"I cannot teach anybody anything, I can only make them think." - Socrates

Saturday, April 30, 2011

Keynes vs Hayek: The Fight of the Century Video!

Just last week I posted about a new video that I had just seen from EconStories.tv- an update of the original "Fear the Boom and Bust" video, where John Maynard Keynes and F. A. Hayek, two of the great economists of the 20th century, come back to life to attend an economics conference on the economic crisis, and before the conference begins, and at the insistence of Lord Keynes, they go out for a night on the town and sing about why there's a "boom and bust" cycle in modern economies and good reason to fear it. The update kept the same tune and the same imagery and was once again a live rap battle between John Maynard Keynes and F. A. Hayek, only this time it wasn't so much educational on Keynesian economic theory and supply-side economic theory, but rather a rap debate on which of these theories does a better job of explaining today's economic decisions.

Well, today as I wandered around the internet, I came across yet another great video from EconStories.tv- and official sequel! This video features new music, a new tune, new imagery, and a brand new theme- in this video, Hayek and Keynes are engaged in "The Fight of the Century"- a fight they've been engaged in for a hundred years, a fight highlighted in recent years by the centerpiece of Obama's economic recovery program, the trillion dollar stimulus bill.

I know that in this coming election there is going to be a lot of talk about issues that are important, but the real important issue to talk about and vote on was whether Obama's policies over the past several years made the economic recession we were facing shorter and less severe and less likely to repeat, or did his policies make the economic recession we were facing turn into the Great Recession that was severe and deep and long lasting and likely to repeat again.

The policies to analyze and talk about are Obama's new-normal massive deficit annual spending, his one-time only massive spending bill, and his efforts to have the government regulate or take control over more and more segments of the economy. Did these efforts 'prime the pump' and 'jumpstart' the recovery, leading to more jobs, economic normalcy, and the increased circular flow of money, or did these efforts result in greater debt, the creation of new bubbles, coming inflation, crony capitalism, and the new normal of deficit spending with little results?

Imagine these economic policies discussed and rapped about with top-end production, and you've got a picture of what "Fight of the Century", the new economics hip-hop music video by John Papola and Russ Roberts at http://econstories.tv/, is about. Enjoy!

For more information on Keynes or Hayek, check out The Road to Serfdom: Text and Documents--The Definitive Edition (The Collected Works of F. A. Hayek, Volume 2) or The Fatal Conceit: The Errors of Socialism (The Collected Works of F. A. Hayek) or The Constitution of Liberty: The Definitive Edition (The Collected Works of F. A. Hayek) or The economic consequences of the Peace or The General Theory of Employment Interest and Money.

Thursday, April 28, 2011

HR Director Asked to See My College Transcripts Today

Today my school district asked to see my college transcripts. I've been working at the district for several years, but we have a new human resource director, and he wants to make sure that I indeed meet the required qualifications for the job. When he asked me to give him evidence of my qualifications, I did so. My main college transcript said that I had received several credits from transfer classes, so my HR director asked for more evidence to further elaborate on these transfer classes. So I gave him the longer version of my college transcripts- he's my boss and I have nothing to hide about being qualified for the job. It is silly to play games with this sort of thing- if you have nothing to hide, you shouldn't hide anything. I gave him the originals, and asked him to make copies from that, figuring that was a lot more transparent way of doing things than producing a copy or pdf or something of my transcript. No reason to create any smoke if there isn't any fire, I always say.

I sort of think that there is a lesson or something in here, but what do I know- I'm only a lowly teacher and not the President of the United States.

Wednesday, April 27, 2011

Malcolm Nails the Release of Obama's Birth Certificate

Andrew Malcolm at the Los Angeles Times has I believe the signature column on the recent release of Obama's birth certificate- it perfectly sums up the game that we are all a sad witness to. I have to copy the whole thing below, because it is that good in its entirety- Obama birth certificate released by the president: What's really behind his inevitable decision:
Obama birth certificate. Topic A of the day. And yesterday. And last week.

In an obvious attempt to keep the goofy issue alive a bit longer, President Obama finally released the long-form version of his birth certificate today.

Rather than simply post it on the White House website, Obama took six minutes of presidential time to visit the White House briefing room, where all the important media folks hang out waiting for their next important broadcast messenger assignment. Such a visit to such an important place by such an important person is guaranteed to attract maximum attention.

Of course, it worked. Would we be writing about this again without the president's appearance?

The president (full text below, as usual) said: "Now, normally I would not comment on....

...something like this, because obviously there’s a lot of stuff swirling in the press on at any given day and I've got other things to do."
President Obama said he knows the release will not put this issue six-feet under for some birther diehards, who probably haven't a clue where their own is. With a sigh, the Democrat from Chicago says he doesn't know why this issue just won't go away. Thank goodness, this fellow is patient with his people.

The reason for all the interest in something that's been locked away by Hawaii state officials, of course, is simple. Obama ignored, disregarded, violated and/or cleverly played with one of the primary rules of politics, as if, golly, he just couldn't understand all the interest.

If you've got something you want the media to desperately want, tell them they can't have it. High school cheerleaders know this law of human behavior instinctively.

The president says he really, really wants to be talking instead about the crucial, pressing and also the really important real issues facing this nation in the 21st century: national security, the budget, debt limit, energy (but not gas prices).

However, sigh, there's this bunch of, well, you know, different kind of fixated people distracted by something as trivial as whether he's legally qualified to be president of the United States, as he has been for the past 827 days.

And so, as most politicians or appointees claim when forced to do something, he's going to release this long-form birth certificate -- just to end the distraction, mind you.

Which, of course, he could have done 34 months ago when the distraction first began. But the release will keep it going for one more day. And make him look good, a key bipartisan goal of any politician. And keep people busy on that while he does something else.

So, here you go. Talk amongst yourselves about this birth certificate thing. While the president and his wife fly Air Force One all the way out to Chicago for the singular purpose of repaying a syndicated television show host who helped them in the crucial early campaign days of 2007.

And then, while you're still poring over the certificate and the silliness of the entire issue, the president will be flying Air Force One all the way back to New York City tonight for not one, not two, but three Democratic fundraisers. Including one that costing attendees more than 35G's.

To demonstrate his equanimity, Obama will also likely make a joke during those remarks about the silly birther issue, which will make him seem like a good-natured victim of these superficial clowns who've been chasing him to do what he well knew all along they would want him to do lo these many months.

Tah-dah!
At the risk of sounding crazy, I'd like to direct you all to my post from November 15, 2008 titled Obama's Draft Registration Raises Serious Questions:
On Obama's draft registration cards, there is evidence to suggest that Obama didn't register for the draft when he should have, and based on the form that was used, the numbers on the form, and the stamp that was used, it looks like he just recently registered for the draft, forging federal documents to do so. And, fueling this conspiracy along with the birth certificate one, is the fact that Obama attempted to cover up, stonewall, and bury all information on this issue.
Check out the post for more details.

Monday, April 25, 2011

Hayek vs. Keynes Rap Sequel Sneak Peek Video!

In "Fear the Boom and Bust" a Hayek vs. Keynes Rap Anthem, I wrote:
If you haven't gotten a chance to watch this yet, please do. If you teach economics, fiscal policy, monetary policy, or teach government, show this to the students in your class. It's sweet. The video is 8 minutes of pure awesome.

Click here to watch the original video!

In Fear the Boom and Bust, John Maynard Keynes and F. A. Hayek, two of the great economists of the 20th century, come back to life to attend an economics conference on the economic crisis. Before the conference begins, and at the insistence of Lord Keynes, they go out for a night on the town and sing about why there's a "boom and bust" cycle in modern economies and good reason to fear it. Get the full lyrics, story and free download of the song in high quality MP3 and AAC files at:http://www.econstories.tv/. Plus, to see and hear more from the stars of Fear the Boom and Bust, Billy Scafuri and Adam Lustick, visit their site: http://www.billyandadam.com/.
It turns out that this video was a big hit, and there have been demands for sequels and updating of it. So at a recent event (The Economist Magazine's Buttonwood Gathering), the financial managers and CEOs, politicians, central bankers and nobel prize winning economists there were treated to an unusual experience: a live rap battle between John Maynard Keynes and F. A. Hayek. It's a live rap referencing current economic events- it is blow-your-mind good, and if you have time be sure to also show this in your classrooms! Here is the video:

Friday, April 22, 2011

Earth Day- Is it Just One Big Communsit Plot?

Comrades- Happy Lenin’s Birthday and a Happy Earth Day too!

Today is April 22nd, and not only is it Earth Day, it is also Vladimir Lenin's birthday. Is it just a coincidence? I don’t think so- Earth Day is supposed to be celebrated on the exact same day as Lenin’s Birthday because the holiday is just one big stinking communist plot! Oh, I know what you're thinking- it's just a pure coincidence and you're just some sort of paranoid right-wing nut- but you see comrade, I've done a little additional research over the years, and the fact that Lenin's birthday and Earth Day are the same day isn't my only piece of evidence that it is just a communist plot.

One of the very first Earth day celebrations took place in 1970- which also happens to be the 100 year anniversary of Comrade Lenin’s birthday (born in 1870). Many former communists saw Earth Day, with its goals and interests, as being very similar to the goals and interests of the great communist Lenin.

The group that founded “Earth Day” was a group called Friends of the Earth. When I last checked their website, I noticed something interesting- in addition to promoting Earth day, this group also promotes communism! Of course there are the usual environmental stuff on the website, but mixed in are calls for redistribution of wealth, government regulation of nearly all aspects of people’s lives, communal land ownership, and control of production in the hands of the masses, etc. The Friends of the Earth don't like people who hurt Mother Earth, but they also don't like “evil” corporations, Big Oil, Wall Street, the World Bank, the World Trade Organization, and resisting 'corporate domination of the masses'. Oh yeah- and Earth Day too- the communism almost overwhelmed the message of 'Earth Day'. Convinced yet that Earth Day is a communist plot? I've got more evidence!

The symbol of the very first Earth Day was a circle with a broken cross, with the bars pointing downward. It is a New Age symbol meaning the rejection of Christianity. The goal was to replace the worship of the Christian religion with the worship of Mother Earth- and the protector of Mother Earth is an all powerful government the controls industry and the means of production for the good of the workers. First you reject the Christian god and then you worship the state, much like communism demands.

According to the wikipedia entry on Earth Day from last year, the goal of Earth Day is to push for: Total state control of society (especially businesses and industry), the recognition of the sacred nature of Mother Earth (including the worship of ‘green’), supporting the use of force to change people’s behaviors (to help the environment, I guess), and stopping or slowing ‘development’ or ‘progress’ to return to a Utopian world of equality. I know what you're thinking now- wikipedia isn't a reliable source- if only there was a more authentic earth day website... well there is!

Over at www.earthday.net, we can read about the goals, issues, and beliefs of Earth Day- and it should not be a shock that they are all communist! When you go to the website, it encourages you to “Join the Revolution” and work to pass laws that give more power to the government (in order to ‘stop global warming’). My favorite line is when the website encourages you on this Earth Day to work towards “protecting the poor and middle class from unfairly bearing the cost of climate crisis” by increasing taxes on the rich and redistributing that money to the poor and middle class. Schools are encouraged on Earth Day to develop lesson plans that teach children about their responsibility to fight poverty.

Speaking of teachers, many of them may want to prepare lesson plans for Earth Day, and a search of the internet points you to the biggest resource for lessons on Earth Day- a site sponsored by The Wilderness Society. They have all sorts of resources. Although a coloring book for 3rd graders with the theme of “Stop drilling in ANWR” is pretty environmental, they also have a pretty communist timeline activity on there where 7th graders can construct a timeline of all the laws that government has passed in the US to control choices and freedom and crush liberty. My favorite resources though are for Reading classes- they have a number of fun stories to read about ‘environmental heroes’- who all also (coincidentally) are all good revolutionary communists. My case should be pretty solid by now, and I can't imagine that anyone still thinks Earth Day is anything other than a communist plot, but if you still doubt, I've got even more to convince you!

The high priest of Earth Day is likely to be Democratic-nominee for President in 2000 Al Gore. In his book "Earth in the Balance" he called for "a wrenching transformation of society" to achieve his goal of total centralized government control over society. He says that "adopting a central organizing principle... means embarking on an all-out effort to use every policy and program, every law and institution, every treaty and alliance, every tactic and strategy, every plan and course of action... to use, in short, every means to halt... the destruction of the environment." I'm pretty sure Lenin would have agreed with him and then patted him on the back for finding a way to bring communism to the masses in the guise of fighting for 'the environment.'

We all know how much communists hated George W Bush and his policies, so whatever his version of Earth Day was is clearly not what Earth Day is really about. Under Republican President George Bush, the official government version of Earth Day (according to the EPA website then) was more about celebrating the gains we have made in protecting the environment, achieving meaningful results in protecting the environment, encouraging volunteer efforts to save energy or reduce/recycle, and taking pride in America by maintaining our public lands. Communists and their progressive and liberal friends though hated Bush and his policies though, because they knew that this isn't what Earth Day is about- Earth Day is one big communist plot and Bush should have promoted communism more so than helping the environment.

Under Democrat President Barack Obama though, America returns to the true message of Earth Day by bringing it back into line with the communist vision. According to the EPA website, Earth Day is mainly about learning about environmental justice, which is the fair treatment and meaningful involvement of all people in the development, implementation, and enforcement of environmental laws, regulations, and policies- and if you don't know what the means, it is all just code for 'government control of the means of production'. Obama's Earth Day is about lobbying your local school to spend less time teaching reading and math and more time teaching about how the government should control more industries in the name of environmental protection. And most importantly, Earth Day is about engaging in celebrations and festivals designed to do nothing to help the environment but instead designed to teach you to how to worship the state and its statist holidays.

Some of you may be convinced by now that Earth Day might have been a communist plot and might have a lot of communists supporting it for their communist reasons, but you are different and are celebrating it in a different way for your own reasons. You are what they call a dupe, a tool, a useful idiot, because although you may think you are advancing the cause of green on this day, in reality you are advancing the cause of red. So don't be a watermelon- wise up and reject Earth Day, or when the news runs story after story about Earth Day, when teachers encourage you to ‘celebrate’ Earth Day, when google and yahoo ‘go green’, accept the reality of the situation by responding-

“Happy Earth Day too, comrade”.

Wednesday, April 20, 2011

Raiding the K-12 School Aid Fund for College Money?

Michigan Governor Rick Snyder (Republican) has proposed a budget which would shift revenue from the Michigan School Aid Fund away from K-12 schools to Higher Education and Community colleges, and this is wrong. Currently the Michigan School Aid fund is fully funded and able to pay for K-12 education in Michigan, as it was intended to and designed to do so by voters, but Snyder wants to raid $895.6 million from it and divert that money to higher education and community colleges, the first time in the history of our state that the School Aid Fund is to be used in this manner.

Not everyone has an equal opportunity or desire or obligation to go to college in America. Attending college, is not part of creating a basis of education necessary for us all to be educated voters; it is not about giving everyone in America the same basic broad basis of knowledge to enable us to compete for jobs; it is not a requirement for being successful or making a decent living like passing high school is; it is not a task that everyone is up to mentally or emotionally; and it is not something that everyone can afford to do. Going to college is something that those who want to do can; those who feel that a higher education will benefit them; and is for those who can afford to, either on their own or by winning scholarships or grants or taking out loans or having the military pay for it. So the question I have to ask is why then do taxpayers assume they have an obligation to fund higher education and community colleges in a given state?

Oh, I am sure there are arguments in favor of the desire to fund higher education and community colleges- as a way for a state to stay competitive for jobs, as a community outreach program, as a way to make our state more prestigious or something, etc. Those are all good arguments for the desire to use taxpayer money to support the few with the means and inclination to go to college- but they are not convincing arguments to me of the necessity of diverting money from the K-12 School Aid Fund.

In Michigan, our K-12 school system, which does provide all children of our state with a quality education so that they all will have the same basic chances to compete for jobs and be solid citizens, is funded by state revenues including sales taxes, lottery taxes, property taxes, and other taxes which are all deposited into a fund called 'The School Aid Fund.'

Article IX, Section 11 of the Michigan Constitution of 1963 establishes the State School Aid Fund, which shall be used exclusively for aid to school districts, higher education, and school employee's retirement systems. This fund was considerably adjusted by Proposal A in 1994, which was a very important constitutional amendment in Michigan that considerably changed around the way that school districts are funded.

Although the MI Constitution does include the words 'higher education,' historically the School Aid Fund was used exclusively for K-12 funding, and a search of the records and conversation of the last time that voters addressed this issue revealed to me that there was no conversation in any way of using the school aid fund for anything other that K-12 funding. In fact, the publication Michigan in Brief's seventh edition, which was sponsored by the Michigan Nonprofit Association and the Council of Michigan Foundations and was prepared and published by Public Sector Consultants, Inc., describes the school aid fund this way- "School Aid Fund: A fund into which certain state revenues are deposited and from which funds may be spent only on K–12 education."- note that there is no mention of the school aid fund being used for higher or community college education, as it has never been used for this purpose in the past.

As a conservative, I have always favored this idea that voters would make their wishes known to the government, and the government would implement these wishes to the best of their abilities. Liberals and Democrats are the ones who want to rule over us and make decisions for us, not conservatives, and in this case, based on the long history of our state and the conversation regarding the last time voters looked at the issue of the School Aid Fund, it is clear to me that voters never intended the fund to be used to divert money away from K-12 schools to pay for college for rich smart kids. I am surprised that many Republicans support this idea.

As a conservative, I also believe in paying for services and using dedicated funds to pay for services. For example, I pay into social security, I pull out of the social security fund; or I pay into a gas tax, and then that gas tax is used to maintain roads; or I pay my property taxes, which are used to pay for local police, fire, and library services; etc. I'm not an anarchist or a libertarian- I do believe that government plays an important role in our society, providing order and safe-guarding rights so that we may be free and prosperous, and so I like the idea that voters decide to set aside certain amounts of money to pay for certain budget items, and if they don't like the amount of money or where the money is being spent, they can raise or lower those revenues or spending. Raiding dedicated school aid funds intended for K-12 education to pay for other services that have historically been paid for through the General Fund such as higher education and community education is therefore wrong to me and sounds to me more like a liberal idea of viewing all government money as some sort of slush fund to which to distribute gifts and buy off voters.

As a conservative teacher, I am surprised to find that I support the Michigan Education Association and the Democrats here in Michigan on this issue, and oppose Snyder's plan to divert funding from the one part of our budget that is balanced and working, the School Aid Fund. As a result of Snyder's plan, students in Michigan will face a per pupil cut of $470, which is unnecessary because the School Aid Fund is fully funded and if it is not raided to help pay for rich smart kids who want to go to college, students in Michigan would lose no funding at all. Listen to the voters and vote in favor of conservative values, Republicans, and don't raid the school aid fund.

Tuesday, April 19, 2011

Democrats Supports Drilling- in Columbia

If you believe that drilling for oil is bad and destructive to the environment but yet you need oil to continue to survive as a society, than the best way to do it is in the most nondestructive manner using the safest methods in the most green friendly nation in the world. To ban drilling in your safe, clean, and green nation and then turn around and support drilling in less safe, clean, and green nations is to work to damage the environment more and to cause more global warming (if you believe it), while demonstrating that you are a hypocrite.

Yet that is exactly what the Obama administration is doing- banning and hindering the more safe and more environmentally-friendly drilling methods that the United States can be engaged in while on the other hand supporting less safe and less environmentally-friendly drilling methods in other nations. The Obama administration is quickly owning the word hypocrisy, and will soon redefine it from "a state of incongruence between one's professed beliefs and feelings and one's actual beliefs and feelings" to "acting like Barack Obama and his Democratic allies."

From memeorandum, U.S. Gov't Agency Plans $2.84 Billion Loan for Oil Refinery—In Colombia:
The U.S. Export-Import Bank, an independent agency of the federal government, is now planning a $2.84-billion loan for a massive project to expand and upgrade an oil refinery--in Cartagena, Colombia. The money would go to Reficar, a wholly owned subsidiary of Ecopetrol, the Colombian national oil company.

“This is part of a $5.18 billion refinery and upgrade project in Cartagena, Colombia supplying petroleum products to the domestic and export markets,” the Export-Import Bank said in a statement.

The U.S. government-controlled bank says the $2.84-billion in financing it plans to undertake will be the second largest project it has ever done. The largest was $3 billion in financing for a liquid natural gas project in Papua New Guinea....

....Also according to NPRA, the last time a new oil refinery was built in the United States was 1993, when a small facility was built in Valdez, Alaska. The last time a new large oil refinery was built in the United States was 1976, says NPRA....
The current chairman and president of the Export-Import Bank of the United States is Fred P. Hochberg, who was appointed Democratic President Barack Obama in January 2009 and confirmed by the Democratic Senate in May 2009. He was major fundraiser and bundler for Barack Obama's Presidential campaign in 2008 and was member of the Obama transition team. He is a Democrat, appointed by a Democrat, confirmed by Democrats, who supports the Democratic policy of no drilling in America but supporting drilling in other nations. He is currently an unregistered Hypocrite.

To see my other posts on hypocrisy, check out BREAKING: Barack Obama Time Travels from January to Scold Barack Obama of February of his Lack of Civility in Wisconsin Budget Battle or Rand Paul to Obama Officials: You are pro-choice on abortion but not on toilets and lightbulbs?

Monday, April 18, 2011

US Ambassador to Malta Republican Doug Kmiec Latest to be Thrown Under Bus

When Barack Obama ran for President in 2008, he made a great show out of his spirit of bipartisanship. One of the central themes of his campaign was how his presidency would be post-partisan- how he would welcome and support Republicans within his administration and how he was friends with and close to many Republicans such as John Huntsman or Doug Kmiec. These Republicans believed Obama and trusted him and believed that he really was a post-partisan President who would bring change and hope to America, but much like Obama's grandmother or pastor or best friend Bill Ayers, once these Republicans were used as props to demonstrate Obama's 'post partisanship' they were soon thrown under the bus in the names of Obama's real objectives, which are radically leftist and deeply partisan.

Doug Kmiec is just the latest in the exodus of US ambassadors which this year already includes John Huntsman (former US Ambassador to China, resigned in April of 2011, possibly to make a run at the President himself), Carlos Pascual (former US Ambassador to Mexico, resigned in 2011 and waiting to be replaced, a casualty of a WikiLeaks cable that was critical of Mexico), and Cynthia Stroum (former US Ambassador to Luxembourg, resigned early 2011, was corrupt and a bully).

Via the Los Angeles Times:
The American ambassador to Malta resigned his post Saturday after criticism from the State Department's inspector general that he was devoting too much time to promoting better relations between religions. Douglas Kmiec, a prominent conservative constitutional lawyer and member of the Pepperdine University faculty, said in letters to President Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton that he rejected the inspector general's conclusion that his advocacy was outside his official mission. Kmiec wrote that the inspector general had a "flawed and narrow vision of our diplomatic mission" and said his writings had a "highly positive effect on our diplomatic relations."

Kmiec, a devout Roman Catholic and a onetime frequent contributor to The Times opinion pages, held important legal posts under Presidents Reagan and George H.W. Bush. He has been a prominent figure in the antiabortion movement and in efforts to give greater latitude for religion in public life.

He was also impressed by President Obama's religious faith and interest in improving relations between religions, and he supported him during the 2008 presidential election campaign. After Obama was elected, Kmiec was appointed ambassador to Malta, a conservative Catholic island, and White House officials said that one of his roles would be to advance Obama's views on interfaith dialogue.

But the inspector general's report, issued in February, says he had an "unconventional approach to his role" and devoted much time to writing on the "interfaith initiative." It said his official schedule was "uncharacteristically light," and that he had had "friction with principal officials in Washington, especially over his reluctance to accept their guidance and instructions." Department officials spent considerable time reviewing and editing Kmiec's writings related to religion, and they barred him from organizing conferences aimed at improving relations between religions, officials said.

At the same time, the report says, Kmiec had "achieved some policy successes" and was respected by Maltese officials and embassy staff members.
The most important aspect of this report is that Kmiec was a Republican who wrote about his religion and was a religious man and that bothered the career liberal bureaucrats who habitat the State Department. Although he was doing a good job and everything liked him and he was effective, the leftists who blunder their way through foreign policy at the State Department didn't like him and spent their time censoring their boss and trying to control their bosses efforts to do a better job, and eventually got one of their own unelected bureaucrats to write an unfavorable report of him. Kmiec turned to his friend and ally, Obama, for help, and got a shrug of the shoulder as he too was thrown under the bus, and so he leaves, and once more, America is made worse off by liberals their career minions in the bureaucratic bowels of our government.

Doug Kmiec is the author of Can a Catholic Support Him? Asking the Big Questions about Barack Obama and The History, Philosophy, and Structure of the American Constitution.

Sunday, April 17, 2011

Obama Proposes Massive Automatic Tax Increases with Debt Failsafe Trigger

In Obama's recent speech on reducing the debt (also see my earlier post on this subject), President Obama proposed instituting a "debt trigger," or fail-safe mechanism, that would force the government to make substantial reductions in discretionary spending if deficits exceed 2.8 percent of GDP starting 2014 (which they are going to as a result of his budget calling on more and more spending combined with his policies which encourage lower and lower GDP). Entitlement programs would be exempt, which is important, because entitlement programs make up most of what our government spends money on and are predicted to overwhelm our entire budget in the coming decades, so by making them exempt from this 'debt trigger', the President conveniently votes present on the most important issues facing our nation once again.

Via Yglesias, I see that the White House sent out additional information about this 'debt trigger' proposal. Their bullet points say:
— A debt failsafe that will ensure that our nation’s debt is on a declining path as a share of our economy. If by 2014, budget projections do not show that the debt-to-GDP ratio has stabilized and is declining in the second half of the decade, the failsafe will trigger an across the board spending reduction, including on spending through the tax code.

— The trigger will ensure that deficits as a share of the economy average no more than 2.8% of GDP in the second half of the decade.

— Consistent with prior fiscal enforcement mechanisms put in place by Presidents Reagan, George H.W. Bush and Clinton, the trigger should not apply to Social Security, low-income programs, or benefits for Medicare enrollees.

— The trigger should also include a mechanism to ensure that it does not exacerbate an economic downturn or interfere with our nation’s ability to respond to a national security emergency.
Although this appears to be saying that if the governments spends too much money and drives our nation into bankruptcy, the language is key- entitlements are exempt, welfare is exempt, any 'low-income programs' are exempt, anything that might 'exacerbate an economic downturn are exempt(like 'investments' in 'green energy' or any other favored liberal project), and most importantly, the spending reduction will include reduction 'on spending through the tax code.'

So what sort of spending occurs through the tax code that may be cut out if politicians spend too much money on programs that make our nation less wealthy and prosperous and free?

The formal name for 'spending through the tax code' are tax expenditures, and these are basically 'spending' through the use of the tax code. The sorts of things that the government considers 'spending through the tax code' are tax credits, deductions, exclusions, exemptions, deferrals, and preferential rates.

Examples of 'tax expenditures' include the mortgage tax deduction, the 'Bush' tax cuts, the 'Obama' tax cuts, having pensions be tax exempt, dividend taxes, exclusion of taxes your employer pays on health care, tax credits for children, the elimination of the 'marriage penalty, and many more. A full list of 'tax expenditures' can be found in this document.

What Obama is calling for and Democratic legislators are supporting and liberal bloggers are rallying behind is a provision that will automatically raise taxes on families, employers, home owners, retirees, and many more, in order to transfer wealth to low income earners and other politically favorable groups who will be exempt from such a devastating automatic tax increase.

The fact that the media just let this slip by without discussing and analyzing it is amazing and demonstrates how far outside of the mainstream that Obama is that his proposal to demand automatic massive tax increases on many of us was just another in a long laundry list of horrible socialist leftist proposals and so didn't demand further analysis and commentary.

When you vote next year, don't let you or your family forget that the President of the United States wants you to pay considerably more in taxes so that he and his cronies in government can continue to dole that money out to their favored groups in society.

Saturday, April 16, 2011

A Future Vision for Education- Few High Cost Teacher Leaders assisted by Many Low Cost Teacher Aids

A reader emailed me a story from The Blaze on education reform that I'd like to comment on:
Terry Moe, one of the leading experts in education reform in the country, professor of political science at Stanford University, fellow at the Hoover Institution, and author of the newly released Special Interest: Teachers Unions and America’s Public Schools, has a message for the teachers unions:

Rest In Peace, because your days are numbered...

...Moe argues that the incredibly massive revolution in information technology will deliver a death blow to teachers unions. In this profile of his life and impact on the education reform movement, Moe says:

“In the final analysis, what technology requires is a substitution of technology for human labor. Computers will do a lot of what teachers do now.” Jumping forward in his chair, he lights up: “Technology is cheap. Labor is really expensive. Education has always been very labor intensive, so if our education system can substitute technology for labor and still provide kids with high quality education, then great!”

Moe explains that technology will fundamentally change the politics of education. “In the future, we will have fewer teachers per student. This means fewer union members per student. Also, teachers don’t have to be concentrated in the same geographic place—because when students do their learning online, their teachers can be anywhere. This fragmentation and dispersion will make it harder for unions to organize.”...
After further analysis, I agree with some of what Mr. Moe argues but disagree about his fundamental point.

I agree that in the future, we will have fewer teachers and teachers will be geographically spread out, because skilled teachers will more aggressively use technology and cheap assistants to deliver higher quality instruction to more students at lower costs. In my vision of future teaching, rather than one-size-fits all bureaucratic statist-produced cookie-cutter teachers, you'll get expert lead teachers who produce the lessons and deliver the instruction via webcams and the internet to classrooms all over the nation, where cheaper and less trained and skilled teacher aids will support and assist in the instruction deliver by the lead teacher. Oh, I know there are some wrinkles still to iron out in the process like how to interact with all of these students, how to grade all the students the same, how to run activities and group projects and simulations, etc- but if Mr. Moe is correct and technology continues to advance as rapidly as it is, these wrinkles can be ironed out in time.

But having fewer teachers and having them geographically spread out will not necessarily mean that the unions will decrease in influence and authority- in fact, I imagine that the geographically-based lower paid teacher aides will become a powerful union of low-skilled labor who needs to continue to organize and collectively bargain while the high-skilled non-geographically based teacher leaders freelance and sell their skills to the highest bidder without collective bargaining or unions.

To read some of the books by Terry Moe, check out Special Interest: Teachers Unions and America's Public Schools and Politics, Markets and America's Schools.

Friday, April 15, 2011

USA Today Is Wrong- 58.5% of Americans Have Jobs, not 45.4% as Reported

The USA Today has released some numbers that I have some real issues with. Via memeorandum I read the story More Americans leaving the workforce which claims that:
Only 45.4% of Americans had jobs in 2010, the lowest rate since 1983 and down from a peak of 49.3% in 2000. Last year, just 66.8% of men had jobs, the lowest on record.
According to the graphs provided with the story, it appears that in 2008 something changed in our nation and the number of people working dropped suddenly and steadily and is still dropping today. These sharp reductions in the number working occurred for men and women, and are occurring when costs are rising for those in retirement and large numbers of Baby Boomers approach retirement.

But I have some issues with this data. According to my own analysis of the information provided  by the Bureau of Labor Statistics, showing the employment-population ratio from 1988 to 2011 (seasonally adjusted), the number of people employed in our nation is holding steady at a new-normal post-Obama post-recovery number of 58.5%.

To repeat, I don't know where the USA Today got their numbers from, but the BLS clearly shows that 58.5% of the population of our nation has a job, not 45.4%, although I will admit that the jobs that Americans work at today they work fewer hours at, make less money at, and have larger portions of their pay eaten away in inflation.

Here is my previous analysis of the numbers with a political slant, which the numbers continue to support:
...Using the employment-population ratio, you can see a decrease in the percentage of people employed in this nation from the nomination of Obama in June to his election win in November of 1%- 62.4% to 61.4%. From Obama's election win in November to his taking office in January another 0.9% (61.4-60.5). From Obama becoming our President in January to today (April 2011) we see another decrease in the percentage of people employed in our nation of 2% (60.5-58.5)....

...One could blame it on Bush- the last 1.9% drop did occur during his administration. Over the first 89 months of Bush's Presidency, the percentage of people employed in our nation dropped by 1.9%. Over his last 9 months, it dropped by another 1.9%...

...Under Republican control of Congress and a Republican President, the percentage of those employed as a percentage of all workers in our nation went down 1.8 % (64.6 in Jan of 2000 to 62.8 in Dec of 2005). Under Democratic control of Congress and a Republican President, the percentage went down 1.8% (62.8 to 61). Under Democratic Congress and Democrat President, the percentage went down 1.5% so far (61 to 58.5)....
UPDATE, August 2011: Employment-Population Ratio (seasonally adjusted) has collapsed recently, down to 58.1%. I imagine that it is the GOP's fault, since the Democrats still control the Presidency and the Senate and our nation is working off of budgets and policies set in place by a Democratic Congress from 2007-2011.

Thursday, April 14, 2011

Obama's Dishonest Speech: His Budgets of 2008 Now Suddenly a Fearsome Vision?

Yesterday, President Barack Obama (Democrat) delivered a deeply dishonest speech that was as partisan as they come. According to him, in 2008 (the massive spending levels that Paul Ryan's budget would return us to, and the massive spending that Obama and the Democrats voted pushed for and passed in 2007 and 2008):
...up to 50 million Americans have to lose their health insurance in order for us to reduce the deficit. Who are these 50 million Americans? Many are somebody’s grandparents -- may be one of yours -- who wouldn’t be able to afford nursing home care without Medicaid. Many are poor children. Some are middle-class families who have children with autism or Down’s syndrome. Some of these kids with disabilities are -- the disabilities are so severe that they require 24-hour care. These are the Americans we’d be telling to fend for themselves...
Flash back all those many years ago to 2008- under that budget, which was so much smaller than Obama's budgets of the last two years, was your grandparent kicked out their nursing home? Way back in 2008, was your child who might have autism or Down's syndrome told to 'fend for themselves'? NO. President Obama is telling a lie to the American people- he is saying that if our nation goes back to spending patterns that were too high and filled with debt back in 2008, these things are going to happen, even though there is ZERO evidence that these things were happening back in 2008. President Obama is lying to you and betting that you are stupid and dumb and unable to realize that everything that he is saying about 'returning the past' will not happen.

Obama says that the budgets that he and his party passed back in 2008:
...is a vision that says even though Americans can’t afford to invest in education at current levels, or clean energy, even though we can’t afford to maintain our commitment on Medicare and Medicaid....
I wonder- why did Obama push for and support these budgets back in 2007 and 2008, during his few years ever as a Senator, if these budgets were such an unmitigated disaster and would do nothing to support 'clean energy', Medicare, and Medicaid? Perhaps because they were budgets that he supported and believed in all those long years ago? And now those massive budgets that he pushed for are unacceptable?

This is the new normal people- massive deficits, massive spending, ever growing government, uncertainty, fear, partisanship, dishonesty, high unemployment, rising inflation, and a weaker America. When you voted for Obama and his Democratic Party, you voted for less life, liberty, and property, and you're getting it. This is the new normal.

UPDATE: To those who are emailing me, I say 'read the speech yourself.' Obama says that Paul Ryan's plan is "nothing serious about a plan that claims to reduce the deficit by spending a trillion dollars on tax cuts for millionaires and billionaires." Yet the President in all his seriousness submitted a plan that grows the national debt by 10 trillion over the next years- a plan that everyone has forgotten including the President because that plan is such an unserious joke that no one wants to talk about it. And now Obama, in all his seriousness, produces a speech with no details criticizing someone else who has produced a detailed budget plan by claiming it is 'nothing serious'? Obama is a joke, and it is a bad joke on America that he was elected President, and if you or anyone you talk to continues to support this guy's Presidency, you are an unserious joke too.

UPDATE II: According to Obama appointment Democratic U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius the the Medicare Hospital Trust Fund will go bankrupt in 2029 (and this includes what I would consider phony and nonexistent 'savings' that Obamacare are supposed to provide). I won't see Medicare and neither will my kids, at least not in the current form. Structural changes are needed, and yet Obama's solution is to cut an additional $480 billion from the fund by 2023 and another trillion in the decade after that? Something is going bankrupt and his solution is to bankrupt it sooner? Is this guy for real? Who still supports him!?

Wednesday, April 13, 2011

Can't Everyone Be a Winner in the Budget?

Today I was talking with a friend of mine who recently sat down with several state legislators to discuss Governor Synder's proposed budget cuts. He was there representing teachers, and argued that teachers should not be having their funding cut. Also there was the head of a local movie company who was arguing against cuts to subsidies for movies studios, and there was a retiree there arguing against taxing retirees, and there was a police officer there arguing against cuts to police, and there was a local government official there arguing against cuts to local government funding. According to my friend, they all supported one another and backed one another up as they badgered the legislators who talked with them to make no cuts to any of them.

Now, in Michigan the budget has to be cut- there isn't revenue to match expenditures at the state level and the state of Michigan has to have a balanced budget, and our current Governor doesn't have the advantage of getting federal bailouts or tobacco settlements and isn't willing to paper over the debt with creative accounting measures or push it to future years. So I pointed out to my friend that someone has to be the 'loser' in this budget- not everyone can be a 'winner'.

He disagreed with me, but not really- as a good solid liberal, he explained the way that unions, teachers, green companies, movie stars, police, retirees, and librarians can 'win' this budget battle- by making everyone else be a loser. Like most liberals, the secret is to tax and tax and tax some more, and direct those taxes to those groups in our society who have the luxury of being able to have or make money- under his plan (which fits with what the liberal Governor we had previously did), taxes would be raised on young workers, small businesses, 'unfavorable' businesses, the rich, the wealthy, those who invest, and those who are productive. By extracting more wealth from these groups, he argued, everyone in society would win, except for those who lost, but they don't count to him because they are all bad people.

You see, the beauty of a budget is that it forces you to make choices and decide where you stand on issues- what groups or services or powers or abilities government should have and which ones it should not have or do. At the federal level, our national government wanders around spending more and more money and never figures out its place in society because it does not make and keep a balanced budget, but at the state level, our budget will produce winners and losers, and we can't all be winners.

Someone has to lose in this budget. Myself, I think teachers can take a small loss, but not on the level that Synder is pitching, and I think that other groups should be big losers (like movie studies, government employees, and other companies that get tax credits because of their political connections). Winners should be wealth generators, because when they are free to generate wealth and be wealthy, all of society will benefit from the surplus of life, liberty, and property that they generate freed from the bounds of government control and taxes.

Tuesday, April 12, 2011

Senator Stabenow at DEC Event Details What a Political Economy Looks Like

Senator Debbie Stabenow (Democrat, Michigan) is running for re-election in 2012, and over at theblogprof I saw an interesting post talking about a recent appearance that she made:
A friend of mine was there at her Detroit Economic Club appearance, and wrote me this in an email that she gave me permission to reproduce here as long as I left her name off:

Senator Debbie Stabenow, Democrat from Michigan, spoke at an appearance at the Detroit Economic Club in Southfield today, and since the article that appeared in the Detroit News (link is above) was not very fair and balanced, I thought that I’d provide all of your readers with another take on the events.

As some of you may know, Senator Stabenow is up for re-election this year, and there is some hope that the Republicans may win her seat. Her address sounded a lot like a campaign speech and those who are looking at running against her should take read this post because I think that I can see what she is going to run on and also see where she might be weak. I did note that former Michigan Secretary of State Terri Lynn Land (Republican) was in the audience, so perhaps others also recognize that this event may have been a preview of what is to come.

The event began with an invocation that emphasized diversity and then the Senator was introduced by Florine Mark (of Weight Watchers fame) who repeatedly pointed out how powerful Senator Stabenow was and continued to echo Stabenow’s earlier theme of providing a ‘voice’ in Washington. Then Senator Stabenow began her remarks. As a side note, I do need to point out that she looks good- no longer the sea cow that she once was- so I think her personal weight watchers program is working.

“Government needs to be looking at what works and what doesn’t work,” she began her remarks, and then proceed to trot out various programs that didn’t really work that well as examples of the kinds of programs she wants more of, notably the ‘cash for clunkers’ program, the Senate version which she authored. She clearly intends to win this coming election by telling the people of Michigan all the ways that she threw cash at auto dealers, even if this program was not the overwhelming success some make it out to be.

“When faced with a change of the auto industry in our nation, I felt a pit in my stomach,” she said, revealing a typical liberal impulse to lock in benefits and advantages and a resistance to change that has marked the Democratic Party ever since it fought against changes to slavery or Jim Crow and now fights against changes to union contracts and unsustainable spending. So what did she do when the auto industry was faced with changes? She used the power of government to fight against these changes.

Senator Stabenow views the role of government in society as a distributor of gifts- she sees her job as a savior from above, walking around society distributing grants to ‘innovative’ firms (especially those that donate to her campaign) and redirecting money from taxpayers to companies and industries that she likes. The overwhelming theme in her entire presentation was ‘vote for me because I will give you things.’

The Senator talked about how under her guidance, policies were put in place that had the government help businesses to partner with government to help those businesses prosper, as she showed those ‘green energy’ and ‘innovative’ businesses how to get their hands on more taxpayer money (and I am sure they will reward her in her coming election).

She talked about how government can play an important role in our nation by distributing aid, running businesses, and giving out loans, displacing charities, businesses, and banks who are considerably better at doing these things and do them more fairly and efficiently and with less overhead and corruption too.

Another accomplishment she talked about sponsoring was a program that had the federal government loan money it borrowed from China to favored state economic development corporations, which then distributed the money to favored and politically connected people within our nation to start businesses that other banks and investment bankers had already passed on because they had recognized the weaknesses in them (and I am sure these groups will reward Stabenow with campaign contributions in her coming election).

Senator Stabenow communicated her vision of what a successful economy looks like when she said “you don’t have an economy unless you make things and grow things,” and after this she talked about how Michigan needs to process more foods and assemble more products, so I assume that her vision our economy is a lot like China or Indonesia or Malaysia, which all grow things and assemble things too. Of course making things and growing things are important, but if this is her sole vision of our economy, it is troubling. She also talked about how she wants to see more farmer’s markets, and again, those are important, but her vision of America looks suspiciously like impoverished nations that assemble cheap products, farm basic foods for export, and have farmer’s markets providing local food daily to the poor workers. When she asks “Why can’t Peter pickle pickles in Paw Paw” she is trying to demonstrate that Michigan workers can do more, but what she wants Michigan workers to do is a lot cheaper to do in these poor impoverished countries and should not be the goal of Michigan workers.

Don’t get me wrong- she is going to be a formidable candidate this election, because her campaign is going to be awash in kickbacks from companies who have benefited from her abilities to distribute favors to politically connected companies, and because unlike the last time she ran, this time she has experience and knowledge on the issues and has passed some legislation.

Under her leadership as Chairwomen of the Agricultural Committee, she bragged about putting in place agricultural “5 Year Plans” that emphasize production targets, the kind of policies that were famous in Soviet Russia and yet were unable to compete with our free market system built on liberty and freedom. But it sounds like she is doing things when she talks about putting in place 5 year plans that control and command an economy to produce products that her and other autocrats favor and support, so I think many will buy it.

During the Q&A session Senator Stabenow was asked about a range of specific issues, and her responses gave us a preview on the kind of illogic that we can look forward to. When asked how she is going to reform Medicare, she replied that we are going to solve this issue by cutting ‘overpayments’ to bad insurance companies and by the government making the system run more efficiently- but these ideas are nice but worth very little because of the great difficulties and lack of past success in figuring out what an ‘overpayment’ is or what sort of insurance companies are ‘bad’ or having the massively inefficient government somehow lead the way on efficiency.

When asked how Senator Stabenow would fix Social Security, she said this is an issue because the whole system will spectacularly crash in 2036, but that we can fix the system indefinitely by putting in place tiny changes enacted over long periods of time, and that this issue should not be connected in any way at all to current discussions regarding debt or entitlement reform- in other words, we know it’s going to crash, but don’t talk about it, don’t address it in any meaningful way, and don’t change it until it crashes and generations of American’s are denied the support they were promised and counted on and paid into.

Don’t worry though- Senator Stabenow is going to be using her time and effort to figure out- “taking a real look”- at duplications and inefficiency and over the next 6 years she will sponsor countless studies and commission numerous reports at ways for the government to more responsibly spend taxpayers’ money.

And when Senator Stabenow was asked how she would deal with rising gas prices and energy issues, her reply is that she is a big supporter of “all of the above”- except that she has consistently and strongly voted against more drilling, more permits, more nuclear power, more coal, and more hydroelectric. When she says “all of the above” for energy, voters will need to be smart enough to translate that into “only politically connected firms that build wind turbines or biofuels will be given taxpayer money and all other energy producers will have to pay more taxes.” If you can see through her BS, you can see that her energy policies simply stink. Besides, as Stabenow said, higher gasoline prices for the United States are simply a great opportunity for America to decide to invest more taxpayer money into ‘clean energy.’

Whoever the Republicans choose to run against her- whether it is indeed Terri Lynn Land or whether it is Pete Hoekstra- I really hope that they realize that to campaign against Stabenow will require a lot of hard work and determination. She is going to be heavily funded by groups that owe her for all of her hard work redirecting taxpayer money to big businesses that she likes, and she is going to have a strong record to run on of passing policies that look good. It is going to require a lot of educating of voters and connecting with voters to get them to see that her policies are bad for America and bad for Michigan and that she should not be elected to office again.

Monday, April 11, 2011

Science Conclusive: Liberals More Complex, Conservatives More Fearful

From the Yahoo News story Will President Obama and the House GOP ever agree? Science suggests by Holly Bailey:
Using data from MRI scans, researchers at the University College London found that self-described liberals have a larger anterior cingulate cortex--a gray matter of the brain associated with understanding complexity. Meanwhile, self-described conservatives are more likely to have a larger amygdala, an almond-shaped area that is associated with fear and anxiety.


"Previously, some psychological traits were known to be predictive of an individual's political orientation," lead researcher Ryota Kanai writes of the study in the latest issue of Current Biology. "Our study now links personality traits with specific brain structure."
There you have it- conclusive evidence, based on 90 young adult volunteers who self-identified their political beliefs, that liberals understand more complexity and conservatives are more fearful. Thus in the future, you can simply disregard any arguments that a conservative like me may make as simply fear-mongering because we conservatives can't understand the complexity of the situation.

Sunday, April 10, 2011

Demolishing MSU Smokestack for Environmental Reasons?

Although I personally didn't attend Michigan State Univesity, one of my parents did, and over the years I have gone to many football games and basketball games there and sort of 'adopted' MSU as my favorite college. MSU has a really big campus though, and I quite frequently get lost walking around it, so I always found it really helpful to navigate using the big smokestack for the old powerplant. The MSC smokestack (Michigan State College changed its name in 1955) has been serving as a guiding landmark for disoriented students on the campus since its construction in 1948.

But now it is going to be torn down because the tower is deteriorating and runs the risk of falling over, the university said. Recent inspections have found that the mortar joints in the tower's top 35 feet have deteriorated and apparently it now runs the risk of falling over, according to MSU officials. They have installed a wire cage around the top to keep the bricks anchored and built a fence around the base of the tower for safety, but feel that the risk is now too great.

At least, that is the reason that is given- I really hope it is this and not another reason... from the Detroit News:
English major Terri Pozehl, 21, a senior, supports tearing it down. "MSU is really making a push to 'Go Green' and support sustainable practices and the smokestack represents anything but clean energy," Pozehl said. "Right now as it stands, it's kind of an eyesore and becoming more and more dangerous."
There is the future, ladies and gentleman, and a product of years of schooling, and I hope that Pozehl's opinion was read and then laughed at when University officials heard it, and that this student's teachers immediately went to work trying to educate this person.

Imagine a world full of Pozehl's, who look around and in the name of 'going green' would tear down all of our power plants, would stop all drilling or mining projects, and in the name of destroying 'eyesores' that once marked progress would drag our society backwards to poverty and misery (sans smokestacks).

I wonder- is Pozehl related to Obama at all?

Friday, April 8, 2011

Summary of Government Shutdown in Under a Minute, Via Congressman McCotter

This whole government shutdown thing can be quite confusing. Today on the floor, Congressman McCotter (R-MI) cut through the bull and summed up the whole situation in under a minute:

Thursday, April 7, 2011

Required Viewing: The Path to Prosperity: America's Two Futures, Visualized

In a hypothetical future, America will be prosperous, free, independent, and filled with life and strong families and a hope for the future. And will be governed by a Conservative Party that battles with the more moderate GOP for control of Congress, with a President Ryan or Christie in the White House, and judges that no one ever hears from because they do their job properly. The chaos and ruin of the Obama/Liberal years will have faded, as will the partisanship/whining of the Bush/Moderate years, and our nation will have overcome the entrenched corruption that marked the early 2000's, and instead our nation will return to what made it great enough to grow from 13 small colonies (circa 1800) to a world conquering empire (circa 1900)- limited government, separation of powers, checks and balances, federalism, and popular sovereignty.

Watching this video is a small step, and only a small step, to getting America closer to that hypothetical future.

100% Taxes on the Evil Rich = Additional $400 Billion; Another $1,260 Billion Still to Raise!

Democrats and liberals have uniformly come out against Paul Ryan's budget proposals and have responded by playing the Marxist class-warfare card and demanding higher taxes on the rich. Whenever questioned about what to do with the current budget and debt, they reply 'increase taxes on the rich'. Over at blogs like Balloon Juice, a typical liberal blog that I occasionally troll on to, they cry out 'raise taxes on the rich' and anyone who says otherwise is 'brainwashed by Glen Beck'. It's the sort of nonsense that demands a serious look and some mathematics, and thankfully, someone who is good at math did that.

In Why we can't tax ourselves out of the deficit problem, Steve McCann crunches some numbers:
The tax year of 2008 was the last to date that the IRS has done this kind of analysis. In 2008 the highest marginal tax rate of 35% applied to all AGI above $357,700.00. In that year the total amount of AGI subject to the highest rate was $622.8 Billion. The government collected in taxes $218.0 Billion (35%).

In 2011 the annual budget deficit will be nearly $1,665.0 Billion and in 2012: $1,100.0 Billion. If the Liberal Democrats in league with the Socialists, the Unions and the Communists, succeed in raising the highest marginal rate, how much more would Washington D.C. receive, assuming no change in behavior and a general eagerness to pay more?

If the highest rate of 35% were raised by a factor of 20% to 42%, then the additional tax revenue would be $43.5 Billion, not much of a dent in $1,665.0 Billion. So, let's raise the rate by a factor of 50% to 52.5%; the additional revenue would be $108.9 Billion. Still nowhere near enough, so let's just tax it at a rate of 100%, bringing in an additional $404.8 Billion. Unfortunately the country is still $1,260.0 Billion in the hole for the year.

Obviously by confiscating at 100% of all the income of the so-called rich above a predetermined level, there would never again be an incentive to earn above the highest tax rate threshold.
So, in summary, if the federal government takes all of the wealth of the evil rich people in our nation who have innovated or invested or taken risks or worked hard for their wealth, then the federal government will only be stealing an average of 1 trillion dollars a year from my kids and grandkids (ie, debt).

We can not tax ourselves to prosperity. We need to cut, and not just cut a little bit, but cut a lot. Liberals and Democrats refuse to do that, and so next election, they and any Republicans who agree with them, must go.

Wednesday, April 6, 2011

America's Youth Will Rue the Day They Voted for Obama

Yesterday I wrote a post on how Obama's debt, and to a lesser degree the debt that would be piled up even under the GOP's 'extreme' proposal, is going to be destroy the life, liberty, and property of my children and grandchildren. They are going to grow up in a world less secure because our nation will owe money to nations ranging from Middle Eastern oil dictatorships to communist China, our children will have lesser fire and police and hospital and library services than we enjoy today, inflation will destroy savings and inheritances and businesses passed on, Social Security will be gone (or exist in a much diminished manner), Medicare will be gone (or exist in a much diminished manner), higher education will be too expensive except for the richest of the youth, and our society will be one which rewards those children whose parents have political connections and not those children who work hard and innovate. A Leviathan will rule over my children and grandchildren, controlling their actions and dictating to them in a poor society that is yet a shadow of what America used to be, all thanks to liberal and progressives and their failed policies which have destroyed the financial and moral foundations of nations, states, and cities already.

Robert Knight at the Washington Post summarizes Obama’s energetic war on the young, who continue to support Obama even though these naive college kids don’t realize that big-government servitude awaits them. Here is what Obama is passing on to our next generation, the most treasured resource we have, our youth and posterity:
Students and parents seeking to borrow for college are now denied a private option, with Uncle Sam taking over all federally backed student loans courtesy of sleight of hand in the Obamacare bill. The Department of Education is harassing for-profit colleges such as the University of Phoenix and Strayer University, which provide useful courses for prospective employees, particularly young people without a standard college degree.

Unemployment was 25.7 in February for teenagers and 15.7 percent for those 20 to 24 years old, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics. Recent college grads are despairing of landing anything above the fast-food counter, where they face stiff competition from millions of recent immigrants. Businesspeople won’t hire because they know the Obamacrats see the rule of law as merely a speed bump on the way to more top-down management by Uncle Sam.

Our relatively healthy stock market reflects not so much a recovery as an indicator that businesses are happier with their bottom lines now that they have fewer employees. Benefits are disappearing as well as employers run scared from Obamacare and regulation-crazed bureaucrats. With every employee representing a plethora of federal, state and local obligations, you can’t blame businesses for trying to do more with fewer. This is not good for those kids clutching their degrees and entering the job market.

The national deficit is careening upward of $1.6 trillion this year, with a projected debt of $24 trillion by 2021. Those young people applauding Mr. Obama so heartily are the very ones with bull’s-eyes on their backs for ruinous tax increases in their prime earning years. They also are going to find out that Social Security has been a huge Ponzi scheme, with them as the “marks.”

Young people love the Internet. It is one of the last unfettered, cutting-edge technologies. Well, enjoy it while you can, kids. Mr. Obama’s Federal Communications Commission Chairman Julius Genachowski and two Democratic commissioners decided in December that they needed no congressional authority to begin issuing net-neutrality regulations that could cripple innovation. If unchecked, this also could lead to government meddling with Internet content.
It takes a while to develop energy resources- decades to explore, drill, and transport oil, or to build cutting-edge nuclear power plants, or to build hydroelectric dams, and yet under Obama, all of these sorts of projects have been slowed or even halted, damaging the near and long term future of our nation- if he remains President for another 6 years, our nation will fall father and farther behind in developing energy and be forced to transfer more and more wealth to tyrants overseas just because Obama and the Democrats are slaves to a failed Green God religion and its corrupting influence.

The very nature of Obamacare is to transfer wealth from young to old, by forcing healthy members of society who are choosing not to buy healthcare to buy healthcare and subsidize the old people in society who use it. The promise is there that someday they'll also get to join in the intergenerational theft, but when America's debt soars ever higher, that promise will not be followed through on, and besides, promises of intergenerational theft are still nothing more than theft.

America's youth will rue the day that they voted for Barack Obama on a naive promise of hope and change and togetherness. They will rue the day.

Tuesday, April 5, 2011

March to Collapse: US Government Borrowed $786 Billion in March Alone

Via memeorandum, from CNSNews story March Madness: U.S. Gov't Spent More Than Eight Times Its Monthly Revenue:
The U.S. Treasury has released a final statement for the month of March that demonstrates that financial madness has gripped the federal government. During the month of March, according to the Treasury, the federal government grossed $194 billion in tax revenue and paid out $65.898 billion in tax refunds (including $62.011 to individuals and $3.887 to businesses) thus netting $128.179 billion in tax revenue for March. At the same time, the Treasury paid out a total of $1.1187 trillion. When the $65.898 billion in tax refunds is deducted from that, the Treasury paid a net of $1.0528 trillion in federal expenses for March....

....To help pay off its $1.0528 trillion in monthly bills on only $128.179 in monthly tax revenue, the Treasury turned primarily to new borrowing. During the month, according to the Treasury statement, the government sold $786.5 billion in new securities. It also drew down its cash balance from $190.6 billion at the beginning of the month to $118.1 billion at the end of the month. It also reaped $18 billion from the sale of assets in the Troubled Asset Relief Program....
Let's summarize what is happening under Democrat President Barack Obama's leadership with Democratic control of the Senate (currently blocking attempts by the brand-new Republican House):
  • The federal government is not content to stay in massive debt, is not content to add to the debt at the levels that were unacceptable under Bush (except for his last year, usually under $400 billion), and the federal government is not content to simply add massive amounts of new debt simply during a time of 'crisis' or to 'stimulate' the economy- nope, they want to add ever and ever and every larger amounts of debt.
  • This debt is not pretend play money- it is real money that has to come from somewhere. Last month, the federal government soaked up $785 billion in money. That $785 billion could have gone to building new factories, modernizing plants, investing in new technologies, paying off debt that consumers owe, investing in stock markets, bringing homes values back to past values, or as savings for the future. This whole crisis started because of a lack of liquidity- I'm no genius, but I fail to understand how the government soaking up larger and larger and larger amounts of money will lead to a more liquid environment for cash in the private sector.
  • $785 billion is a lot of money that should be able to buy a lot of things... and yet, look at our nation. That money is just being burned away, piddled away with little to show with it. In my family budget, when times get rough, we cut out the fancy food and extra amenities and go back to the basics, and yet there is a belief that when times get rough for the government (and I would assert that historic and nation-altering debt levels are rough) it must spend more on extras and fancies and giveaways. Zero accountability with this money being spent.
  • Treasuries continue to pay a yield. If the economy in the United States continues to struggle, I don't imagine many are able to buy US Treasury bonds, except the rich, so I'm guessing that most of these bonds are being bought up by non-US actors (banks and states and companies and foreigners), who will then own a piece of the United States. This will restrict and restrain our nation's ability to act according to its interests, and will mean that every month, US taxpayers will be sending taxes to DC, who will then send the foreign holders of our debt a check, which means that our taxpayers are working to provide funding to perhaps tyrannical and immoral governments.
  • Democrats are responsible for this mess. On the ballot next year there are Democrats- for me, there is a Democratic President, Senator, and Congressman. I intend to hold them to account for this mismanagement of government, and I hope you do too.

GOP Budget Only Cuts $6 Trillion of Obama's $10 Trillion Debt Over Next 10 Years

The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) last month released an analysis of the Obama administration’s budget proposal for the 2012 fiscal year and for the coming decade, and apparently Obama underestimated his budget proposal’s impact on the national deficit and debt. The CBO wrote that "Federal debt held by the public would double under the President’s budget, growing from $10.4 trillion (69 percent of GDP) at the end of 2011 to $20.8 trillion (87 percent of GDP) at the end of 2021.”

Over the next 10 years Obama plans to add another $10 trillion in debt to the bill that our children and grandchildren will owe for services and goods for their parents and grandparents; this is in addition to the over $4 trillion that he has already amassed in debt in only 3 years and assumes that Democrat's policies will lead to lower healthcare costs and steady economic growth, both of which are unlikely. These policies continue to be supported by Democrats in Congress such as my Congressman Gary Peters and Senator Debbie Stabenow, who have done nothing to put the brakes on Obama's attempt to destroy the future of our nation by burying it under mountains of debt, much of it now owed to foreign governments like China.

Via memeorandum I see that the Republicans have unveiled a proposal in the House which will cut $6 trillion of that debt out, resulting in a growth in debt of only $4 trillion,  meaning that under that proposal our government will continue to amass mountains of debt that will still destroy our nation. That's right, you heard me correctly- even with the 'extreme' GOP proposal, our nation will continue to live beyond its means and do so by borrowing from our future, owing to tyrants, restricting our future prosperity because of higher interest payments, and weakening the institutions on which the citizens of our future depend. Even with a $6 trillion cut, our nation's life, liberty, and property will be less protected and secure.

Democrats are expected to fight this GOP cut tooth and nail as they to push for more and more spending so that not only is our nation destroyed at the slow pace of the Republicans are now suggesting or the fast pace of Obama's budget, but apparently at an even super fast pace of utter destruction and collapse as fast and irresponsibly as possible. Stabenow, Peters, and Democrats in Congress are irresponsibly destroying our future because they know that if they promise people things that they did not earn or work for, they will get elected, regardless if it means that in the future my children and grandchildren will have a lesser life. This rush into destruction, encouraged by our Destructor-in-Chief and his Destructor Party, is only going to be slowed by GOP proposals like the one they unveiled yesterday.

Let me be clear- $6 trillion in cuts to a debt over $10 trillion over the next 10 years are not enough. The Federal government should balance the budget NOW and stop stealing wealth from my kids. The Republicans haven't gone far enough, and the Democrats should be ashamed of themselves for opposing these paltry cuts which only slow the theft of wealth from my children but do not stop it.

UPDATE: This post earlier used the first number that Ryan released, $4 trillion. I have since updated it with the new number, $6.2 trillion, and changed nothing else, since my point remains- whether it is $6 trillion in debt or $4 trillion in debt, that's too much to pass on to our children. Ryan didn't go far enough.

Monday, April 4, 2011

EXCLUSIVE: Barack Obama's Fake Malaise Speech!

Good evening.

This is a special night for me. Three years ago, in 2008, I accepted the nomination of my party to run for President of the United States. I promised you a President who is not isolated from the people, who feels your pain, and who shares your dreams and who draws his strength and his wisdom from you.

During the past 3 years I've spoken to you on many occasions about national concerns, the energy crisis, reorganizing the Government, our Nation's economy, and issues of war and especially peace.

Ten days ago I had planned to speak to you again about a very important subject -- hopechangetogetherness. For the uncountable time I would have lectured you on the urgency of the problem and laid out a series of legislative recommendations to the Congress. But as I was preparing to speak, I began to ask myself the same question that I now know has been troubling many of you. Why have we not been able to get together as a nation to resolve our serious energy problem?

It's clear that the true problems of our Nation are much deeper -- deeper than high gasoline prices, deeper than the madness of the NCAA tournament, deeper even than expected inflation or the continuing recession. And I realize more than ever that as President I need your help. So, I decided to reach out and listen to the voices of America.

I invited to Camp David people from almost every segment of our society, including labor union leaders, government union leaders, teachers, bureaucrats, university professors, donors to my campaign, Democrat Governors, the Mayor of Chicago, and foreign officials. It has been an extraordinary 10 days, and I want to share with you what I've heard.

These 10 days confirmed my belief in the decency and the strength and the wisdom of the American people, but it also bore out some of my longstanding concerns about our Nation's underlying problems.

I know, of course, being President, that government actions and legislation can be very important. That's why I've worked hard to pass legislation and conduct myself in a manner completely different from what I promised in my campaign -- and I have to admit, these have been met with little success. But after listening to the American people I have been reminded again that all the legislation in the world can't fix what's wrong with America. So, I want to speak to you first tonight about a subject even more serious than energy or inflation. I want to talk to you right now about a fundamental threat to American democracy.

The threat is nearly invisible in ordinary ways. It is a crisis of confidence. It is a crisis that strikes at the very heart and soul and spirit of our national will. We can see this crisis in the growing doubt about the meaning of our own lives and in the loss of a unity of purpose for our Nation. The erosion of our confidence in the future is threatening to destroy the social and the political fabric of America.

America, you are what is wrong with America, and we need to change you to make you better.

The confidence that we have always had as a people is simply some romantic dream from a slavery past or was a proverb in a dusty book that we once read. The real confidence of America and the reason it was founded is to elect me so that I can progress our Nation. Confidence in the future has supported everything else -- public institutions, our own unions, and the very Government of the United States. Confidence has defined our course and has served as a link between generations. We've always believed in something called progress. We've always had a faith that the days of our children would be better than our own, in spite of the massive debt and underfunded institutions we are pushing to them.

This loss of confidence did not happen overnight. They've come upon us because of Republicans and the resulting years of shocks and tragedy.

Looking for a way out of this crisis, our people have turned to the Federal Government and found it isolated from the mainstream of our Nation's life. Washington, D.C., has become an island. The gap between our citizens and our Government has never been so wide. The people are looking for honest answers, not easy answers; clear leadership, not false claims and evasiveness and politics as usual.

What you see too often in Washington and elsewhere around the country is a system of government that seems incapable of action. You see a Congress twisted and pulled in every direction by hundreds of well financed and powerful special interests. You see every extreme position defended to the last vote, almost to the last breath by one unyielding group or another. You often see a balanced and a fair approach that demands sacrifice, a little sacrifice from everyone, abandoned like an orphan without support and without friends.

Often you see paralysis and stagnation and drift. You don't like, and neither do I. What can we do?

First of all, we must face the truth, and then we can change our course. We simply must have faith in each other, faith in the ability of Democrats to govern you, and faith in the future of this Nation. Restoring that faith and that confidence to America is now the most important task we face. It is a true challenge of this generation of Americans.

We know the strength of America. We will be strong. We can regain our unity. We can regain our confidence. We are the heirs of generations who forged a New Deal, a Fair Deal, a Square Deal, and who built a Great Society. Although my grandmother was a racist, my Muslim father from Kenya and my mother were strong, and believed that in me they had created someone who would carve out a new charter of peace for the world.

We ourselves and the same Americans just three years ago elected me, a man who represents hope and change We are the generation that dedicated our society to the pursuit of human rights and equality. And we are the generation that will win the kinetic military actions against non-state actors and we are the generation that will cool the globe and stop the rise of the oceans and in doing so build a new confidence in America.

We are a turning point in our history. There are two paths to choose. One is a path I've warned about tonight, the path that leads to fragmentation and self-interest, the path that Republicans want us to take. Down that road lies a mistaken idea of freedom, the right to grasp for ourselves some advantage over others, the right to keep and own private property, and the right to choose life. That path would be one of constant conflict between narrow interests ending in chaos and immobility. It is a certain route to failure.

All the traditions of our present, all the lessons of the failures of our heritage, all the promises of our future point to another path, the path of common purpose and the restoration of American values. That path leads to True Freedom for our Nation and ourselves. We can take the first steps down that path as we begin to solve our confidence problem.

I do not promise you that this struggle for freedom will be easy. I do not promise a quick way out of our Nation's problems, when the truth is that the only way out is an all-out effort. We know the Republicans, Tea Party activists, and conservatives will attempt to block us and prevent us from progressing as a society to True Freedom. What I do promise you is that I will lead our fight, and I will enforce fairness in our struggle, and I will ensure openness and togetherness and hope. And above all, I will vote present on this issue and be the one we were waiting for.

Little by little we can and we must rebuild our confidence. We can spend until we empty our treasuries, and we may summon all the wonders of science. But we can succeed only if we tap our greatest resources -- America's people, America's values, and America's confidence.

I have seen the strength of America in the inexhaustible resources of our people, which I will spend and then some. In the days to come, let us renew that strength in the struggle for a confident nation.

In closing, let me say this: I will do my best, and I will do it alone if need be. If you support me, then let your voice be heard- whenever you have a chance, say something good about me and my plan. With my help and for the sake of our Nation, it is time for us to join hands in America. Let us commit ourselves together to a rebirth of the American spirit, this one based on my vision of hope and change and togetherness and progress. Working together with this common faith we cannot fail. We are the ones we have been waiting for.

Thank you and good night.

UPDATE: This is a fake speech that I expect Obama to give soon. It is based on Jimmy Carter's "Malaise Speech" in 1979. What is surprising is how little I actually have changed from that speech- I'm honest, I only changed an occasional word or edited out an occasional section, and yet this speech sounds like something Obama would say. Does it sound like a speech Romney, or Palin, or Bush, or Reagan, or Lincoln, or Jefferson, or Washington would say? No, but it does sound like a speech for Obama, Carter, Hoover, or Buchanan. That says something.

Sunday, April 3, 2011

What does a 10% Pay Cut Look Like? Pretty Rough

Oh, I know a lot of you have already gone through pay cuts and job losses, but on the other hand, the deal that you make as a teacher is that you will never make lots of money and in return will have a steady pay, job security, benefits, and pension. Okay, it's a good deal, perhaps too good, but if the deal is too good it should be changed over time to fit with the revenue coming in to the state, with the changes cushioned by rainy day funds- that's the responsible and expected thing to do. But after years of mismanagement of our state by the Democratic Party, combined with a Governor who doesn't like to play games and fraudulently hid things, means that instead of responsible slow changes being made to bring teacher's compensation more in line with revenues, teachers are being ambushed with massive cuts unheard of in education.

Here in Michigan, the affluent West Bloomfield community just cut their teacher pay 10%. Let's assume that my district adopts the same sort of cuts (perhaps because I work in West Bloomfield?), what does that mean to my real budget? $500/month.

$500 a month is a pretty rough yearly pay cut. My family was saving for a new car and a new bed- those purchases will have to be postponed now. I have massive student loans, the cost of getting the BA and MA degrees and extra classes that the state demands; those are going to be a little harder to repay now. I run several after school clubs, all unpaid; those are probably going to have to be cancelled so I can pick up a side job or two to pay the loan on my severely underwater house. Oh, and no more spending money on my classroom (roughly $100/month); that'll have to be cut out for sure. Although my extra work on side job will surely benefit the economy, a drop in my purchases of goods and products and services likely won't, and the educational value students receive from my clubs will be gone, so the net result will probably be a negative for the economy and society.

Again, I know what you are thinking- boo hoo, it's about time that teachers got their just due and joined in the pain. That's fair enough, except I've already joined in the pain, sacrificing my step pay raises, paying more for my retirement and benefits, and even had a couple unpaid 'personal' days this year when I took students to DC or out east. Those are 'sharing in the pain', and I'm okay with another 3% pay decrease combined with a drawing down of our district's 'rainy day' fund- except that isn't what is happening. Instead they're talking 'add to rainy day fund' combined with another 10% pay decrease at the local level, combined with the state discussing more contributions for retirement and benefits that could be another 5% of my pay. Those are real, rough, and harsh cuts.

Perhaps this is the pay the piper demands after years of catastrophic management of our state economy by Democrats and their liberal policies. If this is what the piper demands at the state level, I am very scared for what the piper is going to demand at the federal level. America is going down, going down hard, and going down fast, and now that it is hitting me, it's tougher to keep hope of change alive.