Wednesday, February 29, 2012


The city of Stockton California is about to go bankrupt. Now Californians have done some wacky self destructive things in the past, like the state spending billions on global frauding...oops...warming. Their hubris is staggering. Even if this was a real problem, what they did by spending a few billion would have been the equivalent of trying to extinguish a five alarm fire with a water pistol. Another example of their past insanity is around 1998, after a year where Silicon Valley executives exercised record stock options and the corresponding tax revenue to the state hit record levels, the legislature did a budget that assumed the same amount of money and more would be coming in year after year. Surprise surprise... when the money didn't appear, they raised taxes.

But Stockton takes the stupidity award, and this is only one example of many. For a period of time any city employee who worked for as little as 30 days, was given health care for him and his family for life, and for free. If we assume that a married man 30 year old with two children worked for a month, and the average inflation adjusted cost of health insurance over his lifetime would be $7,000 per year, also that he lives to 78, that would be a $336,000 benefit. If that number gets brought back for present worth, at today's interest rates it comes to around $140,000. If there were 20 work days in the month he worked, forgetting the employees pay or other benefits, he would be receiving $7,000 per day from this alone. And these are the people running our government. BTW Another shocker... the city council that passed this were liberal Democrats.

Tuesday, February 28, 2012

Nobel Prize: Once Again, the Hate Award

PFC Bradley Manning, the WikiLeaks leaker, has been nominated for a Nobel Prize. I thought the Nobel Prize committee hit bottom when the gave the prize to Yasser Arafat (terrorist and murderer of women and children), after his transparent ploy where he refused a peace deal that gave him everything imaginable, while claiming he wanted peace. Really, he wanted what every Palestinian wants, then and drive the Jews into the sea.

The Nobel Prizes have awarded many offensive prizes, as in Jimmy Carter (currently holding the dual distinctions as the worst President of the United States and the worst ex President of the United States), Paul Krugman (a political operative dressed up as an economist), and Barack Obama, POTUS, with no discernible accomplishment in his lifetime other than getting elected POTUS. 

Well, as difficult as it may be to sink even lower, the prize committee has done it. Manning is a traitor, has endangered many loyal Americans and their surrogates, and is likely responsible for the deaths of many others. Certainly he compromised our security more than any other person since 9/11. Hating George Bush used to put nominees on the inside tract for awards, but since he left office I suppose the new criterion is hating the United States.                 

Tuesday, February 21, 2012

An Average Week For a Radical Administration

You have all read enough about the Obama administration's attack on religion, and their attempt (with MSM help) to twist the debate (distorting the right's position) from religious freedom to contraception. However, you may not know about he latest insanity from the left, a growing movement supported by the head of Obama's National Economic Council, Gene Sperling, for a Global Minimum Tax. I kid you not. They want all the industrial countries to agree to install a corporate tax of at least 30%.

Several years ago Ireland became the economic miracle of Europe by cutting taxes over 20 times and experiencing unprecedented growth as a result. Their legislature proposed taxing corporations doing business in Ireland at a new lower rate of 18%, and corporations doing exclusively offshore business at 13%. There were howls from every capital in Europe, claiming a two tier system would be predatory. They said corporations would leave the mainland and relocate on the Emerald Isle. They stomped their feel and said it was simply unfair! So, Ireland agreed, and decided to drop both rates to 13%. Never having imagined they would adopt the lower rate, Paris and Brussels were left red faced.

A similar argument is being used to support this Global Minimum Tax. It isn't "fair" they say to incentivize companies to relocate in a favorable tax environment. It is interesting that the anti trust enforcers in liberal economic regimes (like Obama's) claim to understand the idea that monopolies do not create much wealth, and they provide poorer products and services at higher prices than if they had competition. Of course when these anti trust zealots are dealing with the private sector, they see bogey men behind every rock. Microsoft was investigated for anti trust so many times in so many areas it would make your head spin, and by the time the adverse rulings came down, there was already a competitor beginning to eat their lunch, proving government action was (as usual) a solution in search of a problem. Microsoft's crown jewels, Windows OS and their browser, Internet Explorer, have been losing ground for years to iOS, Safari, Firefox, Google Chrome, Android, Linux and others. And guess what? The competitive process left the consumer with better products at cheaper prices. 

These same people however, seem to relish the idea of government monopolies. Given the power of the sovereign, government monopolies are very real. What would the effect of a Global Minimum Tax be? Why would the left even suggest it? Because they want a the power to tax without leaving the payer anywhere to go.

The left opposes school vouchers, which would create competition for the now monopolistic public school system. As a sop to the union Obama recently trashed the highly successful voucher program in DC, effectively telling poor children to drop dead. This is to protect the Teachers Union monopoly, Similarly, the left wants to monopolize where companies do business, insuring taxes are high across the board. They are afraid of those countries which would provide a healthy business environment. Competition demands companies/ people/ countries have to work and innovate to stay ahead, and knocking off the competition is easier than working to provide these things. Believe this. If you think western governments are fat and sloppy now, and this passes, you ain't seen nothing yet. It is a disaster waiting to happen.

A couple of months ago the Obama administration complied with US law (for a change, unlike immigration enforcement and other selective pursuits by the justice department) and because UNESCO recognized a Palestinian State, funding was withheld (United Nations Economic Scientific and Cultural Organization). The effect was great. Other UN organizations who might have followed suit stopped in their tracks, and even seemed to take a step back from their hard anti Israel pro Palestinian stand. So what does out State Department do after this rare success? Last week they recommended restoring funding to UNESCO. What is more astonishing is how many Jews think the left in general and the Obama administration in particular are not anti-semitic and anti Israel.

I have experienced and read about many destructive, radical administrations in American history. Teddy Roosevelt, Woodrow Wilson, Franklin Roosevelt and Lyndon Johnson come to mind. But the Obama administration is an order of magnitude more radical, and more destructive than even these. God help us if he is reelected. Given what he has already shown he is capable of, imagine this radical chic leader with no reason to disguise his intentions for fear of losing the next election.

Impossible Things

Alice did six impossible things before breakfast. The Obama administration seems to be trying to outdo her.

I will call the most recent attempt the Immaculate Payment. For those who haven't kept up with the administration outrages, it seems that Obamacare requires that Catholic institutions provide contraception in their employee health care policies, which is a violation of Catholic teachings and conscience. The first attempted "accommodation" by the administration was permission for the Catholic institutions to take a year beyond the intended initiation date to allow them time to prepare and make adjustments. How does one prepare for or make adjustments to a violation of conscience?

After an ocean of public outrage the administration's fall back position was that the institutions would not have to provide insurance covering contraception services, but the insurance companies that sold them health care would, and for free. Get it? Blue Cross would sell insurance to a Catholic hospital without contraception coverage, but would simultaneously give contraception coverage for free to the recipient of that health care. Now you get it... don't you?

In justifying the "need" for contraception coverage the administration falsely claimed the cost of such coverage ran up to $600 per year. Using that number, we are being told that insurance companies will provide $600 extra coverage for free. The part of the constitution that permits the feds to mandate such payments doesn't pop right out in my mind. Should this Obama fantasy occur, it would be a truly immaculate payment.

The debate is about government overreach, not contraception. Should government have the power to force religious based institutions to violate their conscience? Not only does the mandate require conventional contraception, but also the morning after pill and the week after pill. That sounds like abortion to me, in spite of the administration spokesman's bogus claims to the contrary. Also, the "settlement" fails under any interpretation for those Catholic institutions that self insure, like the archdiocese of Washington DC.

The good news is that the administration believes this is a political winner. They are so wrong it is laughable. They want to make it appear that Republicans are against birth control, rather than the real objection which is the government's attack on religious liberty. Those who comprehend the real issue almost uniformly oppose this unprecedented intrusion, and unlike the others, they are very passionate about their beliefs.

The bank mortgage settlement is another administration impossible thing. The banks were found guilty of robo-signing foreclosure documents. The law requires personal review by a bank employee to move foreclosure forward, and the banks had computers sign without review. They were guilty of a technical but real violation. A fine was the appropriate remedy, although you can count on one hand the people who were truly injured by it. Many people were put out of their homes, but the paperwork for 99% of them was correct. The fine for this injustice was 25 billion dollars. 5 billion will go to people forced out of their home (99% of whom would have suffered the same fate had the violation not occurred,) and the the balance will be used for mortgage adjustments for people who owe more than their house is worth.

What you see at work is the heavy had of government, designed not to help homeowners, but to score political points. In fact homeowners will be hurt. Banks will impose stricter requirements for mortgages, there will be higher costs to the lender and consumer, and a justifiable exit from any area  the government is involved in..aka..maneuvering for political advantage.

More impossible things to come.

Wednesday, February 8, 2012

Santorum for the Defense

Imagine being charged with multiple offenses... raping the environment, causing disease and famine, taking wealth from the poor in order to enrich a few (mostly the strong and well connected,) starting wars for profit, keeping the masses uneducated, and general disregard for anyone or anything that does not provide you with personal benefits. But unlike a  trial where the accused is innocent until proven guilty, these charges carry the assumption of guilt, and guilty until proved innocent not once, but repeatedly, and not proved in one way, but in multiple ways. At the trial the facts become secondary, because the prosecutor has no ethical boundaries, is willing to lie and distort whenever he deems it beneficial, and he has a huge microphone. Worse, if your defense team is able to overcome all of these hurdles, the jurors will be offered bribes to rule the opposite of what their charge dictates (aka wealth redistribution.) These are the challenges that the defense of capitalism, freedom and democracy face ever single day.

There are lots of people defending capitalism, but they are small in comparison to the number prosecuting it. Given the defenders conviction that the ends do not justify the means, and the truth will win the day, they limit themselves to facts, even ones that weaken their argument.  Add to that the media, the armed forces of the left, who give the prosecutors the largest possible forum and routinely swear to the fidelity of their lies.

The prosecutors of capitalism are given phony awards for imaginary accomplishments in order to make the nonsense they spew seem credible. Undeserved academic degrees, Nobel prizes and other such garbage are commonplace. See Paul Krugman, Al Gore and Barack Obama for details. And then the refrains like "Everyone agrees," "Almost all authorities agree," etc. are repeated ad naseum until a totally false premise becomes "common knowledge."

For these reasons this onslaught is never easy to defend. The question is, which Republican candidate is best qualified to do so? Is it Mitt Romney, who recently said he wants to link the minimum wage to inflation? FYI The minimum wage is a naked political ploy to garner votes for Democrats, who know themselves that it is job destroying, socially repressive, keeps the poor from training and bettering themselves, and is generally wealth destroying. Or maybe it is the Mitt who recently said that he would fix the safety net for the poor. Does he not know that the safety net is an economic prison from which few escape, and many caught in its' web become infected with a range of social pathologies? Does he know that the antidote for these social diseases is family, work and productivity instead of dependency and entitlement? Mitt might do a credible job defending collectivism, but he is the wrong man to defend capitalism.

What about Newt? He has been on the wrong side of capitalism too often to be comfortable, but still he is far better than Mitt. If he chooses to defend it, he would articulate the message better than most. The thing is we don't know when some whim will change his mind, or change the subject, leaving capitalism to be defined by the left.

Ron Paul is actually the best by far to defend capitalism. He understands it and is unapologetic about his passion for it. His problem is that he doesn't understand the national defense challanges of the 21st century, and that is the first job of government. This failure makes him almost unelectable (We can never say 100% unelectable after a community organizer with a 20 year mentoring relationship with an American hating, racist pastor, a terrorist friendship, and lifelong support for every radical cause, particularly the destruction of Israel, got elected President.)

So we are left with Rick Santorum. His economic plan betrays a lack of understanding for the proper role of government generally, and particularly when it comes to the economy. However, he has many of the right ideas as well, and he makes no apology for them. He does at least understand capitalism will save mankind from some of his own failings, he is honest about his beliefs and has been consistent in articulating them. He understands that traditional American values, Judeo Christian values, are what allows capitalism to flourish and defends our freedom. His compassion transcends political opportunism, and he knows that the President must help everyone, including political opponents, and even if help means denying them the laundry list of narcotics the welfare state has addicted them to.

I guess former Mayor Koch of New York was right. He said, ""If you agree with 80% of what I say, vote for me. If you agree with 100%, see a psychiatrist." Rick is my 80% candidate, and that's good will have to be.