Tearing Down the Wall...

Imagine a group wholly opposed to something, who inadvertently rush forward into just such an occurrence.  It's what you might call a self-fulfilling prophecy.  In the movies, we see it all the time.  Fearful for your life, one attempts to run away, only to realize too late that you have ran headlong to your death.  One can remember watching Gene Hackman on the  S.S. Poseidon, yelling back at a group walking off to such a fate, "You're going the wrong way, damn it!"  It seems awful, watching people running toward perceived salvation only to find destruction, but it happens all the time.

With the uproar over the Obama administration's HHS mandate on contraception and religious freedom, the argument has become so clouded in invectives that people are not seeing clearly.  There is a group that believes the Church is attempting to control access, which is not the case.  The Church is simply stating that they don't like it and they don't want you to do it, but  if you do, don't expect them to pay for it or condone it.  It seems to me that I've said the same about a great many things to my teenage children.

But a certain group of people see this debate along with other issues, as part and parcel of a movement that seeks to remake America into a theocracy.  In a MSNBC interview with Chris Matthews, Washington Post political writer Melinda Henneberger said, "Maybe the founders were wrong to guarantee free exercise of religion in the First Amendment..."  They seek to fight the impending Theocracy by legislating Religion into either non-existence or irrelevance. 

Under the HHS mandate, employers who oppose contraception as a matter of religious conscience must pay for it against their will.  Yes there are exceptions for "churches", but not for followers of those churches.  The First Amendment becomes a trivial annoyance in pursuit of what they consider to be good public policy.  But herein lies their fatally flawed reasoning.  The Freedom of Religion is not the monster to be feared, but the gatekeeper that protects us all.

At the time of its writing, the American people found Madison's constitution lacking  While the overall structure was adequate to the task of building our system of government, there was concern for limiting it's power.  A bloody and expensive war was fought for our freedom and it would have been in vain if we were to simply exchange one oppressive regime for another.  The Bill of Rights, a set of amendments outlining the express rights of the people and setting definite limits on the federal governments exercise of power, became the linchpin that brought agreement to our constitution.

In that day, the people understood what it meant to live under oppression.  In fact, many of these peoples, like the pilgrims, came to this new land expressly to escape religious oppression.  The First Amendment reads:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

The rights established with those words work to prevent the Federal body from acting as a Theocracy, whether Catholic, Anglican, Islamic or even Secular Humanism.  It's true that of the individual states, several formed theocratic states, where one must have met certain tests and taken oaths ascribing allegiance to a church and God, to participate in that state's body politic.  The Bill of Rights protects the people from the Federal government, but left much open to the states.  Over time, as the states became more pluralistic, tolerance for others became the norm and theocratic rule disappeared from the states.  Later, the Supreme Court ruled that the wording of the 14th amendment brought the Federal rights guaranteed in the Bill of Rights to the states.

The First Amendment is the gatekeeper; the wall that Jefferson spoke of protecting all of us from whatever ideology or ideologues happens to hold power at any given time.  While today's government mandates employer funded contraception, tomorrow's could mandate employer  paid time off for church attendance or chastity guards for teens or even homosexual rehabilitation.  Further down the road, the use of Sharia and the resulting downgrade of women's rights might be deemed "in the public interest" by the ruling class.

When public policy trumps the freedoms guaranteed in our constitution, then where do we go for protection against harmful and wrong public policy.  When our rights are only guaranteed till the next election, then we will fight a new revolution on every ballot.  We will cease to be the America that has stood from George Washington, Thomas Jefferson and John Adams, through Abraham Lincoln, Teddy Roosevelt, John F. Kennedy and Ronald Reagan.

When the constitution becomes flexible enough to allow the ruling party to force men and women to ignore the teachings of their church to provide an already accessible and affordable consumer good in the name of public policy, what happens when the "feared" theocrats take power?

And even if we toss out the whole freedom of religion issue, I still haven't seen anyone articulate why the government should have the power to mandate that employers must purchase for their employees, anything unrelated to their job.  Take the words "health care" & "contraception" and replace them with "firearms" & "handguns" in this discussion.  Why would a court see any difference?  At the very least, our right to firearms represents an explicit right in the constitution, as opposed to any implicit or legislated rights.

Now that the Federal government can force employers to buy their employees health care, why stop there?  Surely there are many other consumer goods that may reinforce other policy goals of this and future administrations.  Health care is good, but what about housing or food and water; maybe even broadband access?  It's a list without end.

As in Gattaca, Brave New World, 1984 and other novels and movies of dystopian futures, a government that can achieve control of access, will sooner or later limit access.  Heck, a government board limiting access is explicitly written in the Obamacare law.  I know that it's always clearer in hindsight (and may we never have reason to see it that way), but even proponents of affordable access to health care need to understand that we're going the wrong way.

(Scene from The Poseidon Adventure)

Reverend Scott (Gene Hackman): You're going the wrong way. You're going toward the bow.

Wrong group: That's right, Reverend.

Scott: Wait a minute. You can't get out that end.

Wrong group: Why not?

Scott: Because we're settling by the bow. The bow's underwater. Go to the stern. We'll exit through the engine room.

Wrong group: lt's gone. The only way out is forward.

Scott: How do you know? Did you check the engine room? Did you see it?

Wrong group: l don't have to. We're going forward. Please, come with us, Reverend.

Scott: You're going the wrong way, damn it!

Keep this in mind as you "Lean Forward" - simply moving forward does not necessarily mean that you are making progress.  And sometimes the preacher was right all along.

A Cowardly Proposal

President Obama submitted his budget proposal on Monday.  This budget lays out the president's priorities and represents his vision for America.  As a sidenote, it shows that Obama is a coward and a colossal liar.

In 2009, the president made it clear that spending on a large stimulus was needed to end the recession and begin a recovery.  In 2010, his top priority was passing health care reform, which he argued was key to lowering costs.  In 2011, he came to realize that our booming deficits were an issue and pushed for a balanced program of tax increases and spending cuts.

But today, we can honestly say that President Obama is quite simply full of it.  In 2012, he proposes raising taxes well beyond anything ever discussed in the last 30 years and the final result is a larger deficit that last year.  Despite his words to the contrary, this budget makes it clear that raising taxes is not about fairness or lowering the deficit, it is only about spending more money; and spending it on his special interests, not America's interests.

This budget raises the tax deduction for buying an electric vehicle from $7,500 to $10,000.  This deduction has little effect on sales and the average income of those who purchase these $40,000+ cars is $177,000.  At the same time, the President would kill a Washington DC scholarship program for poor children that, by all marks, is succeeding. 

So the president who once said that he only cared about what works, has decided that putting more money into a failed effort for the rich is more important than a successful program for poor children.

When Obama took office he said that he would cut the deficit in half by the end of his first term.  Instead he doubled it.  If passed this budget would raise revenue from 15.4% of GDP to 20.1%, far above the post-WWII average of 18% and yet he spends even more, raising the projected deficit to $1.39 trillion.

The president has said that we need to temporarily spend more to fight this current crisis, yet his budget lays out a ten year plan that never spends less than 22% of GDP and is nearly 23% in 2022.  Given that spending was as low as 18% under Clinton, there is no way to call such a spending spree temporary.

The tax increases he proposes are unrealistic.  Dividend income would rise from it's current 15% to 39.6%.  The president has spent much time talking about the so-called Buffett rule that would tax the wealthy at a 30% minimum, but that is found nowhere here.  Why?  Because for Obama, 30% wasn't really enough.  With certain phaseouts on deductions, the actual tax rate for the wealthy will now be nearly 45%.  Is there a better way to kill economic activity than this?

Remember when Bill Clinton talked about the peace dividend from the end of the Cold War?  That peace dividend under Speaker Gringich went a long way toward balancing our budget.  President Obama's budget would make deep cuts in our defense budget, but this peace dividend would be transferred into more green boondoggles and high-speed rail projects. 

So what we have is a budget that would raise taxes beyond the thinkable, cut defense and still lose more money than before.  President Obama's budget claims to cut spending and lower the deficit but it doesn't.  He claims that this is a vision for an America built to last, but it isn't.  President Obama has talked a big game about being responsible and remaining true to our American values, but this budget makes that a lie; and the president is a coward for not having the temerity to level with the American people and tell them the truth.

Remembering 2006 - When $296 billion was a lot of money

Later today as President Obama submits a budget that will show a 4th consecutive year of $1 trillion plus deficts, it's helpful to put that into perspective.  Here is how ThinkProgress described President GW Bush's 2006 budget with a projected deficit of $296 billion:

Today, the Office of Management Budget projected a $296 billion federal deficit for fiscal year 2006. Bush held a press conference arguing that this is a vindication of his economic policies.
Actually, it would be the fourth largest deficit of all time. Here’s the top five:

1. 2004 (George W. Bush) $413 billion
2. 2003 (George W. Bush) $378 billion
3. 2005 (George W. Bush) $318 billion
4. 2006 (George W. Bush) $296 billion (projected)
5. 1992 (George H. W. Bush) $290 billion

In other words, Bush's 2006 budget (the last with a Republican majority) was not only on a downward trend over several years, but was similar to a budget deficit from 14 years prior. 

I will not be the first to defend Bush from the charge of being a big spender.  But despite the terrorists attacks and already burgeoning recession in 2001, policies were in place to bring spending under some modicum of control.  The following years of the Bush Presidency saw a democratic Congress, so the outlying years naturally told a different story even though it topped out at just under $500 billion.

What Obama proposes today will not be the actual budget that passes Congress.  Thankfully we now have a Republican Congress and a real hope of bringing the annual budget back under the $1 trillion mark.  But wouldn't it be nice if we could all be complaining about a record Obama deficit that was at least similar to any. other. President. we've. ever. had.  

Perhaps with a leader who actually cares about such things, we might even have a democrat-controlled Senate that would actually pass a budget - something that hasn't happened in three years.  Perhaps if the President could simply understand that free doesn't really mean free, we wouldn't have so many new "free" programs and mandates.  Perhaps if the President understood that the axiom "you have to spend money to make money" only works in the private sector.  Perhaps if the President wasn't too busy transforming America into something unrecognizable, he might notice we are in a perilous position.  Perhaps if the President cared about America as he does about himself.....well, nevermind.


UPDATE:  The budget has been released.  For an early analysis check out Veronique du Rugy's post on NRO's The Corner.

America Lost.....?

Now that the Obama administration has formally put in place new regulations stipulating that all health insurance plans will now have contraception coverage provided for free regardless of the wishes of the purchaser of the plan, at least we can look toward one silver lining.  The Federal government no longer needs to continue funding Planned Parenthood, right?  Sure, and I have some other Obama "compromises" I'd like to tell you about.

It's hard to pinpoint the exact moment, we stopped being America, but perhaps future generations will celebrate February 10th.  On that date, it became clear that we are no longer a free people.  Coincidentally, or not, that was also the date in 2007 that one Senator Barak Obama made his announcement that he would run for President of the United States of America.  Little did we know that he would be the last one.

Thus far, this President:

• has fired a private company's CEO
• played Robinhood by stealing the equity of a company from it's owners and gave it to it's workers
• had the head of the EPA to tell the American people what type of car they want to buy
• squashed energy production which raised energy prices in an attempt to force a transformation of supply
• mandated that every citizen purchase health insurance against their will
• told employers what health coverage plans must be offered and set fines for employers who don't offer health coverage
• told insurers what plans it may offer and that certain services must be offered free of charge to certain users
• forced banks to accept modify home loans against their will

This President has continually threatened banks, auto companies, the carbon energy sector, wealthy taxpayers and corporations, as well as average citizens.  In almost every instance, Obama felt free to take action due to the need to respond to a certain crisis or imminent issue.  But this week that argument cannot be made.  There is no crisis in access to birth control; not when Wal-Mart's pharmacy will sell you a birth control pack for $12.

Today, we can no longer kid ourselves into believing that we are citizens of the United States of America - we are now her subjects.  Once upon a time, being an American citizen meant that one were free to live one's life in the full knowledge that the U.S. Constitution held certain guarantees of rights that were not given by the state and could not be taken by the state.  But as her subjects today, we see that the President believes that those limitations placed on him by our constitution are not only unnecessary, but an impediment to achieving the results he desires.

That the former state legislator who voted to allow children born alive following a botched abortion to be killed, because it was unfair that the child survived despite the intentions of the mother, has no understanding of the issue of conscience and the Freedom of Religion in the 1st amendment of the Bill of Rights should come as no surprise.  

That this former candidate, who admitted on the campaign trail that he wished to raise the capital gains tax rate despite the likelihood of a decrease in revenue out of a sense of fairness, now wants to target only certain people for a special tax on them for the sake of fairness, it could not be unexpected.

That this President, who in his recent State of the Union address stated that when Congress would not act, he would, is now using his unconstitutional Health Care reform act as a vehicle to change the relationship of government and citizen, we can no longer be shocked.

The only question I have is whether we will look back at February 10th as the day America was lost or if that was the day the American people, the Congress and the Supreme Court heard the call to action and were moved to rescue her.

Ruminations From the Void - January 18, 2012

The End is Nigh!!!  2012 has arrived bringing with it, the end of days.  Bend over, grab your ankles and get ready to kiss your bootie goodbye because everything you know is about to be destroyed. 

While the end has not taken place yet, we were able to get a small taste of it today, when Wikipedia and other websites went dark today.  The movie 2012 had it wrong that the end of the world came about because of the earth's crust displacement.  No - all you need to do is put Facebook at risk to cause mass hysteria.

(note:  normally I would link my mention of "2012", but that seems a bit pointless today, doesn't it?)

Don't get me wrong, I'm not an advocate of SOPA as written, but let's not kid ourselves - it's not censorship.  It's a poor attempt to fix a real problem - international online piracy.  Portions of the bill were written poorly and offered too many avenues for abuse.  But that's often inherant in any new regulations that are written in Washington, DC. 

I remember several bills that became law over the past several years in Washington that were also written poorly and offered too many avenues for abuse.  These include the PPA (Obamacare) of 2010, the Dodd-Frank Financial Oversight law of 2010 and the Credit Card reform Act of 2009.  These laws control access and availability of healthcare, massively regulate our nation's financial sector and greatly reduced the availability of adequate credit for the poor and increased the cost of credit.  What I don't remember was the huge outpouring of opposition on Facebook to these laws while they were being debated.

While my daughter's college friends are all over the net about SOPA, I wonder if they realize they will be forced to buy health insurance against their will next year and they will only be allowed to buy a plan that meets the approval of the Federal government; or that their access to credit will be more limited than it should be.  Apparently, for the next generation, Congress can do whatever it wants as long as it leaves social networking alone.

Keystone XL

In 2008 candidate Barak Obama said that he would like to see gas prices higher, stating that he would like to see a "gradual adjustment".  Today, President Obama did his part to meet that goal by rejecting the Keystone XL oil pipleine project.  Construction of this Canada to Texas pipeline would have created tens of thousands of jobs and gone a long way to decreasing our energy dependence.  It would have also allowed more fuel exports at a time when we have a huge trade deficit.

This decision comes just days after Saudi Arabia announced that they would keep oil prices above $100.  Obama has continually done his part to ensure higher long term gas prices in this way - limited drilling in gulf following his imposed six month moratorium, decreased exploratory drilling permits and further closing off coastal areas from drilling.

Gingrich Rising

Former Speaker Newt Gingrich is rising once again following Monday night's Republican Primary debate in South Carolina.  On Monday night, as in past debates, Gingrich was at his best when focused on the current White House occupant and outlining policy differences with Democrats.  He received a standing ovation for his answer to a question from Juan Williams that implied that previous comments by Gingrich were race insensitive.

I believe every American of every background has been endowed by their Creator with the right to pursue happiness. I am going to continue to find ways to help poor people learn how to get a job, learn how to get a better job, and learn some day to own the job. - Newt Gingrich

I was fearful that Newt's past may make him unelectable.  The clarity of that line and how it was delivered has made me change my mind.  If he can stop the petty fights with Romney and lock-in on his vision for America as opposed to Barak Obama's, people will hear what he has to say and like it.  His problems have often come from trying to attack other Republicans because the politics of it has him pushing angles that aren't sincere.  But when he's focused on Obama and the general election, he has the sincerity and the gravitas and the intellect to be our standard bearer. 

OccupyJailCells

Remember when all those tea party crazies were tossed into jail for the crimes committed during their tax protests?  Remember when the tea party crazies tossed smoke bombs on the White House lawn?  Me neither.

OccupyWashingtonDC put the White House under lockdown yesterday by tossing a smoke bomb type item over the fence onto the the White House lawn.  This follows several criminal actions that have taken place inside the Occupy protests across the nation along with heavy police involvment in compelling the protestors to adhere to local laws.

During the height of the Tea Party in mid-2010, I had someone mention how radical and crazy they were.  I asked him what they were doing that was bad.  He never could tell me any particular action or position that he disagreed with, just that they looked crazy on the news.  This same person was later promoting the Occupy protests.  Unbelievable.

On the nicer side, St. Louis will hold a parade scheduled for January 28th, which will be the first to welcome the troops home following the war in Iraq.  A Facebook page has been created for it.  Click here.

Sorry if I've been inconsistent posting here.  Working shiftwork and coaching my son's teams along with my other non-paying jobs doesn't enable me a lot of time for this non-paying job.  Please follow me on Twitter and friend me on Facebook to get updates when I have a new post to read.  Just click on the Twitter and Facebook icons on the right side of this web page.

Thanks for reading and God bless.

A Visit From.....

Twas the night before Christmas & all through the house,
not a creature was stirring .... well .... except for our dwarf hamster Belle.
(I mean, she's nocturnal & all - she always seems to be training for the rodent Olympics around this time)
 
The stockings were hung in the doorway by tacks,
In hopes that they'll hold up when filled to the max.

The children were nestled, all snug in the rear seat of the minivan;
While visions of gift cards danced in their head.

With Mama Dawn on my right & my cellphone on my hip;
We'd just settled in for a long winter's trip.

When there arose from my wife such a clatter, that I slammed on the brakes to see what was the matter.

The beautiful Dawn was alarmed so I parked in a flash,
Got my cell at the ready & leaned on the dash.

Then she said with a whisper, that I heard like a clap,
The kids presents are bought, but nothing is wrapped.

The food isn't cooked, she continued to say,
And the house is a mess because I fired the maid.

With a twitch of my wrist l shifted in gear,
And floored it because Christmas soon would be here.

Faster than eagles on my course I did drive,
My family is lucky that we're all still alive.

Past Arnold & Barnhart, past Imperial & Pevely,
Then Herky & Festus, beyond Bloomsdale & Zell.

Then what to my wondering eyes should appear,
But what seemed to be a comic book hero was suddenly here.
 
She said not a word, as she looked for the tape,
I soon noticed the big "S" that was sewn on her cape.

"To the top of the Porch! To the end of the hall!
Get the kids off to bed & I will soon wrap them all."
 
As dry leaves before the wild hurricane fly,
When she meets with an obstacle, she's certain to try.

So off to the table with wrapping paper she flew,
With a sleighful of toys - and a DVD too.
 
And in a twinkling I saw gifts all under the tree,
I then ran to the kitchen to see her moving quickly.

As I shook my head & was turning around,
Amazingly now, a clean house I now found.
 
A wink of her eye and a twist of her head,
Soon gave me to know I had nothing to dread.

She spoke not a word, but went straight to her work,
She filled all the stockings, then looked at this jerk.
 
Removing her cape, she laid it aside,
She then rolled into bed, & laid on her side.

But I heard this refrain, as sleep ended her night,
"Merry Christmas to all & to all a goodnight!"

This has been my way to say Merry Christmas to my beautiful Dawn - the love of my life & genuine Superwife - I love you!

Journey - (it's not just a band for GLEE to cover)

Yesterday was to be my 40th birthday, but I declined the award because I didn't feel I deserved it.  I'm not sure I have 40 years worth of accomplishments to offer to the universe.  Like the song we used to sing in church, He's still working on me, to make me what I ought to be.  In other words, I'm still under construction.  But then again, aren't we all.

The only way I feel that age matters to me is in the loss of certain childhood dreams.  Like most little boys, I dreamt of playing in the pros, whether football or baseball.  Those dreams have realistically been gone for several years, but kept alive in movies such as The Natural and The Rookie (baseball) and Unnecessary Roughness and The Replacements (football) where aging men whose dreams had long been thought gone, find their moment of glory fufilled.  Today, I can no longer dream that I am a Roy Hobbs, sidetracked for a time, but still ready to find my moment on the field.  That time for me has truly passed.

With one child off to college already, I can sense that even more changes are imminent.  The road that we are on will soon come to an end and a new course will be chosen.  In truth, age has nothing to do with the journey.  As Indiana Jones once said, "It's not the years, it's the mileage".

The following is something I wrote earlier this year.  Watching the snow fall outside today, it came to mind.  I offer it again to say this - life is a journey; and on that journey, choose your passengers well.

Oh, and whatever happens on your journey - don't stop believing.

Enjoy....

In Missouri, as in what seems to be 80% of the nation, we've had a lot of snowfall.  Here in Sainte Genevieve we had a few storms that gave us a powdering to an inch or two.  But this week, we had enough snow to head for the in-laws and do some sledding.  The sun was shining and the snow had a real glaze on top; perfect for sledding. 

Two of our three children had spent the night at Nana and Papa's, so they were already out back when my wife and I arrived.  Out the back door, I walked to the top of the hill.  I saw Anna and Nate at the bottom of the hill with Finn, the little boy next door who's friends with Nate.  Papa Gary gave me the layout of the route.  Their hill slopes from two directions into a corner of their yard, fenced on one side with untamed mother nature on the other.  This can make for some odd approaches and close calls with the fence and the trees.  Papa said it was slick and fast and they had moved the disc sleds out of the rotation since they were harder to steer.   Whether because I was brave and foolhardy or I just felt my girth needed it, I grabbed a disc and said we'd see about that.  He pointed out the different paths they had taken, I picked what I thought would be the fastest and off I went.

Casual Friday Edition - 9/23/11

Calm down.  Everything is under control.  A dastardly criminal enterprise has been shut down.  Get back to your normal lives knowing all is well in America.

In case you weren't aware of it, a California couple was doing something very improper in their home; something involving a group of people.  The Fromms were cited under a municipal code in the city of San Juan Capistrano, California.  When asked for comment, Stephanie Fromm said, "How dare they tell us we can’t have whatever we want in our home".

What type of debauchery was taking place at their home?  They were holding a bible study.  I know, there goes the neighborhood.  Well, one of their neighbors, in an effort to preserve their house's value I assume, called in a complaint.  The couple have been fined $300 and must now apply for a permit to allow three or more to meet in their home to avoid further $500 fines.

The Fromms live in a neighborhood with large homes and have a corral, barn, pool and huge back lawn on their property, so parking and noise aren’t a problem. 

"There’s no singing or music,” Stephanie said. “It’s meditative.”

Well, thank God for that at least.

(h/t Gateway Pundit)

New Discovery Could Shake Scientific Consensus

Roll Over Gore: Pillar of Climate Change Challenged

Is Gore Wrong?  Galactic Cosmic Radiation Says Yes

Cern Scientists Challenge Climate Change after Cosmic Rays test

CERN scratching head over Global Cosmic Radiation

Physics Shocker!  The Sun controls cloud cover/global temperature

Climate Change Theory in a Spin as Cosmic Rays seed cloud formation

Wouldn't it have been great if the media would have been able to print accurate headlines like these just a few weeks ago following another CERN experiment (Click here for more info).  But the politics of challenging the AGW position on Climate Change is too fraught with danger for science to be allowed its proper place.

But I must say that if challenging consensus is inappropriate in Climate Change, wouldn't it seemingly be out of the question when it comes to Einstein's General Theory of Relativity and his famous equation Energy equals mass times the speed of light squared.  This "pillar of physics" says that nothing can move faster than the speed of light.  Even now, most scientists are in disbelief.  Notice though that no one is trying to shut down the discussion by saying the debate is over.

Yet below are the headlines declaring the results of CERN's recent experiment.  The hypocrisy in the media is beyond belief.

Roll Over Einstein: Pillar of Physics Challenged

Was Einstein Wrong? Faster-Than-Light Neutrino Says Yes

Cern scientists challenge laws of physics after 'breaking' speed ...

CERN scratching head over speed of light

Physics shocker! Neutrinos clocked faster than light

Einstein's theory in a spin as neutrinos pass speed of light

Debate Reaction

The strongest reaction of the night came when I over-anticipated a Herman Cain talking point by yelling, "CHILEAN MODEL!" a little too enthusiastically while sitting next to the beautiful Dawn.  Suffice it to say that I finished the remainder of the evening in solitude.

In small bits, one forgets that Newt Gingrich is unelectable.  I would like to see him as the VP pick, if only to see him debate Biden into the ground.

Cain is also unelectable based on foreign policy issues, but I do like his $9.99 pizza deal.

Rick Santorum seems more like the regular guy than Rick Perry, so I'm not sure where Perry's strength is anymore.  Bachmann is fading fast, while Huntsman should get his parting gift soon too.  Gary Johnson one liner was unable to overcome Gary Johnson.  I'm purposely leaving out Ron Paul.  I wish these debates would too.

Wait, you forgot Romney.  No, I didn't.  Romney is still exactly the same as he's been since 2008 - good enough to get my vote over Obama, yet has done nothing to get my vote in a primary.

In case you didn't watch, here was Johnson's big line of the night.

"My next-door neighbor’s two dogs have created more shovel-ready jobs than this current administration"

I hated the format of the debate.  Too many candidates who didn't have a chance to answer each question.  It's time to thin the herd and get down to business.  How the impending collapse of our economy this week didn't come up is beyond me?

The Social Contract

Get ready for the new liberal talking point - The Social Contract.  The Social Contract outlines the relationship between a people and its government.  Our nation was founded on the Social Contract as espoused by John Locke.  He recognized a Law of Nature (moral law) that man  would live by on his own, but for man to live without fear of those who chose to act against this law, he would collectively consent to be governed.

This government would be a neutral party to protect what is outlined in our Declaration of Independence as life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness of which property rights were a foundation.  This goverment "derives it's power from the consent of the governed".

Locke argued that government's legitimacy comes from the citizens' delegation to the government of their right of self-preservation. The government thus acts as an impartial, objective agent of the people, rather than each man acting as his own judge, jury, and executioner--the condition that takes place in the absence of government.

Locke was the foremost authority on political philosophy with the majority of America's founders.

But when the left begin to speak of a social contract, don't be fooled.  They do not refer to Locke, but to Jean-Jacques Rousseau.  Whereas Locke's theory was about personal freedom and a government designed first and foremost to protect that freedom, Rousseau emphasized the collective over the individual.

[The social contract] can be reduced to the following terms: Each of us puts his person and all his power in common under the supreme direction of the general will; and in a body we receive each member as an indivisible part of the whole.

Rousseau envisioned the government as the seat of power, rather than the individual.  He thought that man often had "to be forced to be free" in that popular sovereignty was to decide what is good for the whole.

The Bill of Rights, is a direct repudiation of Rousseau's Social Contract and an embrace of Locke's.

So if you hear someone such as Paul Krugman or Elizabeth Warren say that the Social Contract means that one's property and/or it's proceeds, belong to society, the state or anyone other than the rightful owner, then understand what they are saying.  They are expressing a desire to force upon us a popular-elected socialistic state rather than the representative government, free market society our founders intended. 

They wish to wield the popular will of the masses against the minority, the Bill of Rights be damned.  Today it is class warfare against the rich.  Tomorrow, it will be the young against the elderly under Obamacare.  Before one smugly exclaims "take from the wealthy", be sure to reflect upon how the Bill of Rights may one day be your sole refuge against the state when it turns its eye upon you.

Only under Rousseau's Social Contract could the state ever believe that it has the right to fine an individual for holding a quiet, orderly Bible study on that individual's own property. 

Unfortunately, we currently have a president who agrees with them and is actively working to stir the masses for his own political gain.  Taxes to pay for the roads and the military may flow from Locke.  But taxes to take from one and give to another is not Locke.  Its not Jefferson or Madison either.  It's also not American.

We Need an Economic "Gamechanger"

I've done my best over the past few days to emphasize that President Obama's "tax the wealthy" plan has the potential to do great harm to our floundering economy while doing nothing to overcome our pile of debt.  The idea that increased tax rates will result in associated revenue increases is not backed up by historical data. 

Throughout the past several decades, the top tax rate has fluctuated from as high as 91% in the early '60s to 28% at the end of the '80s to our current 35%.  Yet despite the huge difference between 91% and 28%, our revenue has consistently remained around 18% of GDP. 

The changes in actual tax revenue tracks more closely to economic contraction/expansion than tax rates.  In good economic times, even with an expanding GDP, revenue as a percentage of GDP increases, whereas as revenues decrease as a percentage of GDP during recession, despite a falling GDP.  During our current economic hard times, revenue sits at about 16% of GDP, but reached 21% at the height of the '90s tech bubble.

Conclusion #1:  If you want to increase revenue, you need to expand GDP.

It's time to toss aside the class warfare talk of what's fair and just talk about what works.  Raising tax rates is not stimulative and does not correlate with increased revenues or an expanding GDP, so there is no economic value in doing so.

But something must be done.  Doing nothing is not an option.  The following chart shows us that we can't just wait for something good to happen.

The biggest problem we face is not a true lack of revenue, but an explosion in our spending.  Even aside from the temporary spending measures put into place over the past few years, our entitlement growth will continue us on an unsustainable path.  Tax revenue in this chart is displayed at the historic average of 18% of GDP.

For those who believe that simply raising taxes will bring in enough additional revenue to fix this problem, here is another chart.

As it shows, even if we assume that we could hold revenue at our highest recorded percentage to GDP, we would still be swamped by the rising red ink.  What we are left with is this - we are not on a path to recovery, we have lagging revenue with no realistic plan to increase it and even if we could magically assume record revenues, it still wouldn't be good enough to bring our deficits under control.

The fact is we are at a crossroads.  We cannot continue down the path that we are on.  The same game of small adjustments here and there will not be sufficient.  It's at moments like this, that something drastic needs to happen.  What we need is a gamechanger and it is this - dramatically cut spending to expand the economy.

I can hear the collective gasp arising from the gallery, but wait a moment before you hit that "close tab" button.  I can show evidence of how this has worked before.

Our debt currently sits at 42% of GDP, the highest it has been since WWII.  But in the early '90s, Canada's overspending had put its debt at 53% of GDP.  At that point, they began a gamechanging plan.  They cut spending very dramatially and instituted new market reforms and tax cuts.  They consistently balanced the budget.  This chart shows the results.

The Canadian economy boomed as spending was cut.  Average growth matched the highs of the mid-90s U.S. economy until the 2009 recession took its toll.  Despite a small uptick, their debt is again on a downward trajectory and sits 10% less than before they changed course.  Their dollars are now more valuable than ours as our debt levels are heading in the opposite direction.

During that same time period, Japan was following the same Keynesian spending plans that Obama is proposing.  The results were atrocious.  Economists now refer to that time period as Japan's "Lost Decade".

The Keynesian economic model has been refuted time and again.  Look at how government spending affects states.  In data compiled from 1968-2008, here is a quick summary:

• When a state's Senator ascended to the chair of one of the top-three committees, earmarks in the following year increased between 40% and 50%, and discretionary state-level Federal transfers increased about 10%.  In the median case, that represented a $200 million increase in Federal spending directed to that state.

• In response, the average firm in the median state cut its employment growth rate by 3% to 13%, reduced capital expenditures by approximately 15% or $39 million, R&D expenditures by roughly 10% or $34 million and experienced a decline in sales.  They also increased their dividend payouts by 13%, suggesting fewer investment opportunities.  These results were even more pronounced for firms within industries targeted by the Federal spending and for firms that did not have overseas operations, and therefore were more exposed to the effects of the increase in Federal spending on their home state's economy.

Co-author Professor Coval says, "Our findings suggest that they (public policymakers) should revisit their belief that Federal spending can stimulate private economic development."

Conclusion #2:  Spending cuts expand the economy while increased government spending causes contraction.

In other words, cutting into the deficit by dramatically decreasing government spending can help grow the economy, producing jobs which will increase tax revenue helping pay down the (now reduced)deficit.

As Paul Ryan has stated many times, "We don't have a revenue problem, we have a spending problem".  They say the first step to recovery is understanding that you have a problem.  Getting both parties to admit that we have a problem can lead us to the real gamechanger that we need. 

Until then, expect more nonsense about what's fair as Congress and the President fight over who will be allowed to get in the lifeboats as the unsinkable United States of American slowly takes on more water.

Where's Obama?

Remember playing Where's Waldo? 

Even my eight year old son immediately saw the problem with this picture.  It seems the president's narcissistic streak just won't allow him to simply be one of many, even if his little "hey, I'm over here" gesture completely obscures someone else in the photo.  After all, isn't everything about The One?

So, what do you think the woman in black is thinking?

Why the "Buffett Rule" Can't Work

At first glance, President Obama's new tax on the wealthy - the so-called "Buffett Rule", in honor of Billionaire investor Warren Buffett - will appear to be a good step to bringing our sky-rocketing budget deficit under control.  This year's fight over the debt ceiling only produced $38 billion in spending cuts, so it's hard to see a way forward without some new revenue.  The wealthiest Americans, primarily those who can rightfully be called millionaires, can surely spare a little change to help the country out.

Daniel Indiviglio, puts pen to paper in the Atlantic to calculate just how much it will help us to have the rich pay their "fair share", but what he found isn't what you might expect. 

His chart (see right) shows the varying amounts of additional income that can be collected from our nation's millionaires.  The red line near the top is our current year budget deficit. 

(Invidiglio uses the actual reported incomes and makes no assumptions as to how increased rates may change behavior.  In reality, the actual amount of income reported would decrease were rates increased.)

As the chart shows, raising the baseline 29.1% to a flat 35% only brings in an additional $37 billion.  In fact, even if you confiscated 100% of the yearly income for all millionaires, we would still be a trillion dollars short of closing the deficit under Obama.  We might think that the wealthy have all the money, but they don't.  They have a lot, but there just aren't enought of them.  We must remember the top 1% is outnumbered 99-1.

Indiviglio's conclusion is this -

So this Buffett Rule is a great populist proposal if the president wants to score some political points, but it has little practical value. It might provide the government a little bit of additional revenue, but unless extremely aggressive, it wouldn't make a dent in the nation's deficit problem. To do that, you'll need to cut entitlements and/or raise taxes much more broadly.

One reason this seems contrary is because of how often it is said that the wealthy are not paying their fair share.  But in truth, not only are they paying their fair share, they're paying well above it.  The top 1% earn 19% of total income but pay 37% of all taxes. 

If that is not a fair share, then I need someone to explain to me what would be.  What share of the tax burden would one consider to be a "fair share"?

Isn't it time we stopped placing blame and pointing fingers at each other?  Instead of tearing each other down, can we just get back to finding a way to grow the economy rather than government?  After all, no one ever complains about a "fair share" when there is plenty to go around.

This is not Math; it's Class Warfare

President Obama has been woefully misinformed.  That is putting yesterday's speech in the best light.  Others, and I don't blame them for saying such, accept that the president is pushing an outright lie in order to aid his re-election.  I prefer to believe that Obama is not attempting to purposefully sabotage our nation, but it is becoming more difficult to do so.

In 2009, the president said that raising taxes during a recession would be bad.  Our economy is currently on the verge of another recession.  Apparently, someone needs to mention this to the president because yesterday, Obama proposed a $1.5 trillion tax increase.  If passed, that would be detrimental to a recovery by his own admission.

This year households earning more than $1 million will pay an average of 29.1% of their income in taxes.  Households earning $50,000 - $75,000 will pay 15% of their income in taxes.  The Associated Press fact check states,

On average, the wealthiest people in America pay a lot more taxes than the middle class or the poor, according to private and government data. They pay at a higher rate, and as a group, they contribute a much larger share of the overall taxes collected by the federal government.

Despite the obvious data, President Obama continued to argue that the wealthy shouldn't get a better deal on taxes than "ordinary families".  He added, "This is not class warfare, it’s math."  Maybe he needs to grab a calculator.

The Jobs Conundrum

All across America, the cry is, "We  need more jobs!".  But in truth, a better cry is, "We need more Jobs!".  Don't look at me like I'm messing with you.  I promise that what I just said will make sense in the end.

At one of the recent Republican primary debates, the question was asked how much out of every dollar that one earns do they deserve to keep.  I can't remember what the answer at the debate was, but the correct answer is this - a person deserves to keep every bit of what they earn*.  That such a question even needs to be asked is a testament to how far removed we are from our nation's founding.

(I will avoid the issue of church tithing as a matter affecting this issue.  As my Pastor likes to say, it's all His anyway, but he lets you keep 90%.  Even with the Almighty, he offers Free Will to allow us to make that choice.)

The problem with the question is that it confuses a level of taxation with the issue of who should the money belong to.  The idea that individuals deserve the entirety of what they earn has no implication on taxes anymore than what one might spend on electricity or gasoline.  Just as a person chooses how much of their "earnings" to allocate toward electricity or gasoline, they choose how much will be allocated toward taxation. 

Obviously, the manner we go about choosing how much to pay in taxes is different on a certain level.  As voters, we collectively determine the rates of taxation, whether property, sales, payroll or income taxes, we will choose to abide.  But even once rates are determined, we still have a tremendous amount of discretion in how much we will choose to pay.

How Not to Create a Job and Spend $447 Billion Doing It

Yesterday the U.S. Census Bureau released its annual report on the state of poverty in America which stated that 46.2 million Americans were poor last year.  That translates into the fact that one in seven of us are living in poverty.

Naturally, the quickest way to lower that number is to get the private sector business environment in gear so that good jobs are available to those in this demographic.  Unfortunately, President Obama's new jobs plan appears to be mostly rehashed spending from the first stimulus law in 2009.  Look inside and you will see (not shovel-ready) infrastructure projects, additional bail-out funds to states, along with subsidies and loan guarantees to fund Green jobs.

One of the proposals in the president's plan is the payroll tax cut.  Congress could do some good by following through on this one and perhaps extending it through 2013.  It's still difficult to see how much benefit can come from a temporary cut, but by having the lower rate in place for two years it would make employers definitely consider it in hiring.  The Republicans proposed this in 2009 as an alternative to Obama's spendathon, but he and his Congressional leaders refused to listen. 

Of course paying for it is problematic.  Obama's plan to raise taxes in 2013 on the very people that he expects to do all this hiring is absolute lunacy.  His plan is pretty straight forward.  To employers he's saying, "please take some money and hire some people, then after you help me get re-elected I'll ask for all that money back".

Better would be to reform the entire tax code into a flatter, wider and simpler system eliminating the massive loopholes in our current system.  This would have the side benefit of eliminating some of the accounting drag on businesses.  A simpler tax code has the same effect as loosening regulations.  It allows more of a business's activities to be about productivity which leads to less overhead, greater profits, greater growth which of course leads to more hiring.

Infrastructure plays a large part in Obama's jobs plan.  But this has no chance of helping create jobs in the near term.  Let's take a step back and evaluate our transportation funding.  For the year 2008, transportation funding was $10.7 billion.  For 2010 funding doubled to $21.3 billion.  On top of this was the $48.1 billion that was part of Stimulus I.  So in two years we increased spending by $58 billion and the president wants to add another $50 billion, which is utter nonsense if he wants the money to be stimulative.  There are not enough good quality projects where we can spend the money already allocated.  It will be years before this new money could be matched up with any projects of value.  You just can't increase spending by ten-fold in this way and expect to see short term results.

Yes we need to work on our infrastructure.  But we need to do it in a frugal manner and while instituting a real long term plan.  There was a large outcry about the Bridge to Nowhere, but how many "bridge to nowhere"-type projects will be wrongly funded as we try to spend money as quick as we can?

As for the Green job funding, keep the name Solyndra in your memory.  You will hear much about it over the next year.  The solar panel manufacturer received over $500 million in loan guarantees from Stimulus I, but went bankrupt recently and 1,100 people lost their jobs.  The FBI raided their offices last week, but recent emails point to the White House pressuring the OMB to make the loan in 2009.  One analyst even stated that Solyndra would run out of money in September 2011.  The date Solyndra filed for bankruptcy - September 6, 2011.

Also not mentioned is that nearly half of the original $36 billion renewable energy loan program in Stimulus I has yet to be given out.  Aside from that we have the millions of dollars spent for energy efficient upgrading and weatherization that have succeeded thus far in creating one job for every $5 million spent.  Pouring anymore down those money pits would be beyond foolish.

Then the president believes we need to send even more tax dollars to states so that they can once again put off making tough decisions.  The truth is a lot of states are in bad financial shape and cuts need to be made - the sooner the better.  A temporary bailout will not eliminate the problem.  When states refuse to make the necessary cuts, the threat of increased taxes loom.  In that environment, businesses are left to worry about those kind of changes to their bottom line.  So where is this type of stimulus creating jobs?

Finally, Obama believes we need to extend unemployment benefits even further.  At the risk of angering some readers, let me say that this is ridiculous.  In what world does the president believe paying people to stay home will get more people working?  If there was any substantial effect from the recipients of government aid helping stimulate the economy, then we wouldn't be in the fix that we find ourselves. 

If it's solely to help the unemployed, then we are doing the opposite of what we should be doing.  Basic economic textbooks, along with real life experience, will tell you that unemployment payments extend unemployment.  Even worse, chronic unemployment makes each potential worker unemployable in the eyes of the men and women who hire.  This is why, even when a government program helps an employer to create jobs, only half of those jobs went to the unemployed.  Instead, employers poached workers from other companies.

Contrary to popular thinking, the solution to our problems today is to simply put into place the type of common sense reforms that will help our economy at any time.  The idea that we need temporary efforts for a temporary problem comes from a misunderstanding of how the economy works.

Last year, the Cash for Clunkers was a good example of a failed temporary policy.  It didn't create new car buyers, but it did cause people who already planned on buying a care to move up the timing of their purchase to qualify.  In the end, it was not an incentive to cause people to purchase a car and the end result was that the price of used cars went up thanks to all the quality used cars that were taken out of circulation.  In effect, the government gave a lot of money to the middle class and affluent to buy a new car and caused the poor to pay more for a used car.

Thanks, but no thanks, Mr. President.  We don't need anymore of that type of help.  Stimulus II: Economic Boogaloo and Cash for Green Clunkers just won't work.  You talked a big game about reforming Washington.  Isn't it time we tried something we know will work, like tax reform?  See Reagan, Ronald Wilson, 1981-1988 in the White House records if you need some pointers on how best to proceed.  We're getting a little bit tired of waiting for you to become the one we've been waiting for.