We are a commune of inquiring, skeptical, politically centrist, capitalist, anglophile, traditionalist New England Yankee humans, humanoids, and animals with many interests beyond and above politics. Each of us has had a high-school education (or GED), but all had ADD so didn't pay attention very well, especially the dogs. Each one of us does "try my best to be just like I am," and none of us enjoys working for others, including for Maggie, from whom we receive neither a nickel nor a dime. Freedom from nags, cranks, government, do-gooders, control-freaks and idiots is all that we ask for.
...the frugal wealthy understand that it is not wealth per se but rather its flamboyant display that erects barriers between the rich and the rest. Gated communities, private jets and the mass promotion of ridiculously expensive luxury goods -- all widespread only in the last generation -- have done more to provoke class division and remove the rich from contact with ordinary people than the actual increases in their wealth.
In the last generation, but also at many times in history. Let's face it. We have vulgar rich, vulgar poor, and vulgar in-between. There is no cure for vulgarity.
...it's upsetting that some people have so much while other people have so little. It isn't fair. But I accept this unfairness. Indeed, I treasure it. That's because I have a 13-year-old daughter. And that's all I hear, "That's not fair," she says. "That's not fair! That's not fair!" And one day I snapped, and I said, "Honey, you're cute, that's not fair. Your family is pretty well off, that's not fair. You were born in America, that's not fair. Darling, you had better get down on your knees and pray that things don't start getting fair for you."
Having the luck to be born in America is the most unfair thing of all. Where else on the planet do you have a wide open field to plan a life according to your own lights, interests, abilities, and desires, and run for it? Freedom of pursuit, but no guarantee of results on this planet. And still, some people bitch like babies.
Nobody really believed that Obamacare would do anything to improve our health-care system or, even more absurdly, "bend the cost curve." By vastly increasing the number of insured and therefore of demand for medical care, it could only drive up costs. Remarks like Nancy Pelosi’s about having to pass the bill in order to see what’s in it showed that they weren’t really interested in what was in it — and nor was the President, who left all that up to congressional Democrats. What they cared about was the establishment of the progressive principle that the government should be in charge of overseeing health care. The details would be worked out later as history pursued its inevitable course of increasing government control over people’s lives.
Leftists take the long view, the Gramscian approach. At one bite at a time, their growing Leviathan wants to consume all that it can of private life in America. It's never enough, and never will be.
That's the essential problem: there is no end-point.
For competitive college admissions, it is tough for Asians to dodge the Asian quotas by labelling themselves as "white." Goes to show how insane this preoccupation with race has become.
What race is a half-Asian? What race is an American Indian or an Eskimo? (Asian, right?) What race is Obama, who "passes" as black to his great advantage in life?
In my opinion, private colleges can do whatever they want (eg Morehouse College), but taxpayer-supported schools should be racially blind. After all, our taxes are racially blind. Ignore race and ethnicity, and just think about their potential to benefit from, and to add something to, the place.
This past weekend, my elder son asked me to drive him to the outlets so he could get some Ralph Lauren shirts at a reduced cost. Frankly, I don't know where he got this penchant for name brand clothing, but it's his money, not mine. What is my money is the gas it takes to drive an hour to the outlets and the time I gave up to make the 2 hour (round trip) drive. I thought it would be a good lesson for him on 2 levels. First, I could teach him about opportunity costs by showing him why the trip was frivolous. Second, he'd get some driving practice so he could get his license in 2 weeks.
I wound up getting to fulfill my goals, he got his shirts, and we both learned a valuable lesson.
No good deed goes unpunished. In other words, Murphy was right. You can almost count on unintended consequences.
I love the old phrase: "We have the answer. Now what was the question again?"
It's the corollary to "For a man with a hammer, every problem is a nail."
Re my post yesterday, I still cannot understand why a jelly shop needs to be licensed and regulated. Haven't farmers been selling jams, jellies, and pies to happy customers for hundreds of years?
Lengthy and complex regulations are employment schemes for government employees and lawyers as much as anything else. Forget state regs -there are 86,000 pages in the Fed Register. Nobody knows what is in there, but it you violate one of them, you can be screwed.
The rules are stacked against even the smallest of entrepreneurs. If and when I decided to set up my own thing, I already know what I'll need to borrow money for: Lawyers.
When we ask how our current political state of affairs measures up to the Founders’ standard, we usually find ourselves discussing whether a given law or program is constitutional, and soon enough get tangled in precedents and lawyerly rigmarole. But let’s frame the question a little differently: How far does present-day America meet the Founders’ ideal of free government, protecting individual liberty while avoiding what they considered tyranny? A few specific examples will serve as a gauge...
Read it. Wonderful essay. Another quote:
There’s indeed a lot of petty tyranny going around. The question is, at what point do many little tyrannies add up to Tyranny? Likely voters suggested a troubling answer in an August Rasmussen poll: 69 percent of them said they didn’t think today’s U.S. government enjoys the consent of the governed. And in September, 49 percent of respondents, an unprecedented high, told Gallup pollsters that “the federal government poses an immediate threat to the rights and freedoms of ordinary citizens.”
"We created a group of self-entitled monsters." Hey youths, this is for you. Hey, OWSers, this is for you, too. Adam Carolla tells it like it is (language not entirely SFW, and h/t, SDA):
"Life is difficult." That book did me a lot of good, a few years ago. Got me into a little therapy, changed my life for the better, helped me realize that I was my biggest obstacle in getting on with life. Corny as it sounds, that empowered me. Shrink told me that there was nothing wrong with me except for being a "blaming and excuse-making a-hole" and I had to get my shit together, quit blaming and making self-flattering excuses, and take charge of my life like an adult who was willing to deal with reality instead of fantasies. Mean SOB was spot on. That's why I am, at present, having a very good life in New York City.
It is also why I don't do the morning posts here anymore. I am grandfathered in, to post whatever I want, whenever I want.
I am highlighting a weekend link about Fred Siegel that might have gone overlooked in the shuffle: 'The New Tammany Hall' - The historian of the American city on what Wall Street and the 'Occupy' movement have in common, and how government unions came to dominate state and local politics. One quote:
The future of his city worries Mr. Siegel. Forty years ago, New York had the most manufacturing jobs in America. But as the finance sector's share of the national economy grew to 23% in 2007 from 7% in 1980, New York turned almost into a one-company town. Meantime, the growing claims on the public purse by those who make little to no contribution to the economy have driven up taxes and the costs of doing business. The city creates jobs in tourism, hotels and restaurants at the lower end of the scale. "What we don't create are private-sector middle-class jobs," says Mr. Siegel. "We have a ladder with the middle rungs missing."
Government workers make up a growing share of the middle class. And perversely, says Mr. Siegel, unions can justifiably claim to defend the interests of the middle-class worker. "That's because the costs that they've imposed have driven out the private-sector middle class. They are the disease of which they proclaim themselves the cure."
The bad news is that she wasn't referring to Obama, dagnabbit. She thought she was just doing a voice-over and was flipping off some guys in the studio who were trying to distract her. There's a nice summation of it here.
The original progressives of the early 20th century, just like today’s seemingly incoherent liberals, were populist and technocratic — they argued both for direct democracy and for expert rule. Even as they called for enlarging the scope of the federal government and putting a class of educated specialists in charge of it, they also called for radical democratic reforms of our constitutional system. In the 1912 election, the Progressive-party platform proposed not only the direct election of senators but also the enactment of federal laws by public initiative, and even advocated allowing the public to overturn some court decisions by referendum.
And the progressives generally did not see a contradiction between their technocracy and their populism. They expected their technocratic ideas to be popular, and so they expected populism to lead to more expert government.
Progesssives hope citizens will sell their independence to the expert technocrats, without their realizing how venal and power-hungry those pols and technocrats are. Cannot fool all of the people all of the time, and there is no fool like an educated fool.
My always-fragile trust in self-anointed experts and elites diminishes daily - see the EU, or Washington, DC, for plentiful current examples.
“The proletariat will use its political supremacy to wrest, by degree, all capital from the bourgeoisie, to centralize all instruments of production in the hands of the State, i.e., of the proletariat organized as the ruling class; and to increase the total productive forces as rapidly as possible.”
Think about what this means. All of the money and power would be focused in the state, but then the state would not do anything with that concentration of power. The state was innocent. There would be no cronyism, no corruption, no bureaucracy, and no concentration of stupidity so as to make mistakes much bigger.
This is precisely — without the proletarian aspects — the Obama worldview. Good citizens with high levels of education will be the philosopher kings, telling everyone what to eat, drive, and do for their own good. Naturally, these people would have no interests of their own. Naturally, their learning from books and theories rather than from real life would not lead them into really big mistakes.
Then, there is Marx’s view of what later became known as the withering away of the state:
“When…all production has been concentrated in the hands of a vast association of the whole nation, the public power will lose its political character. … If the proletariat…makes itself the ruling class…then it will…thereby have abolished its own supremacy as a class.”
What we have here today is not the triumph of the proletariat but the triumph of the managerial-bureaucratic-intellectual-cultural elite. The best describer of this is not Marx but James Burnham, a former Marxist whose writings in the 1940s were the basis for George Orwell in writing 1984. Then there is Karl Popper, who pointed out that the greatest threat to freedom (the “open society”) were those who thought they knew everything.
Our rule of thumb at Maggie's: Never trust any human who wants any form of power, especially over you. No matter what they say, they do not mean well. If they claim they are doing it for your own good, run the other way as fast as possible. I am with George Washington:
Government is not reason; it is not eloquent; it is force. Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master.
Just as housework withers away, so the obligations of parents to their children wither away gradually until finally society assumes the full responsibility. Under capitalism children were frequently, too frequently, a heavy and unbearable burden on the proletarian family. Communist society will come to the aid of the parents. In Soviet Russia the Commissariats of Public Education and of Social Welfare are already doing much to assist the family. We already have homes for very small babies, creches, kindergartens, children’s colonies and homes, hospitals and health resorts for sick children. restaurants, free lunches at school and free distribution of text books, warm clothing and shoes to schoolchildren. All this goes to show that the responsibility for the child is passing from the family to the collective.
This was just as good, maybe even better, than the round table debate. The video is here. There's just something about the candidates sitting at a table that both lends itself to a more relaxed atmosphere, yet makes the whole event seem more 'businesslike', rather than sterile and 'debatelike'.
Like the last two debates, no bombs or barbs were hurled, and, much like the Cain-Gingrich confab, it was usually left to the participants to decide who answered what. More specifically, the moderator might ask the question of a specific candidate to get the ball rolling, then it was left to the group if anyone wanted to pipe up after that. It was cool, calm and collected.
There's a point to be made right from the start. This was a forum about morals and values, which actually is the definition of 'political party', in the sense that pragmatic and scientific issues such as defense spending, immigration and global warming have no business, whatsoever, being aligned with one political party or the other. The parties are supposed to be about moral issues like abortion and capital punishment; things that define a human being. How carbon dioxide reacts in the atmosphere is not something that defines a human being.
This does, however, work to our benefit, because there are many people out there who might identify with the Democrats on moral issues, but not buy into the AGW hoax and think we ought to drill, baby, drill in ANWR and immediately start building a hundred nuclear power plants. So they end up being Independents simply because they have nowhere else to turn. And Independents usually study the facts and know some history and, in theory, will be able to deduce that keeping a socialist in the White House for another four years is perhaps not the best of ideas.
So this debate was a little more important than how it might appear at first glance. This is the one that goes to the core.
This has been floating around recently and I thought it deserved a spot here.
The Debt Generation speaks:
Dear Republican National Committee: Come the general election, please discourage our candidate from running any self-promotional ads. Just run variations of the above over and over and over and over and over again, covering all ages, styles, types and classes of Americans.
I was all enthused about this afternoon's debate because of its different style and fewer participants until I saw a link this morning to an article on American Thinker, a highly-respected right-wing blog site, and read Prepare Yourself for Obama's Second Term, a thorough and persuasive demolition of the GOP's chances.
So I guess we should call this the "Why bother?" debate. Because, let's face it, according to the above article, we're just wasting our time, and it would be a lot better and healthier for the nation as a whole to simply give up now and concede the election. I'm sure this national feeling of peace and harmony was at the forefront of the writer's mind, and possibly those who linked to it. What's four more short years of Obama compared to how an impassioned and contentious election would tear the nation apart? It's nice to see that someone out there is looking at the bigger picture and seeing what we little people don't.
Nevertheless, I guess I'll dourly plunder on with this post. Haven't got anything better to write about at the moment.
This afternoon's dour waste of everyone's time is brought to you by 'family' groups, such as Family Leader and the National Organization for Marriage.
"This is not a debate," dourly said Bob Vander Plaats, President and CEO of The FAMiLY LEADER. "Our meaningless purpose is simply to learn about their dour worldviews and to listen to their dour hearts on key family issues. The discussion will allow us to see a more personal side of the dour and meaningless candidates."
(I edited the above quote a bit to bring it up to modern standards.)
I dourly note that neither Romney or Huntsman will be participating. What might make the event interesting, albeit in a dour and meaningless way, is that it's being touted as a 'forum', rather than a 'debate', so that should be fun to see, even if it is a total waste of everyone's time.
The good news is that you won't lose any of your valuable TV time as it's only being streamed via the miracle of the World Wide Web. Better yet, it's on at a grossly early 5 pm EST, so hopefully the entire nation will be too busy to watch this inconsequential pile of platitudes leading up to a foregone election.
Update: I meaninglessly just spotted that the sponsor site says "64 television stations will carry either live or delayed broadcasts" so check your local listings, although I doubt any station carrying it would bother mentioning it.
Again, I think the nation as a whole owes a debt of gratitude to American Thinker and their clear understanding of our hopeless chances (as well as those who linked to their fine piece) and, like the way global warming is finally dead, so, too, is this election, and I'm sure we've all got more important things to do than stare at some stupid computer in the middle of a beautiful Saturday afternoon when we should be out there living life to its fullest and doing important things, like cleaning the garage and washing the car.
Or, you could completely disregard the article's defeatist message and approach this afternoon's event with the same zeal and enthusiasm with which you've approached the others in our determined effort to get this horseshit socialist out of the White House.
Has individual liberty been a prime value in American politics and policy since Coolidge? (We are defining liberty as freedom from the power and interference of the state.)
Do Americans talk liberty, but desire utilitariansm? Is real freedom too difficult or scarey for most people nowadays?
Secondly, three guys including Will Wilkinson discuss Libertarianism and Liberty in serious depth at Boston Review. At Maggie's, we believe that the "liberty cost" has to be a large factor in any policy equation, or else we aren't America anymore.
Today, you hear more about financial cost, health cost, and environmental cost, than about liberty cost. (Can I trademark the term "liberty cost," or has somebody else done that already?)
Seems to me that Repubs talk more liberty than the Dems, who have eliminated it from their political calculus since Woodrow Wilson. However, the Repubs talk it better than they act it. Have pols simply learned that, when it comes to voting, people want stuff more from the feds than they want freedom?
"And the centerfielder's going back... back... Home run, Team Republican!"
Sorry, just getting in the mood.
With this extraordinarily long lull between debates (an entire week), I thought I'd step back and take a fresh look at things. Armed with the very latest in caffeine-fortified psychotropic drugs and a Jack Daniels I.V. drip, I'm prepared to take on such challenging questions as, "Does bra size matter in a presidential race?", and "Would you vote for someone with an opposing astrological sign?" That's why Maggie hired me, to take on tough, penetrating questions like these that no other blogger dares address.
By the way, I had a rare insight while writing this post and have resolved not to say too many scornful, derisive, abusive, reprehensible things about Ron Paul ever again. So that's good news for our Ron Paul fan(s) out there.
After last Saturday night's debate, I spent three hours writing one of the best wrap-ups yet. When I awoke the next morning, it had vanished from the Maggie's editor.
I have four logical theories on what might have happened:
1. The dog ate the server's hard drive.
2. Bird Dog, ever mindful of the "politically centrist" in the site's banner and the possibility of class action law suits for false advertising, read how many harsh, critical things I'd written about the liberal scum-dog moderators and immediately deleted the post to save the site's reputation. Because, as everybody knows, if there's one thing a politically-centrist site would never, ever, do, it would be to disparage one side without fairly and centristically disparaging the other.
3. The webmaster, never dreaming in his wildest dreams that some demented blogger would actually be writing on a Saturday night when he's supposed to be out there having one of those "life" things I read about did some kind of maintenance routine, or maybe an upgrade didn't work and he hit 'Restore', and that was that.
4. God is a Democrat, and omnipotently seeing that my article was destined to be viewed as the "greatest piece of literature in the history of mankind" and would be read in every language on every continent on earth and play the decisive role in getting Sarah Palin and Chris Christie elected Empress and Vice-Emperor Of The World (Newt Gingrich as Secretary of Earth, Mark Steyn as Chief of Staff), decided He'd better nip it in the bud. "This Palin woman just doesn't know her place," He mumbled. "And what's with that accent!"
There were, however, two telling moments during the debate, so I thought I'd grab the YouTube clips and snip out the scenes for your enjoyment.
Since liberal moderators will be speaking and there might be children present, decorum dictates that we continue below the fold.
Long-term mortgages may or may not be a good idea, but they do have willing sellers and buyers. In most of the world, mortgages are either rare or very short-term, ie 5 years, and are not tax-advantaged. From Forbes:
A 2005 paper by Adam Gordon describes the effects of federal mortgage policy from the 1930s until the 1960s. Congress created the Federal Housing Administration in 1934, and gave it the power to provide mortgage insurance to housing lenders. At the time, state and federal regulations strictly limited the kinds of mortgages banks could issue, which meant that mortgages were short—often as little as 5 to 7 years—and came with down-payments of between a third and half the value of a home. In the 1930s, the FHA convinced all 48 states to relax these rules for FHA-backed loans, arguing (correctly) that such loans were not as risky since they had the backing of the federal government. But most states did not liberalize the rules for banks with private mortgage insurance. In practice, this meant that FHA-backed loans were the only 30-year, low-down-payment loans on the market, giving the FHA de facto power to decide who would be eligible for such loans.
and
The FHA’s standards became a self-fulfilling prophesy. Young, upwardly mobile families in the market for a first home (at least the white ones) went where they could get the best deal, and thanks to federal guarantees that was the suburbs. Meanwhile, urban areas were starved of capital thanks to state laws that banned private parties from making long-term loans in those areas. Not surprisingly, suburban home construction boomed during this period, while urban areas stagnated.
The FHA and the mortgage interest tax deduction introduced giant distortions into housing markets. Just add "free" government highways to the mix, and you get what you have.
In my view, the FHA and the mortgage deduction are simply subsidies to construction industries and unions, and the freeways simply indirect subsidies to the auto and trucking industries and suburban construction industries.
Yes, yes, I know it's like Christmas came early, but there's another debate on tonight. What makes this one a little different is that this is the first debate aired on one of those old-timey 'broadcast' channels, often referred to as 'cave man channels' in the cable industry. I believe a roof antenna is required, if I remember my childhood correctly. Rabbit ears can be enhanced by wrapping balls of aluminum foil around the tips.
Of course, because microwave transmissions heat up the air and thus cause global warming, they can only broadcast for an hour at a time, so you might have to scramble if you want to watch the last half-hour.
The first hour will be broadcast live on the CBS Television Network. Additional portions will be broadcast on Face The Nation, CBSNews.com, NationalJournal.com and will be available to CBS affiliate television and radio stations for a mere $5 fee.
It looks like it's being streamed on the CBS News site.
The good news is that the debate's main topic isn't something crashingly boring like economics or Social Security. Tonight's 'primary' focus (get it?) will be on national security, and I'm eager to see how Cain defends his plan to put electrified barbed wire along the top of the southern border wall. The moderators will probably label it 'cruel', but it's really just a matter of how much voltage is applied. A mild, paralyzing shock never hurt anyone.
It'll also be about foreign affairs, so all Ron Paul advocates within the reach of this blog site are strongly urged to miss this one at any cost. I'd suggest a small hammer blow to the forearm or hand, just enough to warrant an hour and a half visit to the hospital. I promise you, the pain you'll feel will be much less than if you'd stayed home.
The question is how the audience will respond when Paul outlines his plan to distribute America's nuclear arsenal to every country in the world so that all nations can be equal, thus ending war forever. The audience might go for that, but they'll probably stop short when he suggests we rename Washington, D.C. to Ahmadinejadville. That guy really knows how to push boundaries, doesn't he?
As far as who's hosting the show besides CBS, we're in luck. It's some magazine called the 'National Journal' and it appears from their web site to be quite fair and evenhanded, which is just what we need after the CNBC Attack Machine went into overdrive last Wednesday.
Hold on, let me grab a quick screen shot:
Yep, looks fair and balanced to me. Actually, I thought they went a little easy on Perry, but maybe they're trying to show that they're above picking on him just because he had a small memory lapse in the last debate, although it's doubtful any professional media organization would ever stoop that low.
The fair and impartial extravaganza begins at 8 pm EST on your local Cave Man Channel.
I usually don't get to include videos in the debate wrap-ups because of the time crunch, but since last Wednesday's debate wasn't streamed and I had to watch it on YouTube, I figured I'd take advantage of the opportunity and snip out a few choice moments. Rather than the usual debate wrap-up, this'll be commentary on the vids and a few side thoughts.
Now here's a surprise:
The debates are getting better.
Although I didn't catch it live, I eventually saw it on video and the gang was on. My guess is that the moderators coming right out of the gate with their attack program really woke everybody up.
That is, if you consider the second question as 'out of the gate'.
The first question sounded fairly innocuous; how will Italy's impending meltdown affect America, and should we do anything to help them? A fair and reasonable question, directed to Mr. Cain.
Cain responds as you'd expect, pointing out that we can't really help them, and we should be focusing, instead, on the domestic economy. And how does the moderator respond? She phrases it like a statement, rather than a question:
"So, to be clear, focus on the domestic economy and allow Italy to fail."
Yeah, that's it, Maria. Focus on the economy and allow Italy to sink into the fiery abyss of hell incarnate, thereby telling every Italian-American in the audience, "Hey, screw your grandparents! Let 'em die!" Not surprisingly, Cain didn't bite, and when the question was directed to Romney, he said the same thing; that Europe was perfectly capable of fixing itself, thankyouverymuch.
From that point on, I wouldn't say the candidates were particularly on their 'best behavior' with the moderators. Three or four times a moderator cut in during an answer and was rewarded with a snippy "Pardon me, but do you mind if I finish?", if not outright ignoring them. It wasn't 'antagonistic', but certainly no undue respect was given the moderators the rest of the evening.
In truth, I don't think the moderators were quite ready for what they were about to unleash.
Jon Corzine left a few days ago, and turned down any funds he was due, as he should. He is no doubt positioning his defense. Is he any worse than Madoff? I certainly don't think he is any better. Yet another political figure, in this case of the Left, shames himself.
Say, what was that silly thing I said yesterday about "apathy" and blog sites like Hot Air? Oh, right. Guess who didn't even mention last night's debate yesterday?
Hot Air.
Update: No, wait, I was wrong. I just discovered it this morning. One of the main bloggers, 'God's Critic', did, indeed, write about the upcoming debate. A half an hour before it started.
Well, alrighty, then!
The asshats at CNBC didn't stream it (the first debate that hasn't been), so I didn't see it. If nothing else, though, at least it finally answered that pesky question, "Is there a liberal bias in the mainstream media?". Can you imagine them not streaming a debate if Democrats were involved? If you'd like to tell them what a bunch of biased pigs they are, their contact page is here.
And no, I haven't seen the Perry video, despite it being thrown in my face all morning long. Quite frankly, I'm not into sadomasochism. I read the transcript and feel sorry for the guy. I'll take a look at where we stand in the next election post.
First off, I've found an excellent site with all of the upcoming debate dates and videos of the past debates here.
As I see it, there are a three aspects to these political debates that, in general, the pundits out there either don't get, or refuse to acknowledge because it would devalue their article. Or, in some cases, negate the need for the article altogether.
The first is not recognizing that debates have procedures, no matter what the topic or venue. For example, if an opponent has used up his allotted time barking at you and continues to do so, the proper procedure is to address the moderator, not get into a cat fight with the asswipe breaking the rules, thereby breaking them yourself.
Here's Charles Krauthammer after the last debate, when Perry went bananas on poor Romney's ass:
Worse, Romney turned to the referee — moderator Anderson Cooper — with a plaintive "Anderson?" seeking intervention. An uncharacteristically weak moment.
That is precisely incorrect, and I saw this evaluation a lot after the debate. There are protocols in place for almost any endeavor where people get together, be it school board meetings, town hall meetings, the Rotary Club, the local kids' treehouse, you name it, and political debates are no different.
We tend to throw the words 'moron' and 'imbecile' around a lot in the blogosphere, but I believe the correct word in this case is ignoramus.
And then there's this from candidate Jon Huntsman, who sat out the debate:
"I was totally embarrassed -- completely embarrassed by the lack of seriousness, the lack of focus on the issues that really matter to the American people -- issues about reviving our economy and addressing joblessness were given short shrift," said the former Utah governor.
Sounds mighty powerful and caring and candidate-y, doesn't it? Well, Jon, here's the thing:
The candidates don't get to pick the topics!
I've seen the whiny "But they're not talking about the important stuff!" all over the place, including the comments here. Either these people have no business behind a keyboard, or they're purposefully glossing over the obvious so they'll have something to bitch about. As the renown TigerHawk says, can you think of a third alternative?
(As a small side note, I often use Tige's great question when reading an AGW article. I think at the time, either this moron actually believes this tripe, or he's lying through his teeth for a greater purpose, most likely his wallet. Can you think of a third alternative?)
And the worst of all is the dispiriting tenor of the bloggers. "Oh, Crap, Another Debate" blares Hot Air. "What A Snoozer!" screams PJ Media. It's been getting worse and worse as the debates roll by. This will sound absolutely ludicrous, but I'm the only blogger I see who's remaining excited about them and trying to keep our collective spirits up. Yes, I excoriate the candidates mercilessly at times, but I'm also quick to pass along kudos when I feel they're deserved. I crack jokes, I point out that Michele looks particularly hot tonight, I keep us in tune with the audience's reactions, like who got the first big applause, who got the biggest applause, and which candidate is the only one to get soundly booed so far (I wouldn't want to mention any names, but his initials are R.O.N. P.A.U.L.), all in the hopes of inspiring people to stay involved and upbeat.
Everybody else acts like watching and reporting on them is a chore.
The point is, with people being distracted by Thanksgiving and Xmas, the next few months are going to fly by and the primary elections will be upon us. After four months of steadily-increasing ennui, do the bloggers expect everyone to suddenly catch fire at the last minute just because they tell them to, or will the momentum that builds from apathy be too strong?
And, will it be too late?
As for tonight's debate, the subject is economics. Stand by for a bunch of complaints tomorrow from various pundits and commenters whining, "But they didn't talk about the important stuff!"
The debate will focus exclusively on the nation's economic challenges including the national debt, jobs and taxes.
Seriously, is it possible for them to be any clearer?
Game time is 8 pm EST, CNBC. The assholes aren't streaming it, so I'll miss it.
As a small side note, I've been pushing for Governor Scott Walker of Wisconsin for the V.P. slot since the beginning. Add this to the reasons why.
It's about greed and the Blue Food Bowl. The middle class of America is increasingly dependent on government money, directly or indirectly, rather than on private industry - and the financial industry is in with the whole program. There are good reasons for the financial industry to be almost entirely Democratic and in political alliance with the government food bowl.
What all three groups share is a burning desire for more: a hunger and demand for ever larger amounts of government revenue and power. Money and power for the government enable the upper middle class good government types to dream up new schemes to help us all live better lives and give government the resources for the various social, ecological and cultural transformations on the ever-expandable goo-goo to-do list that range from a global carbon tax to fair trade coffee cooperatives and the war on saturated fat. All these programs (some useful in the Via Meadia view, others much less so) require a transfer of funds and authority from society at large to well-socialized, well-credentialed and well-intentioned upper middle class types who get six figure salaries to make sure the rest of us behave in accordance with their rapidly evolving notions of correct behavior.
That is, in accordance with our betters.
and
The cops, the teachers, the firefighters, the sanitation and transit workers: these are most of what remains of the backbone of what used to be the organized working class. Many who don’t work directly for the government work for the health care industry, where government and private insurance payments have kept the blue model alive for employees. Others work for infrastructure and construction companies – much of whose business comes from government. Their ranks were once swelled by reasonably well-paid manufacturing workers and other private employees in what was once a job-rich metropolitan environment. A few private bastions of the middle middle class remain (workers in the cooperative buildings where the überrich live, for example), but these days the purely private sector middle middle class is in full scale retreat in cities like New York and public and quasi-public sector employees take the lead.
This group doesn’t get paid as well or enjoy the prestige of the goo-goos, but they have built structures and institutions that secure them a middle-middle class existence. In the public sector at least they have done surprisingly well at passing their jobs and connections down to future generations. As the urban middle middle class shifted from a largely private sector group to a group primarily dependent on public sector spending and jobs, the political balance also changed. Like the goo-goos, the urban middle middle class needs more revenue from the rest of society: people in this group want the number of jobs in their institutions to grow and naturally enough they want to be better compensated: more take-home pay, better benefits, a younger retirement age with a more generous pension.
and
Threats to the food bowl both unite and divide the Party of Blue. All of them agree that federal revenues should be higher and that much of that money should flow to the cities and states. This preference helps hold the Democratic Party together and – combined with other groups (like big agriculture) that get fat subsidies – helps the Party stay competitive at the national level.
But when cuts must be made, or when limited resources must be divvied up, the groups divide. The goo-goos are willing to cut middle class entitlements and government pensions to fund upper middle class social priorities. Which, they will argue, is more important: to pay (excessive, irrational) pensions to superannuated firemen and cops. or to build a pathbreaking carbon cap and trade system that could save the planet? They are ready to sell state unions down the river, as Democratic politicians ranging from California’s Jerry Brown to Chicago’s Rahm Emanuel to New York’s Andrew Cuomo are doing as I write. But they prefer a peaceful and gradual approach that does not reduce the Democratic Party to a state of civil war and can present themselves to the unions as a lesser evil than Republican red staters who want to kill the unions altogether.
Government employees have a simpler point of view: they want the money and they want it now. They want it without reforms and they want it while they continue to enjoy their traditional privileges and perks.
It's not a Big Tent, it's a giant food bowl provided by a shrinking base of taxpayers. See Greece...
This was such a rare, wonderful event that I thought I'd bump this back to the top so you can get a flavor of what happened over the weekend. The video's available for watching.
Well, that was different.
Imagine, if you dare, two fierce competitors vying for the nomination fighting it out eye-to-eye in yet another political bloodletting on national television.
Over the next hour and a half, the following harrowing events occur:
— When the candidates are asked a new question, they decide between them who should answer first.
— The candidates are welcome to talk as long as they want. When the other wants a turn, he wags a finger and the floor is turned over to him when the next conclusion is reached.
— At one point, a candidate answered a question for about three minutes, then the other candidate talked for about three minutes, then the first candidate apologized and said he hadn't really stated his answer very well the first time, so he took another three minutes, resulting in a much better, clearer answer.
— When the candidates were invited to ask the other a biting, crippling question that would put their opponent's greatest weakness on display, one candidate referred to the other's extensive business background as a CEO and asked him what advice he'd pass along to the current crop of CEOs. Then that candidate referred to the first candidate's extensive political background and asked him what three things had he learned looking at the system from the outside.
— One of the candidates told a lengthy joke and everyone had a really good laugh.
— While they didn't wish to appear rude, it was clear that they didn't want the members of the audience to break in with applause any more than they had to. After all, it is a small breach of etiquette to interrupt someone while they're talking, and thankfully the audience took this slight with good grace.
— Over the course of an hour and a half, these two big, warm, lovable guys who were nothing but smiles all evening long used the words "cheaters", "liars" and "crooks" about a thousand times. They didn't hold anything back. With both of them, it was like a given that every government institution is filled with X percent of the aforementioned cheaters, liars and crooks. They were merciless.
America does have social classes, to some extent, based on all sorts of familial tribal signaling and shared understanding, but the mystery to most pundits especially on the Left is income mobility among economic levels. Social class and income are not the same thing. See "genteel poverty." Via The poor don't stay poor, the rich don't stay rich:
The data showed that fully 56 percent of those who in 2001 were in the lowest 20 percent quintile of income earners had moved up to a higher income quintile by 2007. At the opposite end of the spectrum, 66 percent of those who in 2001 were in the highest quintile of income earners dropped at least one quintile by 2007. And, as Perry notes on his Carpe Diem blog, lest anybody think the period spanning those years might not be representative because of the housing boom that triggered the Great Recession of 2008, data cited by the Fed point to the same pattern of high income mobility from 1996 to 2005. Fully 57.5 percent of those in the top 1 percent of income earners dropped to a lower quintile by 2005, while 57.8 percent of those in the lowest quintile in 1996 moved to a higher one by 2005.
In America, economic "class" is just a moment in time for most people.
The "MF" in MF Global does not stand for "Maggie's Farm". But it could stand for "Massive Fraud". What's amazing, as the MF Global story unfolds, is how one of the liberal standard bearers, Jon Corzine, put his future and his reputation on the line to make more money than the tidy sum he already has. He was, after all, known as a risk taker. But he was also one of the Left's golden boys.
There's nothing wrong with making money, and nobody should begrudge Corzine what he earned. However, I was happy to see him removed as my governor, due to the hypocrisy of his rhetoric and his disastrous leadership. His political views, contrasted with his behavior as CEO of Goldman Sachs, were inconsistent. He claims to be a man of the people, seeking to right wrongs and help the poor. He also gave support to, and received support from, unions. As CEO of Goldman during the run up to a public offering, he cut staff, fought unions, and tried to lower wages. In doing so, he oversaw a successful IPO, but was eventually ousted.
It's always intriguing to see liberal hypocrisy laid bare and listen to the spin. After all, it was recently speculated that Corzine might be a Geithner replacement. Few of his Democratic colleagues have jumped to defend him.
Corzine could, and should, have been much smarter about this. After all, MF Global purchased a firm which had executives jailed for exactly the same kind of fund commingling which seems to have just occurred. So it seems reviewing history was not helpful to the management of MF Global. Does a connected politico earn a jail cell for his behavior?
This was passed along by a friend. It's long, but honest. The breakdown on health is fascinating, putting the onus on misdirected incentives and unhealthy lifestyles. Clearly these things can only be fixed by an overbearing nanny state. I'm posting it late because I figure it's useful for insomniacs or data junkies like me.
I cannot find an image of the old Liberty and Property flag from the American Revolution, but it seems to have been flown often, and certainly in the town of Falls Village (part of Canaan, CT - not to be confused with the wealthy NYC suburb of New Canaan, CT).
The history of Falls Village with some info about the flag here.
Falls Village is still quaint, rustic, and desirable because its grand plans for industrialization failed.
I am reminded that Jefferson's first draft said "life, liberty, and the pursuit of property," but that it was changed in later drafts to the more general but hopelessly vague "Happiness."
The dam on ye olde Housatonic River in Falls Village (not my photo):
There are many reasons that the liberal meme about the unfairness of income inequality is misleading. Still, there is income inequality, and one of the largest causes of income inequality is the difference in rewards to those trained in technologies and those not. See this graphic of the difference in pay among those in hi-tech jobs and those in service jobs. Those with technical skills, also, go on to build successful businesses of their own and get wealthier. As the CBO report on income inequalitypoints out, an increased proportion of the wealthier are those applying skills rather than clipping coupons or withdrawals from trust funds. This News Hour interview nails it.
Our 4-year (yeah, I know, for many it’s 5 or 6 years) colleges do not produce enough graduates in the sciences, nor for that matter do they offer much training in the supporting tech vocational skills. As a result, we import immigrants with hi-tech skills and innovate to transfer more work to machines. Both of these do add to the nation’s productivity and wealth, to some extent benefiting the poor through funding government welfare programs and to some extent benefiting the non-tech middle class through added comforts and medical breakthroughs. But, still left behind are the earnings of those without hi-tech skills.
Our colleges serve their faculty with jobs for those in the humanities. Our colleges serve students with perhaps interesting courses, and delayed adult responsibilities, who do not acquire marketable skills. The opportunity costs are enormous of college enclaves buffered from the laws of supply and demand.
Community (2-year) colleges have many vocational and certificate programs of value to businesses, many allied with local businesses, and offer many entry-level courses for matriculation into 4-year colleges and at lesser tuition. But, they also offer wide-panoplies of fun courses for the young and for adults, courses that detour spending away from vocational curriculums and away from hiring higher-paid, more competent faculty. Private technical schools and vocational colleges do partly fill the gaps in training, the well-motivated with adaptive attitudes and sufficient intelligence getting better paid and more secure jobs. However, most of the brightest are blindly steered into conventional colleges’ humanities degrees (including various “diversity” degrees) where they do not acquire marketable skills. One could argue that most of them, however, lack the interest and application to be successful in technical degree programs anyway.
"Either the Commerce Clause gives Congress a plenary power to regulate anything it pleases or it doesn't; and let's have that argument," says George Mason University law professor David Bernstein.
The saying, “charity begins at home”, gets at many issues at the heart of most learned discussions of the charitable deduction from income tax, but also raises a core issue that is too often missed. The income tax is not about charity and should not be given equivalency to charity, and even if many government programs are charitable individual choices to either give charity or not is preferable in most cases and should not be discouraged or dictated by government.
Charity should not begin, or end, wherever government says so. Government should begin or end wherever citizens say so. There's room between but to place government above private choice and enterprise is to misplace priorities and public good and benefits.
The US Senate Finance Committee just held hearings about the charitable deduction that mirrored the arguments that have been raised since the inception of the deduction with the federal income tax during World War I. The questions revolve, and revolve and revolve, around should there be a deduction or other scheme, how much should be allowed, by whom, to which type of organization. Reading a brief history of hearings on the deduction, there is an underlying premise that all of income is subject to government priorities.
I won’t argue for the most selfish interpretation of “charity begins at home”, that all of one’s means should be kept within one’s walls. The Jewish conception of what in English is called charity, tzedakah, makes it a high personal obligation, and unlike the frequently cited 10% the Jewish Testament calls for more as can be afforded. Christians and others of good faith or morality think similarly and give similarly.
On the other hand (as any good Talmudic discussion goes) “charity begins at home” also raises that it is voluntary and one should not abuse one’s personal responsibilities. In other words, the fruits of one’s inheritance or labor are primarily one’s own to decide their use. On the other hand, again, in the social contract we enter into for the personal benefits of being part of a larger order, government, we accept that we are taxed for the general good. In a democracy, cumulatively we choose how much that tax may be and on what. Of course, that is not perfect as there are differing ideas of how much and on what. But, public engagement and elections are available to weigh in.
Throughout the years of government debates on the charitable deduction the incentive has been on raising government revenues, with differing theories of who should pay how much and the relative efficiencies of the schemes and their effects on differing types of recipients being the details.
No one denies, all should abhor, that there are many recipient organizations that abuse the laws and donors’ good intentions to profit insiders and not the public good. That calls for increased enforcement through public exposure, investigations and criminal prosecution. But, on the other hand, that still leaves many recipient organizations allowed by the tax code to commit other abuses of common understandings of charity, such as being mostly political or their proceeds benefiting other than the needy poor. After much outrage and years of mulling this, I still have to come down on the side of the argument that says our money is ours and that there is inadequate justification for giving it instead to government that too often does the same as non-charity charities, not to mention profiting politicians, revolving-door or job-protecting bureaucrats, and government cronies.
Washington, D.C. is the country’s wealthiest area, richer than Silicon Valley. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid says “government jobs must take priority over private-sector jobs.” There are Republican and Democrat feeders at the government trough and who are profiting from crony capitalism. There is less to show from all their taxpayer expense than they would want us to believe. There is more to show in general public good from entrepreneurs, productive businesses, steering progress through private choices of what is needed or desirable.
I bartended in Vegas a number of years ago, and while I hated the traffic, I loved the general feel of the city. Seeing The Strip off in the distance was a constant reminder that You're in party town, USA, bub. It was frolicsome and fun. I have some observations here.
I suppose the word we'll be seeing for this debate is fiery.
I have been returning to the theme of government as enterprise over the past couple of years, but the Knish Man put more effort than I ever did in fleshing out the concept: The Business of Government.
Government is indeed a bubble, as much in the US as in Greece. Just two of many possible good quotes:
Like most non-profits the real business of government was creating profits for its board, employees and their friends. This core business was funneled through constant busywork and massive projects and programs that existed to conceal the real business of government. Layered around it was chaos and incompetence that prevented even those on the inside from being able to fully evaluate the real cost of its operations.
and
The monopolistic nature of the business of government had created a company immune to outside concerns. But that bubble was being challenged by the consequences of its mismanagement and the growing public dissatisfaction at the value of its services and their cost. The collision was as inevitable as its timing was unclear and it would change how the business of government was to be conducted.
First off, before the peanut gallery pipes up with "Not another debate, already!", I should note that the last debate was solely about economics, and that the previous debate was a month before, so it's been a while since we've heard Perry claim that Social Security is an illegal Ponzi Scheme and thus should immediately be disbanded, or Ron Paul screaming we should BRING OUR TROOPS HOME NOW! to thunderous applause from the Paulbots in the audience. Good times, good times.
As far as the current status of the election goes, I suppose the primary question is, can Cain actually, really, for-sure, possibly, maybe, somewhat, somehow beat Obama? Because if he actually, really, for-sure doesn't have a snowball's chance in Hell, then the next Morning Meeting at MSM Headquarters post is going to be full of self-congratulatory remarks as the gang pats each other on the back for the plethora of Cain Would Beat Obama In Face-off, Poll Says headlines that have been floating around recently.
Remember, as I noted in my very first election post, the plan is to always push the 2nd- or 3rd-place Republican contender in order to diminish the person holding the #1 spot, thereby keeping the masses in a state of flux. One thing we don't want is for anyone to actually be making any decisions out there. Keep 'em unsettled, keep 'em guessing, right up to the day of the election. Then, the American voter might still be so undecided when they hit the voting booth that they think, "Oh, maybe I'll just go ahead and vote for that nice Mr. Obama. He's so articulate!"
Utah readers, you'll be crushed to learn that Huntsman is boycotting the event because of the possibility that Nevada might move its caucus up on the schedule. That sounds a little thin, but the two states do abut each other, so there's bound to be a little rivalry between them and there might be more to this than meets the eye. An article on the debate is here.
Ana, for one, said she voted for Obama last time, but will now be supporting the Republican nominee, whoever it is.
"I don’t want promises," she said.
Short and sweet.
Tonight, 8 pm EST, CNN. Democratic lapdog Anderson Cooper is moderating, so it's possibleprobable inevitable that the questions just might will be slightly biased tilted dramatically in order to get the group to throw bombs at each other, but after last week's calm, measured round table debate, much of that early rancor might be gone.
Perry/Cain/Gingrich 2012?
(Hey, big businesses have more than one VP — why not us?)
While at first glance this might appear to be 'old news', I can assure you it isn't.
Because no more than a week ago I was reading some article and the guy was listing out all of the bad things our government has done in recent years (granted, it was a long article), and stuck right in the middle of his list was "lying us into an unnecessary war". This refers to Iraq, and how Bush 'lied' by telling us Saddam Hussein possessed weapons of mass destruction, or WMD. As the lefty meme at the time declared, Bush lied, thousands died!
And, much like global warming, the 'Bush lied us into war' meme has become so ingrained and believed that even a conservative writer might include it on the list without even thinking about it. Either way, I couldn't fault the guy.
Below the fold is the single greatest collection of quotes I've ever seen, regardless of subject. They were stuck in the comments of some throwaway article a while back and I hate to see the effort go unnoticed.
One quote deserves particular attention:
"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983."
- Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998
Yes, Saddam had literally tons of WMD in his possession at the time. Bush and the CIA and the British, French, German and Israeli intelligence services were entirely correct. Estimates vary, but he'd already gassed somewhere between 100,000 and 350,000 Kurds with deadly Sarin gas and the like. The problem is that the anti-Bush MSM took 'WMD' to only mean nuclear at some point, ergo, if they didn't find any nuclear weapons in Iraq after the invasion, then Bush lied.
And, yes, we found tons of WMD, in the form of Sarin gas, in Iraq — but you never heard about that in the MSM, did you? Power Line was the one who broke the story, about eight months after the invasion. The army had found over 1,500 shells of Sarin gas in one underground bunker alone.
I don't expect you to be particularly interested in the list, but I'd like you to keep this post in mind the next time you see the 'Bush lied' meme dragged out and wish to respond. This is one of those things that simply cannot be refuted.
To predict the demise of Capitalism, that is. Adam Smith did, too. So did my favorite economist, Joseph Schumpeter. Each one had different views on how it would end.
Marx foresaw the proletariat rising up and seizing the means of production. We all know how well that worked out.
Adam Smith believed an accumulative class would eventually collapse upon itself. Smith felt accumulation drove the market forward, but also felt accumulation for the sake of accumulation was wrong. He felt eventually, there would be nothing left to accumulate. Somewhat Malthusian in nature, and very unlikely based on his own concepts of markets and value.
Schumpeter went to great lengths explaining exactly why both these great minds were wrong. He felt Marx completely misunderstood the nature of markets. Schumpeter put the innovator, the entrepreneur, at the center of his economic model. It is the driving force of creativity and the desire to improve that keeps Capitalism and markets healthy. The value provided by this group of people helped offset the underlying problems of labor described by Marx.
Capitalism existed as a force for change, not a static system which was essential for Marx's system. Schumpeter was unabashed in his support for, and love of, markets and capitalism. He sought to destroy Marx's arguments, and did so in impressive manner.
They were asked (if you can believe this) if they thought anyone on Wall Street should go to prison for the economic harm they've done.
James Taranto in yesterday's Best of the Web Today expounded on this in his usual exemplary fashion and I thought I'd bring it to your attention. He really nailed those liberal asshat moderators.
I’ve been a big shot in several giant corporations, several smaller ones, and a consultant on finance, business operations, HR and employee benefits to many more, aside from running my own business.
I’ve never seen a situation where excessive labor demands or behavior was not the fault of poor management. Once launched on grievance and then power seeking by labor, a downward spiral ensues. Sometimes management reforms, often not. Eventually, the business fails and all suffer.
When there are more effective competitors, that process is speeded.
Surviving US companies have met that competition by becoming more efficient in their processes or by sending manufacturing abroad for cheaper labor, or both devising better processes and sending it abroad to foreign factories or outsourcers.
US labor unions used to be very effective in developing free unions in poorer countries, as a bulwark against exploitive communist unions and to defend our prosperity in a freer world. Today, they are adamant against foreign outsourcing while refusing to become partners in US efficiencies, but have lost their position in all but government unions and similar where they can exert a monopoly granted by paid-off politicians. They do fight for fairer labor standards in free trade agreements, but mostly to impede outsourcing rather than to encourage free trade.
Free trade should not be an issue, as all benefit, us from cheaper products and focusing investments where we have a comparative advantage, foreign workers from getting a leg on the ladder to better living conditions than in rural drudgery and exploitation by local thugocrats.
We are not in the early 1900s, and shouldn’t blithely feel that eventually foreign workers will be in a better position. And we are Americans and do not believe in undue exploitation of others. We are in a faster, communicative world which does not wait decades and, further, the image of the US is more important when native populations and not just their elites are our audience and affect our own economic and national security interests.
First off, the (literal) round table format was great. As I mentioned yesterday, it gave the whole debate a 'businesslike' atmosphere, yet it was also much more 'casual' than normal, simply because they were sitting so close together. It was also cheerier, in that when someone cracked a joke, you could hear everyone laugh. Cozy, might be the word. For the record, Michele Bachmann has a delightful laugh.
And while I was wondering how they'd handle the numerous cameras required to keep everyone in front of the lens, they solved that little problem by not shooting anyone from the front. Most of the shots were offset a good angle, and then there were the you-are-there shots like this:
I thought it was terrific, and the next 'standard' debate is going to seem almost stilted in comparison. Notes are below the fold.
The first political systems, from an institutional standpoint, were monarchies. Monarchs either considered themselves gods, chosen by 'the gods', or "Chosen by God". In almost every sense, the political system was tied somehow to the spiritual beliefs of the nation.
During a college course on Democracy, my professor spent the better part of an hour and a half discussing the implications of this concept. He pointed out that God Himself chose Israel's first king, and approved of their choosing a king. I immediately raised my hand and asked "But God didn't want Israel to have a king, did He? He considered Himself their king and allowed them to have Judges which acted as their spiritual and moral guides on earth."
*Unless you live in New Hampshire or get the exciting Bloomberg Channel on your cable network.
Well, there are plenty of questions surrounding tonight's GOP debate, but one of them overrides them all.
Will the candidates soundly condemn the Washington Post's outrageous attack on Rick Perry? Will Herman Cain again play the race card by bringing it up as he did last week? While a few of the braver candidates dared to use the word "entitlements" in the last two debates, will any of them have the cheek, the gall, the moxie, the sheer effrontery to use the term "lavish government pensions" in tonight's debate? Will any of them, after having read Maggie's Farm this morning (as I'm sure they all do), call for NASA to be severely downsized? Will Rick Perry continue to endorse the slaughter of Innocent Young Girls™ (copyright Michele Bachmann Enterprises 2011) with the HPV vaccine? If he does, will Rick Santorum and Ron Paul have to pay Bachmann royalties to use her favorite copyrighted phrase in their own spittle-spewing diatribes?
So there are some of the questions surrounding tonight's debate. But, as I said, there's one little mystery that far outweighs them all:
Why the hell isn't it being aired? Or even mentioned?
Zero articles about it this morning on Fox, CNN, MSNBC, ABC, CBS, USA Today or the Washington Times. There's a big splashy pic on the Washington Examiner's home page, but the article appears to be offline.
The Washington Post, which is co-hosting the event, has an article here. The streaming link is on the page. Starts at 8 pm Eastern. There's also a TV station in New Hampshire airing it, as well as the exciting Bloomberg Channel for those of you with satellite dishes and 500 channels at the ready.
And it's taking place around this:
King Arthur could not be reached for comment.
From a technical standpoint, this looks kind of dicey. They'll have to have a cameraman straight across almost every candidate or the angles are going to make the person directly in front the camera appear like they're at the head of the table, and anyone shot at an angle is going to look like a subordinate.
And sitting down isn't what contenders usually do when they're trying to oust the usurper behind the throne. It'll make them all look subordinate to the guy in the Big House. Which, given that the Post is a liberal tabloid rag, is probably the intention.
That's also indicative as to the type of questions that will be posed. Look for the moderators to keep them fighting among themselves and thus keep them from mentioning a certain White House resident by name.
What they want is for the viewer to order the candidates in their least liked order. You least like one candidate more than the others, then move up the list to the candidate you least like the least. So you guess you'll vote for him or her, but only until they do or say something else that the MSM points out as demonstrably unlikeable, in which case you might just vote for that nice Mr. Obama, since at least you know where he stands on things.
Or, just as likely, because people don't like voting for 'lessers of evil', you just stay home.
Mission: Accomplished.
I'll report in tomorrow on this mess. There might be an unanticipated effect from having the candidates sitting, rather than standing. They might appear more 'businesslike', which, given the dire straits our economy is in, might come across as a real plus. It might give it more of a 'boardroom atmosphere'. We'll see.
Few economists, and even fewer politicians, have dared utter the word 'Depression'. It's making a comeback, though. Are we in one? My guess is, no not yet. We've been close, and the economy isn't exactly moving in a direction that makes one think there's tremendous upside.
But we haven't been in anything more than a prolonged, deep recession.
Given the state of affairs surrounding debt, political inertia, crony capitalism, manufacturing, foreign exchange and unstable currency, it won't take much to force the U.S. into a much deeper downturn which would be labeled a Depression.
"They may have stopped another 'Great' depression but not a depression and what for many was the most profound lesson of economic history may turn out to be wrong," he said, adding the fact that government debts and obligations were already so high before the crisis pump priming meant they now risked backfiring.
Warren’s emphatic assertion of the unremarkable — that the individual depends on cooperative behaviors by others — misses this point: It is conservatism, not liberalism, that takes society seriously. Liberalism preaches confident social engineering by the regulatory state. Conservatism urges government humility in the face of society’s creative complexity.
Society — hundreds of millions of people making billions of decisions daily — is a marvel of spontaneous order among individuals in voluntary cooperation. Government facilitates this cooperation with roads, schools, police, etc. — and by getting out of its way. This is a sensible, dynamic, prosperous society’s “underlying social contract.”
Elites like Warren believe that we benighted masses cannot really handle freedom. What we really cannot handle is excessive government meddling in our lives.
The other day, former Google employee Doug Edwards asked President Obama to please raise my taxes. Edwards has the luxury of being "unemployed by choice." This is a very nice choice to have, one which I wish I had when I was unemployed. Not having the financial wherewithal Mr. Edwards has, it forced me to make some very different choices during my period of unemployment. One of them was not related to raising my taxes at all.
Where Edwards, and Warren Buffett, go off the rails is their assumption that raising their taxes is something they should be allowed to impose on others who may not share their views. If Mr. Edwards has a very good friend who is also making money by selling his stock from "a small startup that did quite well", it's quite possible that friend is happy with his tax rate. Is it fair or right for Mr. Edwards to tell his friend that his taxes should be raised?
More importantly, what is Mr. Edwards doing with his money that he wants the government to have? He pointed to Pell Grants, infrastructure and job training programs as things he considered important and worthy of having his money taxed. We could all agree that infrastructure is in need of improvement. But couldn't Mr. Edwards put his money to better use by setting up scholarships and grants on his own, or becoming an entrepreneur and doing his own job training program by starting a business? Mr. Edwards, I don't want to tell you how to spend your money. After all, it's yours, and I have no right to tell you how it is best used. That's up to you. If you want to pay more taxes, then pay. After all, you can gift money to the government. Nobody's stopping you.
On the other hand, if I had the luxury of Mr. Edwards' position, I'm fairly certain I could set up a scholarship fund and provide money for schools far more efficiently than the government. Why would I want the government to take my money, spend hundreds of thousands of what they collect on bureaucrats who don't add value, and have those people distribute the money to needy school students? There's less money to help the students. Of course, it does become a remarkably inefficient jobs program. I suppose that's the joy. You've been taxed and given several people useless jobs that you could probably do better on your own.
If I had the background that Mr. Edwards has, and lived in the startup capital of the US, I could probably be an entrepreneur. Then my money does several things. It becomes productive, I get to have my own jobs program, and the company and all its employees get taxed. Funny thing about the free market; you can actually be quite effective with your money if you have a good idea.
Mr. Edwards and Buffett aren't asking not for their taxes to be raised, but for everyone's taxes to be raised, and they have missed the very point that not raising taxes creates value if people want it to create value. Edwards and Buffett think the money has to go to the government to be effective. Sadly, the money will produce nothing of value, and the government will only ask for more later after this money is misspent.
Mr. Edwards, the only thing I can think is that you mean well, but you have missed the boat entirely. It would probably be far more useful to everyone if you and your "Patriotic Millionaires for Higher Taxes" set up a Venture Capital Fund or funded some schools in down and out regions of the US. I'm sure all of your "Patriotic Millionaire" friends are very smart and capable people, so one option would help create jobs and taxes, while the other would reduce our reliance on the federal government for handouts. Either way, you get to feel better and we all win.
Only 17% of American physicians are members. I quit them long ago, over their politics. Like so many foundations and non-profits in America, they were hijacked by Lefties years ago.
The antipathy of physicians for the AMA is not just about money, turf, and guild. It goes way beyond that. However, apparently the AMA's strenuous support of Obamacare (seemingly without understanding any of its implications) has been the final straw.
There is a new breed of young physicians, especially women, who don't mind being employees, having bosses, or working as an agent of the government, but most docs over 40 are not interested in that. In general, docs like autonomy, flexibility, self-direction. Also, they hate paperwork and bureaucracy.
The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government, are few and defined.... [T]he powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State.
This division of labor accords with the venerable principle of subsidiarity, which allocates governmental responsibilities to the lowest levels able to exercise them. The effect is to ensure that governmental decisions most immediately affecting people's lives will be made by officials who are the closest to them and have the most intimate knowledge of the relevant facts and conditions. This design served us so well during the first 150 years of our national existence that the eminent British historian Lord Acton, declared that our constitutional development of federalism "has produced a community more powerful, more prosperous, more intelligent, and more free than any other which the world has seen." Over the years, however, our federal government has engaged in massive raids on the constitutional prerogatives of the states. Today there is virtually no governmental responsibility beyond the reach of federal authority. As a consequence, our nation has been converted into an administrative state overseen by unelected officials who issue regulations that reach into every corner of American life. Few appreciate the extent of this transformation. In 1935, at the outset of the New Deal, the United States Code consisted of a single volume containing 2,275 pages of statutes. Today, it comprises 30 volumes of statutory law. When I was in law school, Title 42, which contains the federal laws relating to public health and welfare, consisted of just 128 pages. Today it contains over 6,200 pages, more than twice as many as the entire body of federal law at the beginning of the New Deal.
Bureaus and agencies issue endless marching orders to administer those federal statutes. By 2010, the Code of Federal Regulations contained over 166,000 pages of detailed, fine-print regulations that have the force of law and affect virtually every aspect of American life.
People have to spend tons of money on lawyers just to know what is in those pages. What a waste. Good for the legal industry, however.
The people don't owe Warren and her vast government machine anything. She owes it to them.
For over a century, the public has paid far more into government than it has received back in benefits. That extra money has gone to people like Warren. It has gone into the entire rotten machinery of crony capitalism, welfare state machine politics and massive bureaucracy. So let's be clear about this. We don't owe Warren and her ilk anything. She owes us.
I love the old phrase: "We have the answer. Now what was the question again?"
From Yuval's 
A 2005 paper
The other day, former Google employee Doug Edwards asked President Obama to