The Forgotten Man

The Forgotten Man:

Miller Time

I really don't think Bob Schieffer understands what Joe is saying. But until Cubachi provides some more Christie clips, consider this your Commonsense Conservative Porn fix:

I Want Your Money

This looks very promising:

Cookie Dough

The deluge of red ink generated by the current Congress and Administration has brought into sharp focus the phenomenon of inflation. Unfortunately, as seems to be the case on virtually every area where government action impinges upon economies, there's so much disinformation that people don't understand what's going on. So, I'm going to explain it in really simple terms. This could take a while, so settle down in your easy chair and we'll start off with a story about Mrs. Smith's cookies....

Every Saturday morning, while Mr. Smith is down at the office catching up on work, Mrs. Smith and her three kids have a regular routine. Each of them has a list of chores to do; Mom's list includes baking a batch of chocolate chip cookies to reward them for getting the jobs done. She always bakes an even dozen, nice large cookies, which allows for each of them to have three cookies.

One day, the eldest, Johnny, tells his mom that it isn't fair that he does more work than his younger brother and sister, but gets the same reward, and insists that he should get four cookies instead of just three. Mrs. Smith thinks about it, and makes thirteen cookies so that Johnny can get four, while everyone else only gets three. Well, you don't have to be Nostradamus to predict out what happens next. Mary thinks she's doing more than little Billy, so she ought to get four cookies too, so the week after Mrs. Smith makes fourteen cookies. Now Billy is upset because he doesn't get as many as his older brother and sister, and he wants four cookies too!

Soon they're up to sixteen cookies, four each. But Mrs. Smith isn't mixing up a larger batch of cookie dough; she's just making each cookie 33% smaller than she did before. Everyone has more cookies, but since there's not any more dough, they aren't getting more to eat.

If you can understand the difference between "more cookies" and "more dough", then you're well on your way to understanding inflation.

Once upon a time, money was based on some objective standard of value. Many tribal cultures that herded animals used livestock in their trading activities. The very word "pecuniary" came to English from the Latin word for cattle, "pecus". But cattle are not interchangeable; some are of superior value to others, (as the President's penchant for Wagyu beef demonstrates) making accounting with such a "currency" rather imprecise.

Humans have always considered certain minerals to be precious; the varying quality issues that plague the use of livestock to measure value go away once the technology exists to refine metals such as silver and gold to standardized levels of purity. Those metals are entirely fungible. Most cultures that possessed that technology settled upon either or both of those two metals to define their currency. The US Dollar was originally based upon the Spanish Dollar, a 90% silver coin (about 25.5g silver content) produced in Mexico and Peru as well as Spain itself. Our Constitution forbids any state from making anything other than gold or silver coin legal tender, which suggests the extent to which those the Framers considered those two metals good objective measures of wealth.

What does this have to do with cookie dough? Back when gold and silver were used in coins, governments would sometimes "debase" the coins by reducing their precious metal content. When that happened, even though the new coins had the same name and nominal value as the old ones, they weren't worth as much. Johnny may not realize that his four new cookies have no more dough in them than the three old cookies, but his stomach is no more full. Some people may not notice that the new coins have less silver or gold than the old ones, but some do. When governments put more money into an economy in proportion to the goods and services that money can buy, it drives prices up in that same proportion. If there are 33% more dollars in circulation, with the same level of production, what once cost $3 will cost $4.

This is where the Clever Kids will complain that you can't argue by analogy, and the Cookie Dough Story is far too simplistic. Of course, it's simplistic, because, as I've said before, all economics discussion is "all other things being equal". Fiscal policy doesn't exist in a vacuum; increases in the supply of dollars don't just relate to the goods and services in the US economy, because those dollars can be spent anywhere in the world. Further, inflation depends not only on how many dollars are in circulation at any given point in time, but also on expectations of the future. But the long-term relationship cannot be denied; stable prices depend on stability of the ratio of the money supply to the goods and services available for that money to purchase.

Since we no longer make any pretense of tying our currency to an objective standard of value, and instead leave it to the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System to manage the money supply (within the constraints of the spending authorized by Congress and the willingness of the market to purchase instruments of US Government debt), there can no longer be a sudden increase in the money supply such as followed the discovery of gold and silver deposits in the New World. Changes in the money supply are now entirely under the control of the government. It is therefore particularly galling that an asset held over a period of time may be sold at a paper "profit" representing nothing more than the inflation of the money supply.

Consider that with the low inflation rate of 3% per year, an asset need only be held for nine years and nine months for it to experience a purely paper increase in value by the same 33 1/3% as the Smith family cookies. And then, the same government that created that inflation will tax that 33 1/3% "profit". At the 20% capital gains tax rate set to return soon, the paper value of the asset must exceed the inflation rate by a quarter (3.75% if inflation is 3%, 5% if inflation is 4%, etc.) just to leave enough after paying the IRS (not including any state income tax) to have money worth the original purchase price of the asset. An honest tax code would index all capital gains to inflation, so that these paper gains are not taxed.

But under our current tax code, inflation is a double tax. As the above shows, it taxes as "income" these illusory gains. It is also a hidden tax on cash assets (including bank accounts, or contractual obligations of others to pay future amounts defined as some number of dollars. The uncertainty of how severe inflation may be in the future acts as a powerful disincentive to make long-term investments. A common criticism of US corporate culture is the obsession with "this quarter's profits", to the detriment of long-term considerations. How sophisticated are our betters in Europe, who make five-year plans, the Japanese who think in decades, or the Chinese who think in centuries! Well, is it any wonder, under the circumstances?

When people weigh investment decisions, they have to factor in the inherently uncertain nature of the returns to be had. It's one thing to sell your labor today for a specific amount of money; you know exactly what value you'll be getting in exchange for the time and effort you invest to earn it. But a decision to spend today in the hope that it will pay off many years hence is based on considering a wide range of possibilities: A continuum of returns, starting at none and increasing, with various probabilities for each, can be estimated and quantified. The popularity of lotteries and casinos indicates that some people are willing to make a bet that is unlikely to pay off, but that is self-correcting. The people who make rational decisions about risk and reward (and return with the capital to continue doing so) will always limit the former as compared to the latter.

Government policies introduce further uncertainty into that calculus (and I mean "calculus" quite literally; if you don't use that branch of mathematics, or rules of thumb derived from it, in making investment decisions, you probably aren't doing a good job of it). There is great risk that the money supply will be greatly inflated, robbing our currency of its value, and paper profits will then be taxed away, in reality robbing the asset of part of the little value it retains. Combine that with the knowledge that the Bush tax cuts will go away automatically, little if anything is likely to be done about it, and whatever is done will likewise be temporary (the next Congress will want to fiddle with taxes again; it's just what they do), and you have a recipe not for tasty cookies, but for economic disaster.
[Click on the title above, or date stamp below, to see the full article.]

The Day Obama Care Died

Paul Shanklin does it again! I just hope that he's right!

Clunking Insanity

My parents grew up in the Great Depression, and told us kids stories about how they had to scrimp and save to get by. General Mills would print dress patterns on flour sacks, which Grandma sewed into clothing for the girls after the flour was used in making food. Grandpa would save tires that were beyond repair, and cut out new soles for shoes, because they couldn't afford to buy new shoes just because a sole was worn out. I saw firsthand how my mother had learned those lessons, raising eight children on Dad's paycheck. We marinated in the idea that you just don't throw away something that still has any use in it.

Just yesterday, The Bride of Monster and I dropped by a new thrift store in our area, picked up some bargains, and helped out some good causes. We've always shopped that way. I bought my first computer modem from a second-hand shop. I've bought a lot of books, as well as some computer software, from Half Price Books. Between the two of us, we've only bought one brand-new car (and that was a subcompact). The rest have been used. We're probably fairly normal in that respect.

Watching what might be the only automobiles that some folks can afford to buy, instead be taken off the market and destroyed, just offends my sensibilities. How can destroying things that still work be a good thing?

Deja Vu All Over Again

This would be funny, if it weren't so sad.

Check out this cartoon version of The Road to Serfdom. Think about how many of these steps we've already taken, some quite recently. Then go back and see who originally sponsored the cartoon. The irony goes to eleven.

Arlen Specter admits to what we've long known...

Specter To Switch Parties

Pennsylvania Sen. Arlen Specter will switch his party affiliation from Republican to Democrat and announced today that he will run in 2010 as a Democrat, according to a statement he released this morning.

Switch? Oh, right – he still *technically* has an “R” following his name

Specter's decision would give Democrats a 60 seat filibuster proof majority in the Senate assuming Democrat Al Franken is eventually sworn in as the next Senator from Minnesota. (Former Sen. Norm Coleman is appealing Franken's victory in the state Supreme Court.)

Obviously he sees that, having betrayed the trust of his base and (perhaps permanently) damaged the Conservative movement in Government to the fullest extend he would be allowed from his current position – this is the only he would be able to continue pounding nails into America’s coffin – Well played, Sir.

"I have decided to run for re-election in 2010 in the Democratic primary," said Specter in a statement. "I am ready, willing and anxious to take on all comers and have my candidacy for re-election determined in a general election."

Nope...Leaving the low-hanging-fruit for Anderson Cooper…
(aw dang, there’s a phrase and a name we’ll never be able to use together again..eww)

He added: "Since my election in 1980, as part of the Reagan Big Tent, the Republican Party has moved far to the right. Last year, more than 200,000 Republicans in Pennsylvania changed their registration to become Democrats. I now find my political philosophy more in line with Democrats than Republicans."

“…the Republican Party has moved far to the right”?

Apparently, Obama’s not the only one who has been “unaware” of the over half-million citizens protesting at Tea Parties around the country.

NewsFlash, Sparky:
The reason you’d have the proverbial “snowball’s chance” if you ran as a Republican in 2010 is because (following your stellar example) your party has become almost indistinguishable from the Opposition.

If you think that constitutes a shift to ‘the right’, then clearly it’s time for your handlers to up-the-voltage.

Specter as a Democrat would also fundamentally alter the 2010 calculus in Pennsylvania as he was expected to face a difficult primary challenge next year from former Rep. Pat Toomey. The only announced Democrat in the race is former National Constitution Center head Joe Torsella although several other candidates are looking at the race.

I can just envision how that conversation went…

“So, Arlen – here’s the thing: This Toomey-guy ain’t much, but he also didn’t tank his credibility by crossing-the-aisle to vote for the Great Generational Theft Act the way you did either.

“You an’ me been friends for a long time so I’m gonna tell you straight:
You’re Done. Screwed. Fini - Drop-the-curtain, stick-a-fork-in-you, It's Over."

I mean really, at this point you’d have a better chance running as a Demo… hheeeeyyyy….”

The precariousness of Specter's political position -- a Republican in a Democratic-leaning state -- was on display earlier this year when he was one of three GOP Senators to back President Barack Obama's $787 billion economic stimulus plan. That vote was strongly condemned by conservative Republicans and Toomey used that vote as the launching pad for his candidacy.

Nnnoooo… what was on display was his complete lack of spine, conservative-chops or ability to look ahead farther than 6 months into long-term repercussions.

Because of the shrinking Republican vote in the state, Specter was seen as a dead man walking politically in the primary with polling showing him trailing Toomey by ten or more points.

That statement is just nonsensical – “Fewer-Republicans-Voting” is the reason “More-Republicans-Would-Vote-For-Toomey”?

Someone needs to check his math… then work on that ability to find his own nose.

The bar for Specter to run as an independent was also extremely high due to the rules governing such a third party candidacy.

Because an independent candidacy would make all of the requisite palm-greasing much more difficult.

That left a Democratic candidacy as Specter's best option if he wanted to remain in the Senate beyond 2010.

Being the only way for a person without any firm personal positions to get elected – clearly, it’s the best way for him to go.

The "MD-Take" ?

ANYONE who changes their political affiliation while in office should be immediately recalled.

Period.

- MuscleDaddy

If 10 percent is good enough for Jesus...

Well dang! I do believe that Brother Ray is on to something here! Have a listen.

Obama Lacks the Authority...

...to do many of the things he's been doing apparently.

The One got on TV the other day, and went on a bit about how he doesn't want to run the auto companies.

"Let me be clear. The United States government has no interest in running GM. We have no intention of running GM," Obama said.

But, while he wants to 'make one thing perfectly clear' - some people may have been having a little trouble getting his words to line up with his actions.


Let's Review...


After the bailout monies got passed around Obama started doing things that (certainly to the untrained eye) made it look like "running the auto companies" was exactly what he was doing:


- He 'fired' the General Motors CEO, Rick Wagoner - as well as most of the board
(yes, yes, "suggested their resignations" - whatever, Obama pulled the trigger)

- He has PUSHED Chrysler (a PRIVATELY-HELD company, btw) into merging with Italian car company, Fiat - making it clear to Chrysler that their continued existence depends on the success of said merger.

- He is currently DEMANDING that they start making the "more fuel efficient cars" that HE wants them to build.


Now, I've been looking at all of this as simply incredible - that the President of the United States somehow has the authority to order US Companies to build what he wants, employ who he wants - and merge with foreign companies, all on his say-so?

The President of the United States has that kind of authority?

Congress has Voted and GIVEN HIM this extra-constitutional power?


...as it turns out... No. He Doesn't - And They Haven't.

Barack Obama has No Legal Authority to Direct the Restructuring of GM or Chrysler.

"House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-Md.) told CNSNews.com on Tuesday that he does not know where President Barack Obama gained legal authority to oversee a restructuring of General Motors and Chrysler."

"House Majority Leader(D)"?

And guess who else can't figure where Obama's authority is coming from?

How about fellow Class-Warrior Chris Dodd?

"Senate Banking Chairman Chris Dodd (D.-Conn.), meanwhile, toldCNSNews.com he was somewhat surprised that the administration did not consult with him at all about its auto industry plan despite his key committee chairmanship and that he had “been reading about it in the papers basically."

Dodd also said he had questions about the president’s proposal regarding Chrysler.

“One piece that has me somewhat perplexed is whether or not we are providing funds to Chrysler in order to make their position attractive to Fiat,” Dodd said. “That’s going to raise questions in people’s minds.”

Okay, but wait - that's TARP money!

If anything has been well-established thus far, it's that the law (however unconstitutional it may be) clearly states that if you take TARP money then the government owns you!

Chris Dodd finds that part to be something of a head-scratcher too...

Dodd, like Hoyer, expressed uncertainty when asked where the president got the authority to further fund the auto industry and oversee its restructuring given that TARP only authoriz[es] federal aid to financial institutions

Oh, wait.... these are Car Companies, aren't they?

The TARP law specifically says, “The Secretary is authorized to establish the Troubled Asset Relief Program (or ‘TARP’) to purchase, and to make and fund commitments to purchase, troubled assets from any financial institution, on such terms and conditions as are determined by the Secretary, and in accordance with this Act and the policies and procedures developed and published by the Secretary.”

“The term ‘financial institution’ means any institution, including, but not limited to, any bank, savings association, credit union, security broker or dealer, or insurance company, established and regulated under the laws of the United States or any State, territory, or possession of the United States, the District of Columbia, Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, Commonwealth of Northern Mariana Islands, Guam, American Samoa, or the United States Virgin Islands, and having significant operations in the United States, but excluding any central bank of, or institution owned by, a foreign government.”

But... that would mean that Obama couldn't use those "the-world-is-going-end-right-now-if-you-don't-give-us-this-money-without-strings-or-oversight" TARP funds to bailout, restructure or otherwise threaten automakers with in the first place!

Apparently, I'm not the only one who sees that:

Using TARP money to finance a government-driven restructuring of GM and Chrysler as announced by Obama would not be legal without a congressional authorization, said Rep. Trent Franks (R-Ariz.).

“No, it’s not legal without congressional approval,” Franks told CNSNews.com. “The language is clear. The money is directed toward financial institutions. But that may be the least of our challenge.

"The notion that government could specify what vehicles to make is ridiculous.”

Not. Legal.

So does that make the whole to-do into "Obama's Illegal War on American Corporations"

... it certainly has a certain ring to it, and Orin Hatch seems to agree too:

Hatch told CNSNews.com. “But I do not want the federal government dictating who runs corporations in this country. Now there is no question there is a lot of leverage with the federal funds. But it’s a very troubling thing that people think politicians can fire a leader of a company.”

Indeed - some people might even consider such a thing... "Unconstitutional".


"We The People" need to do something about this, before I end up using that word so many times in this "First 100 Days" that it loses its meaning.

- MuscleDaddy

H.R. 1664... (or, "All Your Salaries Are Belong to Us")

Just in case you weren't clear on this:

- Dictating to private or publicly-held companies that previously, legally-executed bonus contracts are null-and-void is not enough.

- Moving to pass Tax Law that is punitive, retroactive and aimed at a specific group of people - all in direct opposition to Article I of the U.S. Constitution - is not enough.

Congress and the Obama Administration are now voting themselves into the position of "Central Planning" over the salaries of each and every employee of every Financial Institution that has any amount of money from the "spend-our-way-out" government.

Enter H.R. 1664 - The Grayson-Himes Pay For Performance Act of 2009
(note: the title links to the updated/amended version of the Bill, as of 30MARCH2009)

(1) PROHIBITION- No financial institution that has received or receives a direct capital investment under the Troubled Assets Relief Program under this title, or with respect to the Federal National Mortgage Association, the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation, or a Federal home loan bank, under the amendments made by section 1117 of the Housing and Economic Recovery Act of 2008, may, while that capital investment remains outstanding, make a compensation payment, other than a longevity bonus or a payment in the form of restricted stock, to any executive or employee under any existing compensation arrangement, or enter into a new compensation payment arrangement, if such compensation payment or compensation payment arrangement--

`(A) provides for compensation that is unreasonable or excessive, as defined in standards established by the Secretary, in consultation with the Chairperson of the Congressional Oversight Panel established under section 125, in accordance with paragraph (2); or

`(B) includes any bonus or other supplemental payment that is not directly based on performance-based measures set forth in standards established by the Secretary in accordance with paragraph (2).

Okay - taken as 'read' that the amendment changes the Bill's statement of intent from "Executive Compensation" to "Certain Compensation" (because not everyone who draws a paycheck is an 'Executive' after all) - let's look at that first part.

The focus-points, in regard to Financial Institutions having received TARP funds:

No financial institution... may,

... make a compensation payment...

...to any executive or employee under any existing compensation arrangement, or enter into a new compensation payment arrangement

Now, make no mistake - "Compensation Payment" is defined @ the end of the Bill, and it means not only "Salary", but also "Retirement Contribution" and "Health Benefits" - so this Bill says that the companies involved grant any compensation, in any form that is "unreasonable or excessive".

What constitutes "Unreasonable or Excessive", the Bill goes on to tell us, would be determined solely by the Secretary of the Treasury...
(look closely now, it says "in consultation with" - not "requiring the approval of")

...in accordance with "Paragraph 2" of the amendment.

Well then, let's slide down to Paragraph 2, and get a look at these guidelines that Secretary Geithner will be applying as he determines whose salaries are "Unreasonable or Excessive":

`(2) STANDARDS- Not later than 30 days after the date of enactment of this subsection, the Secretary, with the approval of the agencies that are members of the Federal Financial Institutions Examination Council, and in consultation with the Chairperson of the Congressional Oversight Panel established under section 125, shall establish the following:

`(A) UNREASONABLE AND EXCESSIVE COMPENSATION STANDARDS- Standards that define `unreasonable or excessive' for purposes of subparagraph (1)(A).

`(B) PERFORMANCE-BASED STANDARDS- Standards for performance-based measures that a financial institution must apply when determining whether it may provide a bonus or retention payment under paragraph (1)(B). Such performance measures shall include--

`(i) the stability of the financial institution and its ability to repay or begin repaying the United States for any capital investment received under this title;
`(ii) the performance of the individual executive or employee to whom the payment relates;
`(iii) adherence by executives and employees to appropriate risk management requirements; and
`(iv) other standards which provide greater accountability to shareholders and taxpayers.

So, wait... 

This Bill - soon to be voted into Law - will give the Secretary of the Treasury the power to determine the "fairness" of the salaries of invididual employees of publicly-traded companies...

...based on criteria that he will be left to determine - at some point after the Law is passed, and requiring only the approval of agencies that largely report to Treasury in the first place?


How can anyone not see... oh, but wait - there's more!


Because how could such a class-warfare, pandering-to-the-mob piece of legislation be complete without a:

(3) REPORTING REQUIREMENT-

`(A) IN GENERAL- Any financial institution that is subject to the requirements of paragraph (1) shall, not later than 90 days after the date of enactment of this subsection and annually on March 31 each year thereafter, transmit to the Secretary, who shall make a report which states how many persons (officers, directors, and employees) received or will receive total compensation in that fiscal year in each of the following amounts:

`(i) over $500,000;
`(ii) over $1,000,000;
`(iii) over $2,000,000;
`(iv) over $3,000,000; and
`(v) over $5,000,000.

So, in the future, we can be "kept up-to-date" on the exact percentages of 'Evil' still existing in those companies.

Don't worry - I'm sure no one in Congress would dream of trotting that bit out whenever they need to throw something shiny to the shrieking mob.

When did 'We The People' allow our government to reach the position to make such naked power-grabs, with seeming impunity?

...and what are we going to do about it?

- MuscleDaddy

Rush Limbaugh and Bricks on the Road to Hell

By now, I guess about 99.44% of the Dextrosphere has weighed in on the Obama Administration's attacks on Rush Limbaugh for the latter's statements that he wants the former to fail (to enact policies harmful to the nation). I figured I didn't have a lot to add to the discussion until just now. I can see this as just another example of an ongoing problem in arguing against leftists.

They always focus on intentions: The stated goal of one of their programs trumps any actual effect it may have. As a result, every debate is framed as virtuous crusaders for social justice against evil racist, sexist, homophobic despoilers of Gaia. How, for instance, could one vote against the "Employee Free Choice Act"? If you oppose it, you're against employee free choice! Well, we know the answer to that; the legislation isn't about free choice at all! It will deprive employees of the secret ballot in union organization elections.

When President Obama says we have to pass <Noble-sounding legislation title here> because it will create/save <Made-up number here> jobs, he is stating an intention, a hope, and/or a wish. Well, out here in Flyover Country, we have a saying about wishes: "You can wish in one hand, and s--t in the other; see which one fills up first."

His camp hopes that the voting public will give them credit for that good intention/hope/wish; that their noble end will serve as a blank check justifying whatever means the legislation actually employs. To a thoughtful student of history, the phrase "the end justifies the means" should trigger mental alarms. I suspect those alarms are what's stimulating the sector of the economy that manufactures ammunition.

Since the Left uses intentions, wishes, and hopes to sell their policies, they are particularly threatened when someone like Rush comes along and says "I hope he fails (to enact his damaging agenda)". The only response they are able to make focuses entirely on the hope, the wish, the intention, the end (ironically, not as Rush, uh, intended that wish, but their reframing of it); they can't talk about the means because if they do, they won't be able to push their legislation through.

I once had occasion to encounter this at the local level. I was managing a small retail business in a municipality considering an ordinance regulating signs. At a meeting with Planning Commission staff, I pointed out that the wording of the ordinance would require a permit for the sticker that says "PULL" on the front door of the business. The staff member answered by saying "that is not the intent of the proposed ordinance". I then asked "if that's the case, will you amend the wording to conform to the intent?". The response was one word: "No." At that point, it was crystal clear what the true intent of the ordinance was: to give the Planning Commision staff arbitrary power to cite any business as violating the ordinance, so that their subjective whims be supreme. That's not the "government of laws, not of men" that our Founding Fathers designed.

Time and time again, we see how the actual effect of an action is not included in the stated intentions of its advocates. I'm sure that the vast majority of people who support the President's plans do so because they honestly hold those intentions, and only a very few have ulterior motives. But it doesn't really matter what the intent is; the only standard by which a rational person can choose a course of action is to extrapolate the potential consequences of that action, evaluate them (intended or not) and decide if the costs are justfied by the benefits.

It is absolutely imperative that we break the political ascendancy of Good Intentions. We have to demonstrate how reality is impervious to our intentions, and responds only to our actions. My late father taught me that the road to Hell was paved with good intentions. We have to tear those bricks up. Rush has on his hard hat, and is in the driver's seat of Excellence in Bulldozing, doing just that.
[Click on the title above, or date stamp below, to see the full article.]

Protest of Obama's Galactic-Deficit-Budget Deemed...

...'Too Environmentally Unfriendly'.

Cedar Rapids Group Plans "Tea" Party
(yes - that's where the quotes are supposed to go)

A Cedar Rapids group will do a symbolic tea dumping into the Cedar River on Saturday because state officials won’t let them use the real thing.

An anti-tax group wanted to pitch in real tea like the Bostonian revolutionaries opposed to England’s tea taxes.

Of course, the Boston Revolutionaries didn't feel the need to ...well... ask the Government for permission to protest the Government.

Good thing, I suppose - since I imagine they'd have received the same 'No' .

"...the Cedar Rapids Tea Party will dump dechlorinated tap water or riverwater from buckets labeled “tea,”..."

So - they'll also be providing their own 'strength-of-protest' analogy... quite considerate of them, really.

(Apparently, these Iowans aren't conversant in their Arlo Guthrie.)

- MuscleDaddy

And all you have to do to join...

You have got to check out Michele Malkin's blog. She's all over the porkulus package; complete with accompanying songs.

http://michellemalkin.com/2009/02/21/tea-party-usa-the-movement-grows/

And down at the bottom of the page who do I find but an old friend: Arlo. Now I know he rewrote Tom Paxton's "I'm Changing My Name to Chrysler" while Bush was still in office. But you know what? I don't give a rat's ass! This.......this my friends, is the theme song of the revolution! This thing needs to be played on every radio station in the land! It needs to be played on every car radio! It needs to be burned to CD and sent to every stinkin' Congress critter who voted for this abomination!

You know if they get one copy of this song they can pretty much ignore it. But if they get two copies......they may think they were sent by right wingers and they still might ignore it. But if they get three copies..........can you imagine your Congress critter getting three copies of this song? They may think it's an organization. And if they get 50 copies? If they get 50 copies they may think it's a movement. And that's what it is: the "I'm Changing My Name to Fannie Mae Movement". And all you have to do to join is make copies of this song and send it to your Congress critters.

With feelin'...

Friends and Neighbors we so need to do this. Thank God Arlo's still here when we need him.

Obama's New Budget - Updated!

Now I know this has been everywhere all morning, but I just wanted to point out a few of my favorite parts...

Obama promises to slash spending by $2 trillion

Okay, first of all - I find the title somewhat.... misleading.

Through both a literary bent and rather extensive martial arts training, I recognize that to "slash" something involves moving quickly and decisively - a cut intended to begin and end long before the offending target has a chance to hit the floor....

Whereas:

President Barack Obama unveiled a multi-trillion-dollar spending plan Thursday that would boost taxes on the wealthy, curtail Medicare, lay the groundwork for universal health care and leave a string of deficits dwarfing any in the nation's history.

I... didn't exactly hear a 'snicker-snack' there.... Maybe the next part:

In addition to sending Congress his $3.55 trillion budget plan for 2010, Obama proposed more immediate changes that would push spending to $3.94 trillion in the current year. That would result in a record deficit.

Hmmm... nope. (I wonder how much longer the MSM will allow him to continue using his "I herited this" excuse?)

Obama projects will hit $1.75 trillion, reflecting the massive spending being undertaken to battle a severe recession and the worst financial crisis in seven decades.

=================================================
Okay - quick time-out here.

The - "Seven-Decades/70-Years/1930's/The-Great-Depression" - Reference AGAIN.

Am I the ONLY one who remembers the Carter Administration?
Gasoline-Lines?
Staggering Inflation?
Doing backflips if you were able to land a merely-20%-mortgage?

Look. Around. You. /timeout - off
=================================================

As part of the effort to end the crisis, the administration proposes boosting the deficit by an additional $250 billion this year, enough to support as much as $750 billion in increased spending under the government's rescue program for banks and other financial institutions. That would more than double the $700 billion bank bailout passed by Congress last October.

Okay - so it's not The One's fault - He 'inherited' this - He's going to do a 'better job' of handling it than the 'previous administration'...

....By doing exactly the same thing - just twice as much of it.

Oh.

Obama, in a morning briefing, spoke of "hard choices that lie ahead." He called his budget "an honest accounting of where we are and where we intend to go."

Not for nothing, here - but it really sounds more like "printing more money" rather than "making hard choices".

Okay - so amid all the "laying the groundwork for universal healthcare" and continued talk of nationalizing banks - how does The One plan to pay for all of this (aside from the aforementioned printing-of-money)?

The $634 billion down payment on expanding health care coverage would come from a $318 billion increase over 10 years in taxes on the wealthy, defined as couples making more than $250,000 per year and individuals making more than $200,000.

The tax increase would occur by reducing the benefit the wealthy get on tax deductions. As one example, taxpayers in the current top tax bracket of 35 percent would see their tax deduction for every $1 given to charity drop from 35 cents to 28 cents.

The other half of the money for expanding health care — $318 billion — would come from curtailing payments to hospitals and insurance companies under Medicare and drug payments under Medicaid.

If Congress approves Obama's recommendations, the Bush tax cuts would expire only for couples making more than $250,000 per year.

Obama's budget projects $2 trillion in deficit reduction over a decade — split between tax hikes on wealthier Americans and trimming a variety of government programs ranging from subsidies paid to wealthy farmers to eliminating ineffective government programs. (demonstrating that the city-boy-messiah lacks even a basic understanding of how/why farm subsidies work - MD)

Obama would allow the marginal rate on household incomes above $250,000 to rise from 35 percent to 39.6 percent.

Obama's promise to phase out direct payments to farming operations with revenues above $500,000 a year is sure to cause concerns among rural Democrats.
(probably, because that word was 'Revenues', rather than 'Profits')

And let's not forget that Obama's adherents in Congress are also keeping their eye-on-the-prize:

Sen. Max Baucus, D-Mont., chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, called Obama's proposal to tax the wealthy to finance health care reform a starting point. But he wants to also examine taxing some of health insurance benefits provided by employers

So basically, The Ohe keeps his plan to 'Doing what we've seen him do':

1) Eat the Rich (and people with job-benefits)
2) Make more people Dependent on Government
3) Make the Government Healthcare-Central-Planning

Of course, as long as he can effectively frame his plans & spending in such a way as to keep #1 in the forefront, he'll likely be able to keep the LCD of the voting population steering-clear of "common sense" in favor of "class warfare".

But then, I've said that before.

- MuscleDaddy

**Update**

Forgot this bit:

The plan also contains a contentious proposal to raise hundreds of billions of dollars by auctioning off permits to exceed carbon emissions caps, which Obama wants to impose on users of fossil fuels to address global warming.

Just to be clear:

- He wants to impose regulatory restrictions on carbon emissions
(the kind that come with steep fines)

... so that the government can make money off of 'Selling Indulgences' that would exempt the 'buyer' from the regulations.

This bit of H.F.M.F. is going to dovetail nicely into the next post...

Looks like I'm not the only one...

...who's "too clever by half".

I haven't posted anything about the latest 'cartoon-scandal' before - mostly because it's already over-done and I try to stay away from doing a straight "me-too" thing here on the Gazette.

But something happened the other day to change my mind.

We've got this talk-radio station here in the Denver-area, and they carry a drive-home show - "Caplis & Silverman". They do a sort of medium-power "Hannity & Colmes" schtick, with Dan Caplis in the 'Conservative' seat and Craig Silverman usually trying to defend the indefensible.

Yes, it's been done, but I usually really like the way Caplis is able to destroy opposing arguements by just maintaing his cool, staying focused, keeping to the facts instead of 'feelings' and almost never biting at Silverman's straw-arguments, and I also keep listening because they hit a lot of local issues.

But...

Holy Crap, were they in-synch with their PC, apologetic (nearly apoplectic) hand-wringing over the "Cartoon Scandal"!

The only thing that kept them from singing "It was Wrong, Racist, and Called for Obama's Assassination" in four-part harmony, was that there are only two of them with dedicated microphones.

Personally - I didn't see it.

Having been reading & banging on the "Great Generational Theft Act of 2009" as much as I have (and will continue to do), my first reaction to the newest "Killer Cartoon" was:

"Heh... Yeah - Crazed Chimp Shot - Crazed Chimp had to have Written the 'Stimulus' - Have to Get A New Crazed Chimp If They Want to Write a New One..."

But 'Oh, No', I am told over the sound of the knuckle-chafing hand-wringing - 'The *Chimp* is really Racist Code for *Obama*' (who, of course, wrote the Stim... no, wait - he didn't) and the police officers who have shot the *Chimp* aren't really a temporal reference to the sensationalized story of actual Officers who had to shoot an Actual Crazed Chimp - No! - that's really a call for the *assassination* of *Obama*.

Now, I've come to expect that sort of thing from Silverman, who appears to check the LGBT/Rainbow-Push-Index to know whether righteous indignation is in order, but that Dan Caplis wasn't even trying to apply Occam's Razor to what was right in front of him?

This finally bothered me so much, that I just pulled over and called-in to the show, pointing out my reaction to the cartoon (before the Reverend Sharpton told me what I was *allowed* to think, of course) and attempting to explain that sometimes-a-comic-is-just-a-comic and that the sort of Offense-Seeking-Grievance-Mongering that has resulted is not only a direct connection to Eric Holder's "Nation of Cowards" speech, but also the very reason that any "frank discussion of Race" will never, ever be allowed in the US (for, invariably, the Sharpton-Shakedown and sycophantic 'mea-culpas' will ensue).

In response, (by the "Conservative" no less) I was told that to take the cartoon @ face-value - and without applying *Racist Code* to it, the Author and the Newspaper was just being "Too Clever By Half".

As I was given the bum's-rush off-line, my parting remark was that I must be more "Post-Racial" than Eric Holder.

Well, now it looks like I'm not the only Clever-Kid on the block:

Will The Real Monkey Stand Up!
Rev. Peterson of BOND Action, Inc. Blasts Sharpton Over NY Post Cartoon Controversy

Yup - looks like the Reverend Jesse Lee Peterson of BOND is calling 'foul' on the Race-Baiters as well.

"The Post cartoon was provocative, but not racist. And it certainly was not an 'invitation' to assassinate President Obama. These are manufactured allegations by racist left-wing Democrat operatives. Sharpton, the NAACP, and their angry supporters want to intimidate and silence independent media outlets like The New York Post and The FOX News Channel. The cartoon was poking fun at the ineptness of those who wrote the horrible stimulus welfare package -- nothing more.

"I've said repeatedly on my national radio show that Barack Obama was elected because of white guilt and black racism. The majority of whites voted for Obama to prove once and for all that they don't have racial hang-ups. Ninety-six percent of blacks voted for him because of his race. We now have the first black president and his party leading our nation towards socialism; and anyone who dares poke fun or criticize are racists?

"Most blacks see racism under every rock and newspaper because they've never repented of their anger and racism toward whites. But this so-called boycott is not about racism; it's an attempt to muzzle free speech. And it's apparent who the real monkey is in this circus."

So - who's interpretation to go with?

Grievance-Monger "Reverend Sharpton" and other like-minded career Shakedown Artists...

Or Reverend Peterson, who has always held that self-determination is the way to build families & society?

Never mind - I think I've already got it figured out.

- MuscleDaddy

P.S. - Dan Caplis - that you immediately "recognized" the *Chimp* as 'code' for *Obama* - means that you also had to automatically associate *Obama* with the *Chimp*

... so what's really goin' on?

P.P.S. - The morning guy on KHOW - Peter Boyles - is great.

Stimulus Grinds Onward

First of all...

Yes. The One is coming to Denver to sign the The Generational Theft Act of 2009.

Best I can figure, it's a thrift-based decision - as it will save money on shipping those Roman columns somewhere else.

I grabbed that TownHall story ... mostly because my brother (Monopticus-Shout-Out) sent it to me and I was just too lazy to go looking for one I liked any better, but then I started going down through it and a couple of things caught my attention.

First, I was once again struck by the complete lack of acknowledgement of the cognitive disconnect necessary for someone to use/speak the phrase "Tax breaks for those who do not pay taxes" - without closing his eyes and shaking his head.

Can we all - Please - at least agree that a "tax-break" is when either some of your tax-money is returned to you or is not demanded of you in the first place,...

... while someone who doesn't pay taxes getting a check @ refund-time, means that someone else's tax money has been "Given" to that person, and that this is not a "break" from those taxes that he did-not/was-not-going-to pay in the first place?

(I know, I'm probably just picking-nits here)

Second, I learned that the Obama administration has launched a Website that will "will allow people to track where the money is being spent."

Being a part of the much-lauded "Greater Transparency & Accountability", I was curious to see if it would ennumerate the various levels of Pork that I've been reading about from the Bill itself.

....the answer so far (there are many levels to this site) is... well,... No.

But I did find this, under the title "Where is Your Money Going?":
(and I do love graphs)



Now, let's leave-off that this doesn't look quite like the other graphs that had been previously created on the Bill... that's a subject for another post.

This is still a very nice attempt at transparency-through-visuals and it certainly looks like the largest-part of this is going to "Tax Reli... oh wait - that's an asterisk, isn't it?

Okay, let's play "Chase the Transparency Asterisk".

* Tax Relief - includes
$15 B for Infrastructure and Science,
$61 B for Protecting the Vulnerable,
$25 B for Education and Training and
$22 B for Energy

Okay, so now those totals adjust to:

$78 B for Education and Training, --------not $53 B
$65 B for Energy-------------------------not $43 B
$142 B for Protecting the Vulnerable, --- not $81 B
$126 B for Infrastructure and Science, --not $111 B
- and
$165 B for "Tax Relief", rather than the charted $288 B

Also - it turns out that there's nothing on the site that might clue you in on what is actually meant by the warm-n-fuzzy title of, say, "Protecting the Vulnerable"
(does sound like something you'd have to be pretty heartless to argue over though, doesn't it?)

Looking around for such pesky details that the chattering masses shouldn't really care about - I find a Q&A section... okay...

Q: Where can I find the full text of The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009?
A: The text of the law can be found in Text or PDF format here.

Ah! That's more like.... Ah. Okay.

Link takes you here:



Bill's done - being signed here in Denver, probably at this moment...
...no text.

Hmm... Transparency.... Accountability.

- MuscleDaddy

PS - Just a small but somewhat amusing bit - That graphic with all the misleading numbers?
... when you grab it from the site, the name of the image is "Investment Bubble"

Yeah... like "Housing" or "Dot-Com".....

Coincidence? I think not.

You want a better Expert?

In the most stark and telling role-reversal, Vladimir Putin understands what America is hurtling toward with the "Stimulus":

Putin Warns US About Socialism

"Russian Prime Minister Vladamir Putin has said the US should take a lesson from the pages of Russian history and not exercise “excessive intervention in economic activity and blind faith in the state’s omnipotence”.

“In the 20th century, the Soviet Union made the state’s role absolute,” Putin said… “In the long run, this made the Soviet economy totally uncompetitive. This lesson cost us dearly. I am sure nobody wants to see it repeated.”

How do you dismiss it as "Fear Mongering" when the former Head of the KGB recognizes this as a giant government over-reach toward Socialism?

What could possibly carry more weight, at this moment, than the current Prime Minister of Russia saying:

"Don't do this - We've been where you are - Don't Do This."

I got nuthin'.

- MuscleDaddy

Crazy Like A Fox.

Sen. Gregg Withdraws as Commerce Secretary

"It has become apparent during this process that this will not work for me as I have found that on issues such as the stimulus package and the census there are irresolvable conflicts for me," Gregg of New Hampshire said in a written statement.

Now I'm sure that most of you have heard this already, but I'm also hearing a lot of "Well, of course, what was he thinking in the first place?" coming from talk radio today.

I think there's more going on here. Consider this:

By now, the word has started to get out that the "Stimulus" Bill is a great big, steaming pile of debt that will crush future generations - Blogs are speaking out against it - Talk radio is speaking out against it - basically, everyone who's paying attention already knows.

But what about the people who aren't paying attention?

The people who get their news from the Mainstream Media are the ones who really elected Barack Obama in the first place - on no substantive information and only the vague promises of "Hope & Change" delivered to fawning reporters by a good-looking guy with a nice baritone and a hot teleprompter.

Those same "swing-voters" are still getting their news from 'Good Morning America' and Chris Matthews - GMA still refuses to examine or report the facts of the "Stimulus" bill critically, while Chris Matthews is ...well, Chris Matthews.

So how does the message of "Stimulus Bill is a great big, steaming pile of debt that will crush future generations" - get out to those people who aren't following the whole thing closely?

Just like this: When a Republican Senator offers himself to the Obama cabinet on a wave of "Bi-Partisan Unity", is appointed to the cushy job of Commerce Secretary...

...and then, upon "Getting Inside" - ostensibly gets a look at what's going on and bails, saying "There's no way I can be a part of this - respectfully, Mr. President, you can keep your job."

There's no way the Mainstream Media can entirely ignore that - especially with the history of the first Commerce-appointee having to withdraw over a "pay-for-play" scandal.

Now the second appointee refuses a Presidential Cabinet Appointment because the "Stimulus" is so bad?

Which, incidentally, is just as good as publicly announcing his "No" vote.
(notably highlighting These Three as the only bought-and-paid-for (R)-wearing traitors to common sense)

Who could have done a better job of getting that point out to the TV-News-Watching public?

And we go back to having a self-demonstrated Conservative in that senate seat.

I couldn't have come up with anything that good.

- MuscleDaddy

Socialized Medicine "Stimulus" Provisions Draw Heat...

...President Obama 'distances' self.

Well, that was quick - I only started beating on that one in the previous post!
(behold, the power of MD!)

So, just to recap that particular "Economy Stimulating Insertion":

The provisions, included in both the House and Senate versions of the bill, would allocate at least $3 billion toward the “the utilization of an electronic health record (EHR) for each person in the United States by 2014.” In addition, another $1.1 billion would be allocated to establish a Federal Coordinating Council for Comparative Effectiveness Research.

Riiight - the "Council".... and what would they do again?

This council would serve as an umbrella group for all federal health programs, including Medicare, Medicaid, S-CHIP, and veterans’ care, with 15 members from various federal agencies making determinations and recommendations to the secretary of Health and Human Services about health care needs and cost-effective treatments.

So, 15 different federal agencies making decisions on whether your treatments are necessary and sufficiently cost-effective... what could there be to worry about there?

And I didn't even know about the "veteran's care" part, before.

Hmmm... Thinking about all those US servicemen coming back from the Sandbox with truly grievous and extensive injuries - the amount of surgery, reconstruction, prosthesis and therapy...

I wonder how a council of 15 federal bureaucrats applying the EU's cost-efficiency-matrix (reference post below) would be likely to affect them?

Now - if you search through the recesses of your memory, into the dim past of 'the Presidential Campaign', you'll recall that Barack Obama made Universal Health-Care one of his platform planks.

President Obama was even quoted as referring to health-care as a "Right".

That being the case, it would seem perfectly reasonable to expect that he would have felt quite strongly about this particular provision - not wanting to (in the words of his chief-of-staff) "let a crisis go to waste."

So naturally, when faced with the recent criticism of this particular piece of the "Stimulus Bill", he stood up personally and defended is importance and propriety, ... right?

When asked whether President Obama had insisted that the two health care provisions be part of the final stimulus bill, spokeswoman Psaki said, “We haven’t specified that."

Hmm. Or not.

Now why do you suppose that is? It seems like it would have been the perfect demonstration of 'standing by his beliefs' or 'putting his money where his mouth is' or even 'reaffirming priorities he espoused during the election'.


Why would he have an aide distance him from something that is so important to him?

What do you think?

- MuscleDaddy