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. 

Obesity Is a Choice, Not a Disease

In another case of science confirming the obvious, a study conducted by the University of Minnesota concludes that telling people that obesity is a disease implies that they have no control over their weight (more importantly, their health) and discourages them from finding solutions by absolving them of responsibility. 

University of Minnesota researchers asked more than 700 adults to read one of three articles about obesity. 

One was a real article from the New York Times about the decision to classify obesity as a disease.

A second article focused on standard tips for managing weight, including having a weekly weigh-in and varying exercise to keep it interesting. 

The third piece argued that obesity is not a disease and emphasised [sic.] the importance of a person’s lifestyle to their health. 

... 

The obese men and men who read that obesity was a disease saw dieting for health as less important than the others.

They were also less concerned about their weigh, happier with their size and chose higher calorie sandwiches.

As with most things in life, the most important factor determining health and fitness is personal responsibility, especially in a country as wealthy and technologically advanced as the US.  Yes, genetics play a role, but as this chart from USA Today demonstrates, the obesity rate in the US rocketed from 13% in 1962 to 36% in 2010.  Even if the data is only 80% accurate, that's still an enormous increase in only 50 years.  A population's genetics simply cannot change that drastically in one generation.  Genetics are not the issue.

Another factor that comes up when discussing obesity in the US is poverty, because in the US the poor are fatter than the rich.

Wages were inversely related to BMI and obesity in a nationally representative sample of more than 6,000 adults – meaning, those with low wages had increased BMI as well as increased chance of being obese (Kim & Leigh, 2010).

Supposedly, this phenomenon is the result of "food deserts".

Many Americans reside in food deserts—communities where retailers offering fresh food are scarce but fast-food restaurants and convenience stores selling prepared foods can abound. 

... 

Gallagher says. “You can’t choose healthy food if you don’t have access to it.”

According to this theory, poor people tend to be fatter because they can't afford to eat healthy foods. 

NPR.org: Food deserts mapped from coast to coast

I've always thought this theory was a load of steer manure based on personal experience.  First, my family and I are immigrants.  We moved to the US in 1983 and lived in poverty for years, and eating fast food was an extremely rare treat for us precisely because eating at home was far more affordable.  Second, although Aimee and I are solidly middle class, we still eat out rarely because we have eight kids and cooking a healthy meal at home is far less expensive than eating at a fast food restaurant or eating "prepared foods".

Personal experience is anecdotal, but now we have empirical evidence that my hunch was right.   

three years and $500 million into the federal Healthy Food Financing Initiative, there's a problem: A study suggests it's not working. 

... 

When a grocery store was opened in one Philadelphia food desert, 26.7 percent of residents made it their main grocery store and 51.4 percent indicated using it for any food shopping, the report found. But among the population that used the new supermarket, the researchers saw no significant improvement in BMI, fruit and vegetable intake, or perceptions of food accessibility, although there was a significant improvement in perception of accessibility to fruits and vegetables...

As James Taranto puts it...

The results "mirror findings in the U.K., where researchers created a similar comparison of two neighborhoods in Scotland and observed no net effect on fruit and vegetable intake," 

...

It's not that most "food desert" denizens eat unhealthy food because grocers refuse to supply them with fruits and vegetables. Instead, grocers don't supply them with fruits and vegetables because the demand is insufficient. 

You mean poor people are endowed with free will and are therefore responsible for their own actions, just like everyone else?  Isn't that amazing?

So then, why do so many people refuse to admit that obesity is a matter of individual responsibility?  It seems to me that those claiming that the obese are helpless in their plight hail from the political left.  Leftists, as a general rule, don't believe in individual responsibility, and believe deeply in paternalistic, sugar daddy government.

If obesity is not a matter of individual responsibility, if instead it's the fault of those mean old Capitalists, that gives them an excuse (as if they ever need one) to demand more government intrusion in free markets - which is just another way of saying individuals' free will choices.

Before anyone claims that stating that obesity is a matter of individual responsibility is a form of "fat shaming", let's think about some questions.

What is more shameful; being helpless, or being in control of ones self?  What is more empowering; being at the mercy of outside forces, or having the power to control ones own actions?

The choice seems obvious to me.

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?

Throwing Good Money After Bad

The federal government's insistence on wasting money on "green energy" companies has achieved self-parody.

Energy Secretary Steven Chu at A123 Systems

Electric car battery maker A123 Systems received a $946,830 check from the U.S. Energy Department on the day it filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy last month -- providing more ammunition for critics who say the Obama administration is blindly funding failed clean energy companies.

The Waltham, Mass.-based company also told two U.S. senators in a letter this week that it may seek more money from the $249.1-million Energy Department stimulus award it won in 2009. A123's Oct. 16 check was the latest payment as part of the original grant, which is distributed incrementally as the company meets certain benchmarks. A123 has received $133.3 million of the grant so far based on its investments in new battery plants in Livonia and Romulus, Mich.

You know what we really need in this roaring economy?  We need the federal government to take our money and give it to politically connected loser companies in the administration's pet industries.

Who do you think makes more productive financial decisions with your money; you, or DC politicians and bureaucrats?

Remember, governments don't pick winners and losers.  They only picks losers, because winners don't need governments to prop them up with money confiscated from tax payers.

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?

Why We Home School (Continued)

Educating Ourselves has some great information on the "education" bureaucracy's priorities.

Between 1950 and 2009, the number of K-12 public school students increased by 96 percent. During that same period, the number of full-time equivalent (FTE) school employees grew by 386 percent. Of those personnel, the number of teachers increased by 252 percent, while the ranks of administrators and other staff grew by 702 percent—more than 7 times the increase in students.

....

...if student growth had matched that of non-teaching personnel from 1992 to 2009 and if the teaching force had only grown 1.5 times faster than the pupil enrollment, American public schools would have an additional $37.2 billion to spend per year—the equivalent of an $11,700 a year increase in salary for every American public school teacher.

The "education" bureaucracy's priorities have nothing to do with educating children.  They have everything to do with providing high-paying, high-benefit jobs with cushy retirements to government bureaucrats.  It's a self-perpetuating waste machine.

The worst part is that the government stiff forces people like Aimee and me, who choose to opt out of it, to pay into it.

But here's the biggest question.  Teachers whine incessantly that they don't get paid enough.  Why don't they do something about this?

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.

Why We Home School (Continued)

Aimee brought this to my attention.

The father of an autistic New Jersey boy whose alleged humiliation at the hands of school staff was caught on tape is demanding his son's teacher be fired, but the state teachers' union said her voice is not on the recording. 

Stuart Chaifetz sent his 10-year-old son Akian to the Cherry Hill school with a hidden microphone, which allegedly recorded staff in teacher Kelly Altenburg's classroom berating the boy and calling him a "bastard." A video Chaifetz made describing the abuse along with audio went viral. The district claims it took action against "the individuals involved" in the incident, but won't say whether Altenburg is one of them. Multiple adult women's voices can be heard making inappropriate and even cruel comments on the tape, which Chaifetz released as part of a viral video blasting the district. 

"It was hell ... They were destroying my son," the father said of the February incident.

 As usual in cases of teacher misconduct, the teachers' union protected the teacher.

"The teacher’s voice is not on that recording," said NJEA spokesman Steve Wollmer. "It’s not her voice. It’s a teacher aide and somebody else. 

"If she had been heard making those statements, I am sure she would have been terminated," he added.

Seriously, Mr. Wollmer?  You didn't hear Ms. Altenburg actively calling a disabled child a "bastard", so therefore she doesn't deserve to get fired?  How about the fact that all this happened in her classroom and she never did anything about it?  Who is responsible for Ms. Altenburg's classroom if not Ms. Altenburg?

This story illustrates a problem endemic with all American public schools.  Teachers' unions, in collusion with local and state governments, make it almost impossible to fire bad teachers.  John Stossel brought attention to that fact in his 20/20 special, "Stupid in America".

Here's a copy of the flow chart that demonstrates how to fire a bad teacher in New York.  Click on the image to see it in its full horror.  Not every school district is as bad as NYC, of course, but they all make firing bad teachers unnecessarily difficult.

If Ms. Altenburg didn't get fired, what did happen to her?

Like many bad teachers, she got shuffled to another school.

Chaifetz claims district officials told him a teaching assistant he identified as Jodi Sgouros was fired immediately after administrators listened to the recording in February. But he says he received no word about any punishment meted out to Altenburg. Wollmer told FoxNews.com Altenburg has been reassigned to another school in the district.

The teaching assistant, who is not protected by tenure was rightfully fired.  The teacher, who is protected by tenure, received zero discipline and went off to terrorize another group of kids.

The documentary, "Waiting for Superman", highlighted this practice.  There's even a name for it - "The Dance of the Lemons".



What happens in any organization when sub-standard personnel receive promotions and pay raises on schedule and excellent personnel receive no reward for their excellence?  Everyone involved becomes demoralized.  Those who do excellent work leave in search of employers who appreciate their excellence, and the sub-standard personnel stay because nobody else wants them.  The system breeds mediocrity at best, and usually worse.

In short, you end up with the current American public school system, which spends more per student than any other country, yet...

Out of 34 countries, the U.S. ranked 14th in reading, 17th in science and 25th in math.

Every time other parents ask me why we home school, I cite those statistics.  Without exception, and right on cue, they always reply, "Well, my kids attend a great public school".  My question is; compared to what?  Did you shop around?

Invariably, the answer is "no".  School districts assign kids to a school based on their address.  Parents rarely get a choice in the matter.

Think about that for a minute.

People who spend hours on the internet researching something as trivial as a DVD player to ensure they get the best value for their money will then allow some nameless, faceless bureaucrat to tell them where to send their kids for their education, and simply trust that the bureaucrat made the best choice for their kids, even though the bureaucrat's never met the kids and makes his/her decision based on nothing remotely related to the kids.

Why the hell do parents do that?  What is more important to you; your kids' education, or a DVD player?

Americans are taught since childhood (mostly by their teachers), that teachers are heroes and martyrs sacrificing their time and talents when they could easily find far more lucrative employment.

Bull crap.

Who do you think makes up teachers' unions that bribe politicians to deny parents school choice?  Who do you think invented the concept of tenure and devised that ridiculous flow chart to protect bad teachers from getting fired?

Teachers do/did!

Still, it's not the teachers' fault.  They're simply doing what all people normally do - protecting their own interests.

It's the parents' fault.

That's right, I said it.  It's your fault, Mom or Dad.  If you sit passively by and let public schools provide your child anything less than a world class education, it's your fault.  If you don't demand school choice for yourself and your kids, it's your fault.  If you vote for politicians who care more about the money they receive from teachers' unions than your right to choose where to send your kids based on what you believe is best for them, it's your fault.

So, what are you going to do about it, Mom or Dad?

EDIT: If you're up for a little infuriating enlightenment, I highly recommend John Stossel's entire "Stupid in America" series (Part 1, Part 2 and Part 3), "Waiting for Superman" and "The Lottery".

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.

Fisker Lays Off More American Workers

Obama-Biden crony corporation Fisker laid off even more American workers.

On Friday, Delaware Online reports, 12 more workers – including engineers and maintenance technicians – were laid off at the plant, leaving "only a small maintenance team" left there. One of those let go was Jeff Garland, who had been working on community affairs and business development efforts in Delaware. He said the plant is currently "absolutely empty." This is because Fisker has taken out the old GM equipment but has not yet installed the machines it would need to build the Atlantic.

Again, if Pres Obama invests his own money in failing "green" ventures, that's his business, but that's not what he did.  He invested your money and mine - half a billion Dollars of it.  Did he ask your permission?  He didn't ask mine.