Ignorance and Insanity

“Being in a minority, even in a minority of one, did not make you mad. There was truth and there was untruth, and if you clung to the truth even against the whole world, you were not mad.”

~1984

Federal debt as of 12/05/11: $15,068,133,903,969.13

Federal debt as of 12/04/12: $16,347,055,651,380.32

(Source: TreasuryDirect.gov) 

That's roughly $1.3 trillion in debt over the last calender year.  In Washington, our President is absolutely demanding tax hikes on the "top 2%" which will supposedly raise $1.6 trillion over ten years.  That's $160 billion per year, assuming of course rich people do not abandon this country.  The United Kingdom just jacked up taxes on their rich and now collect $11 billion less in revenue than they did before.  

$1.3 trillion minus $160 billion is still well above a trillion dollars in the hole per year. 

This is not a serious plan for a very serious issue.  This is purely about attacking innocent civilians who can only be accused of being successful.  And our electorate put Obama back into office purely for this politics of envy. 

No wonder Washington is so dysfunctional. 

The truth is, we are going bankrupt.  The President's plan is not even aimed at this problem but at attacking people he despises for no particularly good reason.    And the American people are so damn ignorant that they can't even do the basic arithmetic to find out his glorious plan leaves us a trillion short for the upcoming year. 

It's not so much that the future isn't bright as that it's horrific.  And it is incredibly frustrating to realize my future is tied to this ship where the captain is a petty minded fool and the rest of the passengers are convinced the ship cannot sink. 

We Are Awake In A Nightmare

Over at RedState, Erik Erickson has a post arguing that John Robert's otherwise unaccountable defection is a blessing in disguise for the Tea Party.  They will arise from their slumber and whoop up on the Democrats in November, leading to the repeal of ObamaCare.  He argues, " A giant woke in 2009. It went back to sleep thinking it had saved the republic in 2010. It’s awake now and I don’t think it is going back to sleep."

I respectfully dissent.  

For starters, even if Erickson is correct about the ObamaCare ruling revving up support for libertarian beliefs and elects enough Tea Party politicians to Washington to overturn ObamaCare, it will take all of one election to undo that and bring back the mandate.  Additionally, more mandates may be coming down the line from our statist foes.  As I argued in March, we had to win that case to keep Pandora's Box from opening.  I erred in believing the Commerce Clause would be the main argument (as did every lower court judge, regardless of their vote on the legality of ObamaCare), but the now solidified "constitutionality" of mandates is a reality.  Every election is now a battle to keep mandates out of our lives, and sadly we will not win them all.  The expansion of the federal government into our lives will accelerate regardless of the outcome in November. 

But Harrison, I don't believe our boys will reach that wall (in November). 

Nearly every argument conservatives and libertarians make about the damaging impact of Obama's policies on our lives is just too complicated for the average Joe or Jolene to follow.  It's far simpler to believe the grocery store is just jacking up prices to make profit than to understand how low interest borrowing by the federal government increases the money supply, decreasing the value of money down the pipe but not for those initially receiving that spending.  It's pretty damn tempting for people suffering in this economy to take a "free" entitlement of any sort, especially when the real downside won't hit for another few years or even decades (think Social Security, Medicare, ObamaCare, etc.).  It's too damn real out there for most folks not to want some great leader to magically pull us from the morass; they will follow that hope even when their reason tells them our leaders are egotistical, corrupt, and blatantly incompetent.  You can literally point this out to people: ask them if they think Congress is competent and generally not corrupt.  They will tell you no.  Their polling is usually in the low teens.  Ask those same people if Congress should be more involved in "fixing" our problems.  You won't like their response.  It's doublethink; the cognitive dissonance should be deafening, but it isn't.  We should throw more power to the corrupt and incompetent to fix our problems. 

We see it in Europe.  Nobody at all wants to face the fact that most nations over there are bankrupt and need to cut spending immediately.  Our people will be no different. 

Us Tea Party folks may very well awake to find ourselves in a living nightmare from which we cannot escape.  Erickson says they fell asleep after 2010; maybe so, maybe no.  But their impact in 2010 was not particularly great.  We may have slowed down the expansion of government some, but we are not reversing it, and 2010 was very likely our high water mark in terms of support. 

I am becoming increasingly convinced that the only options before us are secession (highly, highly unlikely) and going into the thousand years of darkness Reagan warned us of.  If the Tea Party cannot put government growth into reverse, then that second outcome is inevitable so long as we stay within our current political system. 

If we are serious about our stance on personal liberty and limited government, we will have to start taking a hard look at that first option.  But I don't think most people, even within the Tea Party, are that serious.  When given the choice between fighting for those liberties we supposedly hold sacred, putting our lives, fortune, and sacred honor on the line, or maintaining our admittedly shrinking comfort in the land of soft despotism, you'll find the forces of revolution being mighty small. 

I'll continue struggling against this parental tyranny because it is wrong and I cannot quietly abide what I see as wrong.  But I do not continue this struggle with a belief that it will work, at least within our current political framework.  And I'm pretty certain I'm not alone in that. 

We are awake.  The nightmare isn't a dream.  The monsters are real.  And we are now very, very naked before them. 

All of the Rules Apply

"Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it."

~Rule 13, Saul Alinsky's Rules for Radicals

"Never go outside the experience of your people."

~Rule 2, Saul Alinsky's Rules for Radicals

Scott Walker won a decisive victory over Tom Barrett and the public service unions last night.  Given the raucous protests in 2011 from Madison to the Occupy movement and the supposed retreat of the Tea Party, folks on the Left are wondering how Walker could possibly have own.  The straw they are latching onto is that Walker's spending advantage, bolstered by the Citizens United decision, is weak.  Ask yourself, when was the last time you voted for a candidate because of how much money they spent?  Have those 30 second ads ever swung your vote?  Possessing a large war chest is more often a symptom of popularity rather than its cause. 

So what went wrong for the unions and their OWS prototype protest?  They followed Saul Alinsky's most famous rule to a T.  Scott Walker was their target, they painted him as evil incarnate (often literally), and made it clear that supporting the governor was morally unacceptable to anyone who would listen.  The negative rule 13 tactic has rarely been carried out as ruthlessly as against Walker.  It pumped up union members and liberals to nearly hysterical levels.  They remained focused on portraying collective bargaining as a basic human right to stay within Alinsky's second rule, to not go outside the experience of your people. 

But those folks misread Alinsky and America.  Middle class Wisconsinites were the people to be organized and they play by rules very different from those of the radical Left.  Trashing the Capitol and war monuments, screaming obscenities, drum circles; these are poison to average John Q. Public III.  He is revolted by them.  "The failure of many of our younger activists to understand the art of communication has been disastrous.  Even the most elementary grasp of the fundamental idea...would have ruled out attacks on the American flag."  The OWS types can scream that they are the 99% until they are blue in the face, it just isn't so.  Both the Wisconsin Democrats and OWS made the incredible mistake of assuming Middle America resembles the protesters!

What does Middle America actually see when it comes to Scott Walker?  A challenge to a privileged class.  Note not "the" privileged class, but certainly a class with privilege.  My step-dad would fit in with most middle class Americans.  He is 59 and is a supervisor of a few dozen employees, but started decades ago at the bottom.  Retirement is a fading dream for him; likely as not, he will work until he physically cannot out of financial necessity.  There is no love for Wall Street bankers, that's for damn sure, but they rarely show up in our part of the world.  What burns his ass on a daily basis are "public servants" complaining about not getting a bigger raise, chipping in for their own health care, or the travesty of retirement at 55.  

Again, my step-dad is 59, retirement is a fading dream, his property taxes are skyrocketing to pay for others to retire at 55...and they are ungrateful. 

The wonder isn't so much that Walker won as it is that Middle America has not smashed this machine until now.  "Fairness" should never leave the mouth of anyone retiring before 60 on a public pension, if not for moral reasons than just out of basic tactical considerations.  But the unions and the Democrats pushed this issue.  They were resoundingly defeated and every governor in the nation facing budget troubles (nearly all of them) knows now that public sector unions are not invincible machines.  They can be beaten, and more importantly, there is a huge groundswell that wants to see them beaten that extends far beyond the Koch Brothers. 

If Republicans are smart, they will tie the President to these unpopular public unions and force him to declare where his loyalties really lie.  If the Democrat Party renounces their top financial and organizational support structure, both could find themselves estranged from each other and significantly weakened for years to come.  Their strength lies in reinforcing each other; the unions provide votes and cash for the Democrats, who in turn provide privileges to the unions.  But apart from each other, they both lose.  The unions are unquestionably unpopular and it is easy to point out their privileges to those paying the bill.  Let's make Obama lose his union support or that of those disgusted with union privileges.  I think this is something we absolutely must focus on.  Unemployment and the bad economy hurt Obama for sure, but they are complicated enough for the average American or Harvard economist not to fully understand, which makes assigning responsibility difficult.  Supporting union privileges, on the other hand, is straightforward. 

Perhaps the most important takeaway is that the Left is in a bubble, a point noted by many conservative bloggers.  The Tea Party is extreme, public pensions are popular, Walker was weak, ObamaCare is popular and unquestionably constitutional, Occupy would play a large role within our political system, etc.  It's frustrating to deal with somebody who just cannot see a damn wall in front of their own face, who is adamant that the wall doesn't exist.  But I'm long past done trying to convince those people of their own weaknesses (though I still love creating cognitive dissonance wherever possible).  Keep telling yourself that people who face a lifetime of working for no retirement will support paying higher taxes to hear the recipients of tax money, retiring with color still in their hair, bitch about how hard the public servant's life is.  Don't work within the experience of the very people you need to convince.  When you skip right to Rule 13, it is your own cause you freeze, personalize, and polarize.  We'll make every election a Pickett's Charge in which you assault our fortified positions with actual Middle America. 

Et Tu, Nelson?

“Scalia said [Wednesday] that it was totally unrealistic to read the whole law. Sen. Nelson didn’t think it was too much for the justices to know what they’re talking about when questioning the law’s content,” said Nelson spokesman Jake Thompson. 

I'm just disappointed nobody bothered to ask senator Nelson if HE read the bill.  You know, since he imposed it upon us and all. 

Funny that nobody on the Left is complaining about the four liberal justices who were and remain considered dead locks in favor of ObamaCare.  No, we'll question the independence of the conservative justices who up until this week were considered in play.  And we certainly won't question Kagan's role as Solicitor General when ObamaCare was passed. 

And finally, the four liberals effective took over Donald Verrilli's role once the Solicitor General made it perfectly clear he hadn't done his homework.  But we won't question their independence.  No sir! 

How dare Scalia ask hard questions!  Seriously? 

Not Mitt Folks, Come to Terms Before Obama Gets His Second

At this point, I don't see how anyone other than Mitt Romney wins the GOP nomination without going to a brokered convention.  Romney's 386 delegates are 138 more than Santorum and Gingrich combined.  It's not certain either "Not Mitt" candidate could beat Romney in a straight up contest, but after Gingrich's completely unsurprising win in Georgia last night, we won't find out.  If he has any bounce at all, it'll come at the expense of Santorum over the next week as a few more southern states vote, giving Newt even more reasons to stay in it.  Once March is over, though, the race moves into decidedly Romney territory, with a number of those being winner take all. 

A lot of folks are not particularly thrilled about Romney winning.  I'm not giddy about him, but I cannot possibly imagine Independents voting for Rick Santorum.  The 2006 PA Senate race shows how unelectable he really is.  Santorum's conservative record is as spotty as Romney's.  And the biggest kick in the nuts is that he's running as a social conservative.  Got news, people: that's not the winning issue of 2012.  Most independents do not want to trade one guy meddling in their pocketbooks for another meddling in their bedroom.  

Gingrich has just as many problems as Romney as well.  Hey, who worked with one of the most hated companies in America that brought on the housing market bubble and collapse?  And who has a record of dysfunctional leadership?  Speaker Gingrich.  And is he going to attack Obama on the individual mandate?  Hell no, the man supports it.  Yes, he's better at debates, but there will be all of 2, maybe 3 with the President.  We absolutely must have somebody who can run a campaign efficiently to stand up against the Obama machine; Romney's the only one who has consistently done that so far.  

And Ron Paul...you just keep being Ron Paul.  Actually, no, just go away.  I'm a libertarian and you're the single greatest thing holding that ideology back.  Publishing racist material will automatically disqualify you from being a person worth listening to.  Now if Rand Paul could step up, that might be interesting, but regardless of who takes the mantle, it is imperative that Ron Paul go away for the sake of liberty. 

Really, compared to the alternative, Romney's not so bad.  The best thing we Tea Party types can do is avoid the worst possible situation of having Obama nominate more people to courts over another four years.  We need to come out in numbers to win the White House and, perhaps more importantly, put liberty loving citizens in the House and the Senate, just in case Romney does let out his inner RINO.  But we cannot despair because our most likely candidate is not the solid conservative we might wish.  We have to be the realist we are and make the most of what we can.  

Our rallying cry that will work with independents is not going to be "Get Romney/Santorum/Gingrich In"; it's going to be "Get Obama Out!"  Going to a brokered convention with Romney leading and having GOP insiders pick anyone but the guy with the most votes is an absolutely horrible idea; I haven't heard people advocating it yet, but it's not beyond the more outspoken Not Mitt crowd to do so (looking at you, RedState). 

Again, a Romney win is not my wet dream, but the other two viable choices are not particularly conservative, either.  The passionately Not Mitt crowd needs to come to terms that Romney will likely win so that we can put the energy in tossing Obama out and weeding out the foes of liberty in Congress as best we can. 

Are We A Post-Constitutional Society?

This is about a week old, but didn't get nearly enough airtime for its importance.  A Gallup poll was taken asking certain questions about ObamaCare; the most important chart is likely the last one.

Only 20% of Americans believe this law is constitutional, yet 44% would oppose a Republican Congress and President from removing it?  At least a quarter of Americans, the vast majority of them Democrats, seem to be taking this stand.  As a basic policy preference, this large chunk of the Left is openly admitting that where their laws and the Constitution come into conflict, the Constitution should back down. 

I think it's also reasonable to question how many of that 20% stating ObamaCare is constitutional actually believe that but are rather saying that because it is politically expedient to have the two appear in harmony rather than in conflict.  It's also worth questioning the constitutional understanding of those who legitimately think this healthcare law is square with the Supreme Law of the Land. 

Libertarians and many Conservatives have been making the case that the Left sees the limitations on government as an artifact of the past that should be eliminated in favor of "progress" without understanding that "progress" is a subjective term.  This poll indicates that is the case.  Frightening news. 

2012 Presidential Election Predictions

Ok, so it is incredibly early to be saying for sure how the Presidential election will break down nine months from now.  Anyone who knows anything about politics can tell you a who lot of things can change during that time period.  The 2008 election is proof enough of that.  Currently, we hear a lot of moaning and whining about how the GOP field sucks and how this will lead to an Obama reelection.  I don't think that's accurate; the GOP field is definitely not great, but they have the distinct advantage of not being Obama.  Mitt and Newt will duke it out for a few more weeks, but come March I think the primary will largely be decided (with Mitt winning), at which point it becomes a referendum on the President. 

This is what an admittedly not great GOP candidate is up against.  I took these Gallup numbers and plugged them into the electoral college map provided by 270towin.com, with the following conditions:

• The Republicans win every state they won in 2008.  If these states stuck by the GOP during the landslide Obama win, there's no reason to believe they will switch now.  Polling indicates this is the case.  After the Census changes, the score is Dems 359, GOP 179.
• States with a 50% or more disapproval of Obama go Republican.  Disapproval of a President is very hard to overcome; people are more excited to throw the bum out than supporters are about going out to vote for him.  Even with an equal participation rate, Obama still loses.  Nevada, Colorado, New Mexico, Indiana, Ohio, and New Hampshire all go into the red column.  Obama 306, Romney (?) 232.
• Now we take all of the states that have higher disapproval than approval of Obama, but which are not at 50% yet.  Florida, North Carolina, Virginia, Pennsylvania, Oregon, and Iowa all flip to neutral.  GOP 232, Obama 216.  
• I don't feel like playing with the Nebraska and Maine splits, so they will stay as they were in 2008.

Of those six states, I somewhat randomly predict the following:

• Oregon will stay Blue, despite the lower approval rating.  They haven't voted for the GOP since the year of my birth; it's not impossible this will change, but I wouldn't describe it as probable.  GOP 232, Obama 223.
• Iowa is almost exactly tied according to Gallup.  Romney did pretty well there in the primary, and if push comes to shove I don't see the more hardline conservatives sitting it out in favor of Obama.  I'm leaving this as a tossup for now. 
• My neighbor just to the south, Pennsylvania.  They swung pretty hard for the GOP in 2010 and the race was pretty close in 2008.   This could end up repeating the 2000 Florida mess.  
• Virginia has swung pretty solidly against the President, electing a GOP governor against the President's direct campaigning in 2009.  Nearly a 5% difference in approval/disapproval not favoring Obama.  Goes GOP.  Reds 245, Blues 223.
• The Tar Heels are pretty close to VA; while the African American community will still swing hard for Obama, they always go for the Democrats.  Obama has lost the independents in that state and has a 43% approval rating and a 48% disapproval.  GOP 260, Obama 223.
• Florida.  A must win for Obama if my other predictions are accurate.  Obama has a 43% approval rating, just short of 48% disapproval, and Romney just stomped Gingrich in Florida.  This one goes GOP.  President Romney 289, Former President Obama 223.  26 are tossups which Obama would have to win, along with flipping either Florida or Virginia and North Carolina. 

Again, a long way to go.  But the GOP should not be despondent about this situation.   Neither Mitt nor Newt is a great bastion of liberty, but either are strongly preferable to the current occupier of 1600 PA Ave.  I've heard a lot of worrying that the weakness of the Republican field could cost them the election, but if I had to bet, my money would be on Romney winning.  The President is not popular.  The nation elected a complete unknown in 2008 due to the unpopularity of the previous occupant; there's no reason to believe under qualified candidates can't be elected again under similar circumstances. 

More Bailouts Are The Answer!

The New York Times has an editorial piece out blasting Germany for not bailing out the rest of Europe.  The Times says that Germany has the resources to shore up the PIIGS that are on the brink of bankruptcy and that they should do so in order to buy time for those weaker states to shore up their own systems.  Also, the European Central Bank should be allowed to print off money to buy bonds from those broke nations in order to reduce the interest paid on national debt. 

I'm puzzled by this and can't help but wonder if the Time's only goal in the world is to destroy those that are prosperous and successful.  Does anyone in this world believe that if Germany bailed out the PIIGS in the short term that these bankrupt nations would seriously reform their own systems?  These countries are bankrupt because their politicians do not want to increase taxes or decrease spending; if they don't have to, they won't.  Bailing them out now puts off making the responsible choices.  This is fact; Greece has already been bailed out and still hasn't fixed their situation.  Austerity measures nearly brought down their government.  A short term bailout buys a year, maybe, at a massive expense for Germany, but doesn't fix the problem at all.  

Similarly, printing off money, an option that should be considered a joke anyway, won't help.  Yes, interest rates may go down for a short period of time, but the more of that bad debt you buy and monetize, the higher inflation is going to go throughout Europe.  Once again, those bailed out nations have no incentive to act responsibly if someone else is paying the bill.  And interest rates are, in fact, reasonable.  Greece, Italy, and Spain are bankrupt.  It is a high risk proposition to lend to those nations.  Screwing over responsible nations to lower interest rates for irresponsible ones isn't going to give incentive for governments to act responsibly. 

Read that entire Times piece.  Does it anywhere say how reform will be brought to the poorer nations with this extremely risky bet they urge Germany to take?  No, it doesn't.  Germany has no responsibility to pay for the foolishness of other nations and gains nothing by doing so. Without a solid plan putting forward how the PIIGS will sure up their own fiscal situations without bailouts in the future, a German bailout only buys a year or so of extra time before the crunch hits, this time with Germany lacking the resources to survive as well. 

Hard times are in store for Europe.  I'm thoroughly tired of people borrowing themselves into a boom and then wanting others to save them during the bust. 

The Endgame Is Often The Most Important Part of a Game

In my last post, I argued that OWS is effectively screwed.  I wish to clarify that.  Protests may very well continue for some months or even until this time next year.  Those out protesting now are often professional protesters, rich enough not to have to worry about working, or college students.  So in the sense that there will still be "occupy" protests, no, I don't think they will end anytime soon. 

But the movement's chance to be an important part of the political process may very well be finished.  Recent polling has shown a growing disapproval of OWS and very little support.  At first, I can understand that Americans would like a group that is ticked off about bailouts and crony capitalism, but once it became obvious most of the protesters had no idea what to do about such things and those who did have a plan were on the Radical Left people very quickly lost interest in the movement.  Combined with the well documented lawlessness of the group, and pretty quickly OWS has lost the potential to represent the masses. 

So yes, the protests may continue, but nobody is going to listen to them because they have nothing of interest to say.  In the meantime, people will focus on the darker side of these occupations.  OWS has failed to impact the "1%" in any meaningful way, but they certainly have disrupted the lives of middle class citizens in cities throughout the United States.  Blocking streets, bridges, and subways (in particular the last) strikes at the daily life of average people, the supposed "99%" this group claims to be representing. 

The New Yorker has a nice piece up on the history of OWS.  In it, many of the leading members of OWS speak positively of "revolution" though never really define it.  I'm not sure what scares me more: the massive majority of OWS people who don't know what revolution entails but support it anyway, or those few who are all too well aware of what revolutions bring and want just that. 

Anyway, a semi-violent and completely lawless group without a coherent set of goals and philosophy but otherwise tacking onto hodgepodge leftists positions is a blessing for the supporters of capitalism and liberty.  Support is plummeting; Americans will not risk their livelihoods to support anarchy.  A very small group on the Left continues to be in the media with all of their nonsense.  OWS has lost the moment to shift America to the left, but what wonderful potential it has to make people question the validity of leftists ideas!

Wither OWS?

The question is simple enough.  Is Occupy Wall Street effectively dead?  

It's not the clearing of Zuccotti park that makes me ask this question, though the lack of ability to literally camp there will certainly dent the physical protest.  I'm curious because of this poll put out by PPP (itself a left wing organization) that shows public support cratering for OWS.  A combined 33% of Americans support the movement now while 45% oppose.  The chant of "we are the 99%" is clearly very inaccurate at the least.  Looking at the internals of the poll, you realize very quickly that this is actually overstating their popularity.  41% of responders to the poll are Democrats, but I promise you that does not even come close to reflecting society at large.  Also note that the first question asked is about, of all people, John Boehner, rather than, say, the President.  Asking about a Republican first in a time when people hate all incumbents can shift fairly weak minded people into a more leftist position.  Note that nobody bothered to ask about whether the people approve of the President's job performance. 

And oh, the Tea Party is more popular than OWS.  In fact, it's popularity is within the margin of error for its disapproval rating, making it a statistical tie.  

The only thing that should be surprising about any of this is that it actually lasted for roughly two whole months.  I pointed out well over a month ago that this group lacked any actionable goals or means of executing those goals.  OWS turned into a motley crew of leftist causes, but more than anything it was (or I suppose, technically, still is) a protest for the sake of having a protest.  For better or worse, Americans may very well have liked the ideas of fighting inequality and corporate power, but once it became obvious this movement had no solutions beyond shouting, violating the law, and making the lives of locals miserable, support plummeted.  The Tea Party evolved mechanisms for winning primaries, mostly against Republicans.  OWS created a Soviet style state with multiple, ill defined governing bodies composed of who knows who that quickly became eyesores in the cities due to lack of any actual control.  

Really, any Left leaning movement that has to have "rape free zones" is a godsend to the Right.  We could only hope that this would continue through November 2012.  Unfortunately, it looks like America only gets two months of college kids playing Utopian deities over increasingly filthy societies. 

Without an end (and thereby without means), the movement could not actually move.  I'll have to set aside my extreme humility for a second, because I described this perfectly:  "This is a spasm more than a movement.  Movements go somewhere, spasm's are just violent shaking in all directions."  The best that could have been accomplished would be to rule these little OWS societies in a way that made outsides approve of them.   Instead, they became Obamavilles in which public sanitation, safety, and decency decayed before the eyes of the world.  That is the very reason support for OWS is gone in the public, and combined with the lack of ability to physically maintain these protests 24/7 and with the onset of winter, I don't see things continuing as they have.  

Most will go home.  What I fear, not necessarily predict but fear, is that the hardcore people calling for the death of capitalism will realize this was their best shot in ages, that it is rapidly passing and that the only way to keep it from dying a quiet death is to make it die a violent one.  I'm not saying most in OWS are of this sort (indeed, I believe they are pansies who would never actually risk themselves, as much as they might wish to imagine otherwise), but it only takes a few hardcore fanatics to do a great deal of damage, both to physical persons and to our political discourse.  

I don't think it will happen that way, but I do recognize the possibility.  But I would be greatly shocked if OWS as it exists today should still exist come January 17.  That said, I wouldn't have predicted it would still be here now, but spasms can't go on forever without killing the sufferer.  Either the movement will peter out due to lack of results or it will have to actually come up with ends and means.  The latter requires leaders to take charge or, more likely, for current leaders to become public, obliterating the "equality" myth the movement has about itself.  The Iron Law of Oligarchy will not be silenced by chants. 

Atlas Didn't Shrug, He Was Shot

Government requires corporations to do a lot of dumb economic things (massive regulations, minimum wage laws, requiring hefty amounts of money be lent to those who can never pay it back, etc.).  

Shit hits the fan due to bad policies.  Government then bails out corporations to stem the disaster.  

Progressives use the disaster to "prove" that corporations (not the government) are responsible.  More power is forked to the government for things like "economic justice" rather than anything fitting economic reality.  

Shit continues to get worse.  Again, blame corporations, give government more power.  Repeat.  

The biggest problem with Atlas Shrugged (though I love it, there are a few) is that Rand ended it on a happy note.  In reality, when this vicious circle begins, it ends in bloodshed and starvation.  See Revolutions in France, Russia, China, Cambodia, Zimbabwe, etc.  The scariest and most frustrating part is that the people have their scapegoat and so little understanding of economics or morality that rational discussion is almost impossible with them. That very lack of understanding causes them to be supremely confident in their gut feelings about what is "right and wrong" in economics and that surely their ideas of economic justice would be feasible.  Nevermind that time and again, reality has proven this wrong.  These are the same idiots who bought into "Hope and Change" in 2008; they have had power for three years and things have become even worse.  Rather than talk about actual policy changes, in particular their own policy failures, they want to talk about wishy washy terms and blame corporations. 

If there is any consolation in any of this, it is that the many people in this country who do not deserve liberty may not have it for long. 

Directive 10-289 Has Been Expanded and Amended

You just can't make this stuff up.  It reads like a law created in an early draft of Atlas Shrugged that Rand struck out because it was too unbelievable.  I can't go through 50 something pages of nonsense point by point, but some of the more entertaining things include:

"Truth in Journalism" law.  Why, we all know the government will make sure the truth is told! 

Compulsory voting.  Yes, we need more people who are not informed to vote.  They'll be thrilled about it, too.  Only good things can come of this.

Ban short selling.  Yes, when things are overpriced, we need to make sure nobody knows it until the shit hits the fan so that everyone suffers rather than those paying attention!

Hold out government accountable for a Gross Happiness Index.  Like Bhutan.  No, seriously, they are advocating that position, even the Bhutan part. 

Everyone supporting Occupy Wall Street should be required to read pages 41 and 42 of this trainwreck. For starters, oil is outlawed; you need to turn in your car.  How you will be getting to and from anywhere is left unstated.  Free education for all, provided by God knows whom.  Free healthcare for all, again provided presumably by God via manna from the sky. 

By far and away, my favorite part is the mandated salaries.  Here they are:

Concepts of Economic Sustainability and Right Livelihood

Bankers $20,000
Lawyers $27,500
Realtors $25,000
Doctors $28,000
Nurses $27,500
Teachers/Librarians/Train Engineers/Bridge Maintenance/Ship Pilots, etc. $35,000
Police $36,000
Public Servants $28,500
Laborers $20,000
Other public sector $30,000
Other private sector $29,000
Technical/Research/Academic $36,000
Entrepreneurs/Business Owners $10,000 (i.e., tax breaks for corps)
Congress $30,000
President 40,000
Soldiers N/A
Defense workers $25,000

All jobs include full health benefit for worker and family, full retirement benefits, full free
education for children.

Taxation - to run the government. The only tax will be a sales tax for all goods and services, which will be fixed at: 4%.

As a teacher, I will be among the richest Americans!  We're sure to have new businesses making new products with entrepreneurs being the least paid individuals in the nation.  It is good to know that people will put in the work and sacrifice to become doctors, even though they will be paid less than teachers who will make more than almost anyone for 180 days of work. As we all know, running a bank is child's play, especially when compared to being a realtor or a librarian!

This is what I've wanted from hardcore Leftists for some time, a detailed outline of their world.  And it is everything I expected it to be. My favorite part may be that this document begins with this requirement:

Actions should not interfere with the efficient functioning of a market economy, the allocation of capital, and incentives for innovators, entrepreneurs, investors, and consumers as long as basic welfare and genuine opportunity for the entire American people are served.

Between this and the abject failure of consensus democracy put on show in Atlanta, I can only hope Occupy Wall Street is highlighted more in the news.  The looks on the faces of those shouted down is priceless, especially since those people are fans of Representative John Lewis, a civil rights activitist and liberal Congressman.  They sure aren't Tea Parties is my point.  This "consensus democracy" doesn't actually remove dissent, it just silences it, much to the chagrin of those not in the majority.  Funny thing about democracy, there always seem to be a minority who wants to voice its point of view.  Jazz hands and shouting "mic check" makes those folks feel ostracized. 

Remember Tahrir Square

In all honesty, I doubt very much that the interim government will make significant changes. I have been much less enthusiastic about these protests than many others for this reason (though I have to admit I thought Mubarak would play his hand better than this). The fun, romantic revolution is over, but the revolution is not complete until liberty has been secured under a functioning government that respects the rights of all people. Creating such a government is among the most difficult tasks mankind has ever faced. I hope, by the grace of God, that the Egyptians will manage it, but I would not bet on it.

That would be me, back in February.   Now, Egypt is seeing sectarian violence and the very real possibility of starvation, in no small part due to a lack of government.  Occupy Wall Street people who use Tahrir Square as an example, take note. 

Questions for the General Assembly

I've followed this Occupy Wall Street movement about as closely as I could over the last few weeks.  Despite it's apparent popularity with some of the denizens of Twitter, I have yet to find any real substance to the movement.  To clarify, both for my own interest and for those who may consider themselves followers, what exactly Occupy Wall Street is about, I would like to ask a few questions which hopefully somebody representing the movement can answer:

1. Who composes the "General Assembly?"  The website http://nycga.cc/ has statements in the name of the General Assembly dating back to August 19th.  Who is putting out these statements? 
2. What, exactly, is the "General Assembly?"  Does it claim to be, or aspire to be, a legislative or executive organization?  Is it merely the currently anonymous mouthpiece of the movement?  How does it relate to government authorities?
3. Your group recently released your Declaration of the Occupation of New York City.    What do you mean by "occupation?"  Generally, that term is associated with the concept of control over the police powers in an area, i.e. the American occupation of Iraq.  Are you claiming authority and if so, is this not an act of treason?  
4. That same document is effectively a litany of complaints against corporations.  How do you intend to have any of them addressed?  Who, exactly, are you expecting to take an action here?  
5. Your working draft claims you are a "direct democracy."  How, exactly, does that work?  I've heard claims that thousands of people attend your rally.  Do they all get to put ideas up before this General Assembly and be heard?  If so, how do you manage that?  My concern here is that there may be only a few people directing this movement and website, while most of the people in the crowd merely chant back whatever it is you spoon feed them. 

I guess what I really want to know is, who are you and what do you want?  No, don't tell me you are "the 99%" because you are not, and "justice/fairness/your favorite squishy term here" doesn't really tell me anything, either.  

As you can guess by the content on this blog, I'm the libertarian type and don't exactly agree with your goals or philosophy, but I am doing my best to be open minded and understand your methods and goals.  Answers to these questions beyond accusing me of being a corporate shrill would greatly further that objective.

Lacking Consistency

When George W. Bush held Al Qaeda agents that were not American citizens in Gitmo, people had a fit about how the President was violating their constitutional rights. 

When Barack Obama zaps an American citizen (Anwar al-Awlaki) without so much as a trial, no such objections are raised. 

Logically, those who criticized Bush's actions but not Obama's must believe that killing people without trial is a worse violation than holding people alive (in a Caribbean island, no less!) and that people without American citizenship deserve higher protections than those that are American citizens. 

Yes, I am glad the bastard is dead.  No, I don't believe the President broke the law.  But then, I don't think Bush did, either.  My position is consistent: those who conduct war upon us have no protections in law.  I would like to know how anyone on the Left squares their situation, though. 

This Isn't Helping

For those not living in the upstate New York region, we've been hit with a major flood, arguably the worst this area has ever seen in some three hundred years of being inhabited by Westerners.  Entire towns such as Owego were under water, have no utilities, and after six days, no real access to groceries.  Enter New York's attorney general:

"As hurricane and flood victims work to get their lives and property back in order, my office stands ready to enforce price-gouging laws so that no one is taken advantage of in this difficult time. New Yorkers are strong and resilient, and our state will recover stronger than before, but consumers must be protected throughout this process."

This is not helpful.  Yes, to one who doesn't think about it for more than two seconds, a very sudden rise in prices during an emergency might seem like a horrible thing to do.  If you're buying up canned goods, you're going to complain about how all of a sudden you have to pay so much more because something bad happened to you.  Clearly unfair, right?

That is, until the guy who can't get to the store until four hours later shows up.  If prices remain low, all of the scarce goods will be gone by whomever gets into the store first, as these people are stocking up for the long haul.  Those who show up later get nothing.  Not they have to pay so much more, but rather they get no food at all.  Higher prices means people buy less; people buying less means other people can have a shot at buying scarce products. 

The market is not broken, even during times of emergency.  Ironically, the laws to prevent "greedy capitalists from exploiting people during tragedies" really puts the screws to those who need resources the most. 

Sometimes, you have to think about morality for more than the nanosecond it takes to form a gut reaction to something in order to find out the truth of the matter. 

I work in the only grocery store that will be open as of tomorrow at 9 AM.  We're not raising prices.  Try as we will to get shipments in, we could very well run out of a lot of products pretty quickly. 

On Libya

The New Yorker has taken to applauding the President over Qaddafi's apparent downfall in Tripoli. I celebrate the downfall of this tyrant as much as that of any tyrant, including the likes of Saddam Hussein. However, this odd example of Libya, in which the United States occasionally tossed a few bombs at tanks and trucks, hardly constitutes a winning strategy for dealing with tyrants in the future. Or, for that matter, currently, in places like Syria.


Look throughout that New Yorker piece, and you will nowhere find an argument describing how Obama's actions were legal. I've pointed out before that the War Powers Resolution does not allow the President to just start bombing random counties without Congressional approval. I don't particularly care what the United Nations decided, they are not the legislature of the United States nor a substitute for it.

And this could not be described as a Western Crusade? Who did all of the bombing? Who provided the air cover? Arab nations? Nope. Say hello to white men flying above killing Muslims. The fact that we bombed halfheartedly does not mean it was not the West providing that firepower. The war could have been ended in February or March had appropriate firepower been supplied to the rebels, rather than waiting for Qaddafi's forces to push the rebels back to Benghazi and extending the war (with all the deaths that follow) for months.

"They are indigenous; they have legitimacy."

Irritating idiocy. You know who else was indigenous? Muammar Qaddafi.

The lesson every Arab despot should learn from our response to Libya and Syria is that if you have a powerful army and friends, you may butcher your own people at will and the United States will stand by. If, on the other hand, you have a weak army and our President feels like he needs a military victory to improve his own image, you're on our short list of targets.

This should not be seen as a model for future behavior. At no point did our President or his supporters have anything resembling a plan for dealing with Libya. That Qaddafi's forces suddenly collapsed is a blessing from heaven rather than a result of anything our President or Europe is responsible for. By far and away, the most disturbing part of all of this is that our President would illegally use force, that Congress would be cut out of such a decision. Our influence has not been increased at all by this event. And until Libya is a stable and free nation, we have not won yet.

Illegal, belated, halfhearted...the model for the future! NATO basically took out Glass Joe and had difficulty doing so. Good luck being relevant anywhere else. Like, say, Syria.

The Free Rider Argument

Neil Siegel of Duke argues at SCOTUSblog that the ACA is legal under the Commerce Clause because that clause exists to fight free rider issues in this nation.

For starters, the main reason the interstate commerce clause was included was to prevent states from charging duties and establishing monopolies, inhibiting trade across state lines. This isn't a free rider issue at all; it was a matter of preventing state interference from messing up the economy.

But even if you ignore that, Siegel's argument is absolutely ridiculous. The free rider problem "arises is when people benefit from collective action regardless of whether they contribute to it." So creating a program in which 30 million people get health care from the government without contributing a dime is fighting free riding? It sounds like expanding free riding to me. Healthy people who do not buy insurance because they choose a healthy lifestyle now must pay in order to cover the costs of those who do not have a healthy lifestyle or pay their own insurance (via their own pocket or from work). Sounds like they are free riding off of the healthy people.

Isn't the entire notion of the welfare state creating more free riders?

Meanwhile, I'm still waiting to hear what limit there really is to Congress' power if this expansion of the Commerce Clause holds up.

Why Our Credit Rating Was Downgraded

Simply put, this is why credit agencies are beginning to distrust the American government's ability and willingness to pay back its debt in the long term. Robert Reich is not some random leftist political blogger; he is a former Secretary of Labor. When people who have been entrusted with high power in this nation are saying we ought not deal with the massive amount of debt we are under until it crushes us, credit agencies have good reason to be fearful of our financial sanity.

Consider Reich's analogy in the first two paragraphs. Basically, it's all wrong. One faction, the Tea Party, is refusing to turn on the hoses because the faction in power (the Left) refuses to deal with the long term water shortage problem, but they did manage to find water to fill an Olympic sized swimming pool which they named the Stimulus.

Reich's entire position is, we'll deal with that massive debt crisis when it hits. It is almost unbelievable that anyone would take that position. Let me use a different analogy to explain why: imagine the country is a canoe on the Niagara River. One of the paddlers, the Tea Party, is saying we need to go on shore now rather than move closer to the Falls. The other paddler, the Reich leftists, says that's a "long term problem" that can be dealt with later and isn't worth putting off fun now for.

Here's the problem: at some point, the current will become so strong that even if the paddlers turn around and go full steam, the current will still carry them over the Falls. We don't know where this point is, other than that it exists at some point before we actually go over the Falls.

The Tea Party risked a short term but large cut in government spending with the debt ceiling debate. The Left, on the other hand, is risking catastrophic economic collapse within the next decade. If you look at the deal reached, no significant cuts are made. We're staying in the canoe and moving to the point of no return.

S&P is the lifeguardish figure in the analogy. Their sole goal is to warn when people are acting irresponsibly. I think it is justified that they would be blowing their whistle right about now.

Reich goes on to mention that European nations are actually past that point of no return and are going to go over the Falls. Amazingly, he then goes on to say that America has plenty of money and won't ever find a point of no return. Our debt is now over 100% of the GDP, but we have plenty of money, apparently! Yes, we could pay off our debt, but it would bankrupt our nation. The same could be said of those European nations if they were willing to bankrupt their citizens. They're not, and neither will we be.

Probably the biggest concern I have here is that Reich honestly seems to think more government spending will somehow improve the economy. The United States has increased its spending by 30% in three years, jobs have disappeared, economic growth has been anemic at best, but Reich thinks yet more spending (and more debt) will solve our problem, all of this in light of Europe's debt implosion.

The American Left is out of bullets. They tried spending incredible amounts of money to stimulate the economy, but in fact it actually backfired and made things worse. Rather than admitting that they were wrong, this faction has opted to scream at the Tea Party for trying to deal with a very serious and very real debt problem that will overtake us in the next decade if we do not change course immediately. Since the day dreamers have the Senate and the White House, no long term solution (which, admittedly, will be painful) is possible. We have a party that believes tomorrow's apocalyptic problems should be put off until the day after tomorrow. That is why S&P downgraded our credit rating.

Takeaway From the Debt Debate

The President has just signed a bill hiking the debt ceiling of the United States, literally on the day the nation was scheduled to run out of cash. A lot of people were pretty worried that the government would have to reduce spending by over 40% in a real hurry and that such a shock could prove devastating to the economy. Worse still would be the political ramifications of justifying who gets paid and who does not. It has been a raucous debate in which both sides stuck to their principles while unprincipled, usually ignorant people in the middle yelled "compromise!" loudly and often.

As a libertarian, I generally side with the Tea Party and certainly did so in this debate. We have been called terrorists, jihadis, hostage takers, and a host of other vile names from the Left who, ironically, refuse to apply those same terms to many radical Islamists. In the end, the Tea Party "won" this deal, as no tax increases are included and $2.4 trillion in cuts are planned. Leftists are freaking out about this for multiple reasons, but the largest ones seem to be that it will be ruinous to the economy and that it legitimizes "hostage taking."

Based on that, one might think that the size of the federal government is about to be reduced significantly, regulations thrown out the window, and a libertarian paradise established. But is that what we are getting?

No, as Chris Edwards at Cato has shown:

This is the deal. You'll notice that after this year, government spending always goes up. "Cuts" is a term that does not employ common meaning. When someone in the government complains about "cuts", what they mean is that spending will not increase by as much as that person wanted. Almost never does "cuts" mean "next year, we will spend less than we did this year." The 2012 budget is one of the few rare examples where the number will actually decrease, in this case by less than a single percent.

Look at that chart again and then look back at the rhetoric fired upon the Tea Party. We had to hold up a debt ceiling hike in order to get the Left to agree not to a cut in government but merely a slowing down of its growth. And the Tea Party had to drag them, kicking and screaming, the whole damn time to get the above result. Apparently, doing anything to defend the concept of limited government is going to be treated as a vile assault by the American Left.

Supposedly, there will be $2 trillion in these "cuts" (aka less spending growth, not actual reductions in spending) over the next decade, but nearly all of this is back loaded towards the end of the decade. For starters, those "cuts" equal only on average $200 billion per year (our deficit this year was nearly 900 percent more than that). But the bigger problem is that this Congress cannot hold the Congress 8 years from now to these promises. So these wildly inadequate "cuts" will most likely not happen, as Congressmen a decade from now are not likely to suddenly become moral, righteous men and women who will do the right thing even if it means taking a political hit. Spending is popular with those who receive the money; that's why Washington does it, not because it is in any way good for the economy.

Meanwhile, our current debt of $14,300,000,000,000.00 is may now grow another $2.5 trillion, which is expected to happen in January 2013 or roughly 17 months from now. In all the screaming about the Tea Party hostage tactics, I don't think you'll find a single mention of those numbers. During the debates, only the Tea Party was willing to bring these numbers up. This debt is the problem, not the debt ceiling! There will come a day, not too long from now, in which the market will impose a debt ceiling upon us and no law made by Congress will be able to fix it. That day will come when the world flat out doesn't have enough money to lend to the United States to pay our debt. As is, we're consuming 2% of the world's GDP to pay for our annual debt. As the entitlement programs fail, that number will get worse. Look at Europe if you think this isn't a problem.

Tea Partiers had to bring us to the brink of imminent disaster in order to get the Left to reduce the speed at which we are flying towards the market debt ceiling. How, exactly, are we going to reform ourselves to prevent this longer term (but not that much longer) and far worse disaster from hitting us?

The short term problem has been averted, yes, but in the process it has been proven this country is incapable of dealing with a gargantuan debt problem that will crush us in the next few decades. If those who see this problem have to fight an extremely bitter debate and be labeled as terrorists in order to win only a slowing down of our march to destruction, there is little hope for our future indeed.