while defending Korea and Europe and projecting US power all over the globe. A 14% reduction should not be a problem, given the wind down in Afghanistan.

Further, contrary to popular belief, less than half of the “troops” in the army aren't what you think of as soldiers. Most are clerks or support, and DoD seems intent on reducing their numbers first. In fact, DOD is looking to expand the special forces.

Not The Same Weapons: A lot of the screaming is about scaled back programs. But it's important to realize that we don’t always need new weapons. For example, American aircraft are generations ahead of the competition and no one can compete with us. We dominate the skies and no one has the budget to catch up to us. Thus, there is no significant pressure to keep buying newer and newer planes. Also, there is a massive shift underway from manned aircraft to drones. Drones are much cheaper to build and operate, don’t endanger the lives of pilots, and are proving to have excellent capabilities. The future is drones, missiles and missile defense, not snazzier fighters. So we shouldn’t be rushing out to buy hundreds of billion dollar aircraft until we’re sure they will be the most effective use of those dollars.

Other equipment is similar. The M1-Abrams tank was first put into service in 1980, but it’s still the world class... no one comes close. So why replace it? Instead, you do what we’ve been doing, which is improving the model with each generation. The modern engine, for example, uses 40% fewer parts than the original engine. There are electronic systems on this tank that weren’t even conceived of when it was made. And there have been dozens of other upgrades. Our aircraft are the same – more advanced radar systems, better missiles, better defenses. Our ships are much more capable than they’ve ever been in history. The point is, you don’t always need a new program to stay ahead of the world. So when you hear screaming about cancelled programs or reduced buys, the real question is whether or not we really needed those to stay ahead. Nothing I’ve seen getting cancelled has been needed.

A “Safer” World: Also, keep in mind that there are fewer military threats today, which means we need less to guarantee our security. From the 1960s through the 1980s, we needed to fend off communists in South America, Southeast Asia and Africa, defend Europe from a possible Warsaw Pact invasion, defend South Korean from North Korea, contain China, India, Pakistan, Iran, and Iraq. Today, most of that is gone. Our threats today are Iran, North Korea, China and Russian bullying... if we care. That’s a short list that allows us to reduce our capabilities some because we no longer need to watch everything on the planet. Indeed, the real enemy today is Muslim fundamentalism, and as we’re learning, that can’t be fought militarily.

So what is my point with this article? Well, it’s this: don’t panic.

Everyone wants to scare you with "the end of America!" these days, but these cuts aren’t that. Even after these cuts, we will still have the men and material needed to maintain our dominance over other countries and our superiority on the battlefield. No one compares to us, and no one will because they aren’t trying. And as more of the world integrates economically and moves into the realm of middle class countries, the dangers of the world recede. So while it is true that these cuts will eliminate some capabilities, they won’t ultimately make the nation any less safe or secure. That’s not to say we shouldn’t monitor them carefully to make sure, but let’s not panic and tell the world we’re weak when we aren’t.
[+] Read More...

Friday, December 13, 2013

The New Ryan Budget: Pros and Cons

Less than two weeks before Christmas, folks. Snow's on the ground, the presents are getting wrapped, there's more polls showing Obama lower than a snake's belly: Yep, that must mean it's time for another budget fight! Wait, what?

Yeah, I'll be honest; the new Ryan-Murray budget deal, removing the budget cuts from the sequester in favor of cuts at a later date, announced earlier this week caught me off guard. So did all the attacks immediately made by other conservatives, and the congratulating going around between Democrats and mainstream GOPers. (The latter probably has something to do with the former, I'd imagine.) I'm still working through what this budget has to say, and if you've seen something I haven't, feel free to call me out on it. As for what I have found so far, it's a mix of good and bad--but more of the bad, I'm inclined to think.

Pro: It Keeps Us Focused On ObamaCare. This one is pretty straightforward. The RMS Obama has finally met its iceberg, in the form of an awful ACA rollout, and the Prez's approval ratings are hitting new lows. (Smiles all around.) The bad news is still coming in, too, and each new piece of information makes the Democrats look worse. So why should we derail that train with a new fight over government funding and another threat of shutdown? As Jonah Goldberg points out at NRO, we would essentially be risking all the goodwill we might have built up in the past month or so "over what amount to rounding errors in the budget and the debt."

Pro: Mandatory Spending Cuts! (ish) The budget deal requires that increases in discretionary spending have to be balanced out by cuts to entitlements. Some of those cuts are kind of weak--federal employees have to pay more into their pension plans, for example, but only those employees hired after the fact--but they do still set good precedents. Hey, every little bit helps.

Con: Taxation Surprise! Taxation surprises are never fun, and this is no exception. One of the provisions in the budget deal is a procedural alteration that would allow Senate Democrats to pass tax increases and send them to the House with a mere 51 votes, not the usual 60. Now, it sounds worse than it is. The Senate can already do this via reconciliation, and in any case, it doesn't mean the House has to play ball--on paper. However, anything which makes it easier for Harry Reid to put the burden on House Republicans, especially where taxes are concerned, is hardly something to cheer about.

Con: The Budget Is Just Plain Screwy. Simple math: It approves the spending of $600 billion, at minimum, over a ten-year period while reducing the deficit by only $20 billion, and that through higher fees. There are real savings, further down the road; but not until 2022-23 and later. If we could trust that those cuts would in fact happen then, it might be different, but is anyone willing to extend that trust? Because I'm not. And, some of those "fees" are really egregious examples of intrusive government--like an increase in how much the feds can charge us for a passenger flight. Which I didn't even know they did, and isn't that creepy.

Final judgment on this plan? Eh, I don't have one. It's not a good budget, but then I don't think anyone on the Right, establishment, Tea Party, or whoever, is claiming that. What it really comes down to, I think, is whether you believe that under the present political circumstances, this is the best possible budget we can hope to pass right now. And there's a good argument that it is.

Mainly, where I think Ryan did screw up on this plan is by rolling it out on such short notice, and then by demanding a full vote on it so quickly. We talk a lot here about paying attention to the political realities; one of those realities is that when you blindside a large chunk of your own party (deliberately or not), they're not going to like it very much. By not getting everyone on the same page earlier, Ryan, Boehner, and other leaders caused a very visible divide in the GOP ranks, made worse by the intramural shouting match of the past couple days. Obama and his cronies are playing for keeps in this political game. We need to make sure our side is too.
[+] Read More...

Monday, October 7, 2013

More Thoughts On The Shutdown

If the government doesn’t really shutdown and no on actually cares... did it happen? Well, apparently it has happened and it’s going on right now. Anyway, here are more thoughts on this “shutdown.”

The Optics: I’ve been really surprised that this shutdown has gone as well as it has. The Democrats are going down in flames right now. Obama’s approval ratings are tanking. There is dissention in Democratic ranks. Even the MSM is picking apart Obama’s claims. Why? Well, several reasons.

For one thing, the public hasn’t cared at all, so there is no immediate pressure on anyone to solve this issue. That benefits the Republicans who forced it and it deprives the Democrats of their entire strategy, which was to wait for the public to break the Republicans’ will.

For another, the Republican leadership has stayed on message, and it’s a good one. They keep saying, “Why won’t Obama negotiate with us?” That’s the perfect message to win Americans. Why? Because we are a rational people who believe you settle disputes rather than fight to the death. Here, the Republicans are being the adults because they are offering to talk. Obama is being the child because he is holding his breath.

Obama has helped this perception by hamfistedly trying to upset people by doing things like closing monuments that don’t need to be closed, by trying to shut down state-owned parks, by telling Wall Street that it should tank, by whining about essential people being furloughed when he is the one who decided who got furloughed, and by acting aloof and indifferent. This makes it really hard for the media to support Obama. Even worse, our fringe is silent as they don’t know how to play this, so they aren’t saving Obama with a distraction. In effect, the MSM can cover Obama or nothing... and when that happens, Obama flames out. That’s why his popularity is at an all-time low right now.

Further, the Republican leadership has played this brilliantly in the House. They have been passing bills doing things like funding cancer research, ensuring veterans get paid, and trying to open monuments Obama has shut. The Democrats have been voting against these (and Reid refuses to allow votes on them), and it’s killing them because these are the kinds of votes that will feature prominently in campaign commercials. In fact, because of this, 57 House Democrats have broken ranks on various issues.

What’s more, with the right not giving the media anything to attack, the media has little else to cover except the unfolding disaster of Obamacare... which only makes Obama’s problems seem even larger. For those who missed it, HUGE numbers of the people who signed up may not actually have coverage because they didn’t provide sufficient information. At the same time, tech analysts are now saying that the problem with the computers shutting people out is not a lack of server capacity, it’s a design flaw that the program tries to load too much information at once... meaning the system may need a redesign. Ha ha.

All of this is bad for the Democrats. But there’s something else that is going on that will force them to surrender fairly soon. Right now, the PR of both sides says they have no reason to surrender, but that’s not true. Boehner has no reason to give in: the shutdown happened... nothing important changed... no one cared... why stop now? It’s sequestration all over again.

Democratic math, however, is different. The Democrats are the party of government. When Obama was elected, they hoped he would restore the public’s faith in government. He didn’t. To the contrary, faith in government is at an all-time low. What’s more, the big non-event of sequestration taught people they had nothing to fear from budget cuts, the same thing is happening here now: the longer the shutdown goes on, the more people are learning they have nothing to fear from a closed government. This is disastrous for Democratic ideology which relies on people looking to government to regulate their lives.

Whoops.

Foreign Policy Still Doesn’t Matter: As an aside, Navy SEALs grabbed the al Qaeda leader responsible for somethingsomething. In theory, this should have given Obama a huge boost, but no one cared. This again proves that short of all-out war, foreign policy simply doesn’t matter to the public.

Why You Can’t Volunteer: Finally, this is worth pointing out. Whenever you have a shutdown, there are always stories of people volunteering to work for free (like a group of Catholic priests who are under contract to work on military bases) who get told they can’t volunteer during a shutdown, and people say, “That’s an outrage!” Actually, there’s a really good reason for that.

Before the Republicans depoliticized the government in the 1930s, a lot of contractors, employees and average citizens found themselves being pressured to provide favors to the government or government employees... or offering free favors for favors. Several agencies used this to add to their budgets to let them do things Congress hadn’t allowed. The law was changed to make it illegal to give something for free to the government to stop this (agencies also can’t keep money they earn because of this) – this is called an “illegal augmentation.”

So while this may sound stupid that someone can’t volunteer, there is a valid purpose behind it. This is an anti-graft provision because it’s impossible to tell who is just volunteering, who has been pressured, and who is hoping for a quid pro quo. So this is something to remember... it’s not nonsense, even if it seems like it on the surface.
[+] Read More...

Tuesday, May 7, 2013

Sequestration. . . the Disaster That Wasn’t

Let’s catch up with sequestration, shall we? For those who don’t recall, sequestration is the thing that’s making your life miserable. It’s the reason the country has ground to a halt like the end of Atlas Shrugged and why most of you are probably dying in the streets as wolves eat your children. Yep. Sad. Oh wait. . . that didn’t happen.

One of the things you can always count on leftists to do is to the claim that the public is with them. This is essentially a form of peer pressure advertising where they hope to convince you to believe something by telling you that everyone else believes it. It is an attempt to manufacture opinion. And when it comes to sequestration, the phony line they’ve been pushing is that the public is... well, here’s a good example. Said the AP:
The move comes amid increasing public pressure to find ways to lessen the impact of sequestration.
Really? Strange that I see no evidence at all of any public pressure or any impact actually. In fact, I see no real mention of sequestration by anyone. . . left, right or center. It is a non-issue with the public. And here’s why:
● Only $80 billion in cuts will happen this year. That represents 2.1% of the current budget. Two dollars out of every $100 isn’t really going to hurt.

● Social security, Medicaid, food stamps and school lunches were all exempted. Medicare was limited to a 2% cut to health care providers.

● When an issue has arisen, such as with the FAA, the Republicans have jumped in to fund those portions to prevent the public from getting upset. Interestingly, this has angered liberals who claim they are just upset that certain programs “for the poor” have been cut, but who really are upset that the Republicans are keeping the public from noticing the budget cuts.

● Democratic/Administration lies about these cuts causing various disasters have proven to be untrue. . . imagine that. Even the AP needed to admit that, “The cuts have so far failed to live up to the dire warnings issued earlier by agencies.” In particular they noted that the FDA hasn’t had to stop inspecting food processing plants as they claimed, that there haven’t been any layoffs, and that the government hasn’t shut down. Even the Pentagon just magically found another $5 billion to keep everything running normally.

BUT, this didn’t stop the AP from still making the following claim: “But budget experts warn that the grip of sequestration will grow tighter as weeks and months pass, leading to teacher layoffs, reduced funding for infrastructure and economic development projects, and a host of other cuts across the budget.” Right, just like before. Help... wolf... wolf.
All in all, the Republicans have played this perfectly. . . those darn RINOs. They stood their ground and let the Democrats make fools of themselves by whining about doomsday scenarios which could never happen. They also listened carefully to the public, and when they saw something arise which actually upset the public, they introduced bills to fund it. That got Obama and the Democrats threatening to hold the public hostage on those issues, but they quickly learned that was a loser and they’ve caved.

The end result is that sequestration hasn’t really impacted the public. Hence, there is no public outrage no matter how much the AP may wish there was, and the left is pulling their hair out about this. They realize that the Republicans have found the perfect budget cutting strategy -- promise small “across-the-board” budget cuts to get the public on board with the fairness and the reasonableness of the plan, and then exclude the things you need to exclude to keep the majority of the public happy. This is the model of sequestration and the public is getting a taste for this because they see this as a way to cut the budget that will never affect them, and if it does, they think it’s fair because it’s “across-the-board.” This sounds like great way forward for future cuts, doesn't it?

Thoughts?
[+] Read More...

Wednesday, March 6, 2013

Entitlement Reform, Yeah, but...

There was an interesting article the other day about comments by White House hacks David Axelrod and Melody Barnes. Both said the same thing about entitlement reform and taxes. This got me thinking, but they won’t like the answer I came up with.

By way of background, entitlements are slowly eating the entire federal budget and soon there won’t be any money left to do anything more than cover entitlements and pay the interest on Obama’s debt. This will get much worse soon too as the number of retired baby boomers is expected to soar. Like locusts, they will drain the system dry. The solutions being proposed to fix this are: N/A.

Solutions that could solve this problem include (1) pushing back the retirement age, (2) lowering benefits, (3) means-testing benefits to cut them off for people who don’t “need” them, (4) increasing co-pays and fees on things like Medicare, and (5) tax increases on workers.

According to Axelrod and Barnes, the Democrats understand that entitlements are out of control. They also are willing to fix the crisis. . . BUT they need tax increases to be part of the equation. And the reason isn’t what you think. According to both, the Democrats know that tax increases can’t solve this problem and they are only looking for tax increases as a means to provide them political cover with their base. Said Asselrod:
“What we’re saying is that if you’re going to ask Democrats to vote for entitlement reform, then that you have to at the same time have revenue increases on the other side of the equation in order to move forward.”
Barnes added:
“You’ve got to link arms and jump ship together.”
The thinking is that entitlement reform will anger Democratic constituents so the Democrats want the tax hike to anger conservatives equally so they don’t get crushed in the next election. Ok.

Here are my thoughts. First, I don’t think conservatives are as opposed to tax hikes as the Democrats want to believe. I believe the conservative opposition is rational rather than principled. In other words, conservatives aren’t opposed to tax hikes no matter what, they have simply learned that there’s no good reason to accept hikes. Basically, since government spending never goes down, we’ve learned that agreeing to tax hikes only gives the Democrats more money to spend. It’s called throwing good money after bad. IF conservatives could be assured that the taxes would actually go to fixing the problem, AND we got genuine cuts in addition to make the government smaller, then I think conservatives would be willing to accept tax hikes. . . even at the risk of incurring the wrath of a man called Grover.

So problem solved right? //scratches head

Hmm. Actually, no....

... why do WE want to fix entitlements?

Entitlement reform will hit our people more than theirs. Indeed, the people who will be hurt are oldster and veterans. . . they vote for us, so why do we want to be seen voting to take their benefits away? And why should we also agree to tax the middle class (our other supporters) in exchange for being allowed to inflict pain on the rest of our supporters? That doesn’t make any sense.

Moreover, the Democrats are the party who love government, not us. So why should we do anything to upset our voters just to help make government work? If the Democrats love it so much, let them do their own dirty work. Not to mention that as the entitlement problem grows, the real harm will be to the government’s ability to do anything. Indeed, as the share of the budget going to entitlements grows, the share available for all the programs the Democrats love will go down. Fixing entitlements just frees up that money for more Democratic party time. Why do we want that?

So yeah, I think conservatives would be willing to agree to tax hikes if we believed they would actually fix a problem, but I don’t really see any reason WE should fix the problem. The Democrats created this mess. Since at least the age of Reagan, they’ve fought every attempt to fix it, even when they could have done so with only tiny changes, so let them fix the mess on their own now.

I know a lot of Republicans have recently decided this is the magic bullet that will somehow win us something or other, in fact, the "think tanks" seem to have become obsessed with the issue. But frankly, the more I think about it, this is a really stupid idea for us to run on... “Hey, we’re gonna cut your benefits so the Democrats can keep all their other programs going!” It sounds like a change of focus is needed. We need to focus rhetorically on “protecting” Social Security and Medicare and condemning the Democrats for letting these programs die. Then make the Democrats do the dirty work of proposing benefit cuts. Alternatively, if we are going to trim these programs, then the Democrats will need to agree to across-the-board cuts in their programs.

Thoughts?
[+] Read More...

Monday, March 4, 2013

Sequester This. . .

LMAO! :D... The Democrats are not happy. When Obama proposed sequestration, the idea was that the Republicans would freak out and give him tax hikes. Not only did it not turn out that way, but it looks like Obama will be responsible for the first genuine cuts in American budget history. In fact, sequestration has turned into a rather interesting tale, which could become a watershed moment in American History.

Sequestration began when the Republicans and the Democrats were locked in a phony death struggle over the budget. They needed to find a way to reduce the deficit by about a trillion dollars, but neither side really wanted to propose anything. So they put off the deal with an agreement to agree in the future. BUT... that would not be enough to satisfy angry voters, so Obama came up with the brilliant idea of sequestration: “Uh, why not, uh, agree to reach an agreement in the future (after the election wink, wink), and to calm everyone we’ll slap a doomsday provision on this sucker. Basically, uh, if we can’t reach an agreement, then $500 billion in cuts will befall the favorite programs of each side.”

They shook on it and passed it into law.

Then the election happened and nothing really got resolved. So now it was up to both sides to reach an agreement to stop this doomsday device from going off.

But a funny thing happened on the way to doomsday. The Republicans discovered that this wasn’t really a doomsday device after all, at least not with their voters (I actually credit Rand Paul and some of the Tea Party people for breaking the Rasputin mindlock military spending has had on the Republican Party). So they started to realize that perhaps they were better off letting this thing happen.

For Obama, this was intolerable, because for the Democrats this was a true doomsday device. Not only would this actually cut programs they loved for real for once (the horror, the horror), but it gave the Republicans no reason to agree to the tax hikes the Democrats wanted. So Obama rushed out to try to pressure the Republicans to agree before anyone realized this doomsday device was really a Republican unicorn bomb. Oldbama hit the campaign trail and smeared the Republicans fiercely. Apparently, when these cuts kicked in, the world would literally end. The money in our wallets would melt away to ash, Yellowstone would be repo’d by China, old people would die of plague, and children would be eaten by the dinosaurs who escaped the Federal dinosariums. . . crunch crunch. Oh my!

But the Republicans held fast.

Then the cuts hit and the... world... didn’t... end... See, unlike prior shutdowns, this one didn’t result in chaotic things that could appear on the television. Doors weren’t looked, tourists weren’t stranded, and benefits didn’t stop coming. Few people will actually lose their jobs. Indeed, all that’s going to happen is that agencies will need to find ways to shave about 3% off their budgets for the year. In a federal government that wastes at least a third of all spending, this can be done quite painlessly. And since the public doesn’t really care about the fates of overpaid federal workers, it’s going to be very hard to upset the public with stories of one-day-per-week furloughs.

So the public yawned.

Actually, I would suggest the public not only yawned, but they smiled. The problem with cuts has always been that no one would accept having their own programs cut because they don’t want to be the only one whose programs get cut. So no one agrees to cuts. But people would accept across the board cuts that actually affect everyone equally. This sequestration feels like an across the board cut. Moreover, most people will find that nothing they want has actually been cut. So as far as the public is concerned, these appear to be ideal cuts because they happen to everyone else.

So now the Democrats are freaking out and you’re starting to see the first wave of articles about how horribly they’ve played this. In December, they were bragging how this would force the Republicans to agree to tax hikes and now they’re trying to explain how they could let the programs their supporters love get cut and why the Republicans no longer have any incentive to ever agree to tax hikes to cut the deficits. Ha ha. Basically, what the Democrats saw as the unthinkable nuclear option turned out to be everything the Republicans wanted in the budget deal and then some, and now they are struggling to explain how they missed this. Savor the sorrow of Rep. Gerry Connolly (Duh-Va), “We lost the bet on just how intransigent the Republican majority can be. We made a mistake betting on reasonable compromise ultimately prevailing. We bet on that and we lost.” Yep, sucker.

Now, I can’t really pin this on tactical brilliance on our part. To the contrary, I suspect our side was busy trying to find a way to hand a victory to Obama the whole time and just couldn’t find a way to do it. I also suspect some members of the party. . . looking at you McCain. . . are probably still struggling to find a way to hand Obama a victory in the days to come. But it’s still nice that we stumbled upon this and I do give Boehner credit here.

In any event, I would do the following at this point if I were running the Republican Party:
(1) Embrace these cuts as intentional, “genuine, across the board 3% cuts,” and point out how this is still less than normal people have taken in the way of pay cuts during the Obama years. Either way the media fights that we win. If they call these not genuine, they you say “so what’s the problem with sequestration?” and you demand more. If they call them draconian, then you pound away both on these being significant/real and you ask how the Democrats could object to a 3% cut.

(2) Attack Obama for the specific cuts he makes. Remember, we caused the 3% cut, but he picked what would actually be cut: “We didn’t want your stuff being cut, dude. Obama picked you. . . he’s a very bad man, a very bad man.”

(3) IF any particular cut(s) creates a problem that begins to sway the public, fund that cut and that cut alone. And when you send the funding bill, include other things you want and dare Obama to veto it. Also, I would challenge Obama to find an alternate cut.
Finally, here’s the watershed. The longer this goes on and the world doesn’t end, the more I think the public will feel at ease with cuts. That could well give us the ability to propose across-the-board cuts to get cuts in place, and that is a very good thing for us. Watch for signs of an attitude change in the public.

Thoughts?
[+] Read More...

Tuesday, February 19, 2013

Obama(doesn’t)care

You may have noticed, now that the federal government is lurching forward with Obamacare, that a great many numbers are coming out which show just what for a nightmare this program will become. See what you make of this.

● First, I told you a couple weeks back that it turns out that Obamacare lets insurers blast old people with three times (300%) the premiums of young people. It also lets insurers add a 50% surcharge on smokers. Thus, a 60-year-old smoker who earns $35,000 a year could well be hit with premiums in the range of $8,411, with we taxpayers paying another $7,000 to the insurer as a subsidy.

● Then came this little tidbit. A couple weeks ago, the IRS put out guidance which estimated that the cheapest Obamacare plan you will need to buy. . . the stripped down Ford Escort of plans without any bells and whistles will cost a family of four at least $20,000 a year. Hope Taco Bell gives you a raise.

● Now there’s news about the uninsurables which should trouble people. One of the biggest promises used to sell Obamacare was that the law would make it illegal for insurers to turn away people with pre-existing conditions. That provision goes into effect next year. In the meantime, a stop-gap measure was passed. It is this stop-gap that has proven interesting.

To help the uninsurables until they are declared insurable, Congress set up a program whereby anyone with a pre-existing condition which prevents coverage, and who has been uninsured for at least six months, could get Uncle Sam to pick up their bills. A total of 135,000 people got into this program.... before they closed it to the public. That’s right. The program is now closed because Team Obama has determined that they can’t afford to let any more people in. This is because they’ve blown through half of the $5 billion they were given to run the program and they need the rest to get through the rest of this year.

So let’s think about this. 135,000 people cost $2.5 billion to cover for one year. That works out to about $18,500 per person. This turned out to be much more expensive than expected when the program was created. . . as you would expect. What does this tell us about the future? Well, let’s start with how many of these people there are in the general population. According to The Washington Post, there are between 9 million and 25 million such people. In technical parlance, this wide of a spread is called “pulledthenumberfromyourasstimating,” but let’s go with it. Using this number, we see that the Democratic plan to help these people ultimately was available to only 0.5% to 1.5% of the people who needed it before it ran out of money. That sounds like a Democratic plan, doesn’t it?

Moreover, if we project these costs forward, then covering the cost of these 9 / 25 million uninsurables lurking among us like tax-lepers or human tax-sink-holes will cost taxpayers somewhere between $167 billion to $463 billion per year. To put this into perspective, all of Medicare spends only $482 billion a year.

Now ask yourself why Obama didn’t fight to get more funding? Why was he happy to take the $5 billion and then look the other way as the program died? The answer is simple. With the $5 billion, he was able to claim that he did something to help these people... even if it only helped 0.5% of them. But covering them all would be a PR nightmare. Indeed, these people cost too much for the Federal government to pay for them. So Obama’s plan is to “hide” them within private insurance carriers.

Think of it this way. If Obama taxed you $400 billion to cover these people, you would freak out. You might even revolt. But if he instead forces private insurance to cover these people, then insurance rates raise by $400 billion and he can point his finger at evil insurance “price gougers” without anyone ever realizing that he’s basically using the insurers to impose a tax he didn’t want the federal government to carry on its books.

Now consider this. In 2010, about $2 trillion was spent on healthcare in the US. Extrapolating these people, if there are 25 million of them, then this 8% of the population accounts for 25% of the total healthcare spending in the US. It strikes me that the answer to this issue is not to jam these people into the system and let everyone else pay for them... as Obama is doing. No, the answer is to find a better (read: cheaper) way to get these people cared for.

If ever there was a moment where government should involve itself in the healthcare industry directly, it should be to make sure that these people are taken care of without breaking the rest of the system. Yet, here is the government essentially punting on these people and just forcing private industry to pick up the tab. This really highlights just how bad Obama and the Democrats are at problem-solving. Wouldn’t it be better to set up an alternative system, perhaps through medical schools, to treat these people? Or to set up special clinics for these people that reduce the costs of long-term care? Perhaps using a little purchasing power to get the ultra-high cost drugs they need at cost or cheaper? The least effective means to cover these people seems to be just dumping them into private insurers and saying, “you cover them or else.”

What this tells me is that the Democrats suck at problem solving. Even when it comes to using the power of government, they have no idea what they are doing. They are a bull in a china shop. Let’s face it, Democrats suck.

Thoughts?
[+] Read More...

Thursday, January 10, 2013

How To Debate: How To Argue Fiscal Sanity

Ok, we need to revisit yesterday. The question was asked how you could argue to people that the government needs to live within its means. And the answer was a whole lot of silence. So let me suggest an answer.

When you’re trying to convince people of something, you need to speak in terms that they understand. Telling the American public that staying out of debt is a virtue is a lost cause. Pretty much every American has debt and they understand the benefits of having debt. In other words, simply arguing “debt is bad” is a loser. You could argue that “too much debt” is a bad thing, but too much is a pretty abstract concept when it comes to governments, particularly as it’s not clear to most people how they will be affected by the government having fiscal problems.

So how do we get people to realize that the government needs to stop living beyond its means? First, recognize that all Americans have debt. They have student loan debts, credit card debts, car loans and home loans. And the interest rate on these debts is tied to the overall interest rate paid in the economy. That is affected by the federal government. So why not argue this:
When the government spends more than it takes in, it needs to borrow the difference. The more the government borrows, the higher interest rates go. That means YOUR student loan rates, your credit card rates, your car loan rates and your home loan rates will go up. In other words, because the Federal Government needs to borrow money to study bees having sex or build power stations in Egypt, you will pay more on all of your debt.

Now, some people may think this doesn’t matter because their rates are fixed. But guess what, you get hit in a different way. As interest rates go up, the cost of borrowing goes up, and the value of your home goes down. So when Uncle Sam borrows money because he wants to jack up his budget by 10% each year, the value of your home falls and the cost of all your debt goes up.

And that’s just the beginning. The cost of borrowing makes it more expensive for companies to operate. That means they hire less. That means fewer jobs. Fewer jobs means fewer options for you and lower pay. It also means the cost of goods goes up. Everything from gas to food to toys gets more expensive... all because the government can’t limit itself to the 25% of the economy it already takes.
Isn’t that better than “the government spends too much”?

Now let me add one more piece, since you should never assume one argument will sway everyone. This time, aim at the people who like government spending and really don’t care about the consequences:
When the government spends more than it takes it, it needs to borrow. The more it borrows, the more it pays in interest to service that debt. That’s wasted money. The money could have gone to pay for roads or teachers or police or helping the poor or the old. Instead, it goes to bankers. Every dollar the government borrows to pay for some pet project like bee-sex studies will be three dollars paid to bankers before that debt is retired. That is obscene. The government needs to stop sending money to bankers that should go to helping average people.

Moreover, if it doesn’t stop soon, it’s going to run out of money and all we’ll be doing is paying debt... no more roads, no more teachers, no more benefits, just interest payments.
Again, isn’t this better than “the government spends too much”? This argument not only should shock people that so much money is being wasted because of the debt, something they don't normally think about, but it gives our side an advantage in the crony debates because it makes it easy to attack Democrats by asking, “why do you want to give more money to bankers?”

The point here is simple. Both of these arguments are the types of arguments that make people realize they have a stake in keeping the government in check. These are actual reasons people can get hurt by the debt, not theoretical reasons based on philosophical or ideological differences. These are vastly more persuasive arguments with regular people than abstract talk about fiscal sanity or living within means.

Thoughts?
[+] Read More...

Tuesday, January 1, 2013

Boehner et al Need To Resign

The Republican leadership needs to resign. They have demonstrated sheer incompetence in the face of the fiscal cliff and other matters and the indictment against them is irrefutable.

Item No. 1: The fiscal cliff was a political ploy stupidly invented by the Republicans. . . the same ones currently running the party. When they passed the Bush tax cuts, they agreed to make them temporary because they assumed it would make them look good (and the Democrats bad) if they got to vote for these twice and the Democrats voted against them twice. They never thought that the Democrats might find a way to spin this to their own advantage. This was political incompetence. Anyone who assumes the other side will never be able to spin something to their advantage is an idiot and should not be given responsibility for strategy.

Item No. 2: The Democrats found a politically powerful tool to flip the Bush tax cuts to their advantage – they carved them up into two parts, rich and middle class, and they agreed to support the middle class parts while claiming the Republicans only wanted the rich parts. Rather than recognize the danger and find a counter-strategy, the Republicans embraced the idea of protecting the rich. This was political incompetence.

Item No. 3: This was the most softball election ever for the Republicans and they lost because, among other things, they made themselves into the party of the rich – you can whine all you want about the MSM, but the fact is that conservatives and Republicans have been screaming about protecting “the rich.” Hence, change is needed, and that change is to either expose Obama’s policies or change their image. . . or both.

Exposing Obama entails putting his policies into place and letting them hurt people. We’ve discussed this before and this was the best choice. The Republicans, however, chose not to do this. The alternative strategy was to reboot the party and, if they could find a principle that would actually win over the public, to stand on that principle in the fiscal cliff debate. The Republicans, however, chose not to do that either. What they chose, instead, was to double down on the same policies that cost them six of the last seven elections including the most recent debacle and the fall on their swords to protect the rich from a 3% tax hike. That was beyond political incompetence.

Item No. 4: Having chosen the completely wrong strategy, they then compounded their mistakes with an incompetent negotiation strategy. There was only one goal of the fiscal cliff talks – make sure the other guy got the blame. Obama did this by blaming Republican policies for getting us to the fiscal cliff. The Republicans failed to counter this. He then accused them of being obstructionist. The Republicans failed to counter this. He then added that they were being obstructionist to protect the rich from a tiny tax increase. The Republicans failed to counter this.... actually, that’s not entirely accurate, not only did they not counter this claim, they embraced it: “That’s right, we’re not going to let Obama raises taxes on the rich, even if that means taxes will go up on the rest of you suckers.” That was political incompetence.

Then it got worse.

Item No. 5: The Republicans next demanded that Obama impose serious cuts in entitlements before they agreed to let him tax the rich. In other words, they wanted old people and poor people to be hurt in exchange for letting Obama tax the rich an additional 3%. Do you see the problem with this? They handed Obama an UNBELIEVABLE victory here. He looks like a great guy because he only wants to tax the rich and he only wants to tax them a tiny bit... few people consider a 3% hike to be excessive. He is also the defender of the middle class and the poor, because he’s trying to stop those mean Republicans from raising taxes on them. He is also the defender of the old and the helpless, despite the fact he wants to rape Medicare for $750 million, because he alone is stopping the Republicans from cutting those programs.

F*ck. This was far beyond incompetence.

And it got worse.

Item No. 6: See, Obama did the natural thing when your opponent is an idiot. . . he let the Republicans blow themselves apart. He said, “you give me a proposal.” And the Republicans failed to spot the obvious trap and throw this right back at him. Instead, they started floating ideas. Obama cynically slammed them for each. This shifted the nature of the negotiations. Instead of this being Obama’s mess to fix, it became the Republicans’ mess to fix because they made themselves responsible for coming up with a solution. And in so doing, they now own everything. They own the fiscal cliff. They own the failure of the cliff so far. They will own the spending cuts and the tax hikes that will come out of it. Obama and the Democrats will point to the Republicans as the people who proposed those. They will also own the bad economy that follows because it will be their proposal which will be linked to the bad economic times to follow. (Good economic times will be despite the fiscal cliff, so don’t expect credit if things go right... you don’t get credit for people dodging your bullet.)

The word “debacle” is insufficient, but we’ll use it.

Item No. 7: At this point in the debacle, Boehner finally hit upon a decent idea (though at the wrong time) of proposing the same millionaire tax Pelosi had proposed in the past. On the one hand, this was a smart move because it shows the Republicans aren’t solely concerned with trying to save the ultra rich. BUT the timing is atrocious. Had this proposal been made day one, then it would have been brilliant. Now it’s just one more way for the Republicans to own the crisis.

What’s more, rather than grasp what Boehner was doing, conservatives went insane: “You traitor! You must protect millionaires from a three percent tax hikes! That is our only principle!” Then the Republicans voted down Plan B because they just can’t stand to see a tiny tax hike on millionaires. That is political suicide.

Now, it’s not Boehner’s fault that conservatives are lost. BUT what was his fault was how he handled this. He should have taken this moment to reboot the party. He should have taken this moment to tell the public that the Republicans are no longer beholden to this increasingly fringy conservative sect. He should have brought in people like Christie and Jed Bush and Bobby Jindal to stand beside him and then used Rush Limbaugh as a strawman contrast to redefine the party in a way that is acceptable to the public: “we are not the party of Rush Limbaugh, we care about all Americans.” Dirty, yes? Effective? Hell yes. It’s called “triangulation” and Clinton completely changed the image of the Democratic party doing it - he made them appear moderate in image even as they’ve drifted further and further left.

This was Boehner’s chance to correct all of his prior mistakes and to launch the party into the rhetorical middle-class center for a clean slate fresh start. But he didn’t. He just announced he didn’t have the votes to tax millionaires and he sent everybody home.

Boehner and the rest of the leadership have demonstrated more than a decade of total incompetence – 100% across the board. It is time for them to leave and to be replaced by people who actually understand politics.
[+] Read More...

Tuesday, December 18, 2012

Exodus of the Ignorant

Arg... not again. They’re on the move again. Just as happened in the 1990s, Californians have begun another exodus away from the land they soiled. Why has no one built a wall yet to keep them in? Have we learned nothing?

By way of background for you Easterners, in the 1990s, California ran into a brick wall. Decades of idiocy caught up with the state and their attempt to double down on stupid, surprisingly, only made things worse. Soon they were fleeing the mess they made to Oregon, Nevada, Colorado, Arizona and probably others. Each time they arrived in these pristine lands and immediately set about trying to recreate the mess they had left. Thus, places like Colorado went from “rugged-individualist” and “live and let live” (yet sane) libertarianism to “dude, you don’t have a law to protect ____” dipsh*tism. That’s how Colorado ended up with high taxes, state workers having the right to unionize (something they don’t even have in union states like West Virginia), and a transgender bathroom law which lets perverts hang out in women’s bathrooms so long as they claim they feel more natural there. . . or they’re selling pot.

Well, another two decades of idiocy have made California worse, and so here they come again. . . the next wave. This time Texas, Arizona, Nevada, Washington and Oregon are the targets. Why are they leaving California you ask? Because it’s a basketcase.

California spends most its budget on salaries, retirement and health care for state employees. In every category, it pays its employees way more than any other state. In some cases, it pays more than twice as much for the same positions. The reason for this is that California’s unions, particularly the police and prison guard unions, negotiated automatic pay increases in their contracts in the 1990s, which have kept their incomes growing no matter what. So now, the average worker in California makes $60,317, with the highest paid worker actually earning $822,000. The next highest state is New York, where the average worker earns $55,650. That’s a huge difference. But it’s actually worse than that: California’s average is more than $10,000 higher than the averages in 47 of the other 49 states, and nobody comes close to the top end salaries in California.

Then there’s overtime. Last year, California paid an average of $8,741 per employee in overtime, coming to just about a billion dollars. By comparison, liberal New York paid $5,199 for a total of $415 million. Conservative Georgia paid only $1,378 for a grand total of $12 million. Why does California need all the overtime? Union rules.

California also has a huge unpaid vacation problem. Most states cap the amount of unpaid vacation you can accrue at 30 days or some low dollar amount. New Jersey allows employees to accrue up to $15,000. California has no cap. One employee retired last year and got a check for $608,821 in unpaid leave. This has resulted in a $3.9 billion liability waiting to be paid. Again, union rules.

Then come pensions, a real killer. California’s Highway Patrol convinced the legislature to pass a law which grants the employee 90% of their top salary as a pension after thirty years of service. This has since become the standard pension plan throughout the state and in many cities. This has resulted in an increase in California’s pension obligations from $300 million in the 1990s to $3.7 billion today. It also led directly to the bankruptcy of several cities.

The result of this is a budget that is beyond broken. Services are being cut. School funding has fallen and California now ranks 35th nationally on that – they used to be number one at one point. Taxes are being raised all over the place. The highest income tax bracket in California is now 13.3%. The state sales tax is 7.25% before local taxes are added which can bring it up to 9.25%. The state gas tax is the second highest in the country at 48.6 cents per gallon. And none of this even touches upon crashing home values, soaring property taxes and fees, environmental regulations that have choked off farming and made electricity sporadic, etc.

This is the fault of voters. The voters voted for tax cuts and spending hikes throughout the 1990s and 2000s, which set the current problems into motion. They approved every goodie anyone asked for. Now they are voting for spending hikes and tax hikes on the rich to solve the problem, which is making the problem even worse. The voters also keep sending Democrats to the Sacramento to manage this problem and those Democrats bend over backwards to help the unions get more goodies. And their plan to get bailed out by Washington are a pipe dream.

Essentially, California voters opted for an economic suicide pact and now they are paying for that. . . only, they aren’t paying for it. . . the rest of us are because they are fleeing the mess they made. They are headed to other states where things haven’t been messed up yet, and the first thing these asshats will do is start to wonder why their new states don’t have all the great laws California had which set the crisis into motion.

It has been said that those who don’t know history are destined to repeat it. They should have said, “Those who are intentionally ignorant of history are destined to repeat it repeatedly. . . dude.”
[+] Read More...

Wednesday, August 8, 2012

Election Stuff

There’s been a good deal of election related news in the past few days. Let’s cover it all. . . every last single item. Or not.

The Polls: Dick Morris, who is often correct, made an interesting statement about the polls the other day. He noticed that the MSM is presenting the picture of Obama having momentum and they are doing it through polling that purports to show Obama gaining support. Newsweek apparently even speculated about an Obama landslide. Morris says not to believe any of this.

Morris has seen state-by-state polling of the thirteen key states. He says this polling shows Romney gaining momentum in nine of those states and Obama gaining momentum in four. From this, Morris claims that Romney is ahead in Indiana, New Hampshire, Wisconsin, Nevada, North Carolina and Colorado. He is basically tied in Virginia, Florida and Ohio, though Obama importantly remains stuck below 50% in each. Moreover, while Obama is still ahead in Iowa, New Mexico, Michigan, Minnesota, Pennsylvania and New Jersey, he is stuck below 50%, which presents a significant pick up opportunity for Romney -- Obama needs to win each of those states to win the election.

All told, Morris thinks that Romney may end up with around 350 electoral votes, which would be a landslide. I’m leaning in that direction as well.

The Trumpster: According to reports, Romney plans to unleash Trump to win over swing-state whites in Ohio, Indiana, Iowa, Wisconsin and Michigan. Trump huh? Well, before you scoff, consider this. According to Zogby, Trump appeals to whites who earn less that $35,000. These people make up the bulk of the undecideds. They apparently see Trump favorably based on “his celebrity, personal magnetism, and the positive aspiration brand he offers, [which] seems to gel with this group of voters.” He’s also a fearless campaigner who won’t shy away from blasting Obama on any issue. This could get interesting.

The Money: I’m not a believer that money decides elections, but a lot of people are. To me money is more an indication of which way people think the election will go. Thus, it’s fascinating that Romney continues to out raise Obama by huge margins. In May, Romney raised $77 million compared to $60 million for Obama. In June, Romney took in $106 million compared to Obama’s $71 million. Now we learn that in July, Romney took in $101 million compared to Obama’s $75 million.

The General: According to an Obama donor, Obama thinks Romney is looking to pick Gen. David Petraeus for his Vice President. Obama promptly denied saying that. On the one hand, this pick would probably electrify the public. I bet this would add 3-5% to Romney’s poll numbers everywhere. On the other hand, I’m leery of Petraeus. Generals rarely make good politicians and Petraeus is a known moderate. Given that Romney is still viewed with suspicion by the right, I think this would be a bad move. I still prefer Rubio.

The Shameless: Obama keeps hitting new lows in his political ads. Last week, one of his ads called Romney a felon for his SEC filings. This week, he’s got some guy whining how he lost his healthcare when Romney closed a plant which led to his wife dying of cancer, i.e. Romney killed his wife (LINK). For the record, she died four years after Romney left Bain. Also, anyone who has dealt with our healthcare system knows this is crap. But that never stops the Democrats. PLUS, it turns out that she actually had insurance through her own job even after Bain closed the plant (LINK).

Romney, by the way, has hired a new advisor whose job will be to start pushing back on the Bain attacks. That shouldn’t be too hard, just point out the companies Bain saved.

The Spending Cuts: Finally, do you recall the $1.2 trillion in automatic cuts that are supposed to kick in? Under a new law signed Tuesday, Obama will need to begin detailing where those cuts will happen as early as next month. This isn’t going to sit well with his voters when he tells them that if he’s re-elected, he will cut their jobs or benefits. Of course, that assumes he does what the law requires. Obama has already delayed Medicare cuts until November, even though those were supposed to kick in already, and he’s apparently been leaning on Big Business not to fire people before the election.

[+] Read More...

Thursday, July 26, 2012

Romney Blasts Obama’s Foreign Policy

President-pending Mitt Romney spoke at the Veterans of Foreign Wars National Convention in Nevada this week, and he gave a rather devastating critique of Obama’s foreign policy. Stop me if any of this sounds familiar.

Romney began by laying out his standard for what our foreign policy should be, and he did this by ripping into Obama. Consider this the “Romney Doctrine”:
Has the American economy recovered?

Has our ability to shape world events been enhanced, or diminished?

Have we gained greater confidence among our allies, and greater respect from our adversaries?

And, perhaps most importantly, has the most severe security threat facing America and our friends, a nuclear-armed Iran, become more or less likely?
Bingo! That’s perfect foreign policy! That is exactly the test any President should apply to all foreign policy decision. Not coincidentally, this test also proves to be a devastating takedown of Obama’s failures because Obama cannot answer yes to any of these points.

Romney then got specific. He noted that Obama’s policies have strangled the recovery, which weakens America’s ability to project its power. He claimed Obama exposed the military to unjustifiable cuts which threaten the military. He attacked Obama for mishandling national secrets, which endangers our policies and our people. And he pointed out that Obama has “given trust where it is not earned, insult where it is not deserved, and apology where it is not due.” All true.

When our economy is weak, we stop being the shining beacon to the rest of the world. Our enemies see us as in decline and decide the opportunity to strike is at hand. Countries like China have used Obama’s term to bury us in debt, to push for the elimination of the dollar as the world’s reserve currency, to become much more aggressive in Asia, to build up and modernize their military, to hoard resources, and to begin the unchecked economic colonization of Africa.

Our military has been stretched to the limit since 2001 and not only has Obama done little to help them, he used their budget as a bargaining chip. To get a budget deal, which the Democrats now refuse to perform, he proposed ripping a trillion dollars in cuts from the military. I don’t believe the military budget is inviolate, but that is obscene. Moreover, he’s politicized the military at all turns, from don’t ask don’t tell, to using the military as a campaign prop, to ignoring abuses by our frenemies like Karzai in Afghanistan while punishing and neglecting the Americans who risk their lives to prop up these failed policies. There is even a report out today that the Army stopped an investigation into a corrupt and horrific hospital in Afghanistan (the Dawood National Military Hospital) in 2010 because the report would have been issued too close to the election for Obama’s comfort.

This administration has been horrible about protecting secrets as well, which is ironic as they ruthlessly go after whistleblowers. They fed classified information to Hollywood so they could make films that are mere propaganda for Obama’s campaign. And now they’ve been leaking classified documents to the New York Times, e.g. documents about US cyber attacks against Iran and “kill lists” Obama has authorized. Even the Democrats admit these leaks are coming from the White House. Said Sen. Diane Feinstein, Chair of the Senate Intelligence Committee on Monday, “I think the White House has to understand that some of this is coming from their ranks.” Democrat Pat Caddell has actually accused Obama National Security Adviser Tom Donilon of being the primary leaker.

Frankly, this has all been done to make Obama look tougher. And of this, Romney told the VFW: “[the administration] betrays our national interest [and] compromises our men and women in the field.” Again, all true.

Finally, Obama has been harsh to our friends and weak to our enemies. As Romney put it, he “abandoned our friends in Poland and the Czech Republic” and he kowtowed to Russia and China. And Romney said this about Israel:
The people of Israel deserve better than what they have received from the leader of the free world. And the chorus of accusations, threats, and insults at the United Nations should never again include the voice of the President of the United States.
And don’t forget, Obama tried to support a coup in Honduras against our friends in favor of a Chavez-like dictator wannabe. He’s been rude to Britain and India. He flooded Mexico with illegal guns. He stopped a needed Canadian pipeline. He’s been useless on the Euro crisis and useless in the Middle East. Heck, he didn’t even placate the world’s sensibilities by closing Gitmo. And he lost control over environmental issues to the BRICS and he managed to make pirating super profitable.

Obama’s record is a disaster. He’s made everything worse and achieved nothing. Is the US better off than it was four years ago? Hardly. But let’s let Romney sum this all up:
This is very simple: if you do not want America to be the strongest nation on earth, I am not your President. You have that President today.
Damn straight!

[+] Read More...

Monday, July 2, 2012

Some Final Thoughts On Obamacare

I’m taking the week off until next Monday. But before I go, here are my final thoughts on the ObamaCare ruling. Basically, while this is a legal disaster for the country, I think politically this is a very good thing. Also, by way of a bonus, at the end of this article, I’ve included some links to the CommentaramaCare proposal which outlines the reform we really need.

The Supreme Court Fails: Legally speaking, the ObamaCare decision is horrible. Some conservatives have latched onto the fact Roberts made a lot of great points about how the Commerce Clause and the Necessary and Proper Clause don’t extend nearly as far as the statist would have you believe. Sure, that’s nice. BUT then he turns right around and opens an unlimited window for Congress to use its tax powers to do anything! There may eventually be limits on this power, but as it stands right now, this is one of the five or six biggest power grabs in Constitutional history.

It is also troubling that this decision is based on verbal semantics: punishing someone for non-compliance is not the same thing as forcing someone to comply. Really?! That’s nonsense! That’s a distinction without a difference -- a verbal game -- and it’s disturbing that the Supreme Court would accept this double-speak as reasoning. This will lead to a whole new world of control once Congress realizes it can just “tax” you into compliance without ever triggering the limits on its power to “punish.” That’s troubling.

The Conservative Opportunity: Politically, however, this is a very different story. Politically, I think this decision is a Godsend for two reasons.

First, this decision will destroy the Democrats, and not just Obama. Human nature tells us that people forgive and forget misbehavior if it stops before the negative consequences kick in. So long as people assumed the Supreme Court would rein in ObamaCare, the public was very likely to forgive the Democrats and consider this a non-issues. Now that assumption is gone, and this decision revives the possibility of negative consequences. That will wake up the public and end its forgiving mood. Indeed, I would suspect this will endanger another 3-5 Democratic Senators in flyover country and could ultimately give us another 2-3 seats. And while I don’t think that will give us enough seats in the Senate to overcome a filibuster, it will be the difference between a majority (52-53 seats) and a solid majority (54-57 seats), which should be all we need under the new scorched-earth Senate.

Secondly, I think this ruling saved us from a disaster. If the Supreme Court had struck down the mandate, but left the rest, I have no doubt the Republicans would have declared victory and just moved on. That would have left a plethora of horrible things ensconced in law, including trillions in taxes, dirty deals with drug companies, anti-competitive requirements on hospitals and doctors, new entitlements, the unfunded expansion of Medicare, the creation of these insurance exchanges, etc. In effect, the least damaging part of the law would have been struck down and the other 99% of the harm would have remained. Now the Republicans will need to address the bill itself, and the pressure will be to repeal and replace the whole thing. That means they will actually need to fix much of this. That is the real reason this decision may ultimately prove to be a saving moment for the Republic, because it means the Republicans can’t ignore the real problems.

Repealing Stupidity: Repealing ObamaCare should be simple. Passing it by reconciliation means that by definition it can be repealed by reconciliation. And reconciliation only needs 51 votes. Naturally, the Democrats (and some weak Republicans) are whining that somehow the bill can’t be repealed by reconciliation, but that’s nonsense.

Building A New Crisis: There is an economic crisis built into ObamaCare and it will be interesting to see what happens. The law expands Medicaid to the point that it will shatter state budgets. But states don’t need to sign up for this. Indeed, the Supreme Court ruled that the states can refuse to expand Medicaid as the bill requires, and the Federal government cannot withdraw Medicaid funding if the state so chooses -- it can only withhold the additional funds intended to cover that expansion.

But just because states don’t need to sign up, doesn’t mean they are smart enough to refuse. A few Republican governors have said they won’t sign up, but most see this more as an opportunity to negotiate a lot of freedom from the requirements of Medicaid. It will be interesting to see what they obtain. The problem, however, lies with the Democratic states. . . as always. These idiots are rushing to sign up as a show of support. This will result in a dramatic increase of their Medicaid costs, which will bust their budgets. At first, the federal government funds this expansion, but within a couple years, that subsidy vanishes. That’s when states like California and New York will find themselves in budget hell (as if they weren’t already). Without federal money, I don’t see this as sustainable, but how will they cut off so many people once they sign them up? Watch out if you live in a liberal state which accepts this expansion!

Death to the Middle Class: Conservative economist and Senior Economics Writer for the Wall Street Journal, Stephen Moore, just made an interesting statement. He claims that 75% of the cost of ObamaCare will fall on the middle class -- people making less than $125,000 per year. That’s not at all surprising because that’s who always pays for these programs. Still, this is unwelcome news for a middle class which has been hit with falling incomes, falling asset values, falling home prices, massive inflation, an ever-higher tax burden, and fewer job prospects. At some point, this rubber band will break.

Conclusion

To sum up my thoughts, this bill is a disaster. It will crush the stupid states, it will crush the middle class. It will damage our healthcare system a lot. The Supreme Court’s ruling has damaged our Constitution. BUT this will wake up the public and will help to finish off the Democrats. It will also force the Republicans to act. In the end, this decision may prove to be the moment which spurred the Republicans to actually fix the healthcare crisis, and thereby save the country. Let’s hope.


Finally, by popular demand, here are some links for you to consider:
First, here’s what’s wrong with our healthcare system: Out of Control Costs, Out-of-Control Costs II, Access, and Quality Control Problems.

Secondly, we have a report card on why ObamaCare fails to address these problems: FailureCare.

Lastly, we have CommentaramaCare, a proposal on how the system should be fixed: Com-Care Tort Reform, Com-Care Medical Reforms, Com-Care Coverage Reform, and Com-Care Summarized and Priced.
Have a happy and free Fourth everyone!

[+] Read More...

Tuesday, April 17, 2012

Obama Fails The Economy

Obama has been a failure all around. His foreign policy has been heavy on retreat and his domestic agenda sparked backlashes galore. But even worse has been his economic policies. His plan of high taxes, massive government spending, and corporate subsidies lengthened the recession and created a jobless recovery. Those “green jobs” he promised were all an illusion. And now it turns out, he’s made the biggest danger to the economy even worse.

Before we talk about how Obama “fixed” the “too big to fail” problem, you might be interested in a little data on those green jobs we’re all supposed to have now.

When Obama took office, he promised five million green jobs in the next ten years. He even spent $90 billion to make that happen. That works out to $18,000 per expected job. Of course, it’s actually higher because that $90 billion is just a baseline and will cause further federal spending, but still, that's not too bad.

So how has he done? According to the White House, rather than creating 5,000,000 jobs, this money now will create only “827,000 job years” over Obama’s four years in office. But a “job year” is not a job. It is instead the equivalent of one full-time position for one year. If we spread these job years out over the ten years Obama used for the five million claim, you come up with a total of 82,700 jobs. And that means the cost per job is $1.1 million. It also means, Obama still owes 4.9 million jobs.

And don’t forget that even beyond this, you have a variety of failures under the crony clean energy loan program out of the Department of Energy, such as Solyndra, Enerl, Beacon Power, Solar Trust for America, and others. Not to mention, the $2.4 billion flushed away on building fewer than 8,000 Chevy Volts no one wants.

Call me crazy, but Obama’s attempt to create a Mussolini-like industrial policy appears to have been a colossal failure.

Now we get word that Obama has made the “too big to fail” problem worse. Imagine that. When Obama came to power, he promised an end to “too big to fail” so that taxpayers would never again need to support failed banks. Then he signed the financial reform bill, Dodd-Frank, which supposedly did that. . . though Republicans claimed otherwise. Bloomberg News now reports that the five biggest banks, i.e. those that are too big to fail, increased their share of all banking assets from 43% in 2007 to 56% now. That’s right, those five banks absorbed an additional 13% of all the banking assets in the country under Obama. In total, these five banks (JPMorgan, Bank of America, Citicorp, Wells Fargo and Goldman Sachs) now control $8.5 trillion in assets. Moreover, the size of the banking sector compared to the rest of the economy has doubled in the past decade, making banks even more “too big to fail.” That means the problem is much, much worse than it was before the TARP bailouts.

Obama has flushed money down the toilet while squandering opportunity after opportunity to actually fix the economy and protect the country from another meltdown. His failure to act is shameful and dangerous. Let us hope the Republicans fix these problems when they finally gain control over the government.

As usual, don't forget it's Star Trek Tuesday at the film site!

[+] Read More...

Thursday, February 9, 2012

Government Dependence Is Killing America

America is in trouble, that’s clear. Our economy is creaking along and has produced no jobs in a decade. Unemployment is soaring. The middle class is shrinking. Inflation is crushing wages and people on fixed incomes. Our national debt is stifling and our deficit tells us the powers that be are running full speed ahead with the same old dysfunction. Now we have some interesting data from the Heritage Foundation which highlights the greatest threat this country faces. In a word: dependence.

According to the Heritage Foundation, dependence on the federal government rose 23% in the first two years under Obama. That’s the biggest rise since Jimmy Carter. What's worse, almost every year sees a rise, and the cumulative effects are staggering. In the last two years, the number of people dependent on the federal government has risen 7.5% to 67 million people. That means 22% of the population, one in five people, is a ward of the state. And that’s just the tip of the iceberg because more than 49% of all Americans, 152 million people, live in a household that gets a check from the government.

Think about that.

Half of all Americans look to the federal government as a source of income, and one in five look to it as their primary source of income. Do you think those people will support cutting government spending? Unlikely. At this point, these people eat up 70% of the federal budget -- they claimed 25% in 1962 and 48% in 1990.

Further, 49.5% of all Americans pay NO income taxes (it was 12% in 1960). Do you think those people have any incentive to stop the growth of government?

America has become a country where the many mooch off the labors of the few. This is a disaster because it gives millions of people a strong incentive to vote to keep taking from the rest. And that is highly destructive to the fabric of the country. Why? Because a culture of dependence is forming where a majority of Americans see the government as provider. They have essentially become useless. . . a drain on society. But they have political power because of their sheer numbers and they have no shame in using the government to steal from everyone else. Essentially, the unproductive are using the force of government to make the productive into their slaves.

This must end and it must end fast because dependence makes people unable and unwilling to change. So long as this continues, these people will entrench themselves further and they will ultimately destroy the country in an orgy of debt.

After I started this article, I ran across an article about Jim DeMint. DeMint is the real intellectual Godfather of the Tea Party and must be credited with shaking Senate Republicans from their slumber. DeMint has put out a new book in which he says what I am saying above:
“Dependent voters will naturally elect even big-government progressives who will continue to smother economic growth and spend America deeper into debt. The 2012 election may be the last opportunity for Republicans to win enough votes to win the presidency and a majority in Congress, and enact policies that might turn our nation around from the imminent threat of fiscal calamity.”
This is a significant point. So long as the GOP lets the Democrats (and fellow Republicans) keep adding people to the government dole, we are making it harder and harder to win future elections. It’s a vicious circle, and it needs to be broken.

Interestingly, when DeMint was asked about the presidential candidates, he deferred, but he made two points very clearly: (1) winning the election trumps everything else because of the need to stop this culture of dependence, and (2) the winner of the primary must adopt/focus on Ron Paul’s ideas of individual liberty, cutting the power of the Federal Reserve, and limited government. Said DeMint:
“If our nominee doesn’t pick up a lot of Ron Paul’s ideas, we’re missing the boat and we’re missing a lot of people who could help us build our party. These are not wild ideas.”
I have to agree. I think that a sane Ron Paul without a surrenderist foreign policy would be an unbeatable Republican candidate in almost any election, and especially in this election. The question is, who is this person? Jim DeMint is about the only name that comes to mind at the moment.

[+] Read More...

Wednesday, December 21, 2011

Uncle Sam: The Gift That Keeps On Giving

Every year Tom Coburn puts out a list of the 100 most egregious examples of wasteful government spending. This year, he listed $6.5 billion worth. Let’s look at some of those. Then I’ll show you why our economy has stalled.

While $6.5 billion may sound like a lot, it really isn’t to a government that spends $3 trillion a year. Nevertheless, Coburn’s list is important because it shows our government’s attitude toward our money. And make no mistake, this is our money. When you go to work tomorrow, every hour you work, Uncle Sam is reaching into your pocket to fund these kinds of programs. What kinds of programs? Observe:
● $484,000 for a hippie-themed pizza restaurant in Arlington, Texas. This is part of a national chain called the Mellow Mushroom. Why are we giving money to a private business? And where is Commentarama’s grant dammit?!

● $764,825 to study the mobile phone and social media habits of college freshmen. Huh? Why should anyone pay for this? For one thing, we already know about their habits. Who needs this much money to study something you can look up for free on the net?!! And why does this require federal money at all?

● $136,555 to let a group of English teachers retrace Chaucer’s Canterbury Tales in England. W.T.F?!! Why are we paying for some a-holes’ vacations?!

● $175,587 to study how cocaine use affects the mating habits of quail. Yeah, you read that right. Cocaine + bird sex.... brought to you by you the taxpayer!

● A down payment of $130,987 on a million dollar study to determine whether “a dragon-shaped robot can enhance toddlers’ learning skills.” At least they’re not using cocaine this time. And wasn’t that a movie -- The Toddler With The Dragon Shaped Robot?
This stuff is mind-numbing. I don’t know if I should laugh or cry or sign myself up? I want a dragon or a federal-government supported pizza restaurant. Why can’t I have one? Heck, I'd even take a freezer full of blow-fed quail.

And this is just the tip of the largess iceberg. There’s money for a video game preservation center, salaries paid to dead employees, another bridge to nowhere, money to study online dating, money to pack butter, a Hawaiian chocolate festival, to build a magic museum, iPads for kindergarteners, and hundreds of billions of dollars to government employees who do nothing but grind the country to a halt.

I want my tax money back.

And while we’re talking about grinding the country to a halt, check this out. You know how regulations stall an economy just like higher taxes? Sure you do, unless you’re Paul Krugman.

Well guess who’s been burying the economy in regulation? According to George Mason University, the number of “economically significant” regulations being issued has been souring. An “economically significant” regulation, according to the government, is a regulation that imposes at least $100 million in annual costs on the economy. Clinton issued an average of 56 per year. “Conservative” George W. Bush issued on average 62 per year. And now his downgrade-ness is issuing on average 84 per year. Here’s a handy chart:


What this means it that during Clinton’s eight years, he added $44.8 billion in regulations to the economy. Bush added $49.6 billion. And Obama’s already added $25.2 billion in his first three years Add that up and we’re over $100 billion in new regulations in the past couple decades. If you’re a Keynesian, that’s half a trillion in damage to the economy every year. Using Krugman’s stimulus math, that means a loss of around six million jobs!

And keep in mind, these regulations actually cost well more than $100 million, we just don't know how much because that data isn’t available. These could well have been three, four or five times as expensive.

Also this is only the biggest regulations, this doesn’t count the thousands of regulations scored to stay just below the $100 million level. It’s likely those add up to way more than the numbers above. But let’s assume for the sake of argument those smaller regulations total another $100 billion. That’s another six million lost jobs for a total of twelve million lost jobs.

Now this may be purely coincidental, but you might remember that our economy is currently “missing” 15 million jobs over the past decade. Gee, I wonder where they went?

[+] Read More...