Posts
This health care debate has been going on for months now. It started during the campaign, carried on throughout all of 2009, and now we're about to witness the endgame here in early 2010. Unless we see some sort of miracle very soon, Americans are about to suffer one of the largest and most intrusive assaults on their liberty that has ever befallen this country. Polls show that as the debate has raged on, public opinion toward big government health reform has gotten more and more negative. And yet the Democrats relentlessly press forward, oblivious to the mood of the country. Comedian Bill Maher shocked us when he said that Americans are stupid, and they just need to be dragged to this (health care). The powerful elites seem to have exactly the same opinion of us. The most recent polls show that Americans are opposed to this health care reform plan by margins as large as 34% in favor to 57% against. The Democrats act like they don't get it. They don't understand why they haven't been able to convince the American people that they've assembled the experts, and they know what we need. With all of the expertise available to the Congress, why don't the American people see that the government can take over one sixth of the economy and do a better job of providing health care than the people can do for themselves?
I'm reminded of a story. There is an old joke about a big company that decides to make a new kind of dry dog food. They spend millions on research and development. They hire world famous veterinarians and pet nutritionists to develop the formula so they can claim that it is the healthiest dog food on the market. The marketing department spends millions more on dog owner focus groups to figure out the most appealing shape, size and color of the nuggets, and the most attractive packaging alternatives. It invests even more millions in advertising. Full page glossy color ads in Time, People, and Field and Stream. Sixty second Super Bowl spots. Celebrity endorsements from Oprah, Paris Hilton, and the Queen of England. Despite all this, the dog food doesn't sell. At first, the company CEO is a bit befuddled, but before long he realizes that his investment of millions of dollars in this dog food is about to go swirling down the plughole. He gets really pissed off. He calls a meeting of all the top executives. He starts shouting at the R&D people. He demands to know what kind of idiots the marketing folks have working for them, and he flat out fires the guy in charge of advertising. "How can this happen to us after all we've invested in this project?" he demands to know. "Why aren't they buying the dog food?" At first no one answers. All the suits around the table are just sitting quietly, heads down, trying to avoid eye contact. Finally, from the back of the room, one of the junior execs from the PR Department, a young man in charge of customer satisfaction sheepishly replies, "Sir, I'm new here. I don't have as much experience with these things as all of you do, but has anyone considered the possibility that maybe the dogs just don't like it."
This is more than just a good joke. It is a parable. Maybe President Obama and the Democrats in Congress should spend less time passing legislation and more time telling jokes.
Jess
Saturday, January 9, 2010
Tuesday, January 5, 2010
Obama's C-SPAN Promise
During the campaign, President Obama promised that health care legislation would be debated in full view of the American public, and the negotiations would be open to the C_SPAN cameras. See the video below.
As we all know, these negotiations have been anything but open and transparent. In fact, they have served as an example of everything that is wrong with Washington in general, and the Congress in particular.
Well, C-SPAN has called the president's bluff. Brian Lamb, the founder and CEO of C-SPAN has sent a letter to leaders in the House and Senate asking them to honor the president's pledge, and let the cameras in for the final negotiations. Mr. President and leaders in Congress, the ball is in your court now.
Jess
As we all know, these negotiations have been anything but open and transparent. In fact, they have served as an example of everything that is wrong with Washington in general, and the Congress in particular.
Well, C-SPAN has called the president's bluff. Brian Lamb, the founder and CEO of C-SPAN has sent a letter to leaders in the House and Senate asking them to honor the president's pledge, and let the cameras in for the final negotiations. Mr. President and leaders in Congress, the ball is in your court now.Jess
Ban Fox Hunting
I got this disturbing photo from a friend and I felt I had to help get the word out about this terrible new development. As a rule, I support gun rights, and respect the prerogatives of hunters in this country. But this has gone too far, and has to stop. Thanks to Mr. P. Cottontail for his efforts in sounding the alarm.
Jess
Jess
Stop Enabling Failure: Say No to California
To help alleviate pending state budget crises, forget about bailouts. Instead, lets remove federal "strings" that prevent states from making prudent spending cuts as they see fit.
A Wall Street Journal opinion piece from 2 January 2010 highlighted a glaring discrepancy between the purported intent of last year's stimulus funding to the states and it real results. In The States and the Stimulus, (available on line for a limited time without subscription) the Journal points out that much of that stimulus "help" came with strings attached. The states had to put up matching funds (money that was hard to come by in an already tight budget), or agree as a condition of accepting funds not to cut a broad array of programs from future state budgets. In some cases, they had to agree to federal Davis-Bacon rules mandating more expensive union wages on projects partly subsidized with federal "free" money. The article goes on to cite many more examples and is well worth reading, if it is still available when you read this.
The point is, many states now find themselves in an even worse fiscal bind than when this stimulus "gift" was bestowed upon them early last year. Any prudent manager would reduce expenditures in the face of a widening budget shortfall, but the feds have essentially tied the hands of the state governments with all the strings attached to the previous funding. The states have little choice but to raise taxes, or come begging to Washington for another handout. As the article stated, it's not bad enough that the federal government is spending itself into oblivion, but they are determined to force the states into the same profligate ways. The rules of the game prohibit the states from making prudent spending cuts where necessary. It's as if the Democrat Congress had it in mind to intentionally beggar the individual states by binding them to larger and larger entitlement spending. Could that be possible? See Cloward Piven Strategy in the previous blogpost.
This recent article from the San Francisco Chronicle highlights some of the problems that California, in particular, is facing with an impending budget crisis. California might be the first and the biggest meltdown on the horizon, but it won't be the last. Lots of states face similar problems. Do not be surprised if California becomes the next emergency bailout candidate. You thought we were done with bailouts after TARP, AIG, Fannie, and Freddie, and the auto companies. It was awful, but at least it's over, you thought. YOU WERE WRONG. Read the Chronicle article, and you'll see the arguments that will soon be made on California's behalf in the next few months. California's economy is larger than many G-20 countries. If that's not systemically critical and too big to fail, then what is? They will not cut spending. Instead, they will beg for free money from the feds. It will be dressed up as adjusting Medicaid reimbursement rates or more infrastructure funding, or payments in support of federal unfunded mandates, but it's basically begging for federal dollars to solve California's problems. Problems of their own making. The worst back door trick they will likely employ will be seeking federal guarantees of their debt. This will essentially let them borrow their way out of their current crisis, and leave us, the American taxpayer on the hook to cover their debts when they default. You may not realize this, but that's what has been going on with the bank bailouts. The nominal $700 Billion figure for TARP is deceptive. That's just the cash injections made available to banks. TARP is what the magician shows you with the right hand, while the left hand is working the deception. In this case, the deception is the banks raising money cheaply by issuing bonds with US government guarantees. If they default, we're on the hook for that. Federal loan guarantees are a cheap fix if the issuer remains solvent. If not, our costs could be astronomical. It's like co-signing a loan for your deadbeat brother-in-law. No problem if he repays the loan. Big problem if he doesn't.
When the crisis comes, we'll be told we have to put up the money or the results will be catastrophic. California will become a wasteland, we'll be told, and the ripple effects will take us all down. If we don't act, this will trigger the next great depression. When California and the enabling Democratic administration come pleading for a rescue, we should politely listen to their pleas, nod our heads in sympathy, and we should calmly just say no. There's a less costly way to solve California's problems. We simply eliminate the federal strings attached to previous funding. We untie their hands. California will now be free to cut its budget where it needs to. Any pain involved with that will be California's to bear. California will have to suffer for her own poor choices, the American taxpayer will be spared the burdens of the hard working ant rescuing the imprudent grasshopper, and the principle of moral hazard will be preserved for the first time in years.
Oh, while we're at it, this amnesty offered to California should be offered to all the states. That's only fair. Plenty of them could use the help, and the principle of states exercising their own discretion in budget matters independent of the federal government is a valuable goal in its own right. With one policy initiative, we can help solve a financial crisis, strike a blow for states rights, and stick a finger in the eye of the Cloward Piven crowd on the left. Not a bad days work.
Jess
A Wall Street Journal opinion piece from 2 January 2010 highlighted a glaring discrepancy between the purported intent of last year's stimulus funding to the states and it real results. In The States and the Stimulus, (available on line for a limited time without subscription) the Journal points out that much of that stimulus "help" came with strings attached. The states had to put up matching funds (money that was hard to come by in an already tight budget), or agree as a condition of accepting funds not to cut a broad array of programs from future state budgets. In some cases, they had to agree to federal Davis-Bacon rules mandating more expensive union wages on projects partly subsidized with federal "free" money. The article goes on to cite many more examples and is well worth reading, if it is still available when you read this.
The point is, many states now find themselves in an even worse fiscal bind than when this stimulus "gift" was bestowed upon them early last year. Any prudent manager would reduce expenditures in the face of a widening budget shortfall, but the feds have essentially tied the hands of the state governments with all the strings attached to the previous funding. The states have little choice but to raise taxes, or come begging to Washington for another handout. As the article stated, it's not bad enough that the federal government is spending itself into oblivion, but they are determined to force the states into the same profligate ways. The rules of the game prohibit the states from making prudent spending cuts where necessary. It's as if the Democrat Congress had it in mind to intentionally beggar the individual states by binding them to larger and larger entitlement spending. Could that be possible? See Cloward Piven Strategy in the previous blogpost.
This recent article from the San Francisco Chronicle highlights some of the problems that California, in particular, is facing with an impending budget crisis. California might be the first and the biggest meltdown on the horizon, but it won't be the last. Lots of states face similar problems. Do not be surprised if California becomes the next emergency bailout candidate. You thought we were done with bailouts after TARP, AIG, Fannie, and Freddie, and the auto companies. It was awful, but at least it's over, you thought. YOU WERE WRONG. Read the Chronicle article, and you'll see the arguments that will soon be made on California's behalf in the next few months. California's economy is larger than many G-20 countries. If that's not systemically critical and too big to fail, then what is? They will not cut spending. Instead, they will beg for free money from the feds. It will be dressed up as adjusting Medicaid reimbursement rates or more infrastructure funding, or payments in support of federal unfunded mandates, but it's basically begging for federal dollars to solve California's problems. Problems of their own making. The worst back door trick they will likely employ will be seeking federal guarantees of their debt. This will essentially let them borrow their way out of their current crisis, and leave us, the American taxpayer on the hook to cover their debts when they default. You may not realize this, but that's what has been going on with the bank bailouts. The nominal $700 Billion figure for TARP is deceptive. That's just the cash injections made available to banks. TARP is what the magician shows you with the right hand, while the left hand is working the deception. In this case, the deception is the banks raising money cheaply by issuing bonds with US government guarantees. If they default, we're on the hook for that. Federal loan guarantees are a cheap fix if the issuer remains solvent. If not, our costs could be astronomical. It's like co-signing a loan for your deadbeat brother-in-law. No problem if he repays the loan. Big problem if he doesn't.
When the crisis comes, we'll be told we have to put up the money or the results will be catastrophic. California will become a wasteland, we'll be told, and the ripple effects will take us all down. If we don't act, this will trigger the next great depression. When California and the enabling Democratic administration come pleading for a rescue, we should politely listen to their pleas, nod our heads in sympathy, and we should calmly just say no. There's a less costly way to solve California's problems. We simply eliminate the federal strings attached to previous funding. We untie their hands. California will now be free to cut its budget where it needs to. Any pain involved with that will be California's to bear. California will have to suffer for her own poor choices, the American taxpayer will be spared the burdens of the hard working ant rescuing the imprudent grasshopper, and the principle of moral hazard will be preserved for the first time in years.
Oh, while we're at it, this amnesty offered to California should be offered to all the states. That's only fair. Plenty of them could use the help, and the principle of states exercising their own discretion in budget matters independent of the federal government is a valuable goal in its own right. With one policy initiative, we can help solve a financial crisis, strike a blow for states rights, and stick a finger in the eye of the Cloward Piven crowd on the left. Not a bad days work.
Jess
Monday, January 4, 2010
Cloward Piven Strategy
I was watching In Depth on C-SPAN this past Sunday. It featured a three hour interview (well worth your time if you have three hours to spare) with author and blogger Michelle Malkin. Either she or one of the call in questioners mentioned the Cloward-Piven Strategy. I'd never heard of it, so I Googled it last night. I was amazed at what I learned. It is based on an article entitled The Weight of the Poor, written by two leftist sociologists at Columbia University in 1966, and published in The Nation . Their idea was to destroy capitalism by creating an artificial crisis based on welfare policy. Their premise was that despite the large numbers of welfare recipients, there were an equal or greater number of people who were eligible for welfare but were not collecting. By mobilizing those people to register for welfare benefits, they hoped to overwhelm the system, bankrupt local agencies, and create chaos that would cause local governments to seek federal help, ultimately leading to a socialized system that guaranteed a living income for all. Sound familiar? I believe we are seeing this happening in California today. Some authors credit this strategy with bankrupting New York City in 1975.
For a more thorough discussion of Cloward-Piven, check links here and here. Pretty scary. A word of warning. Most of the information I found on this subject came from two source websites. American Thinker, and Discover the Networks. Both are right wing in point of view, and a bit fringe in their tone. So consider this viewpoint with the proper level of skepticism.
Would I be a conspiracy theorist if I admitted that I think the way Obama and the Democrats are managing the economy supports a view that they are intentionally trying to destroy the capitalist system in this country to make way for socialism?
Jess
For a more thorough discussion of Cloward-Piven, check links here and here. Pretty scary. A word of warning. Most of the information I found on this subject came from two source websites. American Thinker, and Discover the Networks. Both are right wing in point of view, and a bit fringe in their tone. So consider this viewpoint with the proper level of skepticism.
Would I be a conspiracy theorist if I admitted that I think the way Obama and the Democrats are managing the economy supports a view that they are intentionally trying to destroy the capitalist system in this country to make way for socialism?
Jess
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)