"Fairness" Demystified

The 'Fairness' Fraud - Page 1

He pointed out that a child born to a poor woman in the Bronx enters the world with far worse prospects than a child born to an affluent couple in Connecticut.
No one can deny that. The relevant question, however, is: How does allowing politicians to take more money in taxes from successful people, to squander in ways that will improve their own reelection prospects, make anything more "fair" for others?

Countries whose politicians have been able to squander ever larger amounts of a nation's resources have not only failed to make the world more fair, the concentration of more resources and power in these politicians' hands has led to results that were often counterproductive at best, and bloodily catastrophic at worst. 

BO and even most of the Democrats are smart people. Don't they know this?? Don't they "care" about real results?? If their polices keep just adding to the deficit while the economy sputters along with gas and other prices rising, why would they keep yammering about "fairness"??

However, raising tax rates on "the rich" pays off politically, even if the government loses revenues when the rich put their money into tax shelters.

High tax rates in the upper income brackets allow politicians to win votes with class warfare rhetoric, painting their opponents as defenders of the rich. Meanwhile, the same politicians can win donations from the rich by creating tax loopholes that can keep the rich from actually paying those higher tax rates -- or perhaps any taxes at all.

and there you have it. The payoff is purely political. Nobody beyond those seeking political power is "helped", but in their world, that is really all that is important. "Fairness" is a political device, and it's only purpose is to get people "in the fairness industry" elected. Note that the fairness industry along with "the environment industry", "the race industry", "the gay industry", "the illegal immigrant industry", "the labor industry", "the regulation industry", etc have been BOOMING since '06 and especially since '08.

 It is too bad that all those "industries" don't pay off with anything other than some government jobs and federal spending -- rather than the evil "oil industry", or "technology industry", or "manufacturing industry", which tend to produce products that people want to buy at a profit, along with the jobs and wealth ...and yes, taxes!

What is the main product of the "fairness industry" beyond "Democrats in office"??

High deficits and sluggish over regulated business. At least BO has create one kind of a "boom"!!

Why Are People Not Working?

Who Killed the Jobs? | Power Line

Great chart that shows the decline in the percentage of people working in the US ... FRIGHTENING!!!

Gee, if you can get 99+ weeks of unemployment, why is it that you would be rushing back to work again??

Oh, and if you rush back to work you are likely not eligible for any of the $26B in vote buying that BO just announced. Suppose you can get elected if you pay off a bunch of people that bought into homes they could not afford??

So we are now borrowing .40 on every dollar we spend and 40% of the people eligible workers are not working. No relationship there I'm sure!!

Sowell, "Progressive" Legacy

The Progressive Legacy: Part II - Page 2

Thomas Sowell is in the middle of a 3-part series on "progressivism" (regressivism in my dictionary) ... it is all good, but I found the following statement to be concise and clear on the subject:

In other words, the government -- politicians, bureaucrats and judges -- are to intervene, second-guess and pick winners and losers, in a complex economic process of which they are often uninformed, if not misinformed, and a process in which they pay no price for being wrong, regardless of how high a price will be paid by the economy.

Mittens Minium Wage

A Defining Moment - Page 2 - Thomas Sowell - Townhall Conservative:

Make no mistake, I'll vote for anyone but BO ... but there are certainly plenty of things for a conservative to worry about with Romney. Is his indexing of the minium wage promise just useless "hit the middle" campaign rhetoric or is he that stupid??

Anybody that has even looked a tiny bit at basic economics knows that there are few things more devastating to the employment prospects, and thus general life prospects of the young and especially the black than minium wage laws. As typical, the eminent Mr Sowell sums it up very well:

The economic reason is not complicated. When you set minimum wage levels higher than many inexperienced young people are worth, they don't get hired. It is not rocket science.

'via Blog this'

Progressive Ant Hill

Articles: President Obama's Civilian Soldiers

Short and sweet ... a teaser, but read it all.

There's a harsh logic to this. Ever since Karl Marx, liberals have rebelled against the fat, sloppy way of voluntary cooperation that leaves no room for political power and civilian soldiers. So voluntary cooperation must go. Forget about humans as social animals. Think soldier ants.

RealClearPolitics - The Citizens United Catastrophe

RealClearPolitics - The Citizens United Catastrophe:

'via Blog this'

An unbelievable double standard. Obama spends $750M in '08 vs McCain's $350M, and it is no story whatsoever. Obama doesn't report any contributions of less than $50, so in this age of computerization, all the $49 contribuions could be provided by ANY large individual or organization completely untracked!! His main contributors (AFAWK) were Wall Street, Unions, and Trial Lawyers. I think they invested their money pretty well!! Can you spell bailout? Can you spell "stimulus" going to bail out union car companies and state public workers?? Isn't it "odd" that there was no tort reform in BOcare?? Well, I guess only if you don't follow the money!!

Oh, but now the free speech as been expanded to people that EJ doesn't like. FOR SHAME!!! Get out the pitchforks, we can't be having any speech that doesn't meet EJ's rigid standards!!

Obama Tells Jesus What To Do

Obamacare vs. the Catholics | The Weekly Standard:

In this last week, we have seen another vista into the hubris at the center of of Obama's narcissist soul. First we find that he knows that both Jesus and Mohammad would support his taxes on the rich, now he is issuing religious edicts on the subject of contraception to the Catholic Church.

Excellent column that covers a possible political calculations at the core of this -- It is like Keystone, he is just shoring up his far left base, then will hang them out to dry in 2013 if he wins.

Which means that what is actually on the block are precisely the kind of social-justice services​—​education, health care, and aid to the needy​—​that liberal Catholics believe to be the most vital works of the church. For conservative Catholics, Obama merely confirmed their darkest suspicions; for liberals, it was a betrayal in full.

One should never discount pure political motive, but in this case I really suspect that when you get as far left as BO, what is roiling his passion is this:

The subjects of contraception, abortion, and sterilization are not ornamental aspects of the Catholic faith; they flow from the Church’s central teachings about the dignity of the human person.

The central teaching of the left is "the dignity of the state". The state is what endures, not the individual -- there is no namby-pamby afterlife for the individual in left liberal theology, you must submit to the earthly state. "Immortality" exists only for the state.

Individual man has no dignity, only contribution for the state -- and since there are too many individuals already, stopping, killing babies or creating non life creating unions (gays) is sacramental for the state. Human life is sacred to Jesus and the Christian Church, human destruction is sacred to the State, Satan, and BO. It has a certain symmetry.
'via Blog this'

The Saddest Part of BO

Mitch Daniels Responds | Power Line

Good column, but this is priceless. BOnomics is simply the removal of the nose to spite the face.

No feature of the Obama Presidency has been sadder than its constant efforts to divide us, to curry favor with some Americans by castigating others. As in previous moments of national danger, we Americans are all in the same boat. If we drift, quarreling and paralyzed, over a Niagara of debt, we will all suffer, regardless of income, race, gender, or other category. If we fail to shift to a pro-jobs, pro-growth economic policy, there will never be enough public revenue to pay for our safety net, national security, or whatever size government we decide to have. …

Let's Get Busy on 5.0 Liberalism!!

The Once and Future Liberalism - Walter Russell Mead - The American Interest Magazine

A slightly long, but needs to be read by all. An excellent summary on where we have been politically during our history and why it is so hard to get on with the hard work of the next release of "liberalism" (in the true, not common usage). Hint:: Too much success.

Liberalism 1.0, 1688, The Glorious Revolution

Liberalism 2.0, 1776, The US Revolution

Liberalism 3.0, 19th Century, "Ending Slavery"

Liberalism 4.o, 4.1 20th century, before and after FDR, "The Iron Triangle"

Liberalism 5.0 -- ?????

A good description of why we are just spinning our wheels at the moment.

Our real choice, however, is not between blue or pre-blue. We can’t get back to the 1890s or 1920s any more than we can go back to the 1950s and 1960s. We may not yet be able to imagine what a post-blue future looks like, but that is what we will have to build. Until we remove the scales from our eyes and launch our discourse toward the future, our politics will remain sterile, and our economy will fail to provide the growth and higher living standards Americans continue to seek. That neither we nor the world can afford.

A good summary of the current state of affairs.

Finally, in this regard, the blue model has impoverished our lives and blighted our society in more subtle ways. Many Americans became (and remain) stuff-rich and meaning-poor. Many people classified as “poor” in American society have an historically unprecedented abundance of consumer goods—anything, essentially, that a Fordist factory here or abroad can turn out. But far too many Americans still have lives that are poor in meaning, in part because the blue social model separates production and consumption in ways that are ultimately dehumanizing and demeaning. A rich and rewarding human life neither comes from nor depends on consumption, even lots of consumption; it comes from producing goods and services of value through the integration of technique with a vision of social and personal meaning. Being fully human is about doing good work that means something. Is a blue society with our level of drug and alcohol abuse, and in which the average American watches 151 hours of television a month, really the happiest conceivable human living arrangement?

Amen to his description of the current discussion and a little shape to how the 5.0 discussion format might look. My view would be that a cornerstone of that discussion is some variation on the theme of "A Lifetime Learning Nation" or "All America as "Silicon/Innovation/Advanced Tech/???" Valley" ... or ???

We must come to terms with the fact that the debate we have been having over these issues for past several decades has been unproductive. We’re not in a “tastes great” versus “less filling” situation; we need an entirely new brew. But this is nothing to mourn, because both liberalism 3.0 and 4.0 died of success, just as versions 1.0 and 2.0 did before them.

For those blue Democrats clinging to liberalism 4.1, this is a time of doom and gloom. For those red Republicans longing for a return to liberalism 3.0, it is a time of angry nostalgia: Ron Paul making a stump speech. This should be a time of adventure, innovation and creativity in the building of liberalism 5.0. America is ready for an upgrade to a new and higher level; indeed, we are overdue for a project that can capture the best energies of our rising generations, those who will lead the United States and the world to new and richer ways of living that will make the “advanced” societies of the 20th century look primitive, backward and unfulfilled.

We’ve wasted too many years arguing over how to retrieve the irretrievable; can we please now get on with the actual business of this great, liberal, unapologetically forward-looking nation?

Buffett Secretary Meme, The Shallows

Warren Buffett: Shut up, he explained | Power Line:

I've written enough about this, my point here is just to point out one reason why we have so much division in the US today, we have just seen the creation of a new Meme -- "Buffet's Secretary".

The left / MSM listeners / Democrats etc will see it as some version of the following depending on their memory, friends, degree of paying attention, etc:

"Buffett's secretary pays a higher tax rate than he does".

"Buffett's secretary pays more taxes than he does"

If someone that has dug into a bit more tries to have a reasoned discussion on the topic, they will respond with something like:

"Well, I don't see why he would lie about it".

"You must listen to Fox News too much!"

"It was all over, I didn't hear anything about the stuff you are saying ..."

or basically, as the title of the linked article says,  "Shut Up".

This has now entered the mind of the American voting public as a bunch of interlinked "factoids" have, most of which have only emotional and often very close to 100% incorrect content of any sort.

Some examples:

• "Bush lied" -- forget "about what"? In the known definition of "lying" he didn't lie about WMD, yellowcake, Valerie Plame, or anything else commonly attributed ... but the meme has stuck. He may have been wrong about WMD (even that is questionable).
• "Death Panels" -- the true origin is long lost. This started on the right, probably in the Tea Party, now it is just "a complete fabrication" from the left, and "a hyperbolic euphemism for healthcare rationing" from the right.
• "Tea Party" --  there really isn't much of an organization. It could be people opposed to runaway government of most sorts -- spending and BOcare in particular, but in general it is "bad, stupid, racist" from the left, "mostly good, maybe a little carried away conservative" from the right.
• "The 1%" -- From the left, a symbol of Wall Street, Corporations, The Koch Bros (or wealthy devil of the day) ... all manner of financial evil, greed, malfeasance and corruption. THE ENEMY in the 2012 campaign of Class Warfare. From the right, the level of income that they would like to achieve someday.

One could go on forever, but the bottom line is that in this time of massive info overload, our information delivery systems have actually been reduced to delivering "only the tag cloud" with next to no content behind them -- but more importantly, essentially 180 degree different content depending on your "political tribe". Is it any wonder that nothing even approaching discussion or debate happens anymore??

Like most things, there is a whole book "The Shallows" http://www.theshallowsbook.com/nicholascarr/Nicholas_Carrs_The_Shallows.html that covers this general phenomenon as it relates to the Internet.

No time for true content, depth, nuance, honest emotion, thought, context ... just a raw emotional "meme/tag", then silence.

'via Blog this'

Burn The Wealth

Obama Was Once A Visionary But Now He's Focused On Little Things - Investors.com:

It is quite easy to see the path from a successful economy to riots, car burnings and worse. Obama displays the symptoms of infection -- the willingness to instigate things he sees as "fair" even if it known that the net effect on everyone is negative. He still wants to "get the rich". It is possible that this all merely a political ploy -- he has to run on something, and it certainly isn't going to be his record. It appears that "fairness / class warfare" is the choice.

Pretty good Krauthammer column over all.

"Back in 2008, Obama was asked if he would still support raising the capital-gains tax rate (the intended effect of the Buffett Rule) if this would decrease government revenues. Obama said yes. In the name of fairness."

'via Blog this'

Warren Buffett’s Secretary Joe

Meet Warren Buffett’s Poor Secretary » American Glob

Remember Joe the Plumber? When he showed up in the '08 campaign the MSM had a load of deep background investigation on him that included all his financials, questions about his plumbing license, questions about the veracity of his potential interest in "buying the plumbing company", and a tax lein.

Forbes has done some speculation on how much Buffet's secretary "may make" if her rate somehow gets over 15% ... apparently she likely has to be over $200K, and maybe as much as $500K. In other words, very well off --- adding to this view is the fact that she just purchased a fairly nice 2nd home in Arizona.

Unlike Joe the Plumber -- who just had the audacity to ask "The One" (now "The Zero") a question on the campaign trail which resulted in the famous "spread the wealth around" comment.

So why so little interest in the particulars of Buffett's secretary? If he is paying her over $200K, she is approaching the evil 1%. Are we REALLY going to get into shedding tears for someone that makes over $200K because they **MAY** pay a higher rate than the richest guy in US??

Some points:

• Let's face it, Warren and BO have both mislead Americans to think of Warren's secretary as "middle class at best". But wait, if Warren was say "one of the Koch brothers" that alone would cause an outcry as in "Why does he pay her so little?". 
• If she is paid as Forbes surmises, then Warren isn't so hard hearted, but we are talking about tax rates for two 1%ers. There are something like 3 Million of those folks in a country of 300M, the vast majority of which make more like $200 - $400K, rather than whatever Warren makes.
• The control of the MSM is still amazing -- BO and ABC can use this lady as a mascot and the general media doesn't ask a single hard question. Get a symbolic conservative of that nature and the story INSTANTLY becomes about any skeletons in their closet, their families closet, how they bungle some offbeat question thrown at them by the media, etc, etc. In other words, THEY become the story, NOT whatever point the conservative was trying to make with them. 

We are borrowing 40% of every $ we are spending and we are talking about differential tax rates between the richest guy in the country and his secretary. Meanwhile, the richest guy in the country is viewed as a "hero" even though he is the top of the top of the 1% who are supposedly villans. Why?? He "wants his taxes raised" -- in the meantime he is transferring his wealth to a foundation rather than the US government upon his death, and his businesses have $1B in back taxes that are being litigated.

Can we get any more insane??

Obama's Critics Are Dumb

Newsweek's Andrew Sullivan Says President Obama's Critics Are Dumb - Investors.com

Seriously, must we EVER talk about bias in the MSM again??? How many $$$ must Republicans raise to counteract this kind of "reporting"???  Essentially infinite!

The title is very scary if you look at it right. They mean "dumb" as in the colloquial meaning "stupid", but of course it really means "unable to speak". Obama's critics -- the people for restraint in spending, pro-business / jobs government, family values, etc;   don't have the kind of media wallop to do a cover / article like this on a magazine that will glare from newsstands across the nation, so they are "unable to speak", they truly are "dumb"!!!!

They are "less dumb" today ... Fox news, talk radio, "corporations as people" money, but we are still far short from having a NewSpeak cover like that. How hard does the left want to work to get Citizens United (the SCOTUS case that allows corporations to contribute to politics) overturned??? VERY ... BO railed against it from a SOTU address with the justices in the room!!

The left is constantly at work to win the only way they really can -- by shutting up the opposition, and therefore the truth. From the Gulag, to Hitlers Germany, to Mao, to Pol Pot, to China today, the strategy of the left is ALWAYS "keep them dumb" ... and dead if possible.

They work to hide it, but the truth tends to cry out when least expected.

Chuck Norris Endorses Newt!

My Endorsement for President - Page 1 - Chuck Norris - Townhall Conservative

I thought I was ready to finally accept and start getting exited for "Mitt", "Mittens" Romney, then the people of SC rose up, and now I read that Chuck Norris has endorsed Newt! My god, Chuck Norris doesn't do "push ups", he pushes the planet down!!

That is why Gena and I have committed the rest of our lives to help Old Glory rise again to its heights of splendor. And that is why we are endorsing and standing with Newt Gingrich, because we believe he can lead all of us who have committed to the same.

After 2 in a row, I was hoping that the party could unite behind Mitt, but the fact is that didn't happen. I love the Newt combativeness and at least seemingly straight talk. What I hate is the hubris, the meanness, the history of breaking things and the sense that he can't be trusted. One of the reasons that womanizing is accepted for Democrats is because nobody EXPECTS then to follow though on their promises ... marriage or otherwise. (See BO ... campaign finance, raising debt limit, Gitmo, unemployment staying under 8.1, more open government, recess appointments, etc, etc).

Newt displays core Democrat values at times ... womanizing, petulance, flip flopping (doing a commercial with Pelosi on GW), massive inside the beltway deal making, etc ..

But CHUCK NORRIS!!! If anyone can keep him in line, it is Chuck!!! 

Realizing the Dismal in Economics

RealClearPolitics - Why the Fed Slept

Economics is often called "The Dismal Science" for much the same reason that we say "What goes up must come down" ... or young pilots are admonished that taking off is a decision entirely in their hands, landing, not always so much.

The salient point of this article is:

There's a paradox to economic policy. The more it succeeds at prolonging short-term prosperity, the more it inspires long-run destabilizing behavior by businesses, banks, consumers, investors and government. If they think basic stability is assured, they will assume greater risks -- loosen credit standards, borrow more, engage in more speculation, relax wage and price behavior -- that ultimately make the economy less stable. Long booms threaten deep busts.

There is a paradox to everything human -- we aren't endowed with the god-like powers of "final solutions", and when we attempt them, what we create are even bigger problems.

Humility, humility, humility --- but hubris is our nature.