You're Stuck In This Country With Us

If you've ever watched the movie Watchmen - or better yet, read the comic - you probably remember the following scene. If you're squeamish, skip the video.

Rorschach, one of the heroes, gets locked up with many of the criminals he put in prison. After defeating an attacker in a fight, Rorschach yells at his fellow inmates, "I'm not locked in here with you. You're locked in here with me!"

Prof. Glenn Reynolds of Instapundit alluded to that scene when explaining one of the basic functions of government.

Police don’t actually protect law-abiding citizens from criminals so much as they protect criminals from the much-rougher justice they’d get in the absence of a legal system. Burglars would be hung from lampposts, and shoplifters would be beaten and tossed into the gutter if there were no police, as in fact happens in countries where there isn’t a reliable justice system and a civil-society culture that restrains vigilantism. Reminder to the criminal class: Ultimately, we’re not stuck in this country with you. You’re stuck in this country with us.

The following day (3 Sep 2015), Prof. Reynolds linked to a story about the rising trend of street "justice" in Venezuela.

When a man they believed to be a thief sneaked into their parking lot in the Venezuelan city of Valencia, angry residents caught him, stripped him and beat him with fists, sticks and stones. 

They tied him up and doused him in gasoline, according to witnesses, in one of what rights groups and media reports say are an increasing number of mob beatings and lynchings in a country ravaged by crime.

Almost a year later, the trend has not abated. In fact, as Venezuela continues its death spiral under the crushing weight of Socialism, it seems to be getting worse. Why? Caracas city councilman, Jesús Armas, explains...

This year will without a doubt be the most violent in the history of our city...  

The insecurity has three roots. The first is associated with levels of poverty and inequality that we see in the city. Today Venezuela is the country with the highest inflation in the world, with shortages that force people to line up for hours to buy food. For decades neighborhoods have sprung up outside the city, and now more than 50 percent of the city's population lives in places where houses are built with low-quality materials, and where they don't formally have access to basic public services and are without roads or consolidated public spaces. 

Poverty, inequality and no basic public services in the Chavista Socialist paradise? Unpossible!

The second element has to do with a culture of lawlessness. In the country, a habit of disrespect for most basic laws - those related to transit, shoplifting, even the ways the authorities and the rest of the population interact with these laws, has resulted in a collective indifference toward much larger crimes because the law is simply a dead letter. 

When the government officials who are supposed to enforce the law are the biggest thieves, how can anyone else be expected to respect the law? Chavez died a billionaire, and his daughter is the wealthiest person in Venezuela.

Finally, there is the reaction of the national and local government in terms of managing the violence. The truth is that we have a mayor who, through hate speech and a series of acts of violence promoted by groups related to his party and his administration, has over the years exhibited excessive permissiveness toward huge criminal groups that dominate vast and populous parts of the city, either because they handle drug trafficking or because they have a monopoly on violence and illegal activities that generate income. 

Likewise, the state has implemented a policy that has nothing to do with protecting life, liberty and property of citizens, but on the contrary, has driven a socialist model that seeks to limit those freedoms, using crime as a way to maintain power and control of the population. But the truth is that today things are out of control and we are left with a failed state in which the so-called peace zones are micro-states controlled by gangsters and not by constitutional institutions.

Life, liberty and property? Where have I read that before? Mr. Armas hit the nail on the head. A government's sole purpose is to secure the people's rights to life, liberty and property. As Thomas Jefferson stated in his first inaugural address:

... a wise and frugal government, which shall restrain men from injuring one another, shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned. This is the sum of good government; and this is necessary to close the circle of our felicities.

Unfortunately, Venezuela's Socialist government - like all Socialist governments - busies itself primarily with "[taking] from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned", secondarily with buying votes with the bread it took from the mouth of labor, and not at all with its actual responsibility of "[restraining] men from injuring one another".

The result is what we now see in Venezuela. We may not see it for long, not because it'll stop any time soon, but because Venezuela's government - embarrassed by its own impotence and incompetence - banned media coverage of the lynchings. Venezuela's government won't crack down on crime, much less unshackle the people and economy from the disastrous Socialist policies that led to the disintegration of Venezuelan society. They'll just prevent news outlets from talking about it, thereby accomplishing nothing of value.

As European governments refuse to protect their citizens from Muslim migrant criminals and conspire to cover up their negligence, homicide rates in some American cities skyrocket due to the Ferguson Effect, and insurmountable federal debt leads us towards Venezuela-style hyperinflation, lessons abound. The decent among us need to learn those lessons quickly and prepare accordingly. Criminals won't. After all, criminals aren't known for prudence or self-control.

Source: Fox News Latino

Obamacare Architect Says "Liberals" are Stupid

You may have heard, or read, by now about the controversy surrounding Obamacare (and Romneycare) architect Jonathan Gruber.  If not, here's a pretty good summary in video form.

If you follow the video link to YouTube, you can watch much longer versions of his remarks in context, which makes them even worse.

Most of the controversy surrounds Gruber's insults directed at American voters.  He called American voters stupid and economically illiterate, and accuses Americans of not caring about the uninsured.  His solution, then (in his own words) was to "[exploit] the lack of economic understanding of the American voter", and to use the "tortured way" in which the bill was written, and the bill's "lack of transparency" to trick American voters into accepting a law they would have otherwise rejected.

Gruber's statements shouldn't be controversial.  Gruber is right.  Sort of.  If you actually believed that "if you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor", and "if you like your plan, you can keep your plan", and that Obamacare would cover the supposed 40 million uninsured Americans, and that Obamacare would cover preexisting illnesses, all while "bend[ing] the cost curve down" and not "add[ing] a dime to the national deficit", then you sir/ma'am really are naive, gullible, economically illiterate - and yes - stupid.

In other words, Gruber is saying that "Liberals" are stupid, because "Liberals" swallowed every lie that Gruber - and more importantly, every Democrat politician - sold them, hook, line and sinker.

Ladies and gentlemen: Gruber is referring to you.

Conservatives and Libertarians have been warning the country about all of Gruber's and the Democrats' lies since 2009.  Conservatives and Libertarians aren't Gruber's "stupid", economically illiterate, stingy voters.  "Liberals" are.

Possibly the most important part of this whole controversy is that Gruber unintentionally gave the whole world a glimpse into how Leftists think.

Leftists believe ordinary people are too stupid to make decisions for themselves, and too stingy to care for the needy through voluntary charity.  Leftists therefore believe that ordinary people need Leftist elites - like Gruber and all the Democrats who forced this monstrosity on the rest of us - to make decisions for ordinary folk and force them to care for the needy at gun point, through taxation.

The fact that charity provides politicians with no opportunity for graft, and taxation offers myriads of opportunities for graft, never enters the Leftist elites' minds, of course.  It's all for the children, you see.

So, thank you, Jonathan Gruber, for being honest.  Even if you never meant to be. 

Pres Obama Presided Over 5 of 6 Biggest Deficits Ever

Pres Obama is now on record for presiding over five of the six biggest federal deficits in history.

In fiscal 2013, which ended Sept. 30, the deficit was $680.276 billion, according to the Monthly Treasury Statement released Wednesday. 

In fiscal 2012, the deficit was $1.089193 trillion; in fiscal 2011, it was $1.296791 trillion; in fiscal 2010, it was $1.294204 trillion; and, in fiscal 2009, it was $1.415724 trillion.

At least we're finally overspending less that a trillion/year.  When was that 5th-biggest deficit of all time?

Even when adjusted for inflation, the $680.276 billion fiscal 2013 deficit is only exceeded by one pre-Obama deficit--the one the U.S. government ran in 1943, during the height of World War II. That year, the deficit was $54,554,000,000--or $738,367,890,000 in inflation-adjusted 2013 dollars.

That means that the last time we overspent by as much as we routinely overspend today was when we were fighting the biggest war in history.  If that doesn't sound reasonable, that's because it isn't.

Remember when Sen Obama (D, IL) promised a "net spending cut"?  You didn't actually believe that, did you?




Because this is what actually happened.

2008 -- $2,982.5 Billion
2009 -- $3,517.7 Billion
2010 -- $3,457.1 Billion
2011 -- $3,603.1 Billion
2012 -- $3,537.1 Billion
2013 -- $3,454.3 Billion

Does this look like a "net spending cut" to anyone?  It's possible that under some definition of "net spending cut", the result would fit, but I can't think of one.  It makes me think of this line from "The Princess Bride".



These days, Pres Obama equates the desire to cut federal spending with mental illness.

That includes the obsession with cutting just for the sake of cutting. That hasn’t helped our economy grow; it’s held it back.

See?  It's an obsession!  One could even say, a compulsion!  By the way, how does he know that cuts in federal spending have held our economy back?  When did we actually cut spending by any significant percentage?  And, doesn't that mean that Sen Obama (D, IL) was equally crazy in 2008?

On top of that, he brags about reducing the federal deficit.

Remember, our deficits are getting smaller — not bigger. On my watch, they’re falling at the fastest pace in 60 years

So, after racking up the four biggest deficits in history, he brags that he racked up the 6th biggest deficit in history.

Sounds reasonable.

After all, as of 3 Nov 2013, we're only $17,156,117,102,204.49 according to the US Treasury.  Clearly, those who object to adding a few more $Trillion to the pyre are insane.

Fear not, reasonable citizen.  Those trillions are on their way.  The chart above, though accurate, vastly understates the problem, because it doesn't take into account the $Trillions the US federal government has promised its own citizens, which it can't afford.  These are called unfunded liabilities.  No one seems to agree on how much they actually total, but one thing's for sure, the totals are staggering. 

In 2011, USA Today published that...

The government added $5.3 trillion in new financial obligations in 2010, largely for retirement programs such as Medicare and Social Security. That brings to a record $61.6 trillion the total of financial promises not paid for.

In 2012, The Wall Street Journal published that...

The actual liabilities of the federal government—including Social Security, Medicare, and federal employees' future retirement benefits—already exceed $86.8 trillion, or 550% of GDP. 

The totals will only grow as time goes on.  So, by all means, let's listen to Pres Obama (Version 2013) and not Sen Obama (Version 2008).  Let's keep spending wantonly.  After all, it's only money.  Right?

Obama: 'Raising the Debt Ceiling...Does Not Increase Our Debt,' Though It Has 'Over 100 Times' | CNS News

Obama: 'Raising the Debt Ceiling...Does Not Increase Our Debt,' Though It Has 'Over 100 Times' | CNS News

This is why we're broke.

Now, this debt ceiling -- I just want to remind people in case you haven't been keeping up -- raising the debt ceiling, which has been done over a hundred times, does not increase our debt; it does not somehow promote profligacy.  All it does is it says you got to pay the bills that you've already racked up, Congress.  It's a basic function of making sure that the full faith and credit of the United States is preserved.

 It's always a tough vote because the average person thinks raising the debt ceiling must mean that we're running up our debt, so people don't like to vote on it, and, typically, there's some gamesmanship in terms of making the President's party shoulder the burden of raising the -- taking the vote.

That's right.  It's the average American that has trouble understanding reality, not politicians who keep racking up record debt at record rates.


Who falls for this stuff?

Saudi Dakota? (Updated)

The US economy may be stagnant, but North Dakotans haven't noticed.  Recession?  What recession?

The “Economic Miracle State” continues to lead the nation with the lowest state unemployment rate at 3% in September, at almost five percentage points below the national average of 7.8%.  There were 11 North Dakota counties with jobless rates below 2.0% in September, and Williams County, which is at the epicenter of the Bakken oil boom, continues to boast the lowest county jobless rate in the country at just 0.7%.  The exponential growth in North Dakota oil production has fueled exponential growth in the state’s oil and gas jobs, which have more than tripled over the last three years.  Overall employment throughout the entire state increased 5.6% over the twelve month period through September; four times the tepid 1.4% pace of job growth nationally during that period.

It ain't no miracle.  It's a deliberate decision to allow free market forces to work and create wealth by accessing the state's natural raw materials, namely petroleum.

What’s especially impressive is the incredible exponential increase in North Dakota’s oil production over such a short period of time.  The state’s oil production has doubled in just the last 16 months, from 364,160 bpd in May of last year to 728,494 in September of this year.  Oil coming out of the state’s Bakken Formation is behind the huge increase, as that oil field in western North Dakota now supplies 91% of the state’s oil, up from only 78% of the state’s oil two years ago.  Bakken oil output has doubled in just the last 15 months, from 320,435 bpd last June to 662,428 bpd in September (see bottom chart above).  At the current pace of production increases, North Dakota’s oil production will surpass one million bpd by the end of next year.  And it’s the exponential increases in shale oil production in the Bakken region of North Dakota and the Eagle Ford Shale region of Texas that have the United States on a trajectory to become the world’s largest oil producer in the next eight years.

Considering North Dakota's economic boom due to "frackin' the Bakken", and that the US has more petroleum in the Green River Formation than all the world's known oil reserves, the federal government must be eager to allow more drilling and exploration on federal lands, right?

Not so much.

The Interior Department on Friday issued a final plan to close 1.6 million acres of federal land in the West originally slated for oil shale development.

The proposed plan would fence off a majority of the initial blueprint laid out in the final days of the George W. Bush administration. It faces a 30-day protest period and a 60-day process to ensure it is consistent with local and state policies. After that, the department would render a decision for implementation.

As I wrote before, "it's not as though, in this roaring economy, we need all that inexpensive energy or high-paying jobs".

The US is over $16,000,000,000,000 in debt and counting.  The federal government added over $120,000,000,000 to that debt in October 2012 alone and is on track to add another $1,320,000,000,000 to the debt by the end of fiscal year 2013.  Raising taxes will likely cause the economy to slow even more.  Even if the federal government were to cut spending drastically (good luck with that), we would need enormous economic growth to begin paying down our monstrous debt.

In other words, we need the kind of growth North Dakotans have enjoyed for years.

UPDATE (19NOV2012): The following charts demonstrate how hydraulic fracturing (fracking) has increased total US reserves of petroleum and natural gas by making previously unavailable reserves available.  Further technological advances will make the Green River Formation available.

From the Energy Information Administration

Euro Zone Back in Recession (Updated)

How's Socialism working for Europe?

The debt crisis dragged the euro zone into its second recession since 2009 in the third quarter despite  modest growth in Germany andFrance, data showed on Thursday.

The two leading economies both managed 0.2 percent growth in the July-to-September period.

Got that?  Their two leading economies grew at the roaring rate of 0.2%.

But the resilience could not save the austerity-hit 17-nation bloc from overall contraction as the likes of The Netherlands, Spain, Italy and Austria shrank.

Economic output in the euro zone fell 0.1 percent in the quarter, following a 0.2-percent drop in the second quarter.

Those two quarters of contraction put the euro zone’s 9.4 trillion euro ($12 trillion) economy in recession, although Italy and Spain have been contracting for a year already and Greece is suffering an outright depression.

Incredibly, this is the direction some Americans actually want to follow them off the cliff by spending more, borrowing more and taxing more.  It's insane.  We should be taking the opposite approach, because as Ed Morrissey states...

At some point, the Germans and French citizens will tire of having their production dedicated to rescuing less disciplined neighbors on the Continent.  When that day comes, the Atlantic will not protect us from the shock waves — which is why it’s more urgent than ever for the US to get its own fiscal house in order.

Fortunately, our president promised to cut the deficit in half by the end of his first term.  Of course, it's his second term now, and he hasn't even tried, but it's the thought that counts, right?

UPDATE (18NOV2012): Half of UK voters want to leave the EU, and I can't say that I blame them.

The survey will fuel the growing political debate about Britain’s future place in the EU, which has seen even Cabinet ministers suggesting that the UK would prosper outside the union.

The YouGov poll showed that 49 per cent of voters would vote to leave the EU in a referendum. Twenty-eight per percent said they would opt to remain a member, while 17 per cent said they did not know how they would vote.

British voters are also gloomy about the future of the EU: 65 per cent said they are pessimistic about the union’s prospects, while only 22 per cent were optimistic.

Another poll published yesterday in The Guardian claims it's more like 56%, but the link wouldn't work for me (maybe it'll work now).

Remember when Americans thought the EU would overtake the US as the world's leading economic power?  No nation, or group of nations, can spend more than they take in, lavish their population with welfare programs that give them incentives to not work, punish those who do work with excessive taxes, make it excessively difficult to start or run a business with excessive regulation,  produce too few children to replace in the future the people who are working today, and expect to survive.

And we're making all the same mistakes.

October Deficit = $120 Billion

Technically, the federal government doesn't have a budget deficit, because in order to have a budget deficit, one first needs a budget.  And we haven't had one of those since 2009.  In more practical terms however, the federal government spent $120 Billion more than it took from tax payers in October 2012, the first month of fiscal year 2013.

The Treasury said on Tuesday the October deficit was $120 billion, larger than economist forecasts for a $114 billion gap and up from $98 billion in October of 2011.

And it's not as though they took less money from tax payers.

Growth in expenditures outpaced rising receipts, deepening the deficit. Outlays grew to $304 billion from around $262 billion in the same month last year while receipts rose to $184 billion from $163 billion.

Got that?  The more DC takes the more DC spends. 

Remember when Pres Obama promised...

...today I’m pledging to cut the deficit we inherited in half by the end of my first term in office. This will not be easy. It will require us to make difficult decisions and face challenges we’ve long neglected. But I refuse to leave our children with a debt that they cannot repay — and that means taking responsibility right now, in this administration, for getting our spending under control.

In case you haven't heard, that didn't happen.  Instead, our federal government ran without a budget for three years, spent over $1,100,000,000,000 more than it took each year for four years straight, and added $5,000,000,000,000 to the national debt in those four years.

And it's on track to do it again. 

And it'll be George Bush's fault.

Running Out of Other People's Money

Margaret Thatcher famously said that "the problem with Socialism is that eventually you run out of other people's money".  She didn't say what happens then.  Greece gives us an idea.

Private businesses have closed down in the thousands. Unemployment stands at a record 25 percent, with more than half of Greece's young people out of work. Caught between plunging incomes and ever increasing taxes, families are finding it hard to make ends meet. Higher heating fuel prices have meant many apartment tenants have opted not to buy heating fuel this year. Instead, they'll make do with blankets, gas heaters and firewood to get through the winter. Lines at soup kitchens have grown longer.

But at least Greeks are pulling together in hard times, right?

Life in Athens is often punctuated by demonstrations big and small, sometimes on a daily basis. Rows of shuttered shops stand between the restaurants that have managed to stay open. Vigilantes roam inner city neighborhoods, vowing to "clean up" what they claim the demoralized police have failed to do. Right-wing extremists beat migrants, anarchists beat the right-wing thugs and desperate local residents quietly cheer one side or the other as society grows increasingly polarized.

.....

After battering his Egyptian assistant, the mob turned on Mr Abdulbasset, who had defied police to keep his shop open...  The riot police watched on but did not intervene

The authorities will take care of all this vigilante justice, right?

Greece's sclerotic justice system has been hit by a protracted strike that has left courts only functioning for an hour a day as judges and prosecutors protest salary cuts.

At least if they get beat up, Greeks still have "universal", government-provided medicine, right?

A sign taped to a wall in an Athens hospital appealed for civility from patients. "The doctors on duty have been unpaid since May," it read, "Please respect their work."
.....
"When the pharmacies are closed and I can't get my insulin, which is my life for me, what do I do? ... How can we survive?" asked Voula Hasiotou, a member of an association of diabetics who turned out for the rally.

Keep all this in mind when politicians tell you we need to keep borrowing over $1 Trillion per year, as we have during all four years of Pres Obama's first term. 

Think this can't happen in the US?  On the contrary, there's no reason why it can't.  And if we let it happen, it'll be far worse.  The US and EU bailed Greece out.  Our population is 31x bigger than that of Greece, and our economy is the biggest in history.  No one is big enough to bail us out.

Here's one last quote from the AP article on Greece.

"Our society is on a razor's edge," Public Order Minister Nikos Dendias said recently, after striking shipyard workers broke into the grounds of the Defense Ministry. "If we can't contain ourselves, if we can't maintain our social cohesion, if we can't continue to act within the rules ... I fear we will end up being a jungle."

Not even close, Mr Dendias.  Greece is following the eternal cycle.  From oppression to revolution, from revolution to freedom, from freedom to prosperity, from prosperity to entitlement and indolence, from entitlement and indolence to anarchy, and finally from anarchy to dictatorship and oppression.

And we're heading in the same direction.

Democrats' Plan for the Debt Crisis

I've asked this question of several "Liberals" and, so far, received exactly zero answers.  What is the Democrats' plan to avert America's approaching debt crisis?  Does anyone out there have an answer?  Anyone?  Bueller?

Here's a little background.

Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner told the House Budget Committee Thursday that President Obama’s fiscal year 2013 budget — “the most expensive in United States history” — would “put the U.S. on an ‘unsustainable’ course” if enacted.

Geithner also told committee Chairman Paul Ryan that although the Obama administration doesn’t have a “definitive solution” to the debt crisis, it definitely knows it doesn’t like the Republican solution. ...

“We have millions of Americans retiring every day, and that will drive substantially the rate of growth of health care costs. You are right to say we’re not coming before you today to say we have a definitive solution to that long-term problem. What we do know is, we don’t like yours,” Geithner said.

Why No "October Surprise"?

Every presidential election seems to bring out some "October surprise"; a scandle involving a major candidate revealed in late October to try and sway voters.  That didn't happen this year.  PJ Media has a theory as to why.

In Mitt Romney’s case, the answer is pretty obvious: He’s squeaky clean. His entire adult life has been like a boring treatise on Mormon moral rectitude.  There are no skeletons in Romney’s closet, otherwise we would have heard about them.

But in Barack Obama’s case, the situation is reversed: Everything he’s ever done is scandalous. The reason there was no October Surprise for Obama is that we’re all scandaled out. Anyone’s who been paying attention since 2008 has literally been in paralytic shock every single day. We spent October 2012 exactly as we’ve spent every month of the last four years: Our jaws on the floor, aghast, stupefied, unable to breathe. Almost every single thing Obama has done since he’s been in the national spotlight could have been and should have been a career-ending October Surprise. But the mainstream media, as we all know, has devoted itself to protecting him.

The article then provides an extensive list of scandals that would've ended almost any other politician's career.  Here are a few of them.  And I really mean few.

• $6 trillion in new national debt under Obama…after he promised to decrease the deficit.

• In both the 2008 and 2012 presidential elections, the Obama campaign purposely disabled the credit card verification system for its Web site donations, allowing anyone from any foreign country to donate with no limit and no proof of identity

• Operation Fast & Furious — a government-sponsored illegal gun-running scheme designed to purposely go awry so as to induce public outcry for gun control.

• Militarily intervened in Libya in 2011 without the Congressional approval required by the War Powers Act — technically an impeachable offense.

• Under Obama’s watch, for the first time in history America’s credit rating was downgraded, due to his poor economic policies.

• Appointed Van Jones, a former avowed communist who supported a “9/11 Truth” petition, to be “Green Jobs Czar.”

• Appointed Anita Dunn, who said Chairman Mao was her “favorite philosopher,” to be White House Communications Director.

• Appointed John Holdren, who perviously entertained the notion of forced mass sterilzation to stop overpopulation, to be Science Czar.

• Appointed Steven Chu, who openly advocated an artificial increase in gasoline prices to $10/gallon (and similar increases in other energy prices) to be Secretary of Energy.

• Appointed Kevin Jennings, who led a group that promoted X-rated “sex-positive” textbooks for 13-year-olds, instructed teenagers at a conference how to perform “fisting” (anal penetration by fists), who refused to report instances of statutory rape, and who expressed admiration for a member of NAMBLA, to be America’s “Safe School’s Czar.”

The list goes on and on.  If you din't already know all of these, you haven't been paying attention.  Or, you've only been paying attention to the dinosaur media.

But here's the best part; a poem from the comments.

The Sixth of November

Remember, remember, this sixth of November,
The radicals’ treasonous plot.
I know of no reason the radicals’ treason
Should e’er be forgiv’n or forgot.

The Sixties were waning, and Leftists were claiming
That radical changes were due.
Their Marxist solution was armed revolution:
The Weathermen made their debut.

The radicals raged on the national stage, and
Horrific explosions ensued.
Their bombs were dramatic, but also erratic;
They sometimes killed radicals, too.

The Leftists grew older, the underground, colder,
And so they came in from the cold.
“Subvert from within – in the long run, we’ll win,” said
The Leftists, determined and bold.

And thus it began – this nefarious plan – and
The radicals slowly took charge:
Complete infiltration of all education;
The long institutional march.

The journalist schools would produce useful fools, for
The Left would need media shills.
And Hollywood, too, would assist in the coup, with
Its slick propagandizing skills.

“Community action” would build a new faction;
’Twould organize proles on the street.
A smooth politician would front for the mission,
And run for the president’s seat.

The radicals’ goal, which they proudly extol, is
A communist U.S. of A.
Collectivist schemes lead to brutal regimes, and
For this do the radicals pray.

But Jefferson’s aim, with the charters he framed, was
To guard individual rights.
And “redistribution” was not a solution,
But one of the evils to fight.

So let us remember, this sixth of November,
Just what is at stake on this date.
Will Jefferson’s dream, or the radicals’ scheme, now
Determine America’s fate?

Picking Losers...

...And lying about it.

Abound Solar is a "green energy" company that, like Solyndra (backed by Obama bundler, Tulsa billionaire George Kaiser), received millions in tax payers' money, then promptly went bankrupt.  Unlike Solyndra, Abound Solar is is now under criminal investigation for misleading investors.  That's private investors, not tax payers.  But that's old news.  Onto the current story.

Recent remarks by President Obama to a Denver-based TV anchor stand in stark contrast to new emails obtained by CompleteColorado.com.

This past Friday, President Obama told KUSA's Kyle Clark, in response to a question on the federally-backed but failed Colorado company Abound Solar, "And these are decisions, by the way, that are made by the Department of Energy (DOE), they have nothing to do with politics."

Of course they have nothing to do with politics.  Specifically, they have nothing to do with the fact that...

Abound Solar... counts major Obama bundler Pat Stryker among its early backers

But never mind that.  Let's go to the emails.  Here's the key sentence.

You better let him know the WH wants to move Abound forward.

What?  I thought that "these... decisions... are made by the Department of Energy", not the White House!  Say it ain't so!

Next time a politician rails against those eeeeeevil venture capitalists, then touts the need for government to "invest" some corporation or industry, keep three things in mind.

1. Venture capitalists use their own money, or investors' money, to invest in companies they believe will turn a profit.  Either way, the investors provide the money voluntarily. 
2. Governments that "invest" in companies force tax payers to give their money to those companies, whether the tax payers think it's a good investment or not.
3. Politicians always make decisions based on political considerations.
4. Politicians don't pick winners and losers.  They pick losers.  Because the winners don't need government to force people to give them money.

Welfare, Work & the Future

It never fails.  Every election year - presidential, general, mid-term or special; doesn't matter - Democrats accuse Republicans of being big, bad meanies who want to take money away from poor people (welfare) and give it to rich people. 

Here's the reality: federal welfare spending (entitlement spending, the social safety net; whatever you want to call it) has increased almost exponentially since the 1950s.  Look at the chart to the right.  Every small decrease in welfare spending subsequently gets dwarfed by an enormous increase.

In fact, today about 70% of Federal spending goes toward some project that keeps people dependent on the Federal government.

Worse, it hasn't done much good.  While welfare spending has skyrocketed, the poverty rate remains essentially constant.  Is the purpose of welfare spending to pull people out of poverty?  If so, it clearly isn't working.  If not, then what is its purpose?

Clearly, we're not getting our money's worth.  We keep spending more, but the poor stay poor.  In fact, right now the poverty rate is rising.

So, if all this spending is not pulling people out of poverty, what effect is it having?  George Will has a great column on that subject, which highlights the book, A Nation of Takers: America's Entitlement Epidemic.  Author Nicholas Eberstadt points out multiple detrimental effects of federal welfare spending. 

As evidence of the moral costs, Eberstadt cites the fact that means-tested entitlement recipience has not merely been destigmatized, it has been celebrated as a basic civil right.

.....

Since 1948, male labor force participation has plummeted from 89 percent to 73 percent. Today, 27 percent of adult men do not consider themselves part of the workforce: “A large part of the jobs problem for American men today is not wanting one.” Which is why “labor force participation ratios for men in the prime of life are lower in America than in Europe.”

Is that what we want?  Does anyone think it's a good thing that an increasing number of adult men feel no need to work?

“In 1960,” Eberstadt says, “roughly 134 Americans were engaged in gainful employment for every officially disabled worker; by December 2010 there were just over 16.” This, in spite of the fact that public health had improved much, and automation and the growth of the service/information economy had made work less physically demanding.

Think about that for a minute.  The percentage of people working is shrinking, while the percentage of people not working is growing.  Therefore, a shrinking number of workers is supporting a growing number of non-workers.  The following cartoon depicts this problem perfectly.

In case you think this is a Democrat vs Republican problem...

“The growth of entitlement spending over the past half-century has been distinctly greater under Republican administrations than Democratic ones. Between 1960 and 2010, the growth of entitlement spending was exponential — but in any given year, it was on the whole over 8 percent higher if the president happened to be a Republican rather than a Democrat. . . . The Richard Nixon, Gerald Ford and George W. Bush administrations presided over especially lavish expansions of the entitlement state.”

...which is borne out by the first chart above. 

Worst of all, the spending listed above adds enormously to the federal debt, which stands at over $16 Trillion.  Our children and grand children will either pay that debt, or worse, default on it.  We're robbing them tomorrow to pay people not to work today.

Economist Herbert Stein (father of Ben Stein) said, "If something cannot go on for ever, it will stop".  America's welfare state can't go on for ever.  It will stop.  That is certain.  There are only two questions:

When?

How?

The Road We Really Traveled

President Obama's 8-minute re-election infomercial, produced by Davis Guggenheim (Waiting for Superman, An Inconvenient Truth) and narrated by Tom Hanks, gets the Mystery Science Theater 3000 and Pop-Up Video treatment (simultaneously!) from Andrew Klavan and Bill Whittle.

Why Democrats Refuse to Do Their Job

Speaking of infuriating enlightenment, watch DNC chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-FL) explain why Democrats in Congress have refused to do their job for almost 2,000 days.  Warning: you may want to have a barf bag handy.



Nauseating, isn't she?  Don't you wish you could simply refuse to do your job and continue to collect a fat paycheck and lavish benefits and perks?  Probably not.  You're probably a decent person.

If I Wanted America to Fail

"If I wanted America to fail, I wouldn't change a thing."

Exactly.  We're headed toward a cliff.  We have been for a long time, and politicians from both major parties have been driving us toward that cliff.  Some have driven faster than others, but the direction is the same.

I don't think it's too late to change course, but eventually it will be.  How soon?  I don't think anyone knows that for sure, but I suspect it won't be long.

The 2012 National Debt Road Trip

Here's a creative way to visualize how much debt the Federal Government has racked up in the last 30 years.  Hint: it's a lot.



Here's the original from 2009.

You Tax Dollars (Not) at Work

Take a look at this picture of yesterday's Senate Budget Committee meeting.

Note that one side of the table is full, while the other is empty.  The empty chairs belong to Democrats on the Committee.

It's been 1,087 days since Congress has passed a budget.  In case you didn't know, writing, voting on and passing a budget for the Federal Government is one of the fundamental functions of Congress.  In fact, Federal law (written, voted on and passed by Congress) requires Congress to pass a budget by 15 April each year.  Congress has violated this law since 2010.

Why hasn't Congress passed a budget?  Democrats refuse to even try.  As the photo illustrates, they don't even bother to show up to budget meetings.  Democrats claim the reason they haven't attempted to pass a budget is because Senate Republicans will filibuster, which is, of course, a lie.  Under Senate rules, budget votes are not subject to filibuster.  Are Democrats ignorant of Senate rules, or do they bet that the people who voted them into office are stupid enough to believe the lie?

The question pretty much answers itself, doesn't it?

Please remember, ladies and gentlemen, you provide these people's salaries, their pensions, their security details and all the perks that accompany a seat in Congress, and if you're an average American, their salaries, pensions and perks make yours look like pocket change.

Now ask yourselves this question; what would happen to you if you refused to do your job for 1,087 days?  Would you keep your job and all its benefits?

Again, the question pretty much answers itself, doesn't it?

Why aren't more Americans outraged over this?  What is wrong with the average American that, first, they elected these people to office, then allowed them to stay there?

Here's a list of the Senate Budget Committee members who didn't even bother to show up for work.

(1)   DSCC Chair Patty Murray (D-WA)
(2)   Sen. Ron Wyden (D-OR)
(3)   Sen. Bill Nelson (D-FL)
(4)   Sen. Debbie Stabenow (D-MI)
(5)   Sen. Ben Cardin (D- MD)
(6)   Socialist Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT)
(7)   Sen. Mark Warner (D-VA)
(8)   Sen. Jeff Merkley (D-OR)
(9)   Sen. Mark Begich (D-AK)
(10) Sen. Chris Coons (D-DE)
(11) Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI)

If your Senator is on this list, do something about it.

Obama on Gas Prices: Suck it Up

Back in 2008, when Hope'n'Change (TM) was all the rage, then-Senator Obama was a little more honest about his energy policies.

Monterey Park, CA (LA Times)

USA Today reports that gas prices average $3.83/gal for regular gasoline nationwide, but for about 1/3 of Americans, they've already crested $4.00/gal.  Fortunately for us, Kansas - a petroleum producing state - has lower gasoline prices than the majority of the country.  The last time I bought Diesel it cost us $3.96/gal.

What does Pres Obama say now about how his energy policies affect prices?



Essentially, "It's not my fault.  I'm doing everything I can to keep gas prices low for you".  Pretty different tune, right?

By the way, Pres Obama's oft-repeated trope that "we only have 2% of the world's proven oil reserves" is a lie.  Either that, or he's ignorant of the facts.  Take your pick.  According to a report published in 2008 by the US Geological Survey, the Bakken Formation of North Dakota and Montana contains "3.0 to 4.3 billion barrels of undiscovered, technically recoverable oil... a 25-fold increase in the amount of oil that can be recovered compared to the agency's 1995 estimate of 151 million barrels of oil."  The RAND Corporation published another study in 2008 stating that:

The largest known oil shale deposits in the world are in the Green River Formation, which covers portions of Colorado, Utah, and Wyoming. Estimates of the oil
resource in place within the Green River Formation range from 1.5 to 1.8 trillion
barrels. Not all resources in place are recoverable. For potentially recoverable oil shale
resources, we roughly derive an upper bound of 1.1 trillion barrels of oil and a lower
bound of about 500 billion barrels. For policy planning purposes, it is enough to
know that any amount in this range is very high. For example, the midpoint in our
estimate range, 800 billion barrels, is more than triple the proven oil reserves of Saudi
Arabia. Present U.S. demand for petroleum products is about 20 million barrels per
day. If oil shale could be used to meet a quarter of that demand, 800 billion barrels
of recoverable resources would last for more than 400 years.

So, why is Pres Obama still repeating this lie?  Simple.  The tiny percentage of our available petroleum and gas reserves to which he allows access only amounts to 2% of the world's known reserves.  So, when Pres Obama brags about increasing oil production in the US, keep in mind that he and his fellow Democrats continue to prevent far greater exploration.

What about all the "investments" Pres Obama brags about in his weekly address?  Does the word "Solyndra" mean anything to you?



How about Beacon Power Corp, or EnerDel?

Take, for instance, Beacon Power Corp., the second recipient of an Energy Department loan guarantee in 2009. In March 2010, the Massachusetts energy storage company paid cash bonuses of $259,285 to three executives in part due to progress made on the $43 million energy loan, Securities and Exchange Commission records show. Last October, Beacon Power filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy. 

EnerDel, maker of lithium-ion battery systems, landed a $118.5 million energy grant in August 2009. About one-and-a-half years later, Vice President Joe Biden toured a company plant in Indiana and heralded its taxpayer-supported expansion as one of the "100 Recovery Act Projects That Are Changing America." 

Two months after Biden's visit, EnerDel corporate parent Ener1 paid $725,000 in bonuses to three executives -- including $450,000 to then-CEO Charles Gassenheimer, who led Biden on the tour. This January, Ener1 filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection. 

In fact, the Government Accounting Office reported that 85% of the Department of Energy's "investments"  granted and committed under their "Loan Guarantee Program — $30 billion in all — shows systemic mismanagement, uncompleted reviews, missing documentation, and a process failure rate of 85% or more".   


What about all those wonderful electric cars Pres Obama touts constantly?



But it gets worse than ABC reported.  According to CNN:

Fisker Automotive, the electric car company that received $528 million in Energy Department loan guarantees, announced layoffs at its Delaware production facility on Monday.
...
"We have temporarily delayed work at the plant based on ongoing discussions with the DOE regarding funding for the Project Nina program. As a result, we have laid off 26 people," the company said in a statement Monday. 

I love Fisker's quote in the video.  "We're not in the business of failing, we're in the business of winning, that's why we make the right choices for the company, that's why we went to Finland."  That's great, Mr Fisker.  I fully support you doing what makes your company most profitable... with your own damn money!

And note how EnerDel and the Fisker plant in the US went to Delaware - VP Biden's home state.  It's almost as though all this "investing in green technology" is nothing more than crony capitalism.  Say it ain't so, Joe!

Check out what happened when Consumer Reports bought a Fisker Karma to test.



Then there's the biggest case of crony capitalism in history - General Motors.  Pres Obama wants to increase the tax incentive to buy a Chevy Volt from $7,500 to $10,000.  Here's a silly question.  If the Chevy Volt is such a wonderful, desirable vehicle, why does the Federal Government need to pay people $10,000 to buy it?  Because, as The New York Times explains:

The credit’s enhanced value would bring the purchase price of alternative-energy vehicles more in line with conventional models, supporters say. Partly because of the vehicles’ costs, sales have been a problem. General Motors announced last week that it was suspending production for five weeks of the Chevrolet Volt, a plug-in hybrid that Mr. Obama has promoted in the past. 

And as Tina Korbe explains:

So, supporters admit that, right now, the benefits of alternative-energy vehicles don’t yet outweigh the costs to consumers. To the producers of such vehicles, I say: Tough luck. The onus is on them to produce a product that consumers actually want to purchase at a price they can afford. Tax credits might give consumers more reason to purchase the vehicles, but it won’t give the producer any incentive to look for cheaper ways to manufacture them. The president’s tax credit ensures that taxpayers will continue to pay an arbitrarily high price for the vehicles long after the market would have brought costs down. 

That's the story with all of Pres Obama's "green tech investments"; risking your money and mine on long shot gambles.  Did you authorize those gambles?  I didn't.

Worst of all, these "investments" amount to subsidizing the wealthy.  The Fisker Karma and Tesla Roadster both cost over $100,000.  Can you afford a $100,000 car?  I can't.  The average Chevy Volt owner's income is $170,000.  Do you make $170,000/year?  I don't.  Yet you and I are paying $10,000/car so that someone who makes $170,000/year will buy one.

Does that make sense to you?

I oppose all subsidies for private industry.  Private companies should stand on their own profitability or not at all.  That includes energy companies.  We need energy to do absolutely everything we do in our economy - buy, sell, ship, store and/or provide goods and services.  So if our energy sources are not economically viable, our entire economy can't be economically viable.  Ed Morrissey Puts it well:

I like Ace’s approach to technological development:

I prefer the “Old” approach to emerging technology: We adopt new technology when it is better and cheaper than the old technology, not when it is worse and more expensive, forced to convert over by a government demanding we pay more for less. So we can reap all these speculative benefits in a hypothetical future. 

You know what I liked best about the old approach, other than the fact that it worked; It didn’t require government to place bad bets on companies like Solyndra that wouldn’t have survived otherwise to ruin more capital and resources.  

Think about that for a moment: these government interventions cost us money whether we get more energy efficient or not. And what has it produced? Nothing of consequence, and nothing that would last once the subsidies that make them artificially competitive now (to the extent they’ve even achieved that status) once the subsidies end. The old method of allowing capital to produce innovation and consumers to choose winners brought us prosperity and technological advancement. Obama’s has brought us bankruptcies, soaring debt, and no progress at all. That’s change, all right.

UPDATE: Fisker may turn out to be worse than Solyndra. 

Paul Ryan: America Deserves a Better Path

Looks like a presidential ad, doesn't it?  Too bad he's not running for president, or even vice.  He's right.  The refusal of politicians to do anything about the looming Federal debt crisis - caused mostly by "entitlement spending" - is immoral.  Hell, they can't even pass a budget.  I understand Democrats' refusal to face reality.  The welfare state is their life's blood.  Republicans' cowardice, in that sense, seems even worse.

US Tax Payers Bailing Out French Unions

As if bailing out the United Auto Workers by giving $billions to GM and preventing them from going through a normal bankruptcy process wasn't bad enough, now we're bailing out French unions and a billionaire French family.

In a move little noticed outside of the business pages, General Motors last week bought more than $400 million in shares of PSA Peugeot Citroen – a 7 percent stake in the company.

Because U.S. taxpayers still own roughly one-quarter of GM, they now own a piece of Peugeot.

Peugeot can undoubtedly use the cash.  Last year, Peugeot’s auto making division lost $123 million.  And on March 1 – just a day after the deal with GM was announced – Moody’s downgraded Peugeot’s credit rating to junk status with a negative outlook, citing “severe deterioration” of its finances.

In other words, General Motors essentially just dumped more than $400 million of taxpayer assets on junk bonds. 

....

An analysis by auto industry consultants IHS said it is “somewhat baffling that GM is willing to get involved in an alliance that it frankly does not need for size or complexity, while still avoiding any public plan to rationalise its European production, cut costs, or deal with labour rates.”

The deal will allow the Peugeot family to reduce its share of the family business.  The family, which Forbes estimated to be worth more than $2 billion, still owns about 30 percent of the company.  The Peugeots declined the opportunity to buy a piece of GM.

GM management is making the same kinds of decisions that got them into trouble in the first place.  Why?  Simple; they're confident that the US Federal Government will bail them out again, and you and I will get stuck with the bill.

It's about a clear a case as possible of what economists call "moral hazard".  If someone is irresponsible with their money and you bail them out, you encourage them to be even more irresponsible in the future. 

It's simple; rewarding bad behavior results in more bad behavior.

But GM's bad behavior is even more irresponsible than before, because now they're not just spending their own money, they're spending yours and mine.  If GM management wanted to risk their own money on junk bonds, I would have no problem with that.  Instead, the Federal government gave GM management your money and mine, and now GM is risking that money on junk bonds without even asking permission.

As Ed Morrissey stated:

This is what government bailouts buy.  Instead of clearing the decks at GM and freeing their assets through normal bankruptcy so that more competent hands could put them to better use, the government intervention maintained the same status quo and funded it with taxpayer assets.  It’s no great surprise, therefore, that the leadership at GM would toss away money owed to taxpayers to buy a stake in another failing enterprise.

Tell your Senator and Representative: no more bailouts, of anyone, ever.