Category: Politics

Glenn Reynolds links to an article about the protesters in Zuccotti Park. It’s an interesting read.

Freedom is a tough concept. Clearly, these people think that they themselves should be free to do whatever they wish on an individual basis. But they fail to recognize that “freedom” doesn’t just mean “freedom for me.” It’s also “freedom for thee.” So who really has the “right” to tell the drummers to stop drumming? Or the “authority” to collect a “tax” from the tips the drummers bring in? Who can setup a tent and where?

You can sense the cognitive dissonance of the protesters as they campaign to overthrow government, whilst they self-organize to try and maintain and enforce order on themselves to keep the protests going. The lessons are there to be learned if the protesters weren’t so ideologically blinkered.

Turns out, maintaining a civil society isn’t so easy. Who knew?

Police in a Tennessee town think it’s parental neglect to allow a child to ride a bike to school. (h/t Instapundit)

The bottom line here is, a police officer took it upon himself to creatively interpret the law to scare a parent into changing their behavior. A commenter at the thread does some research and even talks to the Chief of Police and comes up lacking with any real evidence that the officer is acting within his limits. Everything hinges on the judgment of the officer involved, versus the judgment of the parent involved.

I suppose if I wanted to tease this out, I could go into a pseudo-impressive question mode. How busy is this road? Is the child in question following the rules of the road? Is the parent unable to give the child a ride to school in the morning? And on, and on.

But in the end, this comes down to one of those things that all parents are required to make: a judgment call balancing their child’s abilities with larger life lessons and safety. I’ll note that just because the officer in question wouldn’t let his child make that ride, clearly doesn’t mean everyone else would make that choice. To turn things on their head a bit, it is not hard to imagine his judgment on such matters being jaded by his job in favor of excessive safety. Children do not remain so forever and need to be exposed to responsibility, risk and decision making. Not all children grow up the same, as such only parents are equipped with the requisite base of knowledge to be able to make these kind of decisions. Micro-management of parental decision making is the very sort of thing that, I think, undermines the State’s authority.

Personally, I’d rather that we live in a world where the parent is given the latitude to make such a call without being threatened by State action. And, if he really felt the need to act, the officer could have simply dropped the child off at home and said “I was worried about the safety of your child and decided to give her a ride home. That route is pretty busy, you might want to reconsider letting her ride alone. Have a nice day.”

First, let be clear language wise. There are no cuts to anything as a result of the deal. No one is getting less money than they were before, they’ll just be getting less than expected. And that’s assuming that it’s not all accounting gimmickry, which Congress has now pretty much surpassed Enron in it audacity to perpetrate. Remember, if there were actual cuts, we wouldn’t have had to raise the ceiling.

Second, did anyone notice that the first thing mentioned as “threatened” was Social Security payouts? Except, I thought Social Security was fine and working? So why should we have to raise the debt ceiling in order to meet Social Security payouts if its a perfect example of a successful government program? Inquiring minds would like to know.

Third, overall I’d say assigning the “success” or “failure” tag to the deal really depends on what comes next. If we can actually hammer spending back in line with revenue from here then I’d say it was a success. Otherwise, it’s a failure and it’s only a matter of time before the too-clever-by-half accounting in Congress comes back to (unexpectedly!) bite us in the ass.

Finally, we need more Tea Party people in Congress to force this issue. Ideally, they’d be of the persuasion that touching SS and Medicare is fair game; unfortunately, everything I’ve read about Tea Partiers doesn’t indicate that trait. Meaning the job may not get done.

Reading this article about China’s debt, the thought comes to mind that, if in fact China’s debt problems are real, what are the odds that world governments get together over drinks and just decide to forgive each other’s debts? What are the consequences of such an action?

To be more clear, I’m not saying it will happen or that it’s even a remote possibility. I’m just … wondering, that’s all.

(hattip: Instapundit)

The refrain is familiar from pundits: the public at large are a bunch of fools and rubes because we want to reduce the debt and deficit but don’t want tax increases or cuts to entitlements. Two recent posts at Instapundit have me wondering just how true this professional opinion is.

First, we have a post from this morning which leads us to a study showing that given the raw data, most Americans can cut the deficit dramatically with a combination of spending cuts and tax increases.

Second, there was another post over the weekend where, prompted by an emailed, he speculates why totalitarian regimes tend to collapse so quickly. In a nutshell, he theorizes that in such regimes the people are all secretly against the government because it serves their short-term interest of not getting killed, beaten, thrown in jail, or some miserable combination of the three. The regime spends an enormous amount of energy convincing everyone that everyone else loves the regime. In other words, the regime remains in power because of a brutal con game. Once the people start to realize that everyone else really doesn’t like the people in power, the effect is overwhelming and such regimes seem to collapse overnight.

I wonder if a similar effect might not be brewing regarding the public and our spending. We’ve been told for years that none of us really want to cut entitlements. The support for this always comes in the form of a poll about what the public wants to cut, and it always shows that no one really wants to cut anything, except foreign aid.

But what if the polls aren’t really asking the right questions? I think it raises the distinct possibility that the prevailing professional opinion is incorrect. That, in fact, the only reason it exists is because of an unintended consequence of the constant polling data and the professional interpretation thereof. It’s a feedback loop: everyone hears that no one else is serious therefore, because most of us are busy with the business of our lives rather than politics and polls, no one does take it seriously.

In my scenario, the prevailing, but secret, attitude is one where people do want to make the necessary changes to solve the problem, but no realizes everyone else is onboard. So what’s necessary is a “piercing of the veil,” raising the simple question: “How?” There, I don’t have much to offer. Broadly speaking, we all have to become aware of everyone else’s willingness to work it out. Perhaps through more studies or polls structured like the one in the above link. Perhaps through more politicians putting forward serious proposals that allow us to see that certain things are favored.

If I’m correct, then I’d expect opinion to coalesce around a solution rather quickly and dramatically. If I’m incorrect then, well, no big deal. It was just a thought.

Just follow these simple steps:

1. Determine current fiscal year tax revenue. We’ll call it $Our_Money.
2. Subtract 5% to allow for variance in revenue for next fiscal year. We’ll call this $Adjusted_Our_Money
3. Make sure that expenditures don’t go above $Adjusted_Our_Money.

Simple. Now, for Social Security and Medicare.

1. Forget about the SS “Trust Fund.” It doesn’t exist other than as accounting fiction.
2. Determine total yearly Medicare revenue and SS revenue. We’ll call these $AMA_Vote_Money and $OldPerson_Vote_Money, respectively.
3. Limit monthly outlays to ($AMA_Vote_Money/12) and ($OldPerson_Vote_Money/12).

Note that with this plan, we can likely pay down the debt a bit per year.

Now, really, was that so hard?

Based on the intensity of the reaction to the President’s decision to involve our military in the going’s on in Libya, I really wonder if he didn’t just cost himself the election? Note, I’m not talking about the usual critics- this time the critics are his supporters. Generally, outside of the sorts who I would expect to defend any decision the current President makes (and even from that group, I’ve been surprised at the lack of support) no one likes this decision and no one is bending over backwards to defend it.

Personally, I don’t know if his decision is a sound one. I’m inclined to believe it isn’t- after all, what’s the strategic value of it from our perspective? I’ve yet to see anything plausible. The only thing I can think is the old “unknown unknowns.” That is, the President and his advisors are surely in possession of intel which we are not and that information is the basis for the action. It’s admittedly thin gruel, but that’s about all there can be at this point.

Looking around the intertubes and thinking back a bit this morning, we’ve got the ongoing disaster in Japan; a civil war in Libya; a revolution of sorts in Egypt; problems in Bahrain; the ongoing wars in Iraq and Afghanistan; rising oil prices domestically; money problems in countries like Greece and Ireland; domestic problems in Wisconsin and Ohio; domestic entitlement issues are coming to a head; have I missed anything? Probably.

Years from now, the 90’s will be remembered as an aberration in history; a time of peace and contentment world wide that happens on an almost centuries scale. The vacation from history ended on 9/11; and it doesn’t look to be coming back any time soon.

Via Instapundit: Democrats rope-a-doping Republicans on Spending.

If this is true, then the response is simple. First, stop flailing and recognize they will get nothing. Second, come up with a budget. A real one that doesn’t pander to factions. One that closes tax loopholes and cuts spending everywhere. Hit the news and explain it, defend it and own it and be sure to tell everyone that Democrats are not interested in balancing the budget.

I won’t say this will work. In fact, I have my doubts at this point. I think too many people still believe they can have their cake and eat it too. That all the saving can be done by getting rid of pork and waste. Nobody wants to give up the SS check or Medicare or Medicaid. The only seemingly common area for cuts is defense spending, but even there it’s minimal.

That said, the argument needs to be made. And it also needs to be pointed out that we can’t tax our way out of it. There isn’t enough income to tax (short of the government out-and-out confiscating all income above a certain amount) to bring in the revenue to balance the budget and start paying down debt. Cuts have to be made. Period, end of discussion. We can’t grow our way out of it either.

Republicans need to stop trying to thread-the-needle. There is none to thread. If they go down, at least they do so telling the truth for once. If they believe in a limited, smaller government then they need to step up now.

Unfortunately, I’m keenly aware the politicians don’t work like that.

Ann Althouse lives in Wisconsin and interviewed a doctor signing medical excuses for the protesting teachers. After hearing a few seconds of this guy talk my first thought was “Really, this guy’s a doctor?!?”

OK, cheap shots aside, an amusing thing happens towards the end of the interview when a protester asks if these doctors will be around on Monday. The guy’s reply is, basically, “No, because I have to work.”

Oh the irony.

Instapundit linked a Bruce Bartlett piece this weekend in which Mr. Bartlett essentially dismisses current attempts to cut the budget as stupid, uninformed, dangerous and whatever other negative adjective might fit. Generally speaking, it’s not all that different from anything else I’ve read regarding how to address the Federal government’s fiscal responsibility.

With regards to Mr. Bartlett in particular, I’m sick of hearing from him. Supposedly, he backs smaller government that doesn’t rely on 5% annual growth and more taxation. But every time he pens an opinion, it seems all he ever has to say is “No” along with a list of reasons why the people trying to instill some fiscal sanity are, in fact, insane. It seems only people such as Mr. Bartlett are suited to the task of fixing things. Never mind that, from the perspective of supposed fellow travelers of Mr. Bartlett’s, the government situation has done nothing but get worse on his watch. Perhaps he’s more afraid that other’s might succeed where he’s been, well, incompetent.

Personally, I’m still waiting for some politicians to say it straight and to the point- there’s no easy way to do what must be done. Politicians would go a long way towards treating the American people as adults with such a simple gesture. They’d also go a long way towards gaining some much needed credibility on the topic.

I don’t expect to hear these sorts of things from backers of unlimited government. In fact, I’d expect people of that persuasion to continue to tell us how we can’t cut things willy-nilly; that there isn’t as much slack in the budget as people seem to think; that “crucial” services will be cut. I expect them to air every excuse imaginable to not cut government spending. Americans are too addicted to their programs; poor people will be disproportionately screwed; we’ll be sacrificing our future.

It would just be nice if they weren’t aided and abetted by people whom, like I noted earlier, are supposed to be on the same page concerning the size and scope of the Federal government.

UPDATE: Well, I stand corrected on “waiting for some politicians to say it straight…”. Congratulations to Mitch Daniels. I guess I’ll get something of a test-case for whether Americans respond to be treated like adults.

Actually, Radley Balko asks a series of questions for Lefties. A good quick read for anyone I’d say. Via Instapundit.

I don’t expect many will answer that question honestly. It cuts to close. But I also think a lot of Republicans and capitalists would get tripped up by the question. If ours is truly a government of limited powers, then they have to start justifying social engineering and corporate law.

I don’t think many currently masquerading as “leaders” want to think about it at all.

What happens if this latest tax deal is passed, and then the economy turns around (as just about all pundits seem to think will happen)?

I ask this because it occurs to me that the Democrats had there shot at a stimulus plan that has failed (not that they’d admit to that). At least, I’d say that’s certainly the perception. So now, we cut taxes and the economy picks up. Doesn’t this give Republicans a real world argument about the efficacy of tax cuts versus spending as stimulus?

I’m sure that amongst Democrats, the answer will be obvious. But what will be the takeaway from the public at large? Will they look back and say “Hmmm, spending stimulus didn’t do anything, but low tax rates got things turned around!”? Are Democrats prepared to lose that argument empirically for a generation?

For myself, I think the economy is in a state such that there is a decent chance that tax cuts don’t work. But if they do, it seems to me the Democrats stand to lose some credibility on their purported economics chops. If that comes to pass, how ironic is it that it happens due to the efforts of a Democrat in the White House?

Does anyone else remember Democrats claiming that the Bush Tax cuts were the root of all evil? They caused heart burn, indigestion, upset stomach and diarrhea. The cuts were tilted towards the rich(aren’t the “rich” mostly Democrats nowadays?) They caused the Arabs to hate the Jews. Oh, and global warming and bad breath.

Now, a day after President Obama cut a tax deal, the tune has changed. The tax cuts are the “second stimulus” they’ve been pining for lo these many years. They’ll help increase GDP by as much as .75% and pretty much cement the President’s reelection chances. They are a brilliant compromise where he snatched strategic victory from tactical defeat.

So did anyone else notice that? or is it just me and my fevered imagination? Perhaps that’s what is meant by “nuance.”

I Wonder if the blow knocked any sense into him…

So today is the day that President Obama pardons a turkey- the usual Thanksgiving thing for US Presidents.

In other news, VP Joe Biden will be visiting an auto plant along with the President for some reason or other.

So it’s safe to assume the turkey pardoning went off without a hitch.

Easily the most disappointing news is that Lisa Murkowski is still a Senator. Was Miller really that bad? A somewhat distant second is that Harry Reid is still a Senator as well. C’est la vie.

I’m not thrilled with Blumenthal here in Connecticut. I could barely watch his victory speech last night- I thought McMahon was better in her concession speech frankly. He’s going to “protect us from pharmaceutical companies and big tobacco.”

Yeah, who’s going to protect us from him?

I think this is the best explanation that Dems can find for what’s about to happen to them. Not that I’d expect any of them to understand it.

It’s just too simple.

Lately, all the Democratic criticism of current Republican/ conservative ideas seems to be a variation on “the failed policies of the past.” I think it’s worth pointing out that Medicare, Social Security, and now Government Healthcare are bankrupting the country. Further, everyone, Democrats and Republicans, agree with that assessment. Yet, somehow, with the exception of Healthcare which hasn’t fully taken effect, these are considered paragons of successful government policy.

Here’s the best explanation I can think of regarding this conundrum.