Post-Election Musings Part II

Now that the election results have shown that there is definitely an anti-status quo mindset among much of the electorate, what's the next step?  I mentioned in my last post that there seems to also be some cognitive dissonance going on with people that will vote down taxes, but will also vote for the same people that want to raise taxes.  Some might argue that people just want something for nothing. There are probably a few votes that can be explained that way, but not many.  People know on one hand that high taxes hurt family budgets.  However, they also seem to think that voting to cut government programs, no matter how wasteful, inefficient and demanding of ever higher levels of taxation they are, isn't "nice," and so they vote for people that are going to keep these programs running and either raise taxes or run deficits to pay for them.  In order to change this, conservatives need to tailor their message to this reaction.  They need to communicate this message (more effectively than I will here):

1.  The taxpayers, which includes your neighbors, family and friends, already give the government huge amounts of money.  It isn't "nice" of you to vote for people that want to be more generous with their money. 
2.   Government agencies with "nice" names often don't do what their names imply.  The Department of Education has little to do with the successful education of children.  The EPA does little to protect the environment.  These are mainly political organizations for implementing controversial policies without a public vote.
3.  It isn't "nice" to give people just enough public money and/or services to maintain them as the "working poor", when those people might get out of poverty if that money were left in the private sector.
4.  If we don't make serious and immediate government cuts, the level of taxation and restrictions on freedom that will be required in the future will ensure that the lifestyles of our children and grandchildren won't be "nice."

Post-Election Musings

I haven't posted much in the last couple months, and I would love to tell you that I was hard at work on election campaigns, but that depends on your perspective.  I did a little sign-waving and wrote some checks to candidates, but that's about all I could do in terms of "traditional" campaigning as the mother of as small child that needs a lot of my personal attention (and rightfully so).  What I also did is talk to my co-workers and some friends (that aren't already conservative) about how they were voting and why (and how I could change their minds if need be).  I found that while most of them were willing (and did) vote to repeal recent tax hikes and reject new ones, they also voted for the same elected officials (all Democrats) that gave them those tax hikes and supported new levels of taxation!  I am still trying to understand why this happens.  Why vote for someone today that you are going to have to overrule tomorrow? This will require some more thought and (I hope) it will lead to some interesting discussions.

The New Question on Rights

http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/opinion/os-mike-thomas-quran-burn-090910-20100908,0,5042689.column

Executive Summary:
If no one in the media had given Terry Jones the time of day, would this be a story?  Aren't the media a little to blame as well if anything truly violent happens?  Yes, the press is free to do as they wish, but shouldn't they exercise a little better judgement, just like Terry Jones?

Analysis:
In reading some of the commentary on the Koran burning scheduled for Saturday, I am noticing a trend among some of the recent news stories, especially those touching on religion.  Where the US media is busy having a debate on whether or not someone has the religious freedom to do X, Y or Z, this is not the correct question to be asking.  Of course Terry Moran has the freedom to burn Korans (or at least he does in the US), just like Muslims have the freedom (and private property rights) to build a mosque near/at Ground Zero, where so many find it so objectionable.  That isn't the question.  The question is---should they be doing this?  Why are so many "adults" having problems acting appropriately when they do have the right to do something, but should personally restrain themselves from exercising that right, at least at that time and in that way?

New Democrat Strategy: Political Scapegoats Needed

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2010/09/09/wisconsins_rail_dream_is_a_spending_nightmare_107012.html

Executive Summary:

The outgoing, retiring, Democrat governor of Wisconsin wants a high speed rail line from Milwaukee to Madison so badly that he is rushing to spend $300 million on it before he leaves office.  He apparently hopes that the next governor will feel obligated to continue the project and spend at least another $800 million on it to complete the line, and then millions per year in operating costs.

This rail line will go on a thoroughfare that is currently mostly free of auto traffic and is already served by bus lines.  Backers say that they want this line to extend to Minneapolis and other cities in the future.  Both Republican candidates to replace the governor have pledged to stop the project, even if the state has to repay federal funding and spend more money to take out what has been installed.  The Democrat candidate for governor would continue the project as planned.

Analysis:
Wow.  This is a new low point in politics, and unfortunately, as I see it, a new strategy for Democrats.  Many of the far left Democrats know that their policies are unpopular with the country at large, even among other Democrats.  They have finally learned that lesson from the past, from Jimmy Carter's administration to Hillarycare in the 90s.  The new strategy seems to be to 1) get someone that is not seeking re-election (for retirement or other reasons) to take the huge political hit to start the ball rolling on a very, very unpopular project, law or entitlement and then 2) get another Democrat that is more "moderate" elected, ostensibly to pick up the pieces, maybe trim off a few of the really unpopular parts to stave off a revolution, and entrench the rest as much as possible into daily life (i.e. do whatever you can to get people dependent on it).  This is essentially what I argued is the strategy with President Obama's first term (see earlier post), but it is showing up in other areas of public service now.  This is not a good sign.  How do we fight this?

My take on the Tea Party

Now that most of the primary elections are over, we know that Democrat incumbents will be facing a variety of Republican opponents---some viewed as the "tea party" candidate, and some viewed as more "establishment" Republicans.  Of course, I welcome the chance to vote for just about any Republican, in the hope that they can reverse much of the damage that has been done largely by the Democrats in the last 2 years and over the last 75 years.  However, even though I am quite conservative and agree with much of what tea party candidates say, I worry about one thing when I see them---that this is where all the Ron Paul supporters went.  I attended the 2008 GOP convention in my state and witnessed the Ron Paul supporters, which were Libertarian if they were anything, trying to force Ron Paul on the Republican delegates as the nominee.  When they didn't get that, they tried to stuff a bunch of antiwar statements on to the GOP platform.  They were smart enough to figure out that having an "R" rather than an "L" by Ron Paul's name would significantly help him in the general election, even if he didn't deserve it.

Ron Paul, I'm sure, is a nice guy, and I probably would agree with him on many things.  But where I think the feds should be doing less, spending less, and returning to first principles, he and his followers think that the feds shouldn't really be doing anything, including pretty clear-cut cases for national defense.  They also waste a great deal of time focusing on things like eliminating the Federal Reserve and the Department of Education.  True, I might agree with them philosophically, but can we please put it pretty low down on the priority list?  Can we please go after the "low hanging fruit" first that just about every American agrees on, like repealing or starving this monstrosity that is the new healthcare bill?

I'm not saying don't vote for the tea party Republican if you have one in your race---far from it.  Please do.  The Democrats must lose the election for their highly unpopular, incredibly reckless behavior.  But when those tea partiers get to office, don't be so "mavericky" that your first priority is to introduce a bill to eliminate the Federal Reserve.  We can debate that after we have fixed the far, far, far more egregious and universally unpopular things first.

Taxes and behavior

I just read a very smart comment on another news story about taxes that I will paraphrase here.  The discussion was about the two new tax measures in Oregon, Measures 66 and 67, and the proposed income tax measure in Washington, I-1098.  It would seem that there are some people moving from Orgeon to Washington to avoid 66 and 67, but they will be thwarted if I-1098 passes this fall.  The commenter pointed out that governments pass tax and fee increases all the time with the intent to modify behavior.  All "sin taxes" fall into this category (i.e. cigarette taxes), as well as congestion tolling, etc.  The government makes an activity more expensive with the stated intent to reduce that activity.  So if the government buys that argument for some taxes and fees, why on earth do they not believe that all taxes change behavior?  Why do they think that higher income taxes will not prompt people to change their behavior and either hide income or be less productive?  Great point.

What if Obama is planning to be a one-term president?

Some people are wondering aloud if Hillary Clinton will challenge Obama in the 2012 primary.  However, I wonder if that really is the story.

What if the Obama presidency was planned to be one term from the beginning?  What if this were the plan:

1.  Pretending to fight one another in the 2008 primaries, but Hillary would eventually concede.
2.  Obama, with an in-the-tank media and the moniker of "first black president," wins the general.
3.  Obama appoints Hillary to Sec. of State to keep her in the news and give her foreign policy street cred.
4.  Obama would focus on getting the "big ticket" items they both want (i.e. healthcare) through Congress and appoint a couple of Supreme Court judges.  These bills would be very rough and wildly unpopular, but it doesn't matter because Obama doesn't want to be re-elected.
5.  Obama puts up a weak re-election fight against Hillary when she declares her candidacy as the more "responsible" Democrat.
6.  As long as they torpedo any good GOP challengers, Hillary is elected in 2012 for eight years of what she really wants---fine tuning the rough bills that Obama put in place.

Obama gets to be president and then gets to move right on to campaigning to be Sec. General of the UN or King of the World or whatever new high office with little accountability he is interested in.  Hillary only has to wait four more years to be president and will look "moderate" campaigning for the office.  He's happy.  She's happy.  The only people that have to be aware of the plan are Barack and Hillary---everyone else can be counted upon, with the right stimulus, to move the plan forward.  Yes, it's a conspiracy theory with very little chance of being proven, but doesn't it explain a lot of things?

Okay, back to posting actual news stories, I promise.  :>

Why did the media snow job work on Bush but isn't working for Obama?

In hearing some stats about Obama's approval numbers (which are getting pretty darn low), a thought occurred to me.  Things may not have been perfect under Bush, but the media managed to convince many Americans, including many normally very thoughtful and intelligent Americans, that Bush was the worst President in history, even though there was little, if any, data to support this.  This snow job helped Obama get elected.  Now Obama is in office and the media has mostly been trying their hardest to keep public opinion of him high (although there have been some defectors more recently), but the snow job doesn't seem to be working this time.  You could say that people can just look out the window and see how bad things are, but I would say again that things were not all that bad (relative to today or other bad times in history) when Bush was President and the media still succeeded in convincing people that times were terrible.  Why is it not working this time?

Lessons from the Oil Spill

It looks like the Deepwater Horizon oil spill may finally be finished, as the cap on the well appears to be holding and the relief well will be completed in the near future.  What are some things we have learned?

1)  There is a lot of oil in the earth.  Lots.  Enough so that millions of gallons can pour from a broken well for days and days and it doesn't affect the supply.  This well was going to be abandoned by BP and it still had lots of oil in it---just not enough to make it worth drilling.

2)  Regulations can make things worse by introducing unintended consequences.  BP would probably not have been drilling in 5000 feet of water, but in shallower waters instead, if government policies hadn't forced them to do so.  A broken well would have been much easier to fix in shallower water.

3)  Don't rely on the government to do much of anything right in a crisis.  They might (hey, even a stopped clock is right twice a day), but it seems unlinkely at this point.  They had laws on the books about how to deal with a large spill like this, and they didn't even follow their own procedures.  Instead, government agencies endlessly argued with other government agencies about what to do.  Don't depend on them---have your own personal emergency plans and supplies in place for natural disasters, etc.

Any other suggestions for lessons learned?

Hello behemoth bank bill!

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/businesstechnology/2012361072_apusfinancialoverhaulhighlights.html

Executive Summary:

The new bank regulatory bill has passed the Senate and appears set to become law.  This is another buge bill like the health care bill (>2000 pages) and it will take months to determine all the effects.  Some of the provisions include:

A10-member council led by the Treasury secretary may identify companies they feel are "too big to fail."  Companies identified in this way could be liquidated by the government.

A great deal of "watching" and "regulating" by new and old divisions of government, sometimes government agencies seemingly watching other government agencies being watched by other government agencies.

More restrictions on what products banks can offer and what banks can invest in.

(Mostly) non-binding rules about executive pay.  However, if executive pay appeared to "promote risky business practices," the feds could block it.

The end of the TARP program passed in 2008 to buy up toxic mortgages.  $11 billion from some of the remaining funds will be used to fund some of the new oversight programs in this bill.  The rest of the funds needed will come from additional fees the government charges banks.

Opinion:
Where do I start?  Another day, another huge bill to be passed that no one knows exactly what is in it.  However, if what the AP summary says is accurate, there is plenty to be worried about.  10 people (and the Treasury Secretary) will now have the power to determine if a company (maybe the one YOU work for) is "too big to fail" and seize it whenver they wish.  This is not something that will make people want to invest in large companies, regardless of their financial health.  Not to mention that this would be taking private property without due process.  But the Constitution is a living document that means whatever we want it to mean, right?  What this bill means for the average person is that 1) their bank fees are going up, as banks now have fewer ways to make money and 2) you had better hope you don't work for a company that is "too big to fail".

Will we also now get an acknowledgement that TARP was an ill-advised bill that perhaps was never intended to buy up bad mortgages?  Nah.

Your taxes will (probably) go up on January 1, 2011

http://finance.yahoo.com/taxes/article/110005/how-the-expiring-bush-tax-cuts-affect-you?mod=taxes-advice_strategy

Executive Summary:

Most of the "Bush tax cuts," passed in 2001 and 2003, will expire on the first day of 2011, since the current Congress is unlikely to extend them.  Many people may think this will not affect them, but will only affect "the rich," but they are mistaken. 

Every income taxation bracket will go to a higher percentage.  The "marriage penalty" returns.  Other exemptions (i.e. for state and local taxes, charitable donations) are likely to be eliminated.

Opinion:

Please, please, please look at how this will affect you before January 1st, (try) to plan accordingly, and vote accordingly in November.  This should be a huge campaign issue, but that will depend on whether or not the mainstream media can drown it out with other less important things.  We need less spending, not an increase in taxes, because an increase in taxes will just prompt people and businesses to hoard even more money than they are now.  There can be no economic growth if that continues to happen.

Oh, and all you people that actually believed that Obama wouldn't raise taxes on anyone that makes less than $250,000?  How would you like your crow?

A government of laws

"A government of laws and not of men."
---John Adams

This is one of the ideals to which our government was designed to fulfill, that is, to be a nation that adheres to the law and not the whims of its leaders.  This was a somewhat radical idea for the time---until then, kings and other unelected leaders usually had the final (and sometimes only) say about everything.  However, we are now passing laws that no one has read (i.e. health care, financial reform), and even worse, the government is passing some laws (or parts of laws) seemingly to mollify certain critics without any intention of seriously following them.  For example, the 1986 amnesty bill was supposed to end illegal border crossings by beefing up security, make it nearly impossible for companies to hire illegal immigrants, and eliminate the abuse of social welfare systems by non-citizens.  None of these things happened.  There are scores of other more recent examples.  What does this mean for us?  Are we still a nation of laws and not of men?  To me, laws like these are proof that the federal government must limit itself to its core Constitutional roles and pass as few laws as are necessary for a civil society to function.  However, whenever I brought up this idea during the 2008 election, my friends dismissed it as "throwing the baby out with the bathwater," that we just needed to write better laws.  I maintain that the last year and a half has been chock full of more proof that if we do not impose these limits, we will go back to being a nation of men and not of laws.

Happy 4th of July!

Have a great 4th of July and re-read the Declaration of Independence. Preferrably aloud. (Especially in earshot of that liberal relative of yours.)

http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/declaration.html

Coming soon to a state near you

http://www.sacbee.com/2010/07/02/2864614/governor-puts-200000-state-workers.html

Executive Summary:

Since California has not yet passed a new budget and the state's deficit is in the billions, Gov. Schwarzenegger signed an order to limit hourly pay of state employees to minimum wage until a new budget is signed. Any additional wages will be paid in retrospect once that is accomplished. Six unions are exempt because they have already signed new contracts limiting pension benefits for new hires and increasing employee contributions to pensions.

The state Controller says he will not follow these instructions without a court order.

Opinion:

The sooner public employee unions realize that states are broke and can't honor the sweetheart deals they promised in the past, the better. There just isn't any more money to give them their insanely high yearly pension payouts or nearly free healthcare. They helped create this problem, now they should have to live with it. It looks like many of the union bosses are stubbornly refusing to agree to any reductions in benefits, hoping the economy will improve before they have to give in. Fat chance.

Is your state running a deficit? Check here:
http://www.cbpp.org/cms/?fa=view&id=711

A start to civil disobedience?

http://www.politico.com/click/stories/1006/a_special_tool_for_fakebakers.html

Executive Summary:

Americans for Tax Reform is printing a card on their website that reminds people of Candidate Obama's campaign pledge to not raise taxes on anyone who earns less than $250,000/year. This card, they (jokingly) suggest, could be shown to anyone trying to collect any of the new taxes that are being imposed on those in that income bracket.

Opinion:
I have been thinking for a while that the party running Washington D.C. is not going to stop their out of control spending and power grabbing unless people engage in some (hopefully polite but meaningful) civil disobedience. This isn't quite the kind of civil disobedience that I had in mind, but it is a good start. Anyone out there have any ideas?

Voter's remorse?

The first case of Obama Voter's Remorse that I saw occurred 10 days after the 2008 election. (This particular person was furious that Obama nominated Hillary Clinton for Sec. of State.) I'm starting to see some Voter's Remorse at the local level, too, especially in Seattle's 2008 choice for mayor. Anyone else witnessed an increase in this or felt it yourself?

New gigantic bill coming to your town

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/06/25/AR2010062500675_pf.html

Executive summary:

House and Senate leaders have reached agreements on a gigantic new bill that would completely change the financial system. No Republican voted for the bill in committee.

Some of the new powers granted by the bill:
"A new consumer protection bureau housed in the Federal Reserve would have independent funding, an independent leader and near-total autonomy to write and enforce rules. The government would have broad new powers to seize and wind down large, failing financial firms and to oversee the $600 trillion derivatives market. In addition, a council of regulators, headed by the Treasury secretary, would monitor the financial landscape for potential systemic risks."

Some legislators wanted to completely prohibit banks from engaging in most "risky" investments. Most of those amendments failed, but these abilities will be curtailed to some extent.

Opinion:
I will not call this the financial "reform" bill, as "reform" implies improvement. There is little to point to as improvement, since huge problems like the insolvency of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were not dealt with. This is another bill (like the healthcare act last March) that is too large for anyone to read or fully understand before Congress will vote on it and make it the law of the land (perhaps as early as July 4th). It grants sweeping new powers to many unelected officials and bureaucrats. If this trend continues, why bother having a Congress to write new laws at all in the future when you can have unelected people do it?

It is appropriate that it is named the Dodd-Frank bill, after the two legislators that had the largest government role in creating the economic mess we are in. Will Dodd will get another personal mortgage deal somewhere in this legislation?

Update: this bill may be stalled by, of all things, the death of Senator Robert Byrd. Let's hope so.

Update 2: Uh-oh. It passed the House. The Senate has said it is "not ready" to vote on it---yet.

You and what army?

When I heard about Barack Obama's speech "directing" BP to set up a $20B account to pay people affected by the Gulf Oil spill, this is what I thought BP should say: you and what army?

I realize that BP probably agreed to the account terms before Obama gave the speech, and that they might just have made a quick calculation with their lawyers and accountants and decided that this was actually a good thing to attempt to limit their financial damages. (Although I note that this account is viewed only as a "good start" by some.) Stockholders may respond better to a number on the damages rather than letting their imaginations run wild.

However, we have something called due process in this country. No one can be parted from their money or property without it (unless you are a Geneva Convention violating terrorist, as all the people in Guantanamo are). It means that BP is entitled to a court trial and then they should pay up if found guilty. The fact that the White House thinks they can order BP to do this (they have no authority to do so) and that BP agreed scares the living daylights out of me.

This is only one of many things the White House and our other elected leaders have done without any authority to do so. What is next? How will it affect me? Where does it stop? Please, before we find out, let us toss these people out of office and put in some people who have a respect for the idea that we are a nation of laws and not men.

Is it time for ala carte government?

I have been wondering for a while (sometimes aloud to my husband) if we have reached the point in the USA where all the conservatives need to move to the red states and all the liberals need to move to the blue states so we can all live the way we want. This would require a lot of moving (including me), and "moderates" (all 2% of you) would have to decide once and for all where they want to be. Of course, I would much rather prefer that we just return to the way the founders intended, with limited government so that people can individually order their personal lives in the way they see fit. But listening to some radio commentary today made me realize that there are probably a lot of liberals out there that just won't be happy without a lot of government.

So if we can't all move, what about ala carte government? Liberals, go ahead and set up a big, warm, caring government that provides everything you think everyone should need or want---but just provide me with an "opt out" check box for each set of services I don't want. Of course, there would be a few things that I can't opt out of, like police/fire protection and basic national defense. But if I don't pay for selected public services, then why don't we just agree that I am ineligible for them? That's fine with me. And a lot of people will still "opt in," so you would still be able to fund them with the very high tax rates that you favor. What say you?

Will the last person to leave Seattle turn the lights off, please?

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2011949127_apwapugetsoundtolls.html

Executive Summary:

The Puget Sound Regional Council General Assembly (a conglomeration of local governments and agencies in the area) is calling for tolling on ALL major roads in the area by 2020. They suggest taxing vehicles by miles travelled instead of a fuel tax.

Opinion:

This is what we get for buying more fuel-efficient cars. Does anyone really believe they will just substitute the fuel tax for a mileage tax, or will they keep the gas tax and add the new one? Gee, I wonder... The day that transponders are required on all automobiles to determine miles travelled for taxing purposes is the day that many people will en masse leave the state of Washingon. I hear Montana is pretty.

Hey, representatives, I am not your trained seal!

I just observed an online chat featuring a transportation reporter for our local paper, in which the conversation covered the upcoming replacement of a large bridge. When someone brought up the fact that our lawmakers are about $2B short in funding for the new bridge, this is what the reporter said:

"Key lawmakers are gradually training the public to accept the notion of tolls throughout the region."

"Training"? "Training"? Aren't my lawmakers to represent my views, not the other way around? I find the idea that my lawmakers are going to "train" me to "accept" anything so very offensive. Also, I specifically chose my current home a year ago in part to avoid the rumored tolls for the new bridge, so aren't my lawmakers really "training" me to refuse to play their games? How about you pay for that bridge with all the billions of dollars we already give you?

Private insurers quietly buying up doctor's practices

http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:wSyh0LAtUIYJ:online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703315404575250264210294510.html+no+you+can't+keep+your+health+plan&cd=2&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us&client=safari

Executive Summary:

Driven by the new healthcare plan passed in March, healthcare providers are engaged in efforts to stay afloat when the new rules kick in. One of these strategies is for doctors to sell their private practices to hospitals and private insurers, essentially becoming a salaried employee of these organizations instead of a private business owner, or to join a very small network of physicians under one insurance company.

These efforts are expected to curb costs, but only because there will be longer waits for routine appointments and even stricter control of a doctor's decisions by the hospital or insurance plan that employs that doctor.

Opinion:

Ah, the unintended consequences of legislation. Or were they unintended? Since Obama and other Democrats aren't stupid, I think this is exactly what they were hoping for. They knew that mandating a business model for the insurance companies and doctors that is not economically feasible would drive these providers to desparate measures. When enough of this consolidation occurs, and people start to complain about the drop in service, Obama can step in, decry the "greed" of doctors and insurance companies, and nationalize the system. Simple.

Mt. St. Helens, 30 years later

On the 30th anniversary of the Mt. St. Helens eruption, let's pause a moment and...

1. Remember those who died in the blast.

2. Reflect upon the staggering ability that nature has to pollute itself in a matter of hours.

3. Realize that nature usually cleans itself up much quicker than anyone predicts.

Food, Inc. thoughts

Just finished watching Food, Inc. because I was concerned by some of the fearful comments I saw in a discussion some friends (mostly moms) had about the movie on FB. Here were my thoughts as I watched it:

What about the government? Aren’t they one of the biggest purchasers of food, especially given military needs? Why didn’t they mention them along with McDonald’s as the biggest customers of the food industry?

No one wants to see people, especially children, hurt. But here is a news flash---we are mortal. Children drown in swimming pools and die in car accidents every day. Should we ban swimming pools? Or cars? Or require that everyone wear a life jacket in a pool and drive no faster than 5 MPH?

If you can’t afford fresh fruit, buy frozen or canned! Just as good and cheaper! And why does that lady keep her kids “on the run” from 6AM to 10PM? Perhaps she should look into adjusting their schedule so she has time to feed them better.

Are you willing to give up the amount of land we will need to give up to have all grass-fed beef? Do you want to see Seattle ringed by farms, live in 50-story high rises and have rationed food, because that is what we would have to do to all “buy local”?

Animals don’t use toilets---they walk in their feces all the time, whether outside or inside. How much do you want to bet that raising cows and chickens indoors came from environmental laws that were designed to keep their feces out of groundwater?

Junk food calories are cheap because the consumer knows they are “superfluous” calories. If they were more expensive than fresh food, no one would buy them, so they are priced accordingly.

The obesity and diabetes epidemic is absolutely related to parents not being at home to supervise their play or the amount of after school snacking they do as much as it is due to the quality of the food kids eat.

If we deported illegal immigrants, the food industry would mechanize more of their process. Sounds good! I bet the Democrat party and unions wouldn’t like this, though. They want those people exactly where they are for their dues and their votes.

Hey, at least that guy from Stonyfield admits that what he supports is a form of religion! Good for him!

Oh goody, let’s take advantage of the fact that few people understand what a gene is or what it does, and the fact that if you eat it, it does nothing to you. Nothing.

Sounds like the Montsano thing is a good example of crony capitalism, since they can’t arrest or prosecute anyone themselves---the government has to do that. Who supports that? No one. Isn’t this an example of too much government? Nice---passing the word “evil” across the screen while talking about Montsano before rearranging it to say “veil”.

Labelling would be fine if it applied to everything. For example, if you are going to require McDonald’s to post calorie content, you should also require it of the French Laundry in SF because most of their meals probably have more fat than a Big Mac.

Food problems in other areas of the world is due mainly to wars and distribution problems, not industrial food production.

What does the movie want me to do? I guess demand things that have no scientific basis, like demanding rBST-free milk. Or demand things that would be economically illiterate and result in food shortages, like put price controls on carrots. I don’t think they are interested in my freedom. They just want to use me just as much as they claim workers and animals are used by the companies they vilify.

Some numbers for your day...

I'm reading a good book about the Obama campaign and the youth vote (Obama Zombies by Jason Mattera), and there are a couple of startling numbers in Chapter 7 (on economics). Chew on these for a while:

The US has spent more on poverty reduction ($16 trillion) since 1964 (the start of the "War on Poverty") than it has spent on all military wars in its history combined ($6.4 trillion). We won most of those wars, of course, but we have yet to come close to eradicating poverty.

In 2007, the amount of money that would be required to raise all impoverished households out of poverty was $148 billion. However, the US spent $550 billion on poverty reduction programs in that year. If that doesn't show how wasteful and inefficient government is, and how undeserving of our money it is, I don't know what does.

"Corporate" failure

Based on an excellent point I heard on the radio today...

Imagine that a company promised you certain services, took your 100% downpayment on those services, and then failed to deliver 99% of those services as advertised. Wouldn't you be on the phone to the better business bureau and possibly talking to your lawyer? You might even contact a reporter at the local paper and tell all your friends not to patronize this company.

What's the name of this "company"? The United States federal government! (And for those of you living in blue states or cities, add your state and local governments as well.) Don't we need to start holding our government(s) as accountable to what they promise as some of us hold certain corporations accountable? Do we not need to start by not giving this organization MORE of our money (i.e. in the healthcare bill)?

Comedy Central has officially jumped the shark

http://livefeed.hollywoodreporter.com/2010/05/comedy-central-developing-jesus-christ-cartoon-series.html

Executive Summary:

Comedy Central is developing a cartoon series based on the idea of Jesus Christ just wanting to live a "regular life" in NYC and escape his "domineering" father.

Comedy Central executive Kent Alterman said of the series, "Comedy in purist form always makes some people uncomfortable."

Opinion:
It's official. Comedy Central is no longer cutting edge, or hip, or anything else. Their recent censorship of South Park material regarding Islam while they are working on this series proves once and for all that they only go after easy targets like Christians. This makes their "comedy" irrelevant, stale, unimaginative, lazy and not worth 5 seconds of your time. Lefties, it's time to leave Jon Stewart in the dust and find some new humor sources. Or start your own.

Don't quit your day job, Mr. "Artist"

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2011702575_graffitiside26m.html

Executive summary:

A seattle man works odd jobs so that he can pursue his "art form": graffiti. He does this because he sees beauty in graffiti, but also because he thinks any entry into this art form has more impact on society than a blank wall. He has taken fine art classes (painting, etc.) and travels the world to leave his art on public spaces. He does not paint on private property or churches, only public property.

Opinion:

What right does this man have to be the sole determiner of what art will be featured on a public space? It belongs to "the public," not him. The article does say that he has had brushes with the law, but does he care that graffiti has been shown to increase crime, or that taxpayers must pay to have his graffiti removed from public spaces? Of course, the big question I want to ask him is this:

Do you really paint graffiti because it is "social commentary" or because deep down, you know that your artistic talents are so poor that no one, public or private, will pay you for your art?

I think I know the answer to that. I don't think he's willing to admit it.

It's liberal, but it's the same idea...

Maybe I'm late to the party, but I just found a site that is sort of trying to do what I'm trying to do here---except it's overtly liberal and cares way more about entertainment and celebrity news than I do. But check it out:

www.newser.com

Obama: "I do think at a certain point, you've made enough money."

A quote from our President at a rally the other day. Yes, he does go on to say in a backhanded way that this is okay in America if you "make a good product," but the press should really be following this up with a couple of questions:

1) What is "enough money"? Have you reached that point? What about Nancy Pelosi or Matt Damon?

2) What do you, as President, want to do to people when they have reached that point?

Thoughts of the day

Borrowed and rephrased from stuff I've read or heard today:

"When you give the government more money to ostensibly lower the debt, you never get less debt. You always get more government."

"Be at least half as suspicious of government as you are of private corporations."

Our healthcare crystal ball: Massachusetts

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304198004575171782805022028.html?mod=rss_Today

Executive Summary:

In 2006, under Mitt Romney, Massachusetts passed a health care system overhaul similar to Obamacare (i.e. pre-existing conditions must be accepted, insurers must clear rate hikes with the state government, everyone must buy an insurance plan, rates for all people must be about the same regardless of health status).

A few of the state's largest insurers are suing the state government, which will not let them raise premiums on small group coverage. These insurers are non-profit entities and claim they will not have enough money to cover claims and/or operating costs if they do not raise rates. Until the case is resolved (hopefully this Monday), these insurers are not selling any new policies. The government has ordered them to start selling policies again, or face fines and other punishment.

Opinion:
This is our future if Obamacare is allowed to stand. The business model for health insurance cannot work when people will be allowed to buy insurance AFTER they get sick, and the government arbitrarily sets rates. This is also why Mitt Romney will never be the President.

Update:
The MA insurance companies lost their request for an injunction against the state to be able to cap their rates. They can still sue, but they have to do what the state says for however long that suit will take (possibly years). What will these non-profits do in the mean time to stay afloat? Anybody's guess. This article also says that rate caps are in the bill signed by Obama. Like I said in the comments, it's also anybody's guess what's actually in the bill. Bad law and bad process.
http://www.ama-assn.org/amednews/2010/04/19/bisc0419.htm

Great exerpt from Jonah Goldberg's latest column

"Personally, I have never understood liberalism's blind spot for liberty when it comes to taxation. A 24-hour waiting period before a teenager can have an abortion is an allegedly grotesque violation of individual freedom, but a federal government that takes vast amounts of your money — the means by which you exercise your every freedom — to distribute as it sees fit is "progressive"? The USA Patriot Act, whose threat to privacy was somewhere between entirely theoretical and non-existent for the overwhelming majority of Americans, shocked the liberal conscience. But our income tax system — made idiotically complex by both parties — demands countless hours of preparation and requires law abiding citizens to reveal (and document!) many of their most private decisions to government inspectors every year is "reasonable." Yet many liberals even think complaining about this is a sign of right-wing dementia."

Read the whole thing here: http://blogs.usatoday.com/oped/2010/04/column-how-much-taxation-is-enough.html

Enough said. Now let's get to work.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2010/04/05/the_way_forward_for_republicans_105047.html
Executive summary:

Republicans and Tea Party activists (often, but not always the same thing) must focus on presenting our fellow citizens with the vital message of what freedom and liberty and limited government are (and support candidates that hold these values paramount) in order to save us from a total decline to a welfare state.

Opinion:
In this case, you might want to go read the whole essay. It's not that long. Some great exerpts:

"...even though compassion is a virtue of the first order, along with benevolence, honesty, and others, these are private not public virtues, and importantly they are not virtues, if not voluntary."

"...free people acting in a free market is what this country stands for, is the only ethical way to live, and happens to be the greatest anti-poverty and civil rights program on earth."

In My Copious Free Time: Open Audition: White House Press Secretary

In My Copious Free Time: Open Audition: White House Press Secretary

Nice bit of funny. Especially for politically interested Firefly fans.

In honor of the signing of Obamacare

Do (unelected) aides run the country?

http://www.onenewsnow.com/Politics/Default.aspx?id=918692


Executive Summary:


Charlie Rangel (D-NY), the chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee (which writes tax code), has been found guilty by the House Ethics committee of several ethics violations, including taking trips paid for by corporate sponsors.


Rangel maintains his innocence and claims that he did not know the trips were sponsored by lobbyists. He says he did not see letters and memos from house staffers that tried to make him aware of this fact. He refuses to relinquish his committee chairmanship.


Opinion:
Nice try, Charlie. True, I do think that legislative aides wield far too much power. I have heard that far too much of our legislation is actually written by them and not even read or edited by our elected representatives prior to voting. During a town hall meeting, I personally witnessed my own state legislator having to ask her aide to show her how to "make the slides big" on Powerpoint because she didn't know where the "slide show" button was. But I don't think you can blame this one on your aides, because you went on the trip. Do you really expect us to believe that you didn't ask who paid for it? Do us all a favor and retire now.

Update:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/35678683/ns/politics-capitol_hill/

Rangel has stepped down "temporarily" until the ethics committee completes its investigation. Given that it has already taken them almost 2 years just to release the report admonishing him for taking corporate-funded trips and has not officially dealt with his clear-cut tax evasion, hoarding of rent-controlled apartments, etc., the voters will have to throw him out of office before he leaves voluntarily. Too bad he lives in a district where that is unlikely to happen.

You will have internet access, whether you want it or not

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2011227382_broadband02m.html

Executive Summary:

Washington state has been granted $84 million of a $7.2 billion chunk of stimulus money to improve internet access in 24 states. The money will be divided among several internet providers, nonprofits and government entities. The money will also go to create a statewide broadband heath network called WA-HealthNet.

Supporters of public funding of internet expansion argue that this is necessary in order to bring high-speed internet to areas with sparse population or rugged terrain. Everyone needs these connections to get the information needed to make decisions in their "best interest."

One third of US households, most notably older Americans, Hispanics, and the poor, lack broadband internet access.

Opinion:

If we paid less in taxes so that governments can fund projects like this, maybe a few more people would be able to afford internet access! But perhaps that is beside the point. Who says that everyone really needs or wants internet access, especially in their homes, when there is access at libraries, Kinkos, etc.? Yes, many people use it often and well, but do you really, really need it? What if you moved to a rural area specifically so you could be a bit more "off the grid" and don't want it? Is your nanny state government now telling you that you should have it anyway? Why? What business is it of theirs?

Please hammer, don't hurt 'em!

http://www.sltrib.com/ci_14454828

Executive Summary:

A Salt Lake City woman attacked her husband with a hammer after blindfolding him, leading him into a basement, and promising him a "surprise".

Her husband was able to escape with minor injuries. His wife (they are still married, but separated) pleaded guilty to aggravated assault, although she claims to have no memory of the attack.

Opinion:

Please have a good laugh over this story. And then laugh even more over Senator Harry Reid's claim that "women aren't abusive most of the time".

Ronulans (sigh)

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/2010/02/21/2010-02-21_ron_paul_for_prez_say_rightwingers.html

Executive Summary:

Ron Paul won the straw poll for 2012 presidential nominee at CPAC, one of the big political events of the year for conservatives.

Mitt Romney was second with 22% of the vote and all other candidates (including Sarah Palin) were 7% or less. Most voters also said they were dissatisfied with the current slate of candidates.

Opinion:
It is an unoffical poll, and it looks like Ron Paul won because he made sure his supporters attended CPAC, not because he's who conservatives actually want. His supporters are what worry me a bit. I saw them at our state's GOP convention in '08 where they tried to throw our nomination to Paul. When they failed, they focused on trying to ram as much antiwar rhetoric into our platform as possible. They showed the same kind of slavish, unquestioning devotion to Rep. Paul (or "Dr. Paul," as they are careful to say) that many Obama voters showed for Obama. They seem to believe that all we need to do is elect a "smart," well-educated man, and he will fix everything that is wrong with the country. The cult of personality that surrounds him (and that he doesn't seem to mind it) mixed with his unrealistic foreign policy positions means that this conservative does not support him.

I keep telling my husband we need to move to that little corner of Idaho...

http://cohort11.americanobserver.net/latoyaegwuekwe/multimediafinal.html

The hanging pork project of Portland

http://www.csmonitor.com/The-Culture/Gardening/2010/0121/New-green-wonder-the-Hanging-Gardens-of-Portland

Executive Summary:

The Edith Green-Wendell Wyatt Federal building in Portland is going to get a $135 million "green" makeover with federal stimulus funds. This is the largest stimulus project announced thus far for Oregon.

The plans call for one side of the 18-story building to be covered in 250-foot tall trellises, a giant "green roof" on top of the existing one for the purpose of collecting rainwater, etc., and other "green" improvements.

The architect currently has no idea how the trellises will actually be constructed, and gardening experts worry that it will be hard to keep the plants alive in Portland's warm "Mediterranean" summers.

Construction is to take 3 to 4 years, and federal employees will be working elsewhere while the work is done.

Opinion:

Not only is this one of the ugliest proposed remodeling projects I have ever seen (people say that the original building is ugly, but the remodel makes it worse), but is this a good use of stimulus dollars? To build a "plant wall" on the side of an office building that will likely be dead 6 months after it reopens? Hell no. And why is this project planned to take so long? And who is footing the bill to put the employees in temporary work space? Oh, that's right, I am.

The dog ate my papers proving global warming

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1250872/Climategate-U-turn-Astonishment-scientist-centre-global-warming-email-row-admits-data-organised.html
Executive Summary:

Phil Jones, the former head of the climate research unit at East Anglia University in the UK, was one of the most respected sources for data on climate change. His university kept one of the data sets that this theory is based upon. He also helped write much of the information put out by the IPCC, a UN organization that governments look to for advice on climate change policy.

Phil Jones is now under investigation for failing to respond to freedom of information act requests for his climate change data. He now claims that he "lost" the data in his messy office. He now admits that there has been no increase in global temperatures for the last 15 years, but still insists that the earth is still on a warming trend.

Opinion:

What else are we going to find in Phil Jones' office? Jimmy Hoffa? This would be funny if the things that Phil Jones and others who support the global warming panic are saying weren't so dangerous. No self-respecting researcher should ask anyone to believe them about anything if they don't have the data to back it up. Fire Phil Jones now and throw out any science on climate change that depended on the East Anglia data set. Oh, all of it does? I guess we need to start over, then.

Debt limit goes from ridiculous to insane

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2010/02/president-obama-signs-law-raising-public-debt-limit-from-124-trillion-to-143-trillion.html

rai

Executive summary:

President Obama signed the bill raising the debt limit to $14.294 trillion.

The law also requires any new, non-emergency spending to be "covered" by new taxes or spending cuts.

Opinion:

President Obama and the democrats are not serious about reducing the deficit. The deficit was bad before, but we are entering new territory where it might be mathematically impossible for future generations to pay it back.

Get out the torches and pitchforks.

Drop that light bulb and keep your hands where I can see them!

http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE6171F420100208

Executive Summary:

Philips, which makes 1 in 4 of the world's lighting fixtures, is banking a large part of its financial future on the production and sales of LED lights. LED lights currently make up less than 10% of lighting sales in Europe.

The LED is more expensive than the incandescent light bulb, but is expected to be less expensive than the compact fluorescent by 2013.

LEDs have a long life, are energy efficient, and do not contain mercury like the compact fluorescent. However, the quality of light produced by a less expensive LED is described as "cold", while "warm" LED light is twice as costly.

Phillips will not realize its LED sales goals unless the EU and other governing bodies continue with their plans to ban the incandescent light bulb. Europe is on track to ban it in 2012.

Opinion:

The incandescent light bulb is going to be banned by our government. Stop laughing. Seriously. I think the US ban takes effect in 2014. I do think Congress will have no choice but to delay it. And then delay it again. And again. (Like the DTV transition.) But like DTV, it probably will get implemented someday. When it does, I hope I have a closetful of incandescent light bulbs. I hate those compact fluorescent bulbs---they make everything look jaundiced. I challenge anyone to tell me how this is a necessary function of government. And if LEDs are that great, the market will ensure they will be implemented eventually, so why does the government need to step in at all?

Because you are the CEO of you

It will be interesting to see if this works as a blog, but if nothing else, I hope it will be therapeutic for me. I often have things to say about the news of the day, but not many people to say it to. Many of my friends that might discuss the news with me claim they have no time to read it, and they are right. But on the other hand, a lot of the things that are happening are going to affect them in significant (and possibly horrible) ways. Partially as a "public service" and partially because I enjoy a good political debate, I am planning to blog on news stories that are 1) really interesting or 2) really relevant. I am calling it "executive summary news" because everyone is in a sense the "CEO" of their life, their family, their home, etc., and they need executive summaries of the important news of the day to make the best executive decisions. I will write the summaries and some short analysis. What you do with that is up to you---read it and get on with your life, or argue with me. Either is fine.