I said, I mean it, and I'm ready to take heat for it. Compromise is a dirty word, especially in politics. Name one instance since the New Deal where a compromise has ever resulted in smaller government. When pundits have said we need "bipartisanship" it simply means, we need more government.
Without going into the details, let's just put up a few examples, Social Security enjoyed support on both sides of the aisle, it's now bankrupting us. Same is true for Medicare and Medicaid, which not only are driving the federal budget off a cliff, they are the primary drivers of rising medical costs because they cover too many things that insurance was never intended to cover. (Sidebar, mandates in private insurance do the same, but I'll attempt to stay on topic).
The most recent bipartisan "success" of great note is No Child Left Behind. I said it the day the vote was cast, not knowing how wrong I would be about President Bush, but the thought went, "any time President Bush and Senator Kennedy agree, we're all in trouble." We now see cheating, sub par scores, and boatloads more cash in federal education coffers. Translation, compromise and a Washington success story means destroying America's wealth.
Now, it appears, President Obama and the leadership of both houses of Congress have struck some deal. It also appears that it is such a lousy deal, no side wants to commit the votes to bring it to the president. The deal is rooted in compromise, meaning, once again, we the people are stuck paying the addicts rehab bills.
I will take the less popular route in conservative circles and put a lot of blame on the many libertarian leaning freshmen in both houses. However, I blame them not for holding out or demanding more, but for not putting "radical" spending proposals out to make $4 trillion in cuts seem palatable. Senator Rand Paul took a swing months ago, and seemed to have some support from folks like Senators Mike Lee, Pat Toomey, and Jim DeMint. Then Representative Connie Mack came up with a plan to cut 1% from actual spending, not the baseline, and Senator Paul took up that fight in the Senate. These ideas had some teeth, and actually attempted to highlight just how bad the shape of the federal ledger is.
Instead, we get plans that call for $2 trillion in cuts, over 10 year, translation, $200 billion per year with a deficit of $1.4-1.6 trillion per year. Oh, and the cuts are back loaded while the debt ceiling is front loaded, so, it will fall to future congresses to actually sharpen their pencils and cut. Anyone that cannot find at least $250 billion in cuts for fiscal 2012 just isn't trying to find any. Again, Senator Paul identified $500 billion, which admittedly, still leaves approximately $1 trillion in deficit spending, but it "bends the cost curve down" as so many said about the health care law.
Next up, we'll actually do some analysis of the numbers, but as you can see here, compromise is an evil word when it comes to DC politics, and we need to hold our representatives feet to the fire to force them to identify cuts.
Monday, August 1, 2011
Sunday, February 20, 2011
Missing the boat on DEBT
There are a lot of politicians talking about cutting deficit spending. Now, I have not heard every pundit or politician weigh in, but has anyone heard people talking about reducing the debt? America is $14,000,000,000,000+ in debt. These are obligations owed to foreign governments, the Federal Reserve, and other debtors. The fed should be the last to get paid back, because they shouldn't be buying the debt, but that may be a story for another day.
Deficit reduction is a key first step, but federal expenditures need to be at least $250 billion below receipts to help start reducing our principal obligations. The government may be able to wipe away some mutual debts with nations where each holds the other's debt. Our first goal should be to pay back those like the Chinese, who may not have our best national interest in mind. Without a firm plan to reduce the principal on our debt, the government will continue to spend an increasing share of revenues to service the debt. This lines the pockets of our lenders, and frankly, provides no benefit to the taxpayers saddled with paying the bill.
To combat this, it is increasingly clear that the need for a constitutional amendment that forces congress to live within its means, in all circumstances except war, is required. Not only will this ensure congress live within its means and make the "hard" decisions of what to cut, it would help to decrease our military footprint without harming our national security. Since the congress is too afraid to actually declare war, it poses the potential to force people to go on record when a conflict presents itself. This was a potential oversight of the founders, and one that requires corrections now.
Deficit reduction is a key first step, but federal expenditures need to be at least $250 billion below receipts to help start reducing our principal obligations. The government may be able to wipe away some mutual debts with nations where each holds the other's debt. Our first goal should be to pay back those like the Chinese, who may not have our best national interest in mind. Without a firm plan to reduce the principal on our debt, the government will continue to spend an increasing share of revenues to service the debt. This lines the pockets of our lenders, and frankly, provides no benefit to the taxpayers saddled with paying the bill.
To combat this, it is increasingly clear that the need for a constitutional amendment that forces congress to live within its means, in all circumstances except war, is required. Not only will this ensure congress live within its means and make the "hard" decisions of what to cut, it would help to decrease our military footprint without harming our national security. Since the congress is too afraid to actually declare war, it poses the potential to force people to go on record when a conflict presents itself. This was a potential oversight of the founders, and one that requires corrections now.
Sunday, October 24, 2010
Government's pain pill
We’ve been giving America pain pills and morphine drips. We haven’t attempted to solve the problems. The government giving healthcare and homes is not addressing the root issue. When you are diagnosed with cancer, you look for a plan to cure it, not manage it. We need to figure out why so many don’t have insurance, homes, jobs, etc. The simple answer is it’s the people in Washington that hand us the button to “manage our pain.”
Many have admitted that they are managing our decline, and that’s pretty similar to inducing pain management, ease the pain, remove coherence, and keep us comfortable. I want, and I think many of you do too, them to take the button away from most and solve the issues. We don’t have much time, and we need to take swift action.
Stop the subsidies, for corporations and individuals, make us find our own way. Look to churches and local organizations to help those that truly need the assistance. Most importantly, stop rewarding bad behavior. I really don't want to pay for someone else's mortgage or insurance, not when compelled to by the government. Charity in this country would absolutely increase if people had the burden of government lessened. We are the most charitable nation on earth, and if the numbing impact of government overreach was removed, think about the greatness we can return to.
Tuesday, October 19, 2010
America's public education crisis, and a plan to rectify it
Education in this country is a nightmare. We spend lots of money and time, hire teachers, staff, build schools, maintain buses, etc. It costs a ton of money, billions and billions. We have a Department of Education that spends 10s of billions to give money to the states every year. But, with all the money, education gaps are widening, we're falling further behind other countries, and graduation rates are not rising. Plus, if you follow the logic of our leaders in Washington, we're just too stupid to understand the policies they pass 'on our behalf.'
My proposal, stop educating us. Just stop, close all the schools and universities, fire all the teachers. We're clearly too stupid to think for ourselves. We need to be told what we can and cannot eat, what level of healthcare we need, what to drive, how to worship. If these uber smart wizards in DC are regulating every aspect of our behavior, why do we waste the vast resources, that are clearly not helping, on education. Think about the money we would save and could just give to our dear leaders. Then we could have a very standardized educational regimen, where the leaders would come on TV and teach us what we need to know. Think of the additional money they could throw at all our ills, the reparations to the countries and peoples we have wronged, the social engineering, the trough they could provide for us to eat their slop from. What a wonderful, ignorant society we could be.
The blueprint is there, and the elitists and statists keep telling us that their agenda is too complex, we just don't understand, it's hard to simplify and quantify the wonderful accomplishments. Well, why are we so damned stupid? Who has sent us into this moronic tailspin? And, you may say it's a conspiracy theory, but don't you find it a bit interesting that education unions support the statists, who support increasing funding to the teachers, who then do not improve the educational standards?
Bernie Madoff is on line 1 for you Ms. Weingarten, and he wants to applaud you for your legalized graft and ponzi scheme brilliance. If you're as disgusted as I am with the quality of education available to your children, go to your place of worship, your local diner, a parents group and start to see if you can devise a plan to home school. Starve the beast and educate our children the way they deserve to be educated. You don't need to do it full time, you can find like minded parents and share the burden, especially since this government makes it nearly impossible for a parent to stay home and raise children (and I don't think that's a coincidence either). If they permanently corrupt our children, we're done, period. Wake up, take action and take back our future!
My proposal, stop educating us. Just stop, close all the schools and universities, fire all the teachers. We're clearly too stupid to think for ourselves. We need to be told what we can and cannot eat, what level of healthcare we need, what to drive, how to worship. If these uber smart wizards in DC are regulating every aspect of our behavior, why do we waste the vast resources, that are clearly not helping, on education. Think about the money we would save and could just give to our dear leaders. Then we could have a very standardized educational regimen, where the leaders would come on TV and teach us what we need to know. Think of the additional money they could throw at all our ills, the reparations to the countries and peoples we have wronged, the social engineering, the trough they could provide for us to eat their slop from. What a wonderful, ignorant society we could be.
The blueprint is there, and the elitists and statists keep telling us that their agenda is too complex, we just don't understand, it's hard to simplify and quantify the wonderful accomplishments. Well, why are we so damned stupid? Who has sent us into this moronic tailspin? And, you may say it's a conspiracy theory, but don't you find it a bit interesting that education unions support the statists, who support increasing funding to the teachers, who then do not improve the educational standards?
Bernie Madoff is on line 1 for you Ms. Weingarten, and he wants to applaud you for your legalized graft and ponzi scheme brilliance. If you're as disgusted as I am with the quality of education available to your children, go to your place of worship, your local diner, a parents group and start to see if you can devise a plan to home school. Starve the beast and educate our children the way they deserve to be educated. You don't need to do it full time, you can find like minded parents and share the burden, especially since this government makes it nearly impossible for a parent to stay home and raise children (and I don't think that's a coincidence either). If they permanently corrupt our children, we're done, period. Wake up, take action and take back our future!
Tuesday, October 12, 2010
How to fix healthcare (for real, and it doesn't cost $1T)
I know people are wrapped around the axle about healthcare reform, and pegging things to pre-existing conditions, greedy insurance companies, etc. We can fix a multitude of problems in 2 very simple steps, both of which were created by congress and can simply be removed.
Step one, remove legislation that forces insurance to be a state by state endeavor. This creates excessive regulation, overinflated structures for the companies, and creates wildly different pricing schemes based on the coverage states mandate.
Step two is another simple step. Stop providing tax incentives to employers to provide benefits. This would in turn stop having companies provide benefits to employees, meaning that we would buy health coverage like we do homeowners, car, and life insurance, with our own money. This closes a tax exemption, allows employers to focus more on their core business, and put more money in the pockets of their employees to purchase plans appropriate for them and their families. As people tend to move jobs more frequently now, this removal of employer fed coverage would intrinsically help the pre-existing condition debacle, as you would be covered by a plan once you buy, and take it with you wherever you go.
The great thing about both of these concepts with healthcare is they cost the taxpayer nothing in terms of transfer payments to government. Repealing the cross state law may actually lower taxes and the state level, as we can reduce or eliminate insurance commissioners. Removing the employer incentive would have issues more for the individual, as it would mean more income in our pockets, and may alter the balance sheets because in concert with step one, would actually drive down healthcare costs, meaning more income for the business. This could also serve to reduce some federal sizing, for those responsible for checking in on businesses with regards to their healthcare coverage.
Finally, if we move more of the market to an individually driven model, it helps with people who work as independent contractors, and would inevitably drive the insurance companies to provide new and innovative options in response to the changing market dynamics (you know, how the real free market is to operate under normal conditions). So, it begs the question, why didn't we start there? Why did we try a big bang that is clearly hurting taxpayers, consumers, and employees? Simple solutions tend to work better, and they tend to obfuscate the truth much less than do complex solutions.
Step one, remove legislation that forces insurance to be a state by state endeavor. This creates excessive regulation, overinflated structures for the companies, and creates wildly different pricing schemes based on the coverage states mandate.
Step two is another simple step. Stop providing tax incentives to employers to provide benefits. This would in turn stop having companies provide benefits to employees, meaning that we would buy health coverage like we do homeowners, car, and life insurance, with our own money. This closes a tax exemption, allows employers to focus more on their core business, and put more money in the pockets of their employees to purchase plans appropriate for them and their families. As people tend to move jobs more frequently now, this removal of employer fed coverage would intrinsically help the pre-existing condition debacle, as you would be covered by a plan once you buy, and take it with you wherever you go.
The great thing about both of these concepts with healthcare is they cost the taxpayer nothing in terms of transfer payments to government. Repealing the cross state law may actually lower taxes and the state level, as we can reduce or eliminate insurance commissioners. Removing the employer incentive would have issues more for the individual, as it would mean more income in our pockets, and may alter the balance sheets because in concert with step one, would actually drive down healthcare costs, meaning more income for the business. This could also serve to reduce some federal sizing, for those responsible for checking in on businesses with regards to their healthcare coverage.
Finally, if we move more of the market to an individually driven model, it helps with people who work as independent contractors, and would inevitably drive the insurance companies to provide new and innovative options in response to the changing market dynamics (you know, how the real free market is to operate under normal conditions). So, it begs the question, why didn't we start there? Why did we try a big bang that is clearly hurting taxpayers, consumers, and employees? Simple solutions tend to work better, and they tend to obfuscate the truth much less than do complex solutions.
Sunday, October 3, 2010
Anyone else tired of being called a racist, sexist, homophobic, mean spirited evil hate monger?
Personally, I'm not. You can call me whatever you want. Just stop taking my money and kicking me in the head when you do it. Getting robbed is bad enough, but don't pee in my cereal when you do it. Now the lunatic fringe can call me and you whatever the heck they want. They have to use name calling because, well, they were educated in our union schools and had no thought to question what they were being taught. That's fine too, Lenin and Marx loved their "useful idiots."
Why am I beating the progressive drum again? Because they tried, and failed, miserably, this weekend to draw a crowd to beat up on people who actually want to govern themselves, determine how to educate their kids, and not fund other people's mortgages, tuition bills, and the government's excesses. I guess none of the people that showed up this weekend ever had their mother tell them the old, "can't say something nice, don't say anything at all." Again, they have every right to exercise their first amendment rights, and I'm happy they did. They proved that they have absolutely nothing to contribute to the discourse but more government intrusion, more union thuggery, and more money for causes that will drag us further down the socialist path.
I tried really hard to watch parts of the event, but, I'm sorry, I have better things to do with my weekend than be insulted by people wanting more and more of my earnings. I am not against the people that came to the event, be they paid union folks "compelled" to attend, or those seeking intellectual or spiritual nourishment. I am angered that many of the speeches and speakers focused on rhetoric that takes direct aim at those wishing to beat opposing views into submission. Bring ideas, not diatribes, argue on ideas, not bashing your ideological opponents. Conservatives have the Constitution on their side (the US Constitution), what do you bring to the table?
Before you ask, no, I don't care what you do in your bedroom, bathroom, kitchen, office, car, or anywhere else, or with whom you do it, as long as it doesn't endanger others or cost me money. Social contracts do not involve the government, nor should they, so sorry, you've lost a ton of your ammo to fight me. If I need to explain further, I'm sorry, I'm just too tired to help aim your empty gun at me.
Why am I beating the progressive drum again? Because they tried, and failed, miserably, this weekend to draw a crowd to beat up on people who actually want to govern themselves, determine how to educate their kids, and not fund other people's mortgages, tuition bills, and the government's excesses. I guess none of the people that showed up this weekend ever had their mother tell them the old, "can't say something nice, don't say anything at all." Again, they have every right to exercise their first amendment rights, and I'm happy they did. They proved that they have absolutely nothing to contribute to the discourse but more government intrusion, more union thuggery, and more money for causes that will drag us further down the socialist path.
I tried really hard to watch parts of the event, but, I'm sorry, I have better things to do with my weekend than be insulted by people wanting more and more of my earnings. I am not against the people that came to the event, be they paid union folks "compelled" to attend, or those seeking intellectual or spiritual nourishment. I am angered that many of the speeches and speakers focused on rhetoric that takes direct aim at those wishing to beat opposing views into submission. Bring ideas, not diatribes, argue on ideas, not bashing your ideological opponents. Conservatives have the Constitution on their side (the US Constitution), what do you bring to the table?
Before you ask, no, I don't care what you do in your bedroom, bathroom, kitchen, office, car, or anywhere else, or with whom you do it, as long as it doesn't endanger others or cost me money. Social contracts do not involve the government, nor should they, so sorry, you've lost a ton of your ammo to fight me. If I need to explain further, I'm sorry, I'm just too tired to help aim your empty gun at me.
Monday, September 27, 2010
Wiretapping and the 4th Amendment
"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized." 4th Amendment
I don't know about you, but the language seems pretty clear. When the Bush administration wanted to wiretap phones without a warrant, it violated the Constitution. Period, it was wrong, and I'm not going to listen to the arguments anymore. If you think you have someone involved in criminal or terrorist activity, get a warrant, it shows you have something.
The media jumped on it like he was starving children on TV. He wasn't, but it still wasn't right. The issue now, is that nobody seems concerned in the media. Please don't tell me the whole issue is that the Obama administration is benevolent and the Bush administration was pure evil. Both have contempt for the founding documents and both are completely out of line. Time for everyone to wake up and realize we're being bamboozled on the left and the right. You've been warned, they can listen to your calls, read your emails, and look in on what you read and write on the Internet. No big brother to worry about there!
I don't know about you, but the language seems pretty clear. When the Bush administration wanted to wiretap phones without a warrant, it violated the Constitution. Period, it was wrong, and I'm not going to listen to the arguments anymore. If you think you have someone involved in criminal or terrorist activity, get a warrant, it shows you have something.
The media jumped on it like he was starving children on TV. He wasn't, but it still wasn't right. The issue now, is that nobody seems concerned in the media. Please don't tell me the whole issue is that the Obama administration is benevolent and the Bush administration was pure evil. Both have contempt for the founding documents and both are completely out of line. Time for everyone to wake up and realize we're being bamboozled on the left and the right. You've been warned, they can listen to your calls, read your emails, and look in on what you read and write on the Internet. No big brother to worry about there!
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)