Stimulus as Depressant

The best stimulus? Spend less, borrow less - Jun. 24, 2010

For Meltzer, the courageous, damn-the-sages stance that Thatcher took three decades ago should guide President Obama today. "If Obama announced a strategy to deal with the long-term debt and stopped doing things to increase the uncertainty that businesses face, it would do a great deal to stimulate the economy," declares the 82-year old Meltzer.

The difference is that Thatcher believed in people, business and the essential correctness of the principles of capitalism. It ought to be very clear  by now that BO does not. He believes that the answer is ALWAYS bigger government, in any form, even the form of limitless debt.

Today, the administration is pursuing a totally different policy. It's sharply raising expenditures when the U.S. already faces gigantic, chronic deficits that barely shrink even in a recovery, and burgeoning debt. "Keynes specifically warned against structural deficits when both U.S. and British economists were pushing for them at the end of World War II," says Meltzer. "He never said that more spending on top of chronic deficits was a stimulus. Just the opposite, in fact."

The rub is that the shadow of inexorably rising debt, with no plan to curb it, isn't a stimulus at all, but a heavy depressant. The solution is to sharply reverse course and bring the budget into balance over the next decade. That solution will require either a 50% increase in taxes, a 35% reduction in spending, or some combination of the two. The weight should fall heavily on the spending side.

The modern media looking glass world means that on the political front and many more, certain myths are stated as facts even beyond the point that they are clearly false, at which point, they are just dropped as stories. Thus, in this past week, we see BO move to hang his Afghan war effort on the General once derided as "General  Betray Us" with his tacit approval (he refused to vote for a "sense of the Senate" repudiating the ad). BO was 100% wrong about the surge. The media notices not at all, since their royal BOness might be seen as less than perfect for such a turn of events.

Sadly, not reporting on the emperors lack of clothing does nothing to cover his nakedness -- nor ours, as his wrong headed policies destroy our economy, security, and culture.

BO Screams In Praise of Bush

Charles Krauthammer - Afghanistan: The 7/11 problem

Actions speak much louder than words.

Great article by Charles.

Remember "General Betray Us"? Hill-Billy once said you had to "suspend disbelief" in order to listen to his reporting on the surge. BO sat on his hands rather than repudiate the shameful MoveOn.org Ad with most of the Senate. How the slimy have slithered.

Now they are staking the future of what THEY declared to be the "must win war" on the capability of Bush's general. Yes, that supposedly incompetent previous President, the one that looks much smarter as BO keeps stinking up the place. BO's hand picked golden boy, General  McCrystal? Summarily discharged for insufficient BO worship.

General Perspective

Flashback: Media Promoted Military Criticism of President Bush | NewsBusters.org

For people with any memory, please recall that from 2003-2008, the national media policy was that any military officer of any stripe that would publicly criticize Bush in any forum was "a courageous whistle blower, concerned for our nation, worthy of our highest respect" -- the media question would always be "is Bush Listening". Any recollection at all of Gen. Eric Shinseki??

At that time, every media person was a war expert, as well as any military person current or retired that agreed with them. The war in Iraq was clearly lost, there was no hope, we should get out -- and focus on the war in Afghanistan, which we MUST WIN!! Wesley Clark ran for President largely on a "General knows better than Bush", and there were all sorts of "Generals Against Bush" (all, or nearly all retired) sorts of political Ads out there. They knew that Iraq was lost as well. It was all as certain as global cooling in the early '70s and the fact that the planet was out of oil in the late '70s. Wisdom is rarely popular, and popular thought is rarely wise.

My how times have changed!!! Now, relatively mild criticism from a Generals staff in a Rock and Roll mag, that is about process, not policy, "calls into question the civilian control of the military". The MSM (and BO) were wrong about Iraq -- it wasn't lost, the surge worked. While the MSM is of course completely ignoring it, the much vaunted "day one changes in policy" in Afghanistan failed, and now the "setting a date and surging more troops with months of dithering to make the decision" is at least in grave question. Since we set a date, apparently Afghanistan is no longer "the war we must win".

Oh, and lest I forget, they had disparaging remarks about Joe Biden. How unusual! Has anyone that has ever worked for ANYONE else not heard some "bitching about the leadership over beers"? Certainly, having a reporter there was completely stupid, but again, confident and strong leadership isn't going to be bothered by that -- although I'm sure that pompous, vacuous, prima donna Slow Joe, was incensed beyond belief. Truth can be so hurtful.

It seems pretty clear from a media POV that at this point "BO is the President that must be successful", and right now that is more important than National Security and the Economy at least. After 60 days of the oil spill, there is some dithering in the MSM if BO's success is more important than the environment.

Should Generals go out and let their staff get wasted with Rolling Stone Reporters? No, absolutely not. However, last I recalled, BO is a smoker, which I believe even he would admit is "less than perfect", and who knows, it is remotely possible he may have other faults -- say a couple of small narcissistic tendencies.Strong leadership tends to not be overly threatened by the problems that come with having humans on your team -- the bigger issue is what players can best accomplish the task at hand with the minimum loss of our soldiers.

But then we already knew that BO wasn't any sort of a leader at all, let alone a strong one, so I can't see that he had, or likely even considered seriously any other choice but to fire McChrystal.

The Anti-BO?

Ride Along with Mitch

Mitch Daniels, 2nd term Governor of Indiana. National secret.

Long article, very much worth the read. If the Democrats had ever had a candidate that looked this good during the Bush years, he would have sucked the whole media spotlight in like a black hole. This guy sounds far too good to be true, he must have tried to get to 2nd base with some girl in 9th grade or something disqualifying for a Republican like that.

Actual executive experience that produced solid results. What a concept for a leader!!

Disturbing Anti-Statists

RealClearPolitics - The Right's Disturbing New Anti-Statists

The language of the new anti-statists, like the language of the 1950s' right, regularly harks back to the U.S. Constitution and the Founders in calling attention to perceived threats to liberty.

A group called Tea Party Patriots (many Tea Party groups include the word "patriot" in their names) describes itself as "a community committed to standing together, shoulder to shoulder, to protect our country and the Constitution upon which we were founded!" Tea Party Nation says it is "a user-driven group of like-minded people who desire our God given Individual Freedoms which were written out by the Founding Fathers."

Wow, what a radical group! Harking back to the Constitution and Founding Fathers. Radical!
It is pretty clear that in the EJ model, any amount of government (state) is great, and individual liberty and responsibility are completely off the wall radical concepts.

Thus has Obama brought back to life a venerable if disturbing style of conservative thinking. In the short run, the new movement's energy threatens him. In the long run, its extremism may be his salvation.

Even though it is the state that has coercive powers and was correctly identified by Hobbes as a "Leviathan" in 1660, not to mention the 20th century with the states of Germany, USSR, China, N Korea and Cambodia killing 100's of millions of people, EJ remains completely convinced in the benevolence of this monster, as well as of the horror of individual freedom protected by a written Constitution.


Get this straight folks. "Patriot, Founding Fathers and Constitution" are radical, disturbing and dangerous!! Untrammeled state power? The only rational way for a nation to go! We are so far down the Progressive / Statist agenda that the MSM, most of academia and probably 20% of the voters find the Constitution and Patriotism to be "radical and disturbing"!

Democrats and Malaise

RealClearPolitics - Malaise is Haunting the Democratic Party

This is a worthy column to read in that it does a good job of laying out what Democrats believe about what is going on, and shows their general cluelessness of what it even might mean to be a "Traditional American" ( believe in people before government, freedom, personal responsibility, smaller government, etc).

Democrats should feel a lot better than they do. They enacted a health care bill that had been their dream for more than 60 years. They pulled the country out of a terrifying economic spiral. They are on the verge of passing the biggest reform of Wall Street since the New Deal. The public has identified enemies that are typically seen as Republican allies: oil companies and big bankers. And given the Republicans' past policies, the Gulf oil spill is at least as much their problem as Obama's.

So the health care bill was "their dream for 60 years". Why should that make them feel good about being re-elected? That is a completely separate topic. If some guy dreamed about having a relationship with a 16 year old girl for 60 years and finally did (he would be at least 70 assuming he started dreaming of "older women" at 10), should he "feel good about it"? Democrats may think a government takeover of health care is just peachy, but essentially, given their operation in the Senate after Scott Brown, they would be like the underage girl dreamer that only accomplished his task by forceable rape rather than just statutory. One clearly has to be a Democrat to understand why that ought to make you feel good!

"Biggest reform since the New Deal" -- exactly! FDR elected in '32, his own Treasury Sectretary,  Morgenthau, talking of how their policies had failed in '39. While the Democrats and the liberal elite have cannonized the New Deal, the sad fact is that it didn't work. WWII did. More and more Americans are realizing that a lot of what is wrong is the hangover from the New Deal -- unfunded Social Security entitlement, a huge government that is already too big to afford, and no Democrat answer beyond "more, more, more".

Just what WOULD be "enough government" to a Democrat? Something a bit below 20% of GDP with at least 1/4 of that for National Defense is a good "conservative guideline". What would that number be for a Democrat? It seens to have no upper limit. I suspect that they would site "no pollution, everyone healthy, everyone happy, etc" as their objectives.

People that live in the real world know of "The Pareto Principle", better known as the 80/20 rule. We already have well over 80% of Americans covered by health insurance -- the the whole discussion we just had was about the less than 20%. It is VERY typical that 20% of your effort it spent on getting 80% of what you want, and getting the other 20% depends on spending the other 80% of that effort (or money, or time, or energy, etc) ... and not linearly. Each tortuous step toward 100% takes an ever larger piece of resources. What is more, the set of things that you decide "must be solved" take scarce resources away from OTHER "80/20s" ... maybe 80% of people today can afford a 2-week vacation. Get 90% covered by health insurance, and you might drop that number (or some other like it) to 50%.

Democrats tend to not believe in 80/20, especially for whatever they cherish. What is more, they are certain that they are smart enough to make better decisions for the general populace on where they ought to be spending their 80/20s than the foolish general public. The 20% of people that describe themselves as "liberal", and generally manage to run the country since many of them are in academia, media, professions and of course government, are ALSO completely sure they are smarter than the other 80% of the population.

Obama is often criticized for being too professorial. The irony is that Republicans who have little to say about how to solve the nation's major problems are dominating the country's underlying philosophical narrative.

There we have it in a nutshell. A Democrat simply can't conceive of the fact that it is GOVERNMENT that OUGHT to have "little to say about how we solve the nations major problems". It is THE PEOPLE that ought to have A LOT to say! EJ is precisely right that the difference is in the "philosophical narrative". The idea that solutions come top down is European, the idea that they come bottom up is American!

When I say that Democrats tend to be un-American, that is what I mean. The CORE of the "American difference" ... the "American exceptionalism" if you will, is exactly that. When BO says "America is as exceptional as a German thinks Germany is", he is explaining exactly why he is un-American. He doesn't believe in the core of what makes America exceptional -- the solutions flowing up rather than down. Freedom!!!!

Why does malaise always happen to Democrats? Well, because being European isn't as fun as being American. They may not believe in 80/20, but it is a fact of reality. In general, they tend to not believe in reality, and that is always a prescription for malaise.

Rahmbo PR

Rahm Emanuel says Tony Hayward Yacht trip big mistake

Rahm thinks it is a big mistake for the CEO of BP to go yachting, but hasn't had a single qualm about BO doing 6+ golf outings, hosting an evening with Paul McCartney, and a few other items during "the crisis".

Personally, I don't believe any leader can do their best work without any sort of diversion at all, and what is extremely unusual, I find that to be true for Presidents of both parties, CEOs, and even Indian Chiefs. I'm a lot less concerned that BO wants to golf than that his chief of staff would think that BO with "the biggest job" could with impunity, yet deny the same privilege to a poor little CEO.

We used to live in a country where individuals pretty much understood some basic principles and applied them to people of all stripes equally (we had a big problem with Indians and slaves of course, but this post isn't about that issue).

We now live in a society where the bulk of the media treats Republicans and Business leaders one way and Democrats another, and by the way, when another branch of the media (Fox) reverses the treatment, it is considered "dangerous".

The way out of this is to realize that EVERYONE'S motives and even approaches are flawed, but there is a reasonable chance that they are not all flawed equally. Our MSM and Democrats will never tire of pointing out the flaws in individual freedom, responsibility, and the capitalist system. While there certainly are flaws, the flaws in centralized, bureaucratic welfare states are much much greater.

Pointing out that the person next to you has gravy on their tie will not allow folks at the party to miss the fact that you failed to wear your pants, and the idea that a crony like Rahm can get away with something so stupid as being able to point his finger at the CEO of BP, while BO claims to have responsibility for taking care of this spill, yet keeps golfing and partying is just another sign of the danger of one party rule, especially when that party is the Democrats and their buddies the media!

CNN Imitates Onion

Language guru: Obama speech too 'professorial' for his target audience - CNN.com

The communicator is great, it must be the audience that is stupid. Perhaps that would explain how he got elected?

Sometimes the simple answer is best. When you decide to get involved with the worst environmental disaster in US history only over a month after it began, meet with the CEO of the company 46 days after event for the first time for 20 minutes, then have an hour lunch with your bumbling fool VP, folks start to catch on that "buyers remorse" is an understatement.

Hey CNN. Might it just not be a BIT easier to try to report FACTS rather than making crap up to try to cover for his Royal BOness?

Racist No More

Obama's speech: There's a pipe spewing a gazillion gobs of oil into the gulf, so let's build more windmills | Top of the Ticket | Los Angeles Times

Follow the link, the picture is worth the trip at least if you are male, and will add to the usual view of "what are men focused on" if you are female. The column is a darned good read as well.

This is an LA times article BTW, not Fox news.

 I found our 25th anniversary to be more important that listening to BO read from a teleprompter last night, so I missed his first oval office speech.  Sounds like he needs new speechwriters, maybe some new cabinet people and potentially a media relations kind of guy? Gerald Rafshoon did wonders for Jimmuh Carter, I wonder if he is still alive? 

Sadly, it becomes more clear every day even to the cheeriest of BO cheerleaders that being a failed community organizer isn't really a way to build the kind of leadership qualities needed for being President of a nation of 300 million people. Sort of like watching the Tour De France on TV isn't going to be much help in winning the race.

Golly, what a surprise.

It seems that we have crossed a major threshold here though. It is now OK to criticize BO without immediately being identified as a racist! That seems like one tiny piece of the significant progress we are going to need to recover from the greatest election mistake in the history of the nation.

Oil vs Snake Oil

RealClearPolitics - Oil vs. Snake Oil

Let's stop and think. Either the government knows how to stop the oil spill or they don't. If they know how to stop it, then why have they let thousands of barrels of oil per day keep gushing out, for weeks on end? All they have to do is tell BP to step aside, while the government comes in to do it right.

If they don't know, then what is all this political grandstanding about keeping their boot on the neck of BP, the attorney general of the United States going down to the Gulf to threaten lawsuits - on what charges was unspecified - and President Obama showing up in his shirt sleeves?

He left out "kicking asses". I think we all know the answer to that one. Political grandstanding is all the BO administration knows how to do. This administration is worse than incompetent. Incompetence is about doing the right thing badly. This administration has no clue what a "right thing" would be, because the only talent they have is essentially BO Brand Marketing.

A rather sobering conclusion.

If leaders of other nations can't depend on the United States, then they need to make the best deal they can with our enemies. They understand that preserving their nation's security is a leader's top priority, even if Barack Obama doesn't.

MPR Question Post

MPR had the daily question: "What would you like to hear in the President's speech tonight". I was listening to the call-in for a few minutes, and of course the MPR callers were all over the "less dependence on oil, force BP to do this and that, make sure people know it is all the Republican's fault, etc". I thought I'd take a shot at dream Presidential speech writing:

I have finally realized that I'm a narcissistic fool and my background is completely inadequate for the job of President. I humbly admit my error, and submit my resignation effective as of midnight tonight. I may not be exceptional, but I finally realize that this Nation and it's people are!

Being elected President was another of the many undeserved honors in my life, but I have finally realized that rhetoric is not reality and looking or sounding good is not the same thing as being good.

I was bequeathed leadership of a great nation with problems. Problems which I thought were simple, the result of incompetence or malfeasance. I now realize that problems are part of reality. Real people have to deal with them every day, and they must honor those with the capability to do so, especially when they themselves do not.

Those that DO will always have problems to deal with. Those that chatter and criticize may have less problems, but I now realize that we chattering classes also have very little of value to be offered. America has been and with Gods help, will be again in the future, a nation of DOERS!
BP and the rest of the oil industry has the tools and technology to deal with the spill. The US government does not. It was nothing but hubris for me to ever indicate anything else. The idea that I have any knowledge of use in plugging the well is at best a cruel joke.

I now realize that all my tough talk about kicking asses and criminal prosecution does nothing to make the problem better and everything to inhibit the problem from being solved. I made those moves purely in political interest, as I have made every other move of my life in the past decade or more. The environment and the economy are more important that politics.

I know now that i have severe personal problems that I need to focus on fixing. I also realize that the political selection of Joe Biden as a running mate was yet another of my mistakes. I submit that Hillary Clinton should succeed me, and in the interests of bi-partisanship, John McCain should be named VP.

Thank you, good night, and may God bless the greatest nation on earth.

Bush's Fault

Aurora Sentinel Archives Opinion Columnists Green: Obama is a victim of Bush's failed promises

Just in case BO returns to his usual form of "blame Bush" this evening, this is a great article to refer to.

An Ass to Kick

Political Cartoons by Glenn McCoy

Good cartoon. Seems like Deep Water Horizon is BO's Katrina and I'm still trying to decide if "Whose Ass to Kick" ought to be the equivalent of "Heck of a job Brownie", or "Bring it on".

BP and BO ... it has a nice symmetry.

Rejecting Their Own

RealClearPolitics - Politics - Jun 14, 2010 - SC candidate protests primary loss to mystery Dem

Unemployed dishonorable discharge vet with no job and some sort of charge of showing some porn to a college co-ed and being in the woman's dorm. This is sort of like James Carvelle talking about "troll fifty bucks through a trailer park and who knows what you will dredge up".

Just who is a Democrat anyway? Slick Willie certainly did plenty of "trolling" whenever he had the chance. The Dems were so excited about Kerry managing to get out with an honorable discharge and only doing a little anti-war protesting -- what the heck, this guy served. For a Democrat, serving and getting a dishonorable would seem to be just fine. Well, fine for a Democrat -- McCain was a gods honest war hero, but they liked to make fun of the fact he can't raise his arms anymore after their friends the N Vietnamese busted up his shoulders and arms too many times. Worth a chortle if you are a Dem I guess -- of course questioning Kerry's 3 purple hearts with no hospitalization was completely reprehensible for Republicans to do. We are just nasty I guess.

I don't get it ... he sounds like a classic Democrat; wins by a landslide, and they are ticked that he COULD come up with the filing fee? $10K sounds a bit exorbitant to me, and I'm a fat cat Republican. I'd think you could get into a Democrat primary with some decent weed or some malt liquor. Since when don't Democrats think it is a "right" to run for office? My god everything else from college to houses you can't afford to shrinks to high speed internet is a "right", how can it possibly be that their primaries are so exclusive that you need $10k to run in them???

So he is a "plant"? I'm thinking that Democrat voters might just be smart enough to know that "political experience is bad" this year --- they may want to look closer, I wouldn't be all that surprised if this guy could beat DeMint as well this year!!

Countervailing Sense

Countervailing power - The Boston Globe

Citizens need to act more vigorously to restore Galbraith’s countervailing power. Otherwise, private business acting in its short run self interest will ruin us twice — once when private markets pay no heed to the risks they are imposing, and a second time when they corrupt our regulatory institutions.

When your conclusion is "citizens need to act more vigorously", you don't say how, but you fairly clearly call out "private business" as the thing to "react to", your column is pretty questionable on value. Let's try to save it a bit.

First "short run self interest". What is a typical prudent investment horizon? Answer, 10 years+. What is the longest elected term in the US government? Answer: Senator, 6 years. Representatives are 2. It is THE GOVERNMENT, not business that has a short term view. Even beyond this, Government operates on a cash accounting basis, so long term obligations like Social Security, Medicare, now Health Care, etc are not evaluated in the yearly financial statements.

Business is required YEARLY to evaluate the present value of assets, income streams and obligations, as well as futures risks and potentials. Investors make those evaluations on a daily and even hourly basis. Government does NOT, and has a MUCH more short term "next election" view of the future that completely fails to keep contact with the big picture of a "going concern".

Does this mean that business doesn't "fail", "have disasters", etc? No, of course not -- just like Government, it is run by humans. The Challenger and the Columbia both failed very publicly and with great expense, loss of life and national prestige, yet both were under the control of NASA, an agency of the US Government.

Just as NASA had no intent of multi-billion dollar space shuttles being destroyed along with the astronauts on board, BP had absolutely no intent to lose a half billion dollar oil drilling rig, eleven people, and have to deal with the loss of millions of gallons of crude and the damages caused by it. To err is human -- especially when technology is being advanced and important tasks are being carried out. Failures, even catastrophic failures are part of human life in this universe. "We" have to deal with it, but "vigor" is about as useful as a direction as "hope".

So what can we do? Can we help salvage some value from a lost effort at a column here? I believe so:

• Government sets a STABLE, PREDICTABLE playing field by the rule of law. It IS NOT "activist" -- activism is unpredictable, and just like playing baseball, football, or anything else with unpredictable rules, activist government is like the officials deciding the game. It is to be avoided. There are enough unknowns ... weather, injury and illness, etc. Government needs to avoid being one more large unpredictable element.
• Business, including suppliers, customers, investors, competitors, interacts with the exceedingly broad unpredictable nature of any production -- especially things like oil, with the daily speed of markets rather than the months and years required for political action. Disasters create losses -- as they should. Losses are just as important as gains in making sure that the best businesses survive and those that fail to deal with the reality of the real world and the markets fail. There is no such thing as "too big to fail", and the government that claims there is has signed it's own likely death warrant in finding that even that government is not "too big to fail".
• Citizens. The US is expected to be a country where citizens realize that a government big enough to give you what you want is big enough to take everything you have. Mostly we have a responsibility to educate ourselves about the wonderful construction known as "The Constitution" and the government structures it specified, realize that the "progressive" monster that has mutated from the rape of our nation by the progressives must be exposed to radical surgery if we are to survive as anything that might be called "America". "Vote the bums out" would be an excellent start -- but learning what kind of bum to elect in the future so that our future is one of growth and improvement rather than rot and decline would be an even better second step.

Simple enough, but like many simple and needful things, very very difficult in execution. The "progressive" heresy has been insinuated deeply into our nation by socialists, communists, "liberals", academics, unions, the media and of course the politicians of BOTH PARTIES (Teddy Roosevelt was a huge "progressive", Bush very much so as well -- "No Child" and Drug Benefit). While many of their motives have been "good" at times at least from the limited view of "wishful thinking", we are now in the midst of reaping the grim effluent of their misplaced efforts ... the politicization of all parts of life, the loss of meaning, the debt, the sense of malaise and hopelessness and the vacuousness of their "leadership". "Hope and change" are not leadership, they are free of any content beyond instability which is "leadership" to chaos only.

Potentially there are some limited signs that a few of the leftward middle are beginning to wake up from the hypnotism of '08, if only to realize that there is a lot of pain going around. Pray that we survive the BO hangover.