When an argument takes place between two people, I've mostly felt that if I can understand each position well, in the end I can understand and empathize with both sides. The exception to this rule is when one side is not dealing honestly, which I find frustrating and disappointing when I learn that one side of the argument is distorting and lying about their position in a dishonest attempt to wring personal benefit.
Which brings me to my search for cogent arguments from the Democrat side of the budget arguments.
Reading several left-wing articles, I was unable to find an honest argument in favor of continuing annual trillion-and-a-half dollar deficits. The only cuts they are willing to embrace are in military spending, while the only other solution to deficit cutting is increasing taxes on "millionaires and billionaires".
Neither will succeed in solving the problem, and the so often repeated line about "millionaires and billionaires" is fundamentally dishonest. Obama's tax increases target everyone making over $200K, so last time I looked, 200 thousand is only 20 percent of a million. And if they really wanted to close tax loopholes so that companies such as General Electric would actually pay something other than zero on their multi-billion dollar profits, wouldn't they have already closed them in the tax code they themselves wrote the last 4 years? Meanwhile, GE is the poster child for the modern phenomenon called "Crony Capitalism".
The ideological position of the Obama/Reid/Pelosi Democrats is otherwise pretty clear. Socialism is the easiest way to summarize the ideology. It includes high tax rates designed to "level the playing field" by transferring wealth and narrowing the gap between rich and poor. It means shutting down "dirty" energy no matter how much it hurts average people. It means forcing people to cluster in the cities and give up their cars to ride government-subsidized mass transit to and from work (or the welfare office).
The only conclusion I can reach is that their ideology trumps everything else. Their sacred cows are Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and now Obamacare, which must be protected at all costs. Even if those costs mean bankruptcy.
There is no middle ground in this argument. Either we adhere to founding principles of liberty or give in and become a fiefdom of Red China.
For me, that means there can be no compromise on these issues. If we fail to stop the outrageous spending and regulation of Obama and company, we lose everything. I'm not worried for myself so much as for my children and future grandchildren, who will never know the faith, freedom, and prosperity of America that I got to experience.
Monday, April 18, 2011
Thursday, April 14, 2011
Religion is Based on Understanding Human Behavior
Something I always understood at a basic level, but has become increasingly apparent in what many are now calling the Post-Christian Era, is that Judeo-Christian Religious rules are solidly based on a clear understanding of human behavior.
The story of Moses is a great example. Moses obviously recognized the need to establish laws to manage his very large contingent of former Egyptian slaves. I don't dismiss the biblical account of God writing the law on stone tablets on top of Mount Sinai, but what better way to introduce laws to an unruly mob of thousands of ex-slaves suddenly set free than to obtain them directly from God on the mountain-top?
A recurring theme used by modern gay rights advocates is that we wouldn't stone them for their sexual behavior today, therefore why would we place any credence in the old Mosaic laws condemning that behavior? It's a specious argument that could be applied to any illegal behavior; if their contention about gay activity is accepted, then wouldn't it also apply equally to adultery, polygamy, even murder?
Harsh punishment was deemed necessary for the nomadic Hebrew tribes to keep them from destroying themselves from within. Adultery in that infant society might lead to inter-tribal wars, therefore a strict law was imposed to make it clear that the leadership would handle violations so the tribes would not be tempted to seek revenge themselves.
Homosexual behavior, not to mention heterosexual promiscuity, has always come with an extremely high risk of disease. Therefore as a practical matter, strict rules favoring monogamy and punishing risky behavior make a lot of sense.
In the Exodus accounts, the Israelites were constantly losing faith and falling back on their old, bad habits. And they always suffered the consequences.
Just listen to "Doctor Laura" on the radio for ten minutes, and you'll get a modern real-life example of what happens universally to those of us that make bad choices. How often are the bad things that happen to us today directly traceable to our own poor judgement? Sure, it's possible to be victimized by unscrupulous business people, and there are many diseases that are not tied to our behavior. But the vast majority of people's problems these days are self-inflicted by a simple abandonment of commonsense morality.
The fundamental point is about the value of morality coming from God. Those who seem to have succeeded in removing God from America bear the greatest blame for our country's decline. Because without God, there's no reason to behave.
Apply the most obvious example, smoking. The health risks of tobacco use are well known, so why do so many people choose to smoke? Because they attach no moral stigma to the behavior.
Isn't the same true of illegal drugs, promiscuity, homosexuality, reckless driving, insurance scams, welfare fraud, theft, murder? If there's no God, no heaven, no hell, and no severe punishment for behavior that's destructive to ourselves and others, then why not do whatever makes us feel good?
This is the place America has arrived. I am certain that a horrible catastrophe is near, which was the only way to bring the ancient Israelites back to God, is the only way to bring America back to God.
The story of Moses is a great example. Moses obviously recognized the need to establish laws to manage his very large contingent of former Egyptian slaves. I don't dismiss the biblical account of God writing the law on stone tablets on top of Mount Sinai, but what better way to introduce laws to an unruly mob of thousands of ex-slaves suddenly set free than to obtain them directly from God on the mountain-top?
A recurring theme used by modern gay rights advocates is that we wouldn't stone them for their sexual behavior today, therefore why would we place any credence in the old Mosaic laws condemning that behavior? It's a specious argument that could be applied to any illegal behavior; if their contention about gay activity is accepted, then wouldn't it also apply equally to adultery, polygamy, even murder?
Harsh punishment was deemed necessary for the nomadic Hebrew tribes to keep them from destroying themselves from within. Adultery in that infant society might lead to inter-tribal wars, therefore a strict law was imposed to make it clear that the leadership would handle violations so the tribes would not be tempted to seek revenge themselves.
Homosexual behavior, not to mention heterosexual promiscuity, has always come with an extremely high risk of disease. Therefore as a practical matter, strict rules favoring monogamy and punishing risky behavior make a lot of sense.
In the Exodus accounts, the Israelites were constantly losing faith and falling back on their old, bad habits. And they always suffered the consequences.
Just listen to "Doctor Laura" on the radio for ten minutes, and you'll get a modern real-life example of what happens universally to those of us that make bad choices. How often are the bad things that happen to us today directly traceable to our own poor judgement? Sure, it's possible to be victimized by unscrupulous business people, and there are many diseases that are not tied to our behavior. But the vast majority of people's problems these days are self-inflicted by a simple abandonment of commonsense morality.
The fundamental point is about the value of morality coming from God. Those who seem to have succeeded in removing God from America bear the greatest blame for our country's decline. Because without God, there's no reason to behave.
Apply the most obvious example, smoking. The health risks of tobacco use are well known, so why do so many people choose to smoke? Because they attach no moral stigma to the behavior.
Isn't the same true of illegal drugs, promiscuity, homosexuality, reckless driving, insurance scams, welfare fraud, theft, murder? If there's no God, no heaven, no hell, and no severe punishment for behavior that's destructive to ourselves and others, then why not do whatever makes us feel good?
This is the place America has arrived. I am certain that a horrible catastrophe is near, which was the only way to bring the ancient Israelites back to God, is the only way to bring America back to God.
Wednesday, April 13, 2011
Budget Cutting for Dummies
It's stunningly easy if those who write the tax law aren't influenced by the obvious quid-pro-quo.
Going back to the law I feel most strongly about, but will never happen because it takes away their job security. It probably has to be a constitutional amendment. The law is simply this: No tax, and likewise no tax credit, deferral, deduction, or any other adjustment may be passed without every citizen being eligible. No tax exemptions for specific corporations, members of congress, or individuals. No targeted tax credits, exemptions, deferrals or deductions.
Taxes apply to everyone equally, likewise tax reductions are available to everyone who chooses to take advantage of them.
That takes care of the revenue side.
On the spending side, again it's easy.
Either shut down or reorganize these agencies into a small shadow of what they are today:
Education
Arts
Agrigulture
EPA
Reorganize and consolidate duplicative agencies.
Convert Commerce into a trade association with federal support, fully funded by its members' dues. Members of course would be any company that wants to export products and services.
Cancel anything called "Corporate Welfare". This is most easily accomplished by the first solution.
Stop funding Planned Parenthood and Public Broadcasting and all other unnecessary organizations that can continue to operate on their own as NFP's.
Cut federal salaries by 5 percent across the board. Maybe exempt those earning less than $40K, if there are such folks out there.
Convert all Federal Defined Benefit Pensions into 401Ks.
Restructure Medicare into a simple health insurance program with affordable premiums for seniors.
Take Medicaid away from the Federal Government entirely, because it's duplicative with State programs.
Repeal Obamacare, of course.
Open American oil and natural gas resources to American energy companies through auctions. Use tax incentives to help make sure most of those resources stay at home to meet domestic demand instead of being sold on the world market.
Remove all the uncertainty in government tax and regulatory policy, giving American companies the confidence to move forward with their plans without holding back for fear of unpredictable costs of Obamacare, taxes, and arbitrary federal regulation.
Gradually move Social Security from a welfare program to an actual retirement and insurance program, where every citizen has an individual cash-value account. Those who live their working lives on welfare won't have a retirement account, and can either rely on family or care in a modest group home or nursing home subsidized by the State, not the Feds.
Put some teeth into trade policies. Any country that wants to sell their goods in America must give equal access to their own market to American goods in return and must demonstrate reasonable control over theft of American inventions, art, and intellectual property.
Going back to the law I feel most strongly about, but will never happen because it takes away their job security. It probably has to be a constitutional amendment. The law is simply this: No tax, and likewise no tax credit, deferral, deduction, or any other adjustment may be passed without every citizen being eligible. No tax exemptions for specific corporations, members of congress, or individuals. No targeted tax credits, exemptions, deferrals or deductions.
Taxes apply to everyone equally, likewise tax reductions are available to everyone who chooses to take advantage of them.
That takes care of the revenue side.
On the spending side, again it's easy.
Either shut down or reorganize these agencies into a small shadow of what they are today:
Education
Arts
Agrigulture
EPA
Reorganize and consolidate duplicative agencies.
Convert Commerce into a trade association with federal support, fully funded by its members' dues. Members of course would be any company that wants to export products and services.
Cancel anything called "Corporate Welfare". This is most easily accomplished by the first solution.
Stop funding Planned Parenthood and Public Broadcasting and all other unnecessary organizations that can continue to operate on their own as NFP's.
Cut federal salaries by 5 percent across the board. Maybe exempt those earning less than $40K, if there are such folks out there.
Convert all Federal Defined Benefit Pensions into 401Ks.
Restructure Medicare into a simple health insurance program with affordable premiums for seniors.
Take Medicaid away from the Federal Government entirely, because it's duplicative with State programs.
Repeal Obamacare, of course.
Open American oil and natural gas resources to American energy companies through auctions. Use tax incentives to help make sure most of those resources stay at home to meet domestic demand instead of being sold on the world market.
Remove all the uncertainty in government tax and regulatory policy, giving American companies the confidence to move forward with their plans without holding back for fear of unpredictable costs of Obamacare, taxes, and arbitrary federal regulation.
Gradually move Social Security from a welfare program to an actual retirement and insurance program, where every citizen has an individual cash-value account. Those who live their working lives on welfare won't have a retirement account, and can either rely on family or care in a modest group home or nursing home subsidized by the State, not the Feds.
Put some teeth into trade policies. Any country that wants to sell their goods in America must give equal access to their own market to American goods in return and must demonstrate reasonable control over theft of American inventions, art, and intellectual property.
Monday, April 11, 2011
Washington Theatre
The most disappointing thing about the theatrics in Washington about the battle over the budget and possible shutdown of the Federal government was the realization that hit me while it was underway.
The so-called "leaders" in Washington think we're all a bunch of ignorant fools.
Pretending like 38 billion dollars in budget cuts is a big deal. Sure to all of us, that's an awful lot of money. But compared to just the amount of the budget deficit for this year, it's barely noticable.
Democrats screaming outrageous nonsense about mean Republicans, from the mildest accusation of taking away "women's health services" to the most strident "killing women".
I was hoping somehow that Planned Parenthood would be defunded. But calling abortion "women's health" is like Animal Control claiming that putting down stray dogs and cats is "pet care".
The GOP side is telling its conservative base to be happy that Boehner got Obama and Reid to compromize from a budget cut of zero to 38. At least he got something done in the right direction.
Do both sides really think we're all drooling idiots? Balancing the budget may not be easy to do all at once, but it can be easily done in only a few years. Send me to Washington and I'll have that budget balanced without breaking a sweat. All it requires is an emptying of the featherbeds and revamping of the tax code.
The so-called "leaders" in Washington think we're all a bunch of ignorant fools.
Pretending like 38 billion dollars in budget cuts is a big deal. Sure to all of us, that's an awful lot of money. But compared to just the amount of the budget deficit for this year, it's barely noticable.
Democrats screaming outrageous nonsense about mean Republicans, from the mildest accusation of taking away "women's health services" to the most strident "killing women".
I was hoping somehow that Planned Parenthood would be defunded. But calling abortion "women's health" is like Animal Control claiming that putting down stray dogs and cats is "pet care".
The GOP side is telling its conservative base to be happy that Boehner got Obama and Reid to compromize from a budget cut of zero to 38. At least he got something done in the right direction.
Do both sides really think we're all drooling idiots? Balancing the budget may not be easy to do all at once, but it can be easily done in only a few years. Send me to Washington and I'll have that budget balanced without breaking a sweat. All it requires is an emptying of the featherbeds and revamping of the tax code.
Friday, April 08, 2011
Serious Analysis of Education
Indiana's in the midst of a bitter dispute about education vouchers. Teachers unions are fighting tooth and nail, and the Democrats fled to Illinois for over a month to deny a quorum in a failed attempt to halt the legislation.
In the 32 years since I was a public school teacher, I've watched as schools have received massive increases in funding to solve the problem of declining student performance. Now at least our failing schools look terrific on the outside and teachers get a pretty sweet deal financially.
None of that has resulted in improving the outcomes for kids.
There are basically two solutions being put forward by the two political ideological sides. Democrats and the teacher unions suggest we just haven't given them enough money yet, or pretend there is no problem. Republicans push for voucher programs that let lower-income families escape the dysfunctional public school in favor of a quality education in a private or parochial school.
While clearly the teachers unions simply have a goal of keeping the status quo for their members - tenure, high salaries, free health insurance, and generous pensions - Republicans at least sincerely want to find a solution.
But are vouchers the right solution?
I'm not so sure.
I don't like the idea of government handing out money to private institutions of any kind. What the government subsidizes they also control. And I don't want any hint of government control in Catholic or Christian schools.
It's very easy to imagine the next step after vouchers are instituted, which will be couched under "educational standards". The government can and I think will impose strings to those voucher payments, beginning with a "tolerance" curriculum that glorifies immoral sexual behavior to elementary school children.
Another concern I have with this idea is in the area of capacity. Vouchers are nearly certain to create an overwhelming demand of families applying to get their children out of the unsafe and failing public school, but there's not enough capacity in the local private schools to accomodate them all.
So what criteria are used to select students that will get the priviledge of escaping the bad school? A lottery? Some sort of merit or need-based formula set by the state? Let the private school choose?
No matter what the method, there are two bad outcomes to this process: Government dictates which students are to be considered for enrollment at the private school, and deserving students will inevitably be left behind in the failing school.
And those failing public schools won't get better - they'll get even worse. Because the first students they lose will be those whose parents care enough to fight to get their children a better education. And that means the best students will be the first to take advantage of vouchers to escape the failing school.
As the private schools add capacity, they'll seek out the best teachers for their added classrooms. The best teachers are likely to accept a slightly smaller compensation package in return for better working conditions, which can be assumed to include better school administrators and better motivated, better behaved students.
Republicans suggest this will force the failing public school to change its ways or shut its doors. I agree that a failing school should be shuttered, but am having difficulty understanding what happens to the students during the school's waning days, and where the students go after it closes.
So the question becomes, what is the solution? Everything that's been done over the past 30 years has cost taxpayers too much and produced no apparent improvements, so if vouchers aren't the answer, what is?
Thinking through every conceivable option, I keep settling on this one:
Privatize.
Sounds kind of radical, I know. But if it's done right, it can be great for everyone.
Let private companies bid for the existing school facilities and a per-student rate. Let them advertise and attract students based on their individualized programs. Parents choose the school they think is best for their child based on location, curriculum, and results. Companies compete for students by offering great programs, whether in the sciences, arts, athletics, or whatever. The companies are licensed by the state based solely on fundamental academic curricula - no social, religious, or political agendas (except perhaps teaching violent jihad) will be considered in granting of licensing. Of course, these schools have to be open to any and all applicants, except violent offenders.
Put antitrust safeguards in place to make sure there is plenty of competition among education companies, and any company can open a school in the area as long as it meets licensing standards.
In the 32 years since I was a public school teacher, I've watched as schools have received massive increases in funding to solve the problem of declining student performance. Now at least our failing schools look terrific on the outside and teachers get a pretty sweet deal financially.
None of that has resulted in improving the outcomes for kids.
There are basically two solutions being put forward by the two political ideological sides. Democrats and the teacher unions suggest we just haven't given them enough money yet, or pretend there is no problem. Republicans push for voucher programs that let lower-income families escape the dysfunctional public school in favor of a quality education in a private or parochial school.
While clearly the teachers unions simply have a goal of keeping the status quo for their members - tenure, high salaries, free health insurance, and generous pensions - Republicans at least sincerely want to find a solution.
But are vouchers the right solution?
I'm not so sure.
I don't like the idea of government handing out money to private institutions of any kind. What the government subsidizes they also control. And I don't want any hint of government control in Catholic or Christian schools.
It's very easy to imagine the next step after vouchers are instituted, which will be couched under "educational standards". The government can and I think will impose strings to those voucher payments, beginning with a "tolerance" curriculum that glorifies immoral sexual behavior to elementary school children.
Another concern I have with this idea is in the area of capacity. Vouchers are nearly certain to create an overwhelming demand of families applying to get their children out of the unsafe and failing public school, but there's not enough capacity in the local private schools to accomodate them all.
So what criteria are used to select students that will get the priviledge of escaping the bad school? A lottery? Some sort of merit or need-based formula set by the state? Let the private school choose?
No matter what the method, there are two bad outcomes to this process: Government dictates which students are to be considered for enrollment at the private school, and deserving students will inevitably be left behind in the failing school.
And those failing public schools won't get better - they'll get even worse. Because the first students they lose will be those whose parents care enough to fight to get their children a better education. And that means the best students will be the first to take advantage of vouchers to escape the failing school.
As the private schools add capacity, they'll seek out the best teachers for their added classrooms. The best teachers are likely to accept a slightly smaller compensation package in return for better working conditions, which can be assumed to include better school administrators and better motivated, better behaved students.
Republicans suggest this will force the failing public school to change its ways or shut its doors. I agree that a failing school should be shuttered, but am having difficulty understanding what happens to the students during the school's waning days, and where the students go after it closes.
So the question becomes, what is the solution? Everything that's been done over the past 30 years has cost taxpayers too much and produced no apparent improvements, so if vouchers aren't the answer, what is?
Thinking through every conceivable option, I keep settling on this one:
Privatize.
Sounds kind of radical, I know. But if it's done right, it can be great for everyone.
Let private companies bid for the existing school facilities and a per-student rate. Let them advertise and attract students based on their individualized programs. Parents choose the school they think is best for their child based on location, curriculum, and results. Companies compete for students by offering great programs, whether in the sciences, arts, athletics, or whatever. The companies are licensed by the state based solely on fundamental academic curricula - no social, religious, or political agendas (except perhaps teaching violent jihad) will be considered in granting of licensing. Of course, these schools have to be open to any and all applicants, except violent offenders.
Put antitrust safeguards in place to make sure there is plenty of competition among education companies, and any company can open a school in the area as long as it meets licensing standards.
Thursday, April 07, 2011
Source of Polarization
Whether it's the frightening battle for dominance in Wisconsin or the budget showdown in Washington, I believe the country has never been more politically polarized in my lifetime. It seems likely we haven't seen this level of polarization since the Civil War, aka The War Between the States, aka The War of Northern Aggression, aka The War to End Slavery, all depending on the polarized points of view of those on either side back then.
From an historical perspective, I'd have been completely on the side of the North in that war if it were about ending the evil of slavery. But take out the slavery issue, and I have plenty of sympathy for the perspective of many in the south, who viewed the war in terms of freedom. Abe Lincoln was determined to use the Federal government to bigfoot the states, imposing the will of Washington on all of the states whether that will was appropriate for a given state or the citizens of a state wanted that Federal control.
These days, the states have seen most of their power to govern themselves confiscated by Washington. In many cases, Washington has accomplished this by addicting states to federal money. In other cases, Washington has used the courts to discover new rights and grant unfettered extraconstitutional authority to itself. In still other cases, the US Congress has simply taken that authority for themselves.
It was just a matter of time, and now that time has come. We're polarized once again in a fight that threatens to become violent.
The moral issue of slavery is replaced by today's fights over abortion and gay marriage.
The states' rights issue has resurfaced in today's fights over the size and scope of the federal government.
It's the Socialists against the Constitutionalists.
It's Trial Lawyers against Business.
It's women against men.
It's non-white races against white races.
It's atheism and Islam against Christianity and Judaism.
It's wage earners against welfare and social security dependents.
It's homosexuals against Christians.
It's abortionists against Hypocratic Oath physicians and pharmacists.
It's Socialists against Business.
It's Mega Corporations against Entrepreneurs.
It's Environmentalists against Manufacturing Business.
It's city against country.
It's the coasts against the heartland.
It's illegal immigrants against citizens.
It's revolutionary change against rediscovered founding principles.
It's pacifists against homeland defense.
It's government is the answer against government is the problem.
It's guns kill people versus people kill people.
The Left is in charge and has run the country off the cliff. They want us to give them more time to achieve their vision for utopian society.
The Right is on the ascendancy and wants us to accept them as our saviors. But last time they were in charge they became drunk on their power and were irresponsible - therefore the country ran them out.
The Republicans holding office cover a specturm of political beliefs, ranging from left of some Democrats to Conservative Purists.
Democrats claim to cover a similar spectrum, but the so-called "blue dogs" voted in lockstep with their party while they bankrupted the country to funnel money to constituencies that they hoped would keep them perpetually in power.
Votes on important issues in congress illustrate the polarized divide. Democrats passed the destructive healthcare law without a single Republican vote. The Republican budget bill passed the House without any help from even the Blue Dogs, who are supposed to care about spending and debt.
It's time to find principled lawmakers who vote for what's right, not what their party leaders demand. I fear that ship has sailed.
From an historical perspective, I'd have been completely on the side of the North in that war if it were about ending the evil of slavery. But take out the slavery issue, and I have plenty of sympathy for the perspective of many in the south, who viewed the war in terms of freedom. Abe Lincoln was determined to use the Federal government to bigfoot the states, imposing the will of Washington on all of the states whether that will was appropriate for a given state or the citizens of a state wanted that Federal control.
These days, the states have seen most of their power to govern themselves confiscated by Washington. In many cases, Washington has accomplished this by addicting states to federal money. In other cases, Washington has used the courts to discover new rights and grant unfettered extraconstitutional authority to itself. In still other cases, the US Congress has simply taken that authority for themselves.
It was just a matter of time, and now that time has come. We're polarized once again in a fight that threatens to become violent.
The moral issue of slavery is replaced by today's fights over abortion and gay marriage.
The states' rights issue has resurfaced in today's fights over the size and scope of the federal government.
It's the Socialists against the Constitutionalists.
It's Trial Lawyers against Business.
It's women against men.
It's non-white races against white races.
It's atheism and Islam against Christianity and Judaism.
It's wage earners against welfare and social security dependents.
It's homosexuals against Christians.
It's abortionists against Hypocratic Oath physicians and pharmacists.
It's Socialists against Business.
It's Mega Corporations against Entrepreneurs.
It's Environmentalists against Manufacturing Business.
It's city against country.
It's the coasts against the heartland.
It's illegal immigrants against citizens.
It's revolutionary change against rediscovered founding principles.
It's pacifists against homeland defense.
It's government is the answer against government is the problem.
It's guns kill people versus people kill people.
The Left is in charge and has run the country off the cliff. They want us to give them more time to achieve their vision for utopian society.
The Right is on the ascendancy and wants us to accept them as our saviors. But last time they were in charge they became drunk on their power and were irresponsible - therefore the country ran them out.
The Republicans holding office cover a specturm of political beliefs, ranging from left of some Democrats to Conservative Purists.
Democrats claim to cover a similar spectrum, but the so-called "blue dogs" voted in lockstep with their party while they bankrupted the country to funnel money to constituencies that they hoped would keep them perpetually in power.
Votes on important issues in congress illustrate the polarized divide. Democrats passed the destructive healthcare law without a single Republican vote. The Republican budget bill passed the House without any help from even the Blue Dogs, who are supposed to care about spending and debt.
It's time to find principled lawmakers who vote for what's right, not what their party leaders demand. I fear that ship has sailed.
Wednesday, April 06, 2011
Real Problem-Solving or Grandstanding?
Awaiting what now seems to be an inevitable "government shutdown", it's interesting to take a step back and look at the whole fight from a distance.
The current argument is about setting the budget for the remainder of the year. Republicans proposed cutting either 61 or 71 billion through the end of the year, but so far I'm not completely clear on which number is right. Democrats countered with a reported cut of $33 billion, but in typical Washington sleight-of-hand, they count their cuts against Obama's proposed budget instead of the current spending levels. Which some say is no cut at all in comparison to this year's reality.
The fight is over more than the numbers themselves. The Republican plan targets liberal sacred cows long hated on the right, specifically Planned Parenthood and Public Broadcasting. Democrats have promised to fight to the bitter end to protect those two pillars of liberalism.
Then there's the EPA. The GOP proposal rolls back Obama's unilateral imposition of suffocating fossil fuel restrictions enforced by the EPA through the concept that they now have the right to control CO2 emissions as a pollutant. Yes, that's the gas we all emit when we exhale. The bill strips the ability of the EPA to restrict, shut down, deny permits, and otherwise harrass energy companies in the pretense of saving the planet from global climate change (formerly known as global warming).
Obama's publicly dead set against having his EPA restrictions rolled back. The usual suspects, led by Reid and Pelosi, are already predicting widespread deaths from disease and starvation because the evil GOP somehow desires to shift money from the
"safety net" into the pockets of fat cat corporate types.
When in the end, the current fight is between an actual drop in the water bucket versus an imaginary one.
And the debate has barely started over the next budget, just unveiled by Paul Ryan and his GOP budget committee colleagues. Think fighting over CO2 regulation, Planned Parenthood and Public Broadcasting is tough? Just wait to see the fight that breaks out over the dismantling of Obamacare, shifting of Medicaid to the States, gradual increases in the retirement age, and pay freezes for Federal Employees.
Which of those will make Democrats angriest? I think it's close, but I'd pick a narrow victory of the Federal Pay Freeze over killing Obamacare. Because they'll always put their personal interests above their ideology - ergo the biggest fight will be to keep their own pay and benefits rolling in.
It's quite ironic to hear Obama blast the Republicans for being ideological in what he characterizes are their unwillingness to compromise. Does he really expect us to believe that he's the non-ideological, practical problem-solver adult in the room? Wow.
The current argument is about setting the budget for the remainder of the year. Republicans proposed cutting either 61 or 71 billion through the end of the year, but so far I'm not completely clear on which number is right. Democrats countered with a reported cut of $33 billion, but in typical Washington sleight-of-hand, they count their cuts against Obama's proposed budget instead of the current spending levels. Which some say is no cut at all in comparison to this year's reality.
The fight is over more than the numbers themselves. The Republican plan targets liberal sacred cows long hated on the right, specifically Planned Parenthood and Public Broadcasting. Democrats have promised to fight to the bitter end to protect those two pillars of liberalism.
Then there's the EPA. The GOP proposal rolls back Obama's unilateral imposition of suffocating fossil fuel restrictions enforced by the EPA through the concept that they now have the right to control CO2 emissions as a pollutant. Yes, that's the gas we all emit when we exhale. The bill strips the ability of the EPA to restrict, shut down, deny permits, and otherwise harrass energy companies in the pretense of saving the planet from global climate change (formerly known as global warming).
Obama's publicly dead set against having his EPA restrictions rolled back. The usual suspects, led by Reid and Pelosi, are already predicting widespread deaths from disease and starvation because the evil GOP somehow desires to shift money from the
"safety net" into the pockets of fat cat corporate types.
When in the end, the current fight is between an actual drop in the water bucket versus an imaginary one.
And the debate has barely started over the next budget, just unveiled by Paul Ryan and his GOP budget committee colleagues. Think fighting over CO2 regulation, Planned Parenthood and Public Broadcasting is tough? Just wait to see the fight that breaks out over the dismantling of Obamacare, shifting of Medicaid to the States, gradual increases in the retirement age, and pay freezes for Federal Employees.
Which of those will make Democrats angriest? I think it's close, but I'd pick a narrow victory of the Federal Pay Freeze over killing Obamacare. Because they'll always put their personal interests above their ideology - ergo the biggest fight will be to keep their own pay and benefits rolling in.
It's quite ironic to hear Obama blast the Republicans for being ideological in what he characterizes are their unwillingness to compromise. Does he really expect us to believe that he's the non-ideological, practical problem-solver adult in the room? Wow.
Tuesday, April 05, 2011
Falling Back into Recession
I'm not a researcher, and I don't have macro-level information to back me up, but I'm fairly convinced that we're already slipping back into another recession.
Plenty of folks probably think we never left the last one, and it certainly feels that way. High unemployment and even higher underemployment, a disastrous housing market, rising prices and our Federal, State and Local governments teetering on bankruptcy sure doesn't feel like a recovery.
I remember during the Bush years when the unemployment rate was in the 4's, some Bush-hating Democrats I know used to claim that the country was in dire financial straits. Their logic was based on a trumpeted Democrat talking point that said, sure, it may seem like there are plenty of people with jobs, but those jobs stink. The logic said that the average worker's effective wages were declining while the captains of big business were rolling in it. You know, the old rich-get-richer while poor-get-poorer theme.
So we put Democrats in charge. They celebrated a decline in the unemployment rate to 8.8 percent this week. While job losses have slowed, and some folks are returning to work, the underlying statistics suggest that 8.8 is a misleading number. Because so many have simply given up on their job search, so they get dropped from the statistics. Others take part-time minimum-wage jobs even though they obviously prefer a full-time job but can't find one, and they're also dropped from the statistics.
All of these statistics lag behind what's happening today. My personal feeling, based on the companies I work with around the country pulling back again and gas getting back around $4, tells me we're entering another recession period.
I am familiar with companies that will soon be going through layoffs. I know of companies that are cancelling capital projects because orders are slowing down. I know of companies that are scaling back because they can't get financing in a very tight loan market.
Executives openly talk about the only thing they think can get the economy back on track; an Obama defeat next year. And these guys aren't necessarily hyper-partisan types. They are very clear about the reasons they believe it's so critical to replace the president with someone to roll back the specific policies that are destroying their businesses.
The health care law, the suffocating regulations affecting many of my clients' businesses directly, the shutdown of all energy development in the country, the investment-killing budget deficits and debts being piled up, and the willful destruction of the dollar are all specific reasons behind their strongly held belief that removing this president is the only way to reverse this economic disaster.
It seems to me that people voted for Democrats thinking that somehow they'd make their employers pay them better. Instead, they destroyed their jobs by destroying the companies that used to employ them.
I tend to agree that the only real hope for better days lies in electing a new president next year, but I'd add to that the need to replace enough left-wing Senators to roll back the Obama agenda. Even then, recovery is only possible if we find and elect the right people to lead, with common sense, intelligence, and the integrity to put the country first; especially above their contributors and benefactors who hope to gain personal benefits by getting their guy (or gal) to Washington.
Plenty of folks probably think we never left the last one, and it certainly feels that way. High unemployment and even higher underemployment, a disastrous housing market, rising prices and our Federal, State and Local governments teetering on bankruptcy sure doesn't feel like a recovery.
I remember during the Bush years when the unemployment rate was in the 4's, some Bush-hating Democrats I know used to claim that the country was in dire financial straits. Their logic was based on a trumpeted Democrat talking point that said, sure, it may seem like there are plenty of people with jobs, but those jobs stink. The logic said that the average worker's effective wages were declining while the captains of big business were rolling in it. You know, the old rich-get-richer while poor-get-poorer theme.
So we put Democrats in charge. They celebrated a decline in the unemployment rate to 8.8 percent this week. While job losses have slowed, and some folks are returning to work, the underlying statistics suggest that 8.8 is a misleading number. Because so many have simply given up on their job search, so they get dropped from the statistics. Others take part-time minimum-wage jobs even though they obviously prefer a full-time job but can't find one, and they're also dropped from the statistics.
All of these statistics lag behind what's happening today. My personal feeling, based on the companies I work with around the country pulling back again and gas getting back around $4, tells me we're entering another recession period.
I am familiar with companies that will soon be going through layoffs. I know of companies that are cancelling capital projects because orders are slowing down. I know of companies that are scaling back because they can't get financing in a very tight loan market.
Executives openly talk about the only thing they think can get the economy back on track; an Obama defeat next year. And these guys aren't necessarily hyper-partisan types. They are very clear about the reasons they believe it's so critical to replace the president with someone to roll back the specific policies that are destroying their businesses.
The health care law, the suffocating regulations affecting many of my clients' businesses directly, the shutdown of all energy development in the country, the investment-killing budget deficits and debts being piled up, and the willful destruction of the dollar are all specific reasons behind their strongly held belief that removing this president is the only way to reverse this economic disaster.
It seems to me that people voted for Democrats thinking that somehow they'd make their employers pay them better. Instead, they destroyed their jobs by destroying the companies that used to employ them.
I tend to agree that the only real hope for better days lies in electing a new president next year, but I'd add to that the need to replace enough left-wing Senators to roll back the Obama agenda. Even then, recovery is only possible if we find and elect the right people to lead, with common sense, intelligence, and the integrity to put the country first; especially above their contributors and benefactors who hope to gain personal benefits by getting their guy (or gal) to Washington.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)