Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, campaigning in Florida detailed his plans to, among other things, colonize the moon and declare the celestial body the 51st state after building, and I believe this is the exact quote, “a sweet-awesome moon fort”. He then challenged the other candidates in the Florida debate by boldly declaring “Everything but the podium is lava.”

In all seriousness, this is a needless provocation towards another space race with infinitely higher stakes at a time when the U.S. can absolutely not afford to fund such an outlandish competition. Could we make it to the moon, and have a sustainable colony there by 2020? Absolutely! If we work together with our allies and, I’m not afraid to suggest this as a Socialist, share. Yes, it might seem tempting to point up at the sky and declare “Dibs” but it’s both childish and insane.

Let me spell out why this is dangerous. First of all, it’s the moon. An object about the size of some other planets, or non-planets, in our solar system. What country has the right to declare ownership of an entire celestial body? It seems arrogant to even claim the moon for humanity, yet alone a small segment thereof. More important than the obvious ethical quandary are the material and political consequences: how would this doctrine affect international cooperation on space exploration, for instance, the fact that the Russians are currently letting our astronauts carpool with them?

And can we really expect that Russia, China and the EU will simply agree that we have called it, and therefore they must take their space-balls and go home? Christopher Columbus famously claimed America for Spain, and we’ve all seen how well that went after a century or two of colonial wars. Do we really want to do that again? Granted, there are no natives to enslave and eliminate this time, but you can still have the French and Indian war without the Indians.

Of course, there is a counter argument here, and that counter argument is this: Gundam Wing was a really great anime. We get a moon colony going, start fighting for territory there, then eventually the moon colony rebels against Earth, declares independence, and lasers are getting shot all over the place while a group of androgynousyoungsters pilots massive flying robots in order to… well, the plot is all rather sordid, but the point is, if Newt can claim dibs on the moon, I claim dibs on a giant robot fighting to either liberate or conquer the moon. Good luck, Mr. Gingrich, you’re going to need it.

On the surface, for public consumption by the inattentive, the Obama Administration is saying that the Republicans only gave the Administration 60 days to complete the eco study, since this was piggybacked onto the 60-day extension of the payroll tax cut bill. But the reality is that the Canadian firm TransCanada first applied for the pipeline permit in 2008 and the Administration has been stonewalling and delaying ever since, in deference to the powerful Environmental lobby, a key Democratic voting bloc. This latest “60-day” restriction is risible and transparent. Nebraska is already a veritable roadmap of criss-crossed pipelines; the Keystone line does not represent anything radically new or different. Past environmental studies haven’t turned up any reasons not to go forward. This latest decision by Obama is significant mainly for its newness, public visibility, and symbolism.

There are other issues at play here. Major environmental groups are opposed to new oil production anywhere around the U.S. There are several reasons: They feel oil is ‘unclean,’ and the longer we are wed to it, the longer that delays cleaner sources like solar, battery, and hydrogen from reaching the market. They feel the fossil fuel extraction process is environmentally-punishing, and we need to stop “violating” the earth merely to satisfy our energy desires. And there is an undeniable undercurrent of feeling among liberal Green environmentalists—that comes through quite clearly—that so-called Big Energy is the domain of rich, capitalistic, “1%” white Republicans, smoking their expensive cigars and drinking their single-malt Scotch in the inner sanctums of discriminatory, exclusive clubs, and those people need to be punished, and punished badly.

The first two reasons are demonstrably false. Using oil in the near-term does not “delay” the development or deployment of new, cleaner energy sources in the future. As I’ve written many times before, our capitalistic system with its profit motive is the best device for bringing new inventions and superior solutions—in all fields, not just energy— into existence as fast as possible. An untold fortune in profits awaits the company or individual who devises the first large-scale economically-viable alternative to fossil fuel-based energy. The alternative(s) could not possibly be brought into existence faster under a different economic system than ours; certainly not by an inefficient, bureaucratic, somewhat corrupt centrally-managed Government-controlled economic system.

As far as the ecological effects of fossil-fuel extraction, the US does this better than anywhere else in the world. Our technology, our EPA, and the threat of crushing punitive legal action by our army of domestic ambulance-chasing, know-no-ethical-bounds private-practice lawyers keeps things operating on a more efficient, cleaner level than anywhere else, by far. Next time you travel to mainland China, bring a gasmask for the stench of open garbage-burning piles and the unbreatheable smog from unfiltered coal-fired power plants. That can’t—and doesn’t—happen here.

(As for the third reason above, that will not change.)

Yet there is another, more subtle, more insidious, far less obvious gambit at play here.

President Obama has never made any secret of his desire to promote the Green sector, for both good-intentioned and coldly-calculating political reasons.

Unfortunately, Green technology—as defined by Obama and the hard-core Environmental lobby—is not yet ready for “prime time,” as the saying goes. Large-scale solar panel electric generation, hybrid/electric cars, biofuels and all the other pet projects of the Left are abject failures when it comes to the open energy market. Left to their own devices—absent huge Government subsidies—the various Green technologies remain peripheral, bit players in our overall energy picture. They’re simply still too expensive and consumers vote with their wallets, choosing conventional fossil-based energy, since these energy sources are the best value.

But if Green can’t be made less expensive, how about if we make fossil more expensive? All that counts is the absolute differential—the delta—between the two. If that can be made small enough, then Green—the good guys—can win.

That is what is quite likely at play here: President Obama is rigging the game to restrict the supply of oil and cause the price of oil to rise, in order to make Green energy look better in comparison to fossil fuels then it otherwise would in a free, open market. Restricting the supply of local oil also keeps us more dependent on unfriendly foreign suppliers and worsens our balance of trade payments, something even the casually-attentive American recognizes and hates. If the choice is either buy more oil from the sheiks and mullahs of the Middle East (because Obama has seen to it that we can’t increase our local oil supply) or switch to domestic Green energy for about the same price as Mid-East oil, then guess which one people will choose?

This is very clever on his part, and it’s entirely consistent with his aim of re-making America into the kinder, softer, less intrusive egalitarian society that he envisions. As for the supposed job losses we will suffer by not proceeding with the Keystone project, that’s a small (and very temporary, he hopes) price to pay for good standing with the powerful Environmental lobby, and anyway, there will no doubt be multiple opportunities to repay the Unions somewhere down the line.

Of course, some will say that Obama hasn’t thought things through this thoroughly. They’ll say he’s just a fool.

Now a prominent Republican has a plan of the same ilk. Rick Santorum would, like Barack Obama, create most favored industries. Any company that claims to “manufacture” would pay no income tax. Much like the current President’s policy of “stimulating”, Santorum’s plan is a de facto stimulus for manufacturing that would cause the limited amount of capital in the market to be used in a less efficient manner as it would be if all businesses were treated equally.

The President has championed welfare, extending unemployment payments for up to 99 weeks. Santorum’s plan is also a model of welfare for a select group that he prefers. Santorum, who chose to have seven children, would triple the child tax credit, greatly subsidizing those who choose to have children because he wants to encourage population growth. Rather than providing more government handouts, this goal would be much, much easier to accomplish with real, fast tracked, simplified immigration reform. Rather than creating welfare dependents from birth, make it quick and easy for people to immigrate the US who are ready to work, grow the economy, and pay taxes, rather than receive handouts.

What is perhaps most amazing is that Santorum’s plan has not received anywhere near the same level of scrutiny that former candidate Herman Cain’s plan did. The 9-9-9 plan was widely assailed when it essentially equated to a 20% flat tax for individuals, 9% for corporations, and the assumption that competitive pressures would drive prices down further. However, Cain’s plan was far, far superior to Santorum’s in that it treated corporations and individuals equally, which would allow markets to decide the most efficient use of their limited capital in contrast to the government steering the economy and family size in the way its current leadership thinks is best.

History has proven, planned economies simply do not work as well as free economies. Rick Santorum would introduce a Barack Obama-style planning to the economy that would ensure the current economic malaise will continue for beyond 2013.

Many of you may have heard of the Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA). SOPA is a new bill that recently came out of the House Judiciary Committee. Its intent is obvious, to put a stop to online piracy. In particular SOPA “specifically targets foreign website primarily dedicated to illegal activity or foreign websites that market themselves as such”.

First a word about online piracy. For some reason there is a fair amount of controversy surrounding online piracy, and some have even argued that piracy does not amount to theft.  I completely disagree.  Piracy is stealing, plain and simple.

SOPA’s intent is admirable but its methods are not. SOPA gives the federal government the authority to shut down any domain it suspects is involved in piracy, without a trial. What’s worse is SOPA’s definition of piracy involvement is so broad that a site with a single link to copyrighted material is considered to be in violation, and it doesn’t matter if that link was posted by an outside party on the site’s forums. This should be a huge concern to anyone that values Civil Liberties.

SOPA could easily be abused to tear down our first amendment rights.  The Internet has become the location for political discourse.  While SOPA’s intent might be to eliminate online piracy, it gives the US Government the power to do much more.  Under SOPA the US Government could easily abuse its broadened powers to shut down sites that it has a problem with, similar to how countries like China can use their powers to censor content on the Internet.

Not only does SOPA threaten our civil liberties, but SOPA also discourages innovation. Today’s Internet relies heavily on the idea of user created content. Think about some of the most popular websites, such as YouTube, Facebook, Wikipedia, the New York Times, or even Political Derby. Almost all of these sites allow users to post their own content, whether it be their amateur videos, their status updates in Facebook, or comments on a news article or opinion piece. The idea that anyone can contribute their own content is at the center of the Internet, and SOPA will put that at risk. It is impossible for these sites to police every piece of content that is submitted.  For this reason, either copyrighted material or links to copyrighted materials can be found on almost all of these sites. Since it is technically impossible for these sites to exist and still comply with SOPA, SOPA will effectively kill off these sites or at the least kill off major features of these sites.

SOPA further discourages innovation by favoring entrenched Corporations from innovative competitors. One of the great innovations of the Internet is it lowers the barrier to create and distribute content. Previously, large publishing houses had complete control over what content got published, but that has come to an end.  YouTube is a prime example of an Internet site that offers plenty of legitimate competition to these large publishing houses, and not surprisingly these large publishing houses are major supporters of SOPA. Talk about picking winners and losers.

One of the most shocking developments on SOPA is how much support it is receiving in Congress.  SOPA enjoys bi-partisan support in Congress. This should be surprising, because SOPA would appear to fly in the face of key principles for both parties. Republicans have been making the claim that large Government regulations destroy jobs, curb innovations, and threaten individual liberty. Likewise Democrats make the claim that they stand for the common American, the party that protects our rights from corporate abuses. However by supporting SOPA both parties are betraying their core values and their constituents, in favor of supporting narrow corporate interests.

No matter what party you belong to, SOPA should concern you. Congress is correct to conclude that SOPA is a non-partisan issue, but they chose the wrong side. We should demand better from our representatives. We did not elect these officials to cater to the narrow interests of the MPAA and the RIAA. We elected these members of Congress to represent us. Whether you are a Republican demanding less Government intrusion or a Democrat demanding protection from corporate abuses, your interests are not being represented by Congress on this issue.

While SOPA’s intent of eliminating piracy is admirable it’s methods are not. Piracy is a real problem, but that doesn’t mean that we apply a heavy handed solution like SOPA to solve this problem. With every piece of legislation we need to weigh the cost of the legislation with its benefits. SOPA threatens our civil liberties, and it threatens innovation on the Internet. The cost of SOPA is too high, and it should be rejected.

This is the very same Herman Cain that did not know whether he was for or against Obama’s Libya policy and falsely claimed that the Taliban was playing a role in Libya’s new government.  This is also the same guy that insisted that leaders don’t need to know anything about world affairs, they just need to provide clarity and a competent staff.  In an interview with The Daily Caller, Cain had this to say about the expertise needed to be Secretary of Defense:

You don’t need to have defense expertise.  You don’t even need to have military expertise.  You need to have leadership expertise.  That’s what I would bring to that job.

I can buy that for the Presidency.  No one is going to be an expert in fiscal policy and be an expert in military strategy.  However, it’s absurd to think that if your sole job is to manage the Pentagon, you wouldn’t have any experience… at all.

As many PD’ers know, I was a Cain supporter very early on.  However, when it gets to the point where I have no rational explanation for my candidate more often than not, I have to cut my losses.  I was hoping that Cain could repair his image and coherently refute the allegations against him, but, unfortunately, it doesn’t look like time away has served him well.

I could fully support him as Secretary of Treasury.  His 9-9-9 Plan was a solid plan and I would love for him to be in a position where he could influence fiscal policy.  However, he’s giving me more and more reason to put write him off as either a kook or an arrogant wanna-be politician.

For some it’s abortion. For others, it’s taxes. For others still, it same-sex marriage. Here’s the thing- Everyone has an issue.

My issue? Women’s Rights.

I support this by participating in multiple forms of activism and…by not voting people into office that hate me.

In a local election, Senator Jim DeMint ran against Candidate Alvin Greene. DeMint’s credentials far exceeded Greene’s (probably due to the fact that Greene had no credentials). On the other hand, DeMint has been cited several times with sexist commentary- and I am sorry, retracting statements after discussing it with your campaign manager doesn’t fly with me. Guess who got my support? That’s right, the guy with no experience and no credentials.

I know there are many other issues out there to be dealt with and that this nation is in peril, but I can’t vote for someone who does not see me as an equal due to my race, religion, or sex. It’s kind of a deal breaker.

I am not a big Obama fan for many reasons. Because this post is about one particular piece of my political views, it should suffice for me to say I would really like someone else in office. So I dug in to the republican frontrunners for the upcoming primary, and first things first, I compare their views on women.

From my research, Candidate Romney is “evolving” in his tolerance of women. What does that say to me? It says he’s not there yet, and needs to be told that I am through being tolerated; I am an equal.

Romney, Candidate Paul, and Candidate Gingrich have spoken out against Planned Parenthood, claiming that its abortionist ways are not something that should be supported with taxpayer dollars. Here’s a newsflash- Planned Parenthood is not all about handing out abortions. In fact, they are pro-avoiding abortions with options like birth control. Now there’s a super radical idea.

Gingrich has stated that he wants to inject religion back into schools. What? No, thank you. I have two different ideas about this.

First, as far as women’s interests go, religion is, quite honestly, a stumbling block. Most religions are patriarchal. This may be suitable in your religious establishment, but it has no place in running a country where over half of the population is female. Patriarchy holds women back by teaching that women should always be in the role of support. This country already runs on the patriarchal model- why in the world would I want to exacerbate this by pumping religion into the mix.

Second, when Gingrich says he wants to put “religion” back into schools, I am positive he means “Christianity,” and of course he doesn’t mean all Christianity, he means mainstream Christianity. This doesn’t include you if you hold anything besides the beliefs of mainstream Christianity. Apologies. Sure, we have religious freedom, but be prepared to be penalized and ostracized if you have other beliefs.

But I mentioned Paul up there, too, didn’t I? His desire to sign a Ban on Planned Parenthood isn’t the biggest feminist beef. Paul states outright that he doesn’t believe in equal pay for equal jobs. Say what? I’ve got an idea, let’s give all women a forty percent raise and men and thirty percent demotion and see how fired up about equal pay we can get.

Candidate Bachmann is avoiding the subject all together. Go on, try to find her stance on anything gender related. When I first began volunteering as a court advocate, I wore pants and always had my hair pulled back to be as “business-like” as possible so I would be more easily taken seriously. It turns out that what I considered “business-like” and “serious” was also what I considered to be less feminine and more masculine (I have since seen the light on that, but that’s a story for another day). I have to wonder if that is Bachmann’s approach here. Is she just ignoring women’s issues because that will take away from the seriousness of her campaign? If so, that seems pretty bogus. Women have been ignored with our many WASP males in office, they don’t need to be ignored with a woman in office.

And a big thank you to Herman Cain for suspending his candidacy so I don’t have to rip apart his views on women because, let’s face it, “allegations” are when it can’t be proven that you sexually harassed two women who won’t actually speak out about it. Guilty is when four women come forward and a thirteen year mistress. Good going.

Back to President Obama. Again, I am not crazy about him for MANY reasons, and I would like to see another person in office. However, he seems to care about a few “Women’s Issues” ( I use quotes because I think of them as regular issues because they affect over half of the population). I particularly like the Lily Ledbetter Fair Pay Act (Equal pay for equal jobs) and his involvement to increase women participation in STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering, and Math) subjects.

It goes back to everyone having an issue; one particular hurdle that a representative, whether in the White House or other office, has to clear to get support, with all other hurtles being secondary. As a woman, I don’t care to be tolerated, ignored, or tracked into a supporting role. What I need- what women need- is an advocate.

I do not care what the issue is, the attitude and actions of legislating by executive order rather than by the process established by the Constitution is wrong. The President of the United States dictating laws from his desk are the actions of just that–a dictator.

In reality, corporations exist for one purpose, and one purpose alone: To make money. That is it. If a corporation were not successful in making money, any other stated purpose for its existence would be irrelevant as it would cease to exist. Now watch as the Occupy Wall Street crowd is confronted with this fact.

The plan starts with giving Americans a choice between a new, flat tax rate of 20% or their current income tax rate. The new flat tax preserves mortgage interest, charitable and state and local tax exemptions for families earning less than $500,000 annually, and it increases the standard deduction to $12,500 for individuals and dependents.

In other words, if you are part of the 47 percent of Americans who pay no federal income taxes today, you still won’t pay any income taxes. Everyone whose effective tax rate is higher than 20 percent would take this option, which includes most of the top 20 percent of income earners and very few others. Additionally, every high income earner using the mortgage interest tax credit on a multi-million dollar jumbo loan will continue to benefit and drive the effective 20 percent no-so-flat tax rate down.

In other words, this plan would actually be a disaster for revenues and this is where Perry’s plan only begins to stumble.

Temporarily lower the rate to repatriate funds to 5.25%.

It is important to bring our capital back for investment in our country, but a temporary fix is a waste. It will only create a bubble, a nice surge that will help the economy enough so the the incumbent President is more likely to gain reelection. You either believe in allowing funds to be repatriated or you do not. Otherwise, you are no different than President Bush in sending out reelection payoffs “stimulus” checks to the masses.

Reduce the corporate tax rate to 20%.

This is this most sensible measure in Perry’s plan. It would put business on an even playing field, assuming he does not have hidden deductions making the tax not really flat, as he does in the optional personal “flat” income tax. A lower tax rate for business would free up capital for investment and growth. A flat tax would provide certainty for the future, also encouraging growth.

Eliminate the tax on Social Security benefits, boosting the incomes of 17 million current beneficiaries who see their benefits taxed if they continue to work and earn income in addition to Social Security earnings.

The real problem is we are paying people to not work through Social Security who are perfectly capable of working. Some of these people actually want to work. Perry’s proposal does not solve the actual problem. A real solution would encourage people to work without drawing Social Security, such as providing the option for people eligible to draw Social Security to continue working 100 percent federal tax free (income, payroll, etc.) until the day they choose to take Social Security. This solution would allow people the dignity of working when it is still possible for them to work, potentially making more income, while simultaneously preserving the Social Security program for those who actually are in need of it. Perry’s plan is simply designed to win votes, not fix anything.

A clear goal of balancing the budget by 2020.

In the real world, no plans, especially those made by the federal government, will remain intact nine years from now, let alone next year. Congress has not even passed a budget for several years (we have been operating under a series of continuing resolutions). Over the time frame from now until 2020, the entire House of Representatives will have been up for reelection five times (including 2020), and the entire Senate one and one third times. The only realistic way the budget becomes balanced is in the President’s first term.

Passing a Balanced Budget Amendment to the Constitution

There is a whole lot more to this than saying “hey, we’re going to pass a balanced budget amendment!” Amending the Constitution is  significant process. Although I agree with this sentiment, Perry is throwing it in here as political rhetoric.

Freezes federal civilian hiring and salaries until the budget is balanced.

This is common sense. It is exactly what business does when it is facing economic difficulties.

Overall, Perry is trying to gain the notoriety earned by Herman Cain by proposing a so-called flat tax. But in reality, with it being “optional”, it is all talk and with the exemptions it allows, it is not a flat tax. This plan is intended only the lower the taxes of the top 20 percent of income earners without requiring any contribution from the bottom 47 percent of income earners who pay nothing today. I’m all for lowering the tax rates of those who are forced to pay all the taxes in this country, but only when the tax burden is fairly distributed. A true flat tax would tax every income earner at exactly the same rate, with no loopholes or exceptions whatsoever. Then people would choose how to spend their money in whatever way was most economically beneficial to them, rather that the way the tax code dictates.

Being advised by the great mind of Steve Forbes, I expected so much more from Rick Perry. This however, is a unmitigated disaster.

These plans are not entirely comparable, as each addresses different issues, so note that this post is not intended to be a comprehensive analysis. Rather, it is intended to show that the plans cannot necessarily be compared.

Romney’s plan is focused on supply side, or job creation, not federal spending or receipts (somewhat assuming the job creation helps to fix those issues).

Cain’s plan is intended to be revenue neutral, but does not reduce federal spending, leaving us at our current deficits and adds yet another means for the federal government to tax Americans (also somewhat assuming job creation through his simplified plan fixes the spending issues).

Paul’s plan cuts both revenue and spending, but more so spending to the point of a balanced budget within three years without addressing all the loopholes in the federal income tax while reducing the corporate tax to 15%, rather than 9% plus 9% sales tax (which may be seen or unseen in total retain prices, dependent upon price elasticity).

Despite the plans not being exactly comparable, if there would be one to select, it would be Paul’s plan. It is mathematically impossible to reduce our debt by increasing taxes (revenues). Paul’s plan addresses this through significant budget cuts. Additionally, I would much rather see a 15% corporate tax than yet another tax in the form of a national sales tax because the federal government rarely relinquishes any means of taxation.

Highlights of Paul’s plan are after the jump.

-Balanced budget within three years

-Cuts $1 trillion in spending year one

-Honors our promise to our seniors and veterans, while allowing young workers to opt out

-Makes a 10% reduction in the federal workforce, slashes Congressional pay and perks, and curbs excessive federal travel. To stand with the American People, President Paul will take a salary of $39,336, approximately equal to the median personal income of the American worker.

-Lowers the corporate tax rate to 15%, making America competitive in the global market. Allows
American companies to repatriate capital without additional taxation, spurring trillions in new investment. Extends all Bush tax cuts. Abolishes the Death Tax. Ends taxes on personal savings, allowing families to build a nest egg.

-Repeals ObamaCare, Dodd-Frank, and Sarbanes-Oxley. Mandates REINS-style requirements for thorough congressional review and authorization before implementing any new regulations issued by bureaucrats. President Paul will also cancel all onerous regulations previously issued by Executive Order.

-Conducts a full audit of the Federal Reserve and implements competing currency legislation to strengthen the dollar and stabilize inflation.

From CNN:

Occupy Wall Street is on the move … uptown.

Why uptown? Because that’s where the rich folks live!

Organizers are planning a march on Tuesday that will visit the homes of JP Morgan Chase (JPM, Fortune 500) CEO Jamie Dimon, billionaire David Koch, hedge fund honcho John Paulson, Howard Milstein, and News Corp (NWSA, Fortune 500) CEO Rupert Murdoch.

The millionaires and billionaires are being targeted for what event organizers called a “willingness to hoard wealth at the expense of the 99%.”

Well you know what? If asking a billionaire to pay the same tax rate as a plumber or teacher makes me a warrior for the working class, I’ll wear that charge as a badge of honor. Because the only class warfare I’ve seen is the battle that’s been waged against the middle class in this country for a decade.

When in reality the middle class, or middle quintile, of earners under current law pay an effective (“effective means actual percentage of income paid in taxes, after all deductions) federal tax rate of 14.1% compared with the top 20% of earners paying 25.5% of income in taxes and the Warren Buffets of the world, or top 0.1% of earners, pay 30.4%

Meanwhile, the Obama administration has paid the state of Oregon a $5 million bonus for signing up so many of its citizens on food stamps!

While to President rails on the rich, he is also working to increase dependency on the government. Although both parties have long championed the purchase of votes through social programs, Obama seems to be taking class warfare to a new extreme as his method to keep himself and further bring his party into power.

Considering that a majority of American pay no federal income taxes, it is not hard to see where this is going. Maybe we should review how similar tactics worked out when another world leader referred to one class of his people as “bloodsuckers, vampires, and plunderers of the people and profiteers, who fatten on famine.”

But as I watch the deconstruction of this parking lot outside my window I see power drills and wrecking balls, not precision surgeon scissors and scalpels. The job would never get done if we used those instruments. America is not financially stable enough where we need to only make minor adjustments and small cuts.

We don’t need more taxes, class warfare, and vague entitlement cuts. We are not some pristine sculpture that only needs to be sanded. At this point, America is like this broken up parking garage that I currently am staring at. We need to cut out all the government excess before we can invest and rebuild in a new building.

America need serious and meaningful changes to our entitlements programs, defense spending, and tax code. Obama has elected not to touch the tax code and social security. You want to know why? Because he can’t figure out a way to sell it politically. This president will never do anything without thinking about his poll numbers first (not like that has helped him recently).

Everyone knows it has to happen, so we need to equip ourselves with the right tools to get the job done. In the coming weeks we will see if Obama is ready to work with the right tools and work with Republicans to come up with something that isn’t dead on arrival in the House and isn’t a complete waste of time.

Each politician has an answer to our economic woes that attempts to lay out their own philosophy and set themselves apart from the crowd. President Obama is trying to create a program that will save his own job in 2012, while the Republican candidates are trying to contrast themselves with both their competitors and the current occupant of 1600 Pennsylvania Ave.

Some refuse to spend a penny more on government programs, others want to raise taxes to pay for their programs, still others abjectly refuse to raise anything that looks like a tax. All of this tinkering is well and good, but with the partisan divide in Washington and throughout the country, the country needs a vision of where it is going, not what they are wearing enroute. The details obviously must follow, but they mean nothing if leadership does not spell out the direction overall.

Here is what I would preach as a vision, with some simple fixes to get us going. The rest of the details can be handled after the initial steps and direction are laid out.

Stability. Literally hundreds of businesses are floundering , holding back cash from the market place, unsure of what their future obligations will be due to regulations in flux, proposed tax code changes, interest rates and inflation. Bringing stability to the market place will be the biggest benefit for companies and individuals trying to decide what they can afford in the future.

1. Place a 5 year moratorium on new regulations. Right or wrong, the country has survived with what we have now (and less). US Industry will not kill thousands of people in the next few years if we don’t enact the literally thousands of regulations being written and re-written. Many would like to see the death of already-enacted regulations, the changes of others, but business right now will benefit from the stability of the ‘known.’

2. Change the mandate of the Fed back to only monetary stability, and not job creation. Fluctuations in the interest rates and the rapid increases in the money supply may help in the short term for lending power/availability, but the long-term inflation risks hurt. Cheap money is not always good money.

3. Freeze the tax code for 5 years. I hate it as it is. Many people either want it more progressive or less, less complicated, or changed completely in how we collect revenue for the government operating costs. 5 years is not the perfect answer, but it gives business a chance to plan, outlay expenses, and invest in a longer-term strategy. The fear of waiting 5 years for a politician is the lost chance to craft it in their favor, but that will have to wait. They can instead spend time building a tax code that is not driven by the immediate elections, and that makes more sense.

Live within our means. Short-term debt is often necessary, expected, and an effective way to run the financial aspects of the government. The current and planned obligations of the federal government, however, are reaching a crippling level. The talk of draconian cuts are political show for now, but soon will be very real as we risk defaulting on our obligations and failing at the most basic responsibilities of government–defense and legal protection of its citizens under the law.

1. End baseline budgeting. The biggest mathematical sham sold to the American public, baseline budgeting assumes an increase in government spending that far exceeds inflation, or realistic increases in the cost of the programs. Simply zeroizing growth in government programs, and forcing every program to fight for even inflationary increases, would rein in a large percentage of the projected deficits.

2. Truly put social security in a ‘lock box.’ Restore to people the trust that Social Security is not in fact a Ponzi Scheme, instead of what it has definitely become. This would force the rest of the government to more fully live within its means, instead of raiding money from a program that is already bleeding red.

3. Cap our ‘donations’ to the United Nations as a percentage of our GDP in comparison to the rest of the world, and do not allow standard government increases in costs while the rest of the world suffers in recession. We have given up our land, paid most of the bills, and received few benefits from an organization that legitimizes thugs in suits. Its time those thugs pay their portion of the bill.

There are a million other requirements to address our economic instability and governmental growth, but the country first has to overlook its differences and get moving in the right direction. Republicans are never going to agree to a tax hike, and Democrats are never going to agree to a disintegration of the Environmental Protection Agency. But sane Americans of any political ilk recognize that the status quo is killing us, and will never solve our current woes. The short-term answer lies in stability and a reasonable approach to shoring up the faith we all put in the dollar and that we should have in our government’s ability to provide us basic services.

Not yet, anyway.

Exhibit 1: The Solyndra Corporation. A supposed cutting-edge manufacturer of solar panels, their costs and basic business model were so flawed that over a year ago, they were accurately predicted to fail and run out of money in September 2011.

Yet despite more than adequate forewarning, the Obama Administration went forward with a half-billion dollar loan guarantee that’s now lost—and the U.S. taxpayer is on the hook for the entire amount. Worse, it’s now apparent that it was done for PR gain and to score cheap political points.

As a way of background, what free-market successes can the Government point to in the last 50 or 100 years? What does the balance sheet look like? FM radio? Color TV? Stereophonic sound? The CD player? The automatic transmission? The drip coffee maker? The 747 airliner? The CAT Scan machine? Lipitor? These and thousands and thousands of others in all fields of endeavor are the result of private industry taking a chance on a new market, using privately-generated profit dollars at their own risk in hopes of creating a market success that will deliver profit to the originating entity.

Is it cut and dried? Is Government help in the way of tax breaks or research grants sometimes part of the equation? Of course it is. But on the whole, the vast majority of great Western cultural-changing inventions and developments in the past century have come from private companies using mostly private capital in search of profits.

For the Obama Administration to declare that they—the U.S. Government!—will determine the course of what free-market energy sources will succeed and which will fail was folly from the outset. US consumers will determine—as they always have and as long as they’re allowed to—what they want to buy, whether it’s energy, flat-screen TVs or new cars.

Even the heavily-liberal Comedy Central covered the Solydra affair in an Obama-mocking fashion.

Nonetheless, the prediction here is that once this obligatory early-phase reporting of the matter by the MSM is over, the entire story will be dropped as quickly by the MSM as they can credibly do it, lest it becomes a distraction to their Obama cheerleading.

Any further follow-up reporting on the matter by Fox News or any mention of it by a Republican Presidential contender will be framed by the MSM as unwarranted “piling on,” and the blame will shift, predictably, to the messenger, away from the Liberal perpetrators.

The only exception to the above is if someone discovers proof of a dripping bloody knife being held by a very high-ranking Obama Administration official (that’s a metaphor, of course!), in which case self-preservation of reason-to-exist sets in, and the MSM will pursue that storyline to save their own relevance.

But absent the bloody knife, this story’s gone in short order.

As most PD regulars know, I am no fan of Rick Perry and certainly not one to defend him, nor am I defending him now, but Bachmann made a couple of assertions that were blatantly false.

Bachmann Claim: Little girls who have a negative reaction to this potentially dangerous drug don’t get a mulligan.

Facts

• According to the CDC, of the 35 million doses distributed, 0.0044% of patients have had serious side effects
• After conducting extensive research, Texas Children’s Hostipal, arguably the world’s best pediatrics hospital, recommends the HPV vaccination for both adolescent males and females as a preventative measure

Bachmann talks about scaring seniors related to social security and medicare, but she’s scaring parents away from a drug that may be able to prevent their child from getting cancer.  If the CDC and Texas Children’s says it’s safe, then it’s safe.  If she believes differently, I’d love to know on what research she is basing her information.

Bachmann Claim: The Governor’s former Chief of Staff was the Chief Lobbyist for this drug company.  The drug company gave thousands of dollars in political donations to the Governor.

Facts

• Mike Toomey, Perry’s former Chief of Staff, is a Partner in The Texas Lobby Group and is widely regarded as one of the top lobbyists in Texas.  Merck was listed as one of his clients in 2009
• Merck’s PAC gave Perry $6,000 for his re-election campaign
• At the time, there was no other alternative to Garadsil, the HPV vaccination, on the market

Bachmann is way off on this one.  First, if you are regarded as one of the top lobbyists in Texas, the big companies like Merck are going to flock to you.  As a lobbyist, you probably aren’t going to turn away a client like Merck.  Second, Merck’s PAC gave Perry $6,000.  So what?  Third, most mandated vaccinations started out or are still the only option on the market.  For example, only within the last couple of years has there been an option in meningitis vaccinations.  Gardasil did not have a competitor until October 2009, over two years after the controversy in Texas.

I did not support Rick Perry in his attempt to mandate the HPV vaccination (or much of anything else for that matter).  Although I would make sure my child received the vaccine, I am in agreement with Bachmann that it is not the government’s place to require children to receive vaccinations, particularly when the illness will not infect the mass population, such as measles.  That said, Bachmann needs to focus her energy on the appropriateness of the mandate rather than making up facts that will scare people away from a good vaccine and creating a scandal that doesn’t exist.

When he says: We need to put politics aside and pass the three pending trade bills.

What he means is: I’ve been holding these bills up for more than two years, but I want to make it look like it’s the Republicans’ fault, and I know I can count on my lap dog media friends not to call me on this blatant falsehood.

When he says: We need to focus on jobs.

What he means is: After $830 billion in stimulus spending, an auto bailout, cash for clunkers and several other multibillion-dollar “jobs” bills, none of which has worked, we need to try more of the same, but please don’t call it a stimulus.

When he says: It’s time to put country ahead of party.

What he means is: If you don’t pass my plan, you’re unpatriotic.

When he says: Our politics are broken.

What he means is: Republicans stubbornly refuse to act like potted plants.

When he says: We need to invest in infrastructure.

What he means is: We need to put more money into the pockets of my public union friends, even though we know from last year that pouring tens of billions of dollars into road projects won’t create jobs

When he says: We need to extend the payroll tax cut and unemployment benefits.

What he means is: I’m completely out of ideas on how to get this economy moving, since these two ideas have already been tried and failed.

When he says: We need temporary, targeted business-tax credits.

What he means is: The government knows best, otherwise, I’d propose an across-the-board tax cut and let the free market sort things out.

When he says: I’ve been aggressively cutting job-choking regulations.

What he means is: I scraped up a few minor rules we can toss overboard, while at the same time I pile up far more expensive new ones.

When he says: To show how serious I am about regulatory reform, I just put off an EPA smog rule.

What he means is: I’m so desperate to get reelected, I’ll try anything. But when I do get reelected, that EPA rule will be the first thing I reinstate.

When he says: We need to invest in clean energy jobs of the future.

What he means is: Pay no attention to all those failed taxpayer-supported “green” companies over there.

A few weeks ago, Schultz called on fellow executives to sign a pledge to stop donating to political campaigns until Washington can pass a bi-partisan, fiscally-disciplined deal to reduce the deficit.  In addition, he asked that the executives also agree to accelerate hiring within their businesses to assist in the economic recovery.

Schultz has written two open letters to America.  Although Schultz is a lifelong Democrat, he equally criticizes both sides of the aisle for partisanship and a complete lack of fiscal discipline, which he refers to as a ‘crisis of confidence’.  The following is an excerpt from his latest letter, but you can read the full letters here.

And I am a beneficiary of the promise of America.  But today, I am very concerned that at times I do not recognize the America that I love.

Like so many of you, I am deeply disappointed by the pervasive failure of leadership in Washington.  And also like you, I am frustrated by our political leaders’ steadfast refusal to recognize that, for every day they perpetuate partisan conflict and put ideology over country, America and Americans suffer from the combined effects of paralysis and uncertainty.  Americans can’t find jobs. Small businesses can’t get credit.  And the fracturing of consumer confidence continues.

We are better than this.

His letters and the pledge are very bold moves for any executive, much less one of a large, public company.  Leaders of these types of businesses often blow with the political wind to remain in favour with the party in power.  It’s almost unheard of for one to publicly speak out against Washington, as Schultz has, because it could result in many forms of backlash from offended politicians.

Few thought that his pledge would gain any traction, but in a few short weeks, he has garnered signatures from over 150 business leaders, such as Tim Armstrong, Chairman and CEO of AOL, Bob Greifeld, CEO of NASDAQ, Doug Hertz, CEO and President of United Distributors, Duncan Niederaur, CEO of the New York Stock Exchange, Walter Robb, Co-CEO of Whole Foods, Myron Ullman, CEO of JCPenney.

In addition, Schultz has founded Upward Spiral.  It is intended as a platform for business leaders and individuals alike to show bi-partisan discontent with Washington and the direction of this country.  Last night, Upward Spiral and No Labels (an organization that believes parties need to be put aside to move this country forward), held a national town hall meeting, headlined by Schultz, to discuss how to get America back on track.  Click here to watch the full town hall.

Schultz may not be locking Obama and the leaders of Congress in his library as Morgan did so many years ago, but he’s doing something that is even more powerful… he’s taking away their money.  My hope is that Schultz and Upward Spiral continue to gain traction.  I have signed his pledge and will support Starbucks (not just because they recently brought back the pumpkin spice latte) and the other companies represented.  I hope you do the same.

Do you think Schultz will be successful in forcing Washington to create a fiscally-disciplined debt reduction plan and bring down unemployment?  If so, how do you think it will impact 2012?

With the economy struggling and his re-election campaign gearing up, President Barack Obama plans to propose a jobs package worth several hundred billion dollars, mostly in tax cuts, infrastructure spending, and direct aid to state and local governments, according to reports on Wednesday.

The plan’s price tag is roughly $300 billion, according to the Associated Press, Bloomberg News and CNN.

The man simply does not get it. The last time he threw money at the sluggish economy, the so called “stimulus” that he promised us would prevent unemployment from going above 8% was an utter disaster, resulting in nothing but money wasted. Now he wants a repeat but expects different results. This is the new “leadership” we are subject to from the Oval Office.

At least 10 primary care trusts (PCTs) have told hospitals to increase the length of time before they see patients in order to save money, an investigation by The Daily Telegraph has found.

In some areas, patients endured delays of 12 or 15 weeks after GPs decided they needed surgery, even though hospitals could have seen them sooner.

The maximum permitted time between referral and treatment is 18 weeks. In one case a manager said the policy keeps patients in line as “short waiting times also create more demand for treatment due to the expectations this raises”.

It comes after an NHS watchdog suggested that if patients are forced to wait a long time, they will remove themselves from lists “either by dying or by paying for their own treatment”.

Let’s recap.

The government will save money in its inefficient healthcare system if it makes people wait longer for surgery because more people will die off and more people will willingly die off because the government has so lowered expectation that people expect nothing better.

This is a necessary reality under such a system and it will eventually happen in the US due to scare resources and no incentive to innovate. Not to say that our current system is not a disaster, it is, but government healthcare is not the answer.

Once in office, the President is often consumed with matters and concerns utterly beyond his conception while running for office. These matters are thrust upon him, whether he’s ready, equipped, prepared or not. It’s not unlike being hired for a specific high-level job—say, financial analyst—at a Fortune 500 company, only to be told after five months that you’re now responsible for repairs and maintenance on the facility’s environmental control system, in addition to your responsibilities as financial analyst.

Hardly seems fair.

Creative individuals with outstanding critical thinking skills, unshackled initiative, and relatively few self-imposed egotistical/ideological limitations will seek out the resources/personnel suitably equipped to meet the demands of the new, unforeseen challenge, and meet those requirements.

What president served a full four-year term (or two) without encountering such unforeseen circumstances? Virtually none. How they react to these challenges reveals much about their management style, their ability to get things accomplished, and their ability to operate beyond their “comfort zone”—in fact, it reveals everything about that indefinable quality that sets great presidents apart from the ordinary: it reveals their character.

President Carter entered office in January 1977 in a period of reasonable calm. The 1973 oil crisis was an unpleasant memory, but it was in the rear-view mirror. Our involvement in Vietnam had ended in 1975—not honorably, perhaps, but it was over and not Carter’s concern.

Then in 1979, Carter ran into all kinds of problems not of his making. Iran was taken over by militant followers of the Ayatollah Khomeini, and internal strife severely curtailed Iranian oil production and exports. A world-wide oil panic ensued, prices skyrocketed, and gas lines in the US were once again the order of the day.

To compound Carter’s problems, Iranian militants took 52 Americans hostage in November of 1979. This was Carter’s “Facility Manager” moment: He was hired in November 1976 to restore some semblance of normalcy and dignity to the Office of President in the wake of President Nixon’s resignation in August 1974. We were at relative peace. There were reasonably limited domestic and international complications in 1976. His task seemed as achievable as picking low-hanging fruit.

Now he had dual responsibilities, totally unpredictable and unforeseen during the campaign:

1. He had to restore vigor, investor/consumer confidence, and growth to our oil-shocked economy, and find solutions for the never before or since triple-headed “stagflation” monster (high unemployment, high interest rates and high inflation), and
2. He had to inspire the country to rally behind the hostages, portray America as steadfast, powerfully intimidating, and unyielding to the Iranians (and the rest of the world), while behind the scenes devise either a successful diplomatic or military solution to the hostage crisis.

He was woefully inadequate to the demands of the job. He had no economic answers, and he’d let the military wither on the vine during his time in office so badly that when he did launch the ill-fated April 1980 rescue attempt popularly called “Desert One” (but officially called Operation Eagle Claw), neither the equipment nor the training of the personnel were fully up to the task. The mission ended in the Iranian desert when two American aircraft collided and eight US servicemen died. No actual rescue attempt was even able to be made.

It was the nadir of our post-WWII American national experience. It crystallized the public perception of President Carter’s incompetence. No one doubted Carter’s innate intelligence; but in the public’s mind, his ability to successfully deal with the unexpected was shattered forever.

The parallels to the current economic crisis and the 1979 Hostage crisis are almost too obvious to list. As in 1979, the American public wakes up every day thinking about this problem. It defines the President. How’s the economy today? What will the job number be this coming first Friday of the month? What are the weekly unemployment claims? Has my friend Bob found a job? Have I found a job? When will this unreal national nightmare come to an end?

President Obama has made an unfortunate habit of shifting the blame of his ineffectiveness onto others and making excuses:

“We inherited a mess.”
“We had avoided a recession but then we ran into a lot of bad luck like the tsunami in Japan, the Arab Spring and the European Debt Crisis.”
“When I said, ‘Change you can believe in,’ I didn’t mean change next week.”

The dire economic situation that President Reagan “inherited” from Jimmy Carter was arguably as bad—if not worse—than the challenges that faced President Obama in fall ‘08. Unemployment peaked at 10.8% early in Reagan’s first term—higher than the high of 10.2% under Obama. Interest rates for home mortgages and auto loans were an incomprehensible 20%+. Interest rates are near 0% and have been for many years under Obama. Energy-driven inflation was out of control in 1980. Those were vexing, contradictory problems the likes of which Obama does not have to deal with.

Yet, President Reagan didn’t complain, he didn’t ‘blame’ Carter, he didn’t moan about “bad luck.” He simply surrounded himself with strong, capable advisors—not sycophantic ideologues—and tackled the problems. Business and consumer confidence returned amid tangible positive results, and within two years of his first term—far less time than it has taken Obama, with no turnaround in sight—the economy was thriving again.

He showed initiative, creativity, and a willingness to move out of his ideological comfort zone. He showed character.

No two situations are the same, and the economic and world situation in 1980 was different than it is today. Perhaps as Obama’s supporters are quick to point out, it has taken us a long time to get in this mess and it will take a commensurately long time to get us out. Or, more simplistically, perhaps it was “all George Bush’s fault.”

Either way, it’s immaterial. It’s President Obama’s responsibility to deal with the situation he received, and the manner in which he goes about that conveys as much confidence or uncertainty to the public as his polices do themselves. He has lurched around from economic band-aid to band-aid without an overlying strategy. Businesses have been frozen into expansion/hiring inaction (sitting on billions of profit dollars) by a fear of what random, punitive anti-industry regulations and taxes are coming next from this confused, unpredictable Administration. Obama is just too philosophically-limited to think in any terms other than class warfare, tax the rich, and “social justice.” He is a man of and from Government intervention and that is his world, his reality.

To Obama, “fixing” the economy means simply more Government control and Government programs. He hasn’t shown any real interest in or understanding of how a truly free-market capitalistic economy works. He gives the impression that he dislikes businesspeople and mistrusts their motives.

President Obama never anticipated the economy would be this bad for this long. When the serious troubles began in fall 2008, he felt that once he was in office, he could throw some Government money at it—the Stimulus—and it would take care of itself, leaving him free to pursue his real agenda of imposing structural social change on America.

But the entrepreneurial-oriented U.S. economy has proven stubbornly resistant to Government tinkering, as any look at our history would have demonstrated—and proven—to him. His most influential advisers are either like-minded social-change ideologues, or weak political allies seemingly more interested in retaining their cushy Federally-paid positions than effecting real change and improvement.

With our struggling economy, Obama has run into his own Iranian Hostage situation, waiting unseen around the bend, and he is philosophically/egotistically incapable of even acknowledging the needed solutions, much less putting them into place.

Rep. Frederica Wilson — Congress Clown — playing the race card (My apologies for using an external link rather than inserting the video. I can’t seem to make it work. AH)

Western wear isn’t unacceptable congressional dress, nor should it be. The cowboy look is an integral part of Americana. But the Technicolor edition of a dude ranch reject is a step too far. Even if Rep. Wilson offered substantive solutions to the obstacles facing this country, in particularly the black community, it would be difficult to take her serious when she looks like a Dodge City pimp. Not to worry, Wilson offers nothing in terms of discourse. 

Rep. Wilson blames racism for high unemployment among blacks, especially young males. The least she could do is spout rhetoric as flashy as her wardrobe. Instead she plays the race-card, excuses irresponsible behavior, and promotes big government solutions to undesirable circumstances. In fact, big government is a chief contributor to the condition she laments. 

Government decided it was a good idea to establish a minimum wage without regard to market realities. However, employers can’t retain employees who produce less benefit than the cost of their employment. Therefore businesses are forced to dismiss underproductive employees, who are typically young and inexperienced. This reality is especially evident among young black men. Cost verse benefit is a simple economic concept, yet it’s lost on Rep. Wilson. 

Governments at all levels have complicated the business climate, making entry difficult. For instance, operating a taxi cab in an urban area is a viable service young black men could offer. Yet cab license fees can reach six digits. How many young men, of any race, can afford such an initial outlay? Similar obstacles face other young, black entrepreneurs. It’s not racism that erects these obstacles, it’s big government. 

Rep. Wilson ignores other factors limiting black economic success as well. No one forced young black men to adopt a rap culture that degrades women, devalues academic success, mocks the rule of law, and dismisses family responsibilities. Racism isn’t the source of a 70-percent illegitimacy rate among Black Americans. It was big government that replaced the black father, leaving young black men rudderless. Liberal policy has released generations of black men from their parental duties. 

Finding common sense in modern government is yeoman’s work. Representatives like Frederica Wilson only complicate the task. There’s no reason to take someone serious when they make less sense than a pantomime presentation and dress like the Phantom of the Grand Ole Opry. 

South Florida voters sent in this clown. Here’s hoping they’ll send her out again.

“You can’t just make money on SUVs and trucks. There is a place for SUVs and trucks, but as gas prices keep on going up, you have got to understand the market. People are going to try to save money.”

President Obama is seriously talking about “the market” here? If he knew the first thing about “the market”, he would know that term typically implies the free market. In the free market consumers make choices. If consumers freely choose to buy more small cars, then automakers will make more small cars. If consumers freely choose to buy an SUV because, say they have three or four kids or dogs or kids and dogs, and realize it is more fuel efficient to take one vehicle rather than two, they might freely choose that instead. Or consumers may freely choose to drive an SUV because they like it better and do not mind that they freely chose to pay more for gas. That is what the free market does. It freely chooses what meets its needs and desires. Your dictated decrees by force, often seen as regulations, such as emissions standards, run exactly opposite of the free market you are attempting to attach yourself to Mr. President. If you do not realize that, well, it explains quite a bit about our economy.

A bum is everything the name implies, from irresponsible slacker to societal parasite. However, America is afraid to blame bums for their lowly condition; it’s politically incorrect. People who were yesterday’s bums, loafers, and freeloaders are today’s disenfranchised and less fortunate. They are the losers of life’s lottery, relegated to poverty because someone else stole a disproportionate share of America’s prosperity. 

Thank God for television’s Judge Judy. She isn’t afraid to blame the bum for being, well, a bum. Her public courage has earned my respect and gratitude. She should earn yours, too. Watch the video and you’ll agree:
 

Judge Judy is 100-percent correct in her assessment of both the plaintiff and defendant. The two parties in this case exemplify greed in its purest form, the “me” attitude that hampers America’s economic growth and leads to fiscal insanity. Their general disdain for self-sufficiency reflects the core of the entitlement mentality. One sues to collect rent that she herself never paid. And the other considers government grants and subsidies a birthright. These two people, and millions like them, are drains on society, contributing nothing while believing themselves entitled to their heart’s desire. 

According to a quote attributed to economist Arthur Laffer, “When you tax something you get less of it. When you subsidize something you get more of it.” Liberal politicians have done a thorough job of taxing productivity and subsidizing unproductiveness. Therefore they have generated an ever-increasing segment of the population with no compunction about living off the production of their neighbor, as the two people in Judge Judy’s court demonstrate. And Judge Judy wants to send the aforementioned video to Congress, as if most members care? 

Congress, through 40-plus years of various welfare, entitlement, and Not-so-Great Society programs, created the parasites in her courtroom, people who believe they’re entitled to enjoy life’s necessities, pleasures, and perks at someone else’s expense. Such entitlement parasites are the liberal voting base, and an exponential expense to the rest of us. Not only has the entitlement mentality become a drain on federal revenues, it has deprived the marketplace of what the entitlement recipient would’ve otherwise produced. We lose on both counts. 

Go ahead and send the video Judge Judy, with my blessings. But frankly, you’re wasting your stamp.

Political Calculations put it best:

So, to recap, when compared to the pre-crisis decade of federal government spending, instead of increasing at an annualized rate of 7.35% per year, the total amount of U.S. federal government spending is now projected to only increase at an annualized rate of 6.78% per year, thanks to the so-called “Budget Control Act”.

No word yet on whether or not the nation’s GDP will grow as quickly….

This argument assumes that government jobs have no negative effect on other employment, or the negative effect is offset by the positive effect of those employees having a job. It also assumes that all jobs are good because they provide the employee income, driving the multiplier effect, or are essentially Keynesian “stimulus”.

Both premises are wrong.

Outside of government, jobs exist for one reason alone.

Profit.

For governments to operate, they must have revenue. Revenue comes from various forms of taxes, with the most prevalent being on income, sales, and property. Generally when something is taxed, you get less of it.

Politicians love to tout their “job-creation record”. They always want to talk about all the jobs they have created. The current administration has taken this a step further reporting on the incalculable “jobs saved”.

However, in reality, politicians do not create jobs. They merely create an environment that affects job creation positively or negatively.

At present, the Obama administration has created an environment of high level of uncertainty with a constant stream of new, costly regulations and the prevailing threats of additional and higher taxes. This has caused many businesses to stall plans to expand and add new jobs.

While it is true that some taxes are necessary because a government must exist, the size of the government is the issue. Every dollar the government takes in taxes reduces the means of production of the economy, thereby reducing investment in business growth, which costs jobs.

Some may argue that the government “creates” jobs with new government positions funded by those taxes. However, most Americans agree that government is exceptionally inefficient and wasteful. There are several reasons for this. One of them is that government has no incentive to be efficient as it has no profit motive.

Businesses are always looking for ways to innovate and drive efficiency to be more profitable (or charitable in the case of a non-profit), thereby freeing up more capital, creating the means to grow the business and pay the owners who took the risk on the business, be they direct owners or shareholders.

However, government does no such thing. Using President Obama’s recent example, if the government had operated all banks, it surely would have never created the ATM because government has no incentive to innovate. Further, it is so difficult for the government to reduce its workforce; it would then be left with the problem of what to do with those employees.

One of the benefits of the economic downturn has been government tax revenues have decreased forcing government to pursue some innovation, driving it, especially at the state and local, level to find ways to do more with fewer employees. This is a constant pursuit in the private sector, as efficiency leads to profitability, which leads to business growth, which leads to more jobs. In much the same way, a leaner government will leave more of the means of production—capital–in the private sector, where the economy grows.

However, politicians like to claim direct “job creation” by naming new positions. This is the reality of how our country operates. Unfortunately, these jobs always come at the expense of the general economy, as its pool of capital is reduced and any benefits of the current leaning of government will be lost. This slows the economy down, as fewer private jobs are created which grow businesses which create additional self-funded jobs.

A job is not a right. If a politician wants to “create” government jobs for the sake of having more “jobs”, they might as well redistribute the producer’s wealth by any of the government’s various other means. There is no difference.

The best way a government can participate in job creation is to leave job creation to the private sector, where the true incentive for growth and real, additional job creation exists.

The major factor driving credit quality is the relatively high level of debt and the difficulty in significantly cutting spending. We are taking a negative action not based on the delay in raising the debt ceiling but rather our concern about the high level of debt to GDP in excess of 100%….

History has proven that defaults on domestic public debt do occur. In fact, seventy out of three
hundred twenty defaults since 1800 have been on domestic public debt

Think of our debt as charged to a credit card with a variable rate. If Moody’s and the other credit ratings agencies follow Egan-Jones’ lead, our variable rate just went up. Considering that servicing our debt ($213B) is currently about 6% of the federal spending ($3.6T) and 10% of total revenue ($2.2T), imagine the compounding effect of this cost, especially as we continue to add to the $14.6 trillion debt exponentially. For perspective, over the past two years, the debt has increased from about $8T to $14.6T. The annual budgets alone are scheduled to add over $1 trillion per year, less the average of $0.24 trillion per year to be removed with the new bill passed yesterday.

Debt will increase while interest rates simultaneously increase which could very well put us in a situation as illustrated by the chart at the left (click to enlarge the chart). This could become a hole that is impossible to dig out of.

Again, the reason our credit rating has dropped:

The major factor driving credit quality is the relatively high level of debt and the difficulty in significantly cutting spending. We are taking a negative action not based on the delay in raising the debt ceiling but rather our concern about the high level of debt to GDP in excess of 100%….

The debt ceiling debate was nothing but a distraction. The debt “ceiling” has never stopped the US from spending more, as we discussed previously. The real issues are “the difficulty in significantly cutting spending” and addressing the cumulative debt.