I live deep within “enemy territory”, one of the bluest of blue states.  And every year I see the posturing when budget cuts are proposed – we’ll have to lay off police and firemen, teachers will be living on hardtack and swill, and other over the top claims.  But in the end the governments propose to cut the only even partially effective programs and save the mountains of pork and other entitlements.

Why don’t we turn this around?  Start with a simple, easy to understand baseline – current deficit is $1.5 trillion, proposed 2011 budget is 3.69 trillion.  If we want to drop the deficit by half this year, that’s about $750 billion, about 20% of Obama’s proposed budget.  So now we need to find $750 billion worth of savings, no?

No.  Given the political posturing, simple and straightforward is the only way.  Start with an across the board 20% cut – defense, SS, medicare, everything.  Be clear and forthright to the people as to what this implies – benefits will be cut, lines will be longer, etc.  Hold this as a baseline, and make it clear that there are three choices – a government shutdown, the across the board cuts, or a budget achieving the same savings by substituting greater cuts in some areas for lesser cuts in others.  Rather than die the slow death of a thousand cuts for each and every project being reduced, take the hit up front and force the Democrats to offer up sacrificial lambs to preserve their important projects.

Yes, there will be an initial hit.  But one can then make the case that if we keep delaying by fighting every $5 million dollar project closure then the current system is going to collapse, hard.  If we want to keep these programs we need to cut back, now and in the future, and by significant amounts.  Yes it may hurt some, but people should be clear to their legislators what their preferences are and let them figure out which programs best support that.  No company would fight at the corporate board level over every project and sub-project.  The board sets the major spending levels and lets subgroups figure out how to best meet corporate goals with the funding in question.  Similarly,  Congress can’t continue to fight every small program closure – we need to specify a savings amount and make it stick.

The US Senate has often been described as “the world’s best delibrative body”, and considers itself a model for others.  Given this, it is ironic to me that the democrats in their rush to pass some form of “Universal Health Care” are so brazenly crossing the rubicon that has protected them so much.

The key to the Senate’s operation lies in two main factors – it is not a democratic body, and it is intentionally constructed so that the minority has a significant ability to obstruct, interfere, and generally slow down “progress”.  Although seen as a problem by current Democrats, both of these factors help to ensure that the Senate is not a mere “tyrrany of the majority”, but rather that passage in the Senate presages a greater overall support for legislation by the people themselves.

The Democrats seem ready to throw that all away with their heavy-handed attempts to protect Obamacare.  Pushing everything through in the middle of the night right before Christmas?  Standard fare for politicians who even thieves would be ashamed to call compatriots.  The real concern is the attempt to change the rules to make changing portions of Obamacare against Senate rules without following proper procedure.  While this may seem an arcane bit of Senate parlimentary procedure, the key that this boils down to is simple – we won, therefore the rules are what we say they are.

Why is this such a danger to the senate?  Because if the precedent is set that the rules are merely one more political football, then we’re going to see significant and likely detrimental changes to the political process.  Consider that upon the start of a new session a majority is sufficient to set the rules, especially when the “Presiding Officer” that gets to make the call is elected by the majority party.  If a “just cause” is sufficient to rewrite the rules, why not eliminate the filibuster to take out Obamacare?  Why bother playing by the rules when the other side has shown that their respect for the rules only lasts as long as the rules are of benefit to them?

In the end, this would devolve the Senate into another House of Representatives, where the majority basically runs the show.  Is this really in the best interest of Democrats?  Are they so sure of their majorities and their pet programs that they’re willing to risk this end?  Are they really going to be happier driving us full-speed towards banana-republic status?

I have heard your incredulous cries as to how “anybody” could oppose “health care reform”.  I have heard your pleas about our “rights” to health care, social security, welfare, and the like as our obligations as a “modern, moral” society.  I’ve read the condescending pieces on how we rubes are getting in the way of something that will “help everyone” and that we must not know that which we do.  Let me be clear – I have a PhD from an Ivy League University, and in the process have been immersed in the leftist echo chamber for a long time.  I have seen your arguments, heard your utopian ideals, and I believe you are wrong.  This is not because I expect to profit from the current system, or want to keep anyone “in their place” – it is because I believe your ideas are hopelessly naive and will do more damage to the nation and health care than the greediest profit seeker.

You spin health care as a “right” that should be available to all regardless of their ability to pay, but even you realize that if nobody pays for health care then nobody will provide health care.  Health care is a scarce resource comprised of the intersection of modern technolgy, bio-chemistry, and highly trained doctors and nurses who have put long years of their life into the studies necessary to provide health care at the quality we demand.  Like any other commodity, once overall demand exceeds supplies we must come up with some mechanism for allocating health care to individuals.  In a market system, people looking for more health care pay more for it (or have a third party pay more on their behalf), just as with any other commodity.  If there is not enough supply, prices drift upwards until demand is reduced or supply is increased.  Alternately, we can say that this isn’t “fair” in the case of life and death and set up government “exchanges”, regulations, and price controls to ensure fair and equitable treatment.  Now instead of anyone having free access we are constrained in our choices by government fiat.  It becomes “unfair” to have a policy that doesn’t cover some politician’s pet cause, or that requires out of pocket expendetures for cost containment.  Instead of the chaos of the market we get the corruption of a beauracracy.

As to your “moral, modern” society – I may agree in principle that as a society we should provide health care and certain other limited services whenever possible.  Where I disagree is in providing it through government.  I may believe that we have an obligation to aid starving children in Africa, and I am perfectly able to donate to charities to achieve these goals.  Does that imply that I have a right to break into my neighbors houses and steal their money to donate simply because I feel it is a “moral imperative”, anmd that they are “wasting their money” on frivolities?  If I don’t have the right to do this myself, why is it any better if I act by proxy through the Federal Government?  The neutral “raising revenue” for your moral social programs is outright theft, money taken by threat of force from individuals with no choice but to surrender their money or surrender their liberty.

Even beyond the moral issues of funding, I believe that “government run” itself is a recipe for disaster.  Government claims that they will find “efficiencies” and will make health care more affordable by “taking the profit out”.  Perhaps you missed Econ 101 – the profit is what brings investment dollars into the field in the first place.  Government is and will always be a tool enslaved to the present – an entity seeking to placate the greatest number of current voters at the least current cost.  In the process we’ve racked up $50+ trillion in unfunded mandates “in the future”, and seem determined to double down in this administration.  In contrast, the profit motive drives automobiles, computer technology, and most of the economy in this country.  Yes, the odd GM may drive itself out of business, but were Americans seriously worried that there would be no cars available?  Profit ensures that cars will be made in the quantities Americans desired, and profit ensured that eco-friendly hybrids became available when they were feasible and the demand had built.

These “glorious” social programs are often spoken in terms of mandates – ideas with massive popular support who’s “time has come”.  If this is indeed true, then why is it necessary to pass a government program to make it work – simply open the “Universal Health Care” charity and let the massive number of supporters fund it with their own voluntary donations.  This requires no votes, no taxes, and cannot be obstructed by your political opponents.  The only downside is that you cannot compel donations in a false moral crusade – you must persuade people to voluntarily surrender their hard-earned money to your cause.  If your “mandate” is comprised primarily of net consumers instead of net payers, then your “mandate” reduces to people voting themselves someone else’s money.  That you see no issue with this fact makes me wonder how many of the massive intellects on the left are merely well-schooled idiots spouting pleasant but impossible fictions to a clueless audience.

As for what I want from governmnet, it’s very simple.  Get out of my life and out of my way.  Stop making laws banning activities or items that make you “uncomfortable” but have not been shown to have any positive effect on reducing criminal activities.  Stop inventing “rights” from “emenations and penumbras” that we all “must embrace” while running roughshod over our existing rights.  Stop assuming that you know better than I how to spend my own money, and stop assuming that as Americans we must all act the same way and should all be shielded from the “hard decisions” by the hand of government.  Finally, stop thinking that “winning” means that you can ignore the rights and protections afforded by the Constitution to all Americans regardless of who is currently in power.  Please ask yourself … are your modern Intolerable Acts worth the price they’ll ultimately extract from the country?

Between Congressional projections, the Specter switch, and threats of “creative” use of process to avoid procedural hurdles, there have been bleats of doom and gloom and caterwauling that we don’t have enough Congressmen with “R” by their name to block Obama’s agenda.  This is true, but ultimately this is a small tactical issue, and in focusing on it we ignore the big picture, and the strategic changes that are needed – government won’t be fixed simply by blocking Obama.

There are many problems with Congress and DC – lobbyists and special interests with too much influence, overspending, ever more intrusive legislation, and a growing “nanny state” that chokes growth and constrains the engines of national growth.  While it is cathartic to place the blame on “Democrats” and “RINOs”, we need to face up to reality.  It is not the individuals in Congress that are the root cause of our current malaise, but rather the concentration of cash and power in the Federal government.  Power and money distort ones views and corrupt principles.

As long as lobbyists can get thousands or millions of dollars in government funding and support for each lobbying dollar, there will be lobbyists.  Both the smuggling of illegal drugs and lobbying have similar ROI – if government can’t stop the former despite an actual intent to do so, how likely is it that they will ever truly impact the latter, given that they are themselves the beneficiaries of the lobbying dollars?

Centralized power is also a boon to special interests, as instead of having to fight 50 seperate campaigns against local organizations, they need only fight one.  Instead of having to contend with recalls, ballot initiatives, and other means of popular control, they need only influence a handful of “on the fence” Senators or Representatives to their cause – after all, who even notices a mere $1 billion these days (note to Congress – if you have a spare $1B sitting around please give me a call).

Finally, the current arrangements allow for pandering on a scale that should never have been possible, as they allow us to borrow from international lenders (including a number of poor Chinese families who I’m sure have better uses for their money than propping up spoiled Americans) and pass the bill on to our decendants.  If I could borrow all I wanted and make my neighbor’s sons and daughters pay for it down the line, I’d be phenomenally popular too!

The solution to these problems is not to find better people for Congress (which the Founders clearly understood), but rather to structure the system in such a way as to minimize these conflicts of interest in the first place.  We need to drive to strip power wherever possible from the Federal government and return it to the states – only then will we see a long-term solution to the current morass of DC.

Returning power to the states returns competition to the system – no longer would there be a winner takes all system that once passed can never be changed.  Instead states can take different tacks, and citizens can vote with their feet and dollars if a state is on the wrong track.  States are also far more constricted in their ability to deficit spend – they have no guarantee from their printing press and thus end up evaluated as any other investment by investors, rather than as a super-safe investment.  They also don’t have the ability to hide taxes through inflation, meaning that citizens are going to be taxed to support the “rights” they claim their government must provide.  States would need not only to provide most funding from today’s beneficiaries through overt taxes, but also need to make those services sufficiently attractive to keep taxholders in state.  Without the Federal government collecting and kicking back to the states, each state has the ability to make meaningful changes to the morass of programs and regulations to attract individuals or businesses to their state.

How might this be done?  I would suggest a massive slashing of Federal rules/regulations with the explicit statement that they are being delegated to state authority as per the Tenth Amendment.  Replace it with a simple statement that the intent to evade state law within a sovereign state through inter-state commerce is a Federal crime.

Secondly, sunset all entitlement programs in one year’s time.  For each such program, any State wishing to continue the program at the state level shall be given all necessary information to administer the program that is in the federal government’s control, and shall be granted a portion of any assets accumulated by the program (such as the Social Security Trust fund) based on the state’s relative population.  Let the states decide which programs are worth the cost, but allow no favorites to be played at the Federal level – a true “going out of business” sale for each and every entitlement program, no exceptions.

We’re well past the point where we can sustain the current slew of entitlements in the long term, and Congress has shown time and again that they’re entirely unable to rein in the beast.  We need to return to the solution that we know works – force people to pay for the benefits they’re using.  Not have “the rich” pay “a little more”, not paying tomorrow for a hamburger today, but paying now for today’s benefits.

We’ve all been focused recently on the tactical actions of our government in the current financial crisis.  Recapitalizations.  Bail-outs.  Bridge loans to nowhere.  Stimulus packages.  Anything but actually helping us to solve the fundamental issue of concern – debt.

A major component of the current economic crisis is an overabundance of debt.  Financial companies borrowed in excess to feed leveraged investments to boost returns, encouraged by low lending rates and a long bull market.  Industry overextended itself, expecting that there would always be enough free capital to be found.  And individual citizens took on excessive debt not only in their houses and cars, but on credit cards and other less attractive terms.

So in comes the Fed to recapitalize banks and slash interest rates in the expectation of jump-starting lending.  I can understand this as a short-term measure to unfreeze the credit markets, but in the longer term I cannot understand how one solves a problem of excessive debt load by encouraging people to borrow even more.

Perhaps it’s just my conservative nature, but it seems to this non-politician that the only way for us to deal with excessive debt is to pay it back, and that the best way the government can help with this is to leave us more of our own money to do so.  That rather than tax the productive to send checks to support the unproductive, we should encourage the productive to invest and create jobs to make more of the population productive.  That rather than grow government and cheering the “jobs created” we should be paring government to the bone to reduce the load on society at a difficult time.

Instead we’re getting an ever-expanding “stimulus package” and support programs for all paid for by the middle class (once the rich pay their tax accountants a little more to avoid them).  We’ll make it harder to get a job through minimum wage increases and more expensive to keep employees due to mandated benefits and increased costs.  To help us get out of the recession we’re going to make it harder to get a job, harder to keep a job, and ensure that we get less money if we manage to hold on to a job.

I really fail to understand why this is so attractive to liberals.  Why do we prefer dependency over employment?  Why do we cheer when government takes choices away from us? Why is it that the call to “pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe, in order to assure the survival and the success of liberty” does not apply to our own freedom of contract?

I fear we are heading for a fall, and that far too many of us wish to close our eyes, cartoon style, and hope that if we don’t know we’ve gone over the cliff that we’ll remain aloft.  Because that always worked so well for the coyote.

This is a formal offer to all right-thinking people to get on board with my newest business venture, the Sleek and Cheap Auto Manufacturing concern (SCAM for short). I expect papers to be filed within the week.

Read More →

MA-02 Congressional district. Currently held by Richard E Neal – Democrat obviously. Voted for SCHIP expansion, against FISA reform, against funding Iraq war without surrender timeline, against border enforcement.

Typically runs D+11, ran unopposed in 2002 and 2004 (and possibly much further back). Opposed run by a Communist party member in 1988 garnered ~20% of the vote. Last held by a Republican in 1949. Mass GOP link, for what it’s worth.

When looking at elections we often have “mandatory recounts” that are triggered in a close race. Now, I’m all for ensuring that all ballots are counted and that priovisional or otherwise questionable votes are given the consideration they are due. What I don’t understand is this fetish for recounts “to be fair”.

There is nothing special about recounts – they’re simply another count of the existing ballots. It is known that some fraction of votes can be damaged in a recount (depending on the ballot technology), and there is nothing in a recount that avoids the inevitable (if small) errors that can occur with even the best technology.

So why do we bother? Why substitute a second count (often with a less reliable method such as hand counts instead of automated counts) when effectively you’re just throwing the dice again and hoping the random errors come out the same? It seems it would be easier and less contentious to simply say that there’s one count that gets certified, and further challenges need to prove that there was a significant error in the existing count to justify reopening the results.

Looking over American political history in the “modern era”, there is a clear cyclical pattern – a great wheel of American politics if you will. Looked at from the right, we let “hope” get the better of us and run to the liberal extreme of trying to protect everyone from their bad decisions and control the economy to be more “fair and equitable” and conorm to what we feel is “right” and “just”. When this inevitably collapses we need to bring in a conservative (from either party) to simplify and pare back to get the economy back on track. This leads to the inevitable question of why we don’t just stick with the conservatives and avoid all the trouble.

I think it behooves us all to realize that contrary to our inclinations, BOTH conservative AND liberal ideas do work. The catch is that they are attempting to satisfy two very different desires, and I believe it is the tension between the two that leads to the cyclical nature of American politics.

Read More →

91% favorable from Republicans – John McCain could only dream of that level of support.

Obama won, and the Democrats have significant (but not insurmountable) margins in Congress. In theory, they could do significant damage with this power, and some of the dire predictions are not impossible for Democrats, given the political will.

We would all do well to remember that the Democrat coalition is not a unified socialist majority marching in lockstep to a common drummer, but a collection of interest groups come together to achieve shared goals. It is easy to campaign on “hope” and “change” and nebulous government promises to help people. Far harder is agreeing on priorities and working through the mechanics given the inevitable differing priorities within your coalition.

Read More →

With the election over I’ve seen in multiple forums the idea that moderates are the problem – that we shouldn’t nominate them or suffer them gladly. If only we were ideologically pure we’d have won and driven off Obama.

I can’t abide this. The great failing here was not one of conservatism itself, but nor were the “moderates” to fault, or even the liberals. The greatest failing is a disengagement from the arena of ideas for the arena of conflict. We cannot simply be against liberal socialism as socialism, but must re-engage the public and drag them back to reality.

Read More →

A longish but good read about the downsides of over dependence on polling.

http://www.zombietime.com/leftsbigblunder/

For those who missed it on Fox – John McCain at the Alfred House Dinner. An amusing watch.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iRSmQqw65Pg

Then I saw this endorsement of Obama and realized that all hope is lost. Sorry guys.

Over the past few weeks I have been trying to understand the financial crisis (as I expect many have). It is easy to blame the housing downturn, as that is most likely the immediate cause that popped the bubble, but as I have looked into how we got where we are today, it strikes me that the true causes are more fundamental than the issue of housing. It is more properly an issue of “Free Market Socialism” – a nominally free market that is “managed” by government policy “for the greater good”.

Read More →

I’ve seen a number of “sophisticated” columnists and pundits weigh in on the election and intone gravely that Sarah Palin has become a “problem” for the McCain campaign, and was a bad choice for VP. After reading these, I not only want to call BS on them, but to question if they’re watching the same race I’m watching.

Read More →

Looking forward, I feel that conservatism (and liberalism, although it is not the focus of this work) is at a cross-roads. Many worry about the youth and their embrace of the siren’s song of modern liberalism, and yet manage to miss one of the key facts that will need to be dealt with going forward. Times are changing. This is not 1980, nor is it 1964 – this is 2008, and there is a great deal of cultural, technological, and societal change that needs to be accommodated and understood in the fight for the future.

Read More →

There’s a lot of ire over the bailout, and if it’s the appropriate response (and if a response is really needed in the first place). I’ve seen good arguments on multiple sides as to the issues, problems, and potential solutions (with various “smart important people” weighing in). But this crisis is in part dealing with panic – the market is not acting rationally (either due to the crisis or due to the promise of government involvement). And so our government acts not-entirely-rationally, in the hopes of countering the market issues and enabling forward progress.

What I worry about far more are the looming disasters with our mandatory entitlement spending. Our “entitlements” are pitching over – individual Medicare “trust funds” are starting to be depleted, and the remaining Medicare and Social Security positive balances are starting to narrow. That is, even those funds that still see a surplus are seeing a shrinking surplus in the very near future. As a result, the “extra” cash the government has been using for their pet projects will soon fall off.

Read More →

I’ve seen a number of suggestions/laments on what John McCain should be hitting Barack Obama with on the fiscal/domestic policy front. I’d like to suggest some non-traditional responses to some expected avenues of attack to help throw Obama off his game …

Read More →