FT187: “It’s odd how we can never afford a tax cut but we can always afford new spending.” —Old Pithy

Posted by PITHOCRATES - September 13th, 2013

Fundamental Truth

The Democrats’ idea of Bipartisanship is Republican Capitulation

It’s that time of the year again.  Summer is winding down.  The weather is starting to cool.  The harvest is coming in.  The stores are already stocking their shelves with Halloween decorations.  Yes, it’s the end of the government’s fiscal year.  The time the government will run out of money unless Congress passes a new budget.  Or what passes for budgets these days.  Continuing resolutions.

This that magical time of year when Republicans and Democrats come together to negotiate the government’s budget for the upcoming fiscal year.  The give and take process where they sit down and work with each other.  Civilly.  Saying things like, “Yes, that is too costly.  We need to spend less there.”  And, “You’re right, that is important to the people and we should spend more there.”  And the occasional, “I agree.  That program is no longer needed and we can remove it from the budget entirely.”

I am, of course, lying.  These are things that are rarely, if ever, said to each other.  For when it comes to these budget battles it is always the same.  The Republicans try to be responsible and cut spending.  The Democrats then call them greedy corporate toady Nazis.  The Republicans will then suffer a general emasculation and give the Democrats their spending hikes.  And perhaps a tax hike or two.  While asking them to please like them and invite them to the cool parties.  And the Democrats will then commend the Republicans’ bipartisanship.  What others would call capitulation.  Happy that things are once again right in the world.  With the Republicans once again the Democrats’ bitch.

Entitlement Spending creates a Permanent Underclass that keeps the Privileged Class in Power

John Emerich Edward Dalberg-Acton, known more simply as Lord Acton, said, “Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.  Great men are almost always bad men.”  And boy was he on to something there.  For something happens when some good conservatives go to Washington.  They enter a world like no other.  Nothing they could ever have dreamed of.  A world that once belonged only to the nobility and the aristocracy.  Those things Americans fought for their independence from.  And here they are.  After winning an election to rein in the kind of government spending that makes this living possible.  And they say, “What, end all of this?  Are you mad?”

So many cross over to the dark side.  Sell their souls.  Forsake their constituents.   Do great dishonor to our Founding Fathers.  All because they like the money and the power.  Especially the power.  Some resist.  Those from the Tea Party seem more immune than most when it comes to the corrupting influences of Washington.  But these people who stand on principle?  Those who serve their constituents honorably?  The left will fling every invective upon them.  A figuratively flinging of excrement.  To try to beat them down and break them.  To get them, too, to forsake their constituents.  And to join them as they drop trou and defecate on the Constitution.  Figuratively, too, of course.  At least I hope so.

So this is what makes the budget process so adversarial.  You have those who are trying to do the right thing for the people.  And those on the other side who want to corrupt these people.  To get them to quit fighting against them and to join them.  So they can maintain their privileged class.  This is what all that entitlement spending is all about.  It’s nothing but alms.  To keep the people content enough so they don’t rise up.  But not too content that they don’t fear that those greedy corporate toady Nazis may take away their meager alms.  And once they get someone to think like that they have a voter for life.

There comes a Point when Raises in Tax Rates actually Reduce Tax Revenue

The key, then, is keeping people poor.  For the whole privileged class thing those in Washington have doesn’t work unless they have poor people who need them.  Which is why they spend so much time reminding the poor how much they need them.  The Democrats in Congress.  Who are always there fighting for them.  Keeping their alms flowing.  But also keeping them poor.  Which a welfare state does well.  Because if you have enough to subsist lethargy will do the rest and destroy the spirit.  Getting the poor to accept their place as a permanent underclass.  That needs a permanent privileged class taking care of them.

There is only one problem.  This destroys lives.  People in this permanent underclass may have gone on and done great things.  They may have been doctors.  They may have been engineers.  They may have been entrepreneurs.  But they will never be those things because the left sacrificed them to maintain their privileged class.  Forever consigning them to the underclass.  So the privileged class has someone to take care of.  No matter how costly it gets to maintain this entitlement culture.  No matter how great the deficits get.  Or how great the national debt grows.

So there is another problem. As you convert taxpayers into tax-consumers you have to keep raising taxes on those remaining in the tax base.  But as you raise tax rates you put the brakes on economic expansion.  And with reduced economic activity there is reduced tax revenue.  There comes a point when raises in tax rates actually reduce tax revenue.  And we’ve passed that point.  Which is why we have record deficits.  A record national debt.  And the worst economic recovery since that following the Great Depression.  Because we are spending, taxing and regulating too much.  Which is why uncorrupted conservatives want to cut taxes, defund Obamacare, roll back other costly regulations and reduce spending.  Things the left bitterly opposes.  For doing so means we don’t need them as much as they need us to need them.

So as the budget battle commences you will hear the usual refrain from the left.  We can’t afford tax cuts.  As they equate tax cuts with government spending.  But we can always afford new government spending.  So the left will call for bipartisanship.  That is, capitulation.  And eventually make the Republicans their bitch.  Again.  And increase the national debt.  Again.  Putting the nation on the path to bankruptcy.  What the left considers a small price to pay to maintain their privileged class.  As long as that bankruptcy comes after they’re dead and buried.  After they enjoyed their time in the privileged class.  Which is why the left is also less likely to believe in God and life after death.  For it is easier to be bad when there is nothing to fear after a bad life.



Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

State of the Union, Benghazi, Sequestration and the Politics of Spending

Posted by PITHOCRATES - February 14th, 2013

Politics 101

President Obama’s Idea of Compromise and Bipartisanship is Unconditional Surrender

President Obama’s State of the Union Address was a little light on details.  But the general gist is no spending cuts.  And more taxes.  Which makes the sequestration about to hit a crisis in the making for the president.  For it was sort of his idea.  And he did sign it into law.  But to him it was more like playing a game of chicken.  Confident that the Republicans would cave and roll over.  Giving him whatever additional tax increases he wanted to prevent cuts in defense spending.  But the Republicans aren’t blinking.  Because this is the only way they’re going to get any spending cuts.  Even if it means gutting defense spending.  Something the president didn’t consider.

Despite being an architect of the sequestration he called it a stupid idea during the State of the Union.  He doesn’t care about the cuts in defense spending.  He is, after all, a leftist liberal.  And they hate defense spending.  He even denied Ambassador Stevens’ request to beef up security in Benghazi.  Which led to Ambassador Stevens’ death.  Along with three other Americans.  But it’s the equal cuts in things he does care about that has him worried.  That social spending.  The kinds of things that buy votes.  And makes people dependent on government.  Helping to endear the Democrat Party to the American people.  While making them hate the Republican Party.  Who want to take away the great things the Democrats so generously give them.  Even if the government can’t afford to give these things to the American people.

President Obama may talk about compromise and bipartisanship but he doesn’t mean it.  His idea of bipartisanship is unconditional surrender.  He has no interest in meeting Republicans halfway.  He wants to destroy the Republican Party.  And undo the Reagan Revolution.  And bring back the Big Government of the Sixties and Seventies.  When the Democrats ruled supreme.  And you do that with spending money.  Not cutting spending.  Which is why the sequestration bothers him so much.

Running Deficits is OK if it provides for Senior Citizens, Our Children and Clean Stuff

Leading Democrats are saying we don’t have a spending problem.  We’re just not paying enough for the stuff we want.  Which also happens to be the stuff that buys votes.  So the excess spending to buy votes is not the problem.  The problem is that we’re not raising taxes enough to pay for this orgy of spending that is the problem.  We’re not taxing rich people enough.  Or corporations.  And once we do then we won’t be taxing the middle class enough.  And once we do that it probably won’t matter what we do as the country will be so deep in debt that no amount of new taxes will help.  Unless they figure out a way to tax away more than 100% of a person’s earnings.

So low tax revenue is the problem.  Well, that, and spending money on the wrong things.  On things that don’t buy votes.  Things that weren’t on the laundry list President Obama rattled off during the State of the Union that we need to spend more on.  Defense spending.  And…, well, defense spending.  Which is the only thing the Obama administration is willing to consider cutting.  Because we can get a lot of free things by gutting defense.  New programs that won’t add a single dime to the deficit.  Something he said more than once during the state of the union.  Obamacare, for example, will be deficit neutral.  Because the money we were going to spend on the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan will pay for it.  So even though the spending will still add to the deficit it’s now Obamacare spending.  Not defense spending.  Which is OK.

You see, running deficits is OK if it provides for senior citizens.  Our children.  If it gives us clean water.  And air.  Invests in clean energy.  And in those jobs of the future.  If it builds roads and bridges.  For less face it, we would be nothing without our government-provided roads and bridges.  Which we simply could not have it if it weren’t for government.  (Then again railroads build and maintain their own roads and bridges.  With funds they earn operating their railroads.  But I digress.)   In fact, any deficit reduction that comes from cutting this spending is just about the worst thing in the world we could do.  According to those on the left.  So we should tax rich people and corporations more.  And cut defense spending more.  Because we spend way too much on defense spending anyway.  And for what?  It’s not like we’re going to use it for anything.  Such as protecting our ambassadors in hostile lands.

Defense Spending is the only Spending growing at a Rate less than Total Federal Outlays

If you listened to the State of the Union (and didn’t fall asleep during it) you’ve learned that we don’t spend enough on our social spending.  And too much on defense spending.  That’s what the president said.  But what do the numbers say?  To find out let’s look at federal outlays (see Table 3.1—OUTLAYS BY SUPERFUNCTION AND FUNCTION: 1940–2017).  The following chart graphs the historical data from 1958 to 2011 and the projection for 2012.  We look at 4 areas of spending: defense; education, training, employment and social services; Medicare; and Social Security.  We calculate the spending as a percentage of total spending and graph the results.

Percent of Total Federal Outlays

The one area we spend too much on that the Obama administration is willing to cut is the one area that has seen the greatest decline in spending.  Defense spending.  Which as a percentage of total outlays has fallen while non-defense has trended up or held steady.  This tells us the government has pulled money from defense to pay for these other things.  But this chart doesn’t tell the whole story.  For although Medicare and Social Security have trended up they haven’t taken as big a piece of total spending as defense gave up.  And education spending has been pretty flat.  Perhaps giving credence to President Obama’s claim that we’re not spending enough on education.  But if you look at the year-to-year growth in spending you see a different picture.

Federal Outlays as a Percentage of 1958 Outlays

Here we divide each year’s spending by the spending in 1958 (or 1966 for Medicare).  Showing the increase in spending over time.  This chart also includes total federal outlays.  Which tells a startling story.  Not only is defense spending being gutted to pay for other spending it is the only spending growing less than the growth rate of total federal spending.  While the other three areas are growing at greater rates.  In 2011 Social Security spending was 8,892% of the spending in 1958.  Medicare, which came into existence in 1965, grew at an even greater rate.  In 2011 it was 17,673% of the spending in 1966.  More than twice the growth in less time.  And education spending tracked pretty close to Medicare spending.  In 2011 it was 15,744% of the spending in 1958.  While defense spending in 2011 was only 1,509% of the spending in 1958.

Note that the general trend of increased spending holds regardless of who is in power.  That’s because of baseline budgeting.  Which provides for automatic increases in spending.  When government talks about spending cuts it not really spending cuts.  It a cut in the rate spending increases.  You can see some dips in the graphs and where they may have cut the rate of growth.  But nowhere is there really a cut that results in reducing net spending.  Except for defense.

Increases in spending on education (and training, employment and social services) has grown at a rate greater than most other spending.  And what can we learn by throwing money at education?  Well, based on the president’s remarks, it doesn’t work.  It doesn’t increase the quality of education.  At least based on the great increases year after year that only give us the need to spend more money.  And this spending doesn’t even include the bulk of education spending.  That generated from property taxes.  Which can mean only one thing.  If we’re paying more and need to spend even more the quality of education is not as good as it should be.  Or all that money is going to teachers’ salaries, pensions and health care benefits.

Of all this spending the only sustainable spending is defense spending. For it is the only one growing at a rate less than total federal outlays.  While increases in the other spending is going off the chart.  With the slopes of these graphs getting ever steeper.  And the closer they get to vertical the more impossible it will be able to pay for these programs.  That’s why Medicare is near crisis mode.  With the cost of our aging population pushing that graph closer and closer to vertical.  Where our spending obligations will approach infinity.  Which is, of course, impossible to sustain.

Of all this spending the only sustainable spending is defense spending. For it is the only one growing at a rate less than total federal outlays.  While increases in the other spending is going off the chart.  Contrary to what the president said we are increasing spending in these areas so much that we won’t be able to sustain it.  For there just won’t be enough money to tax away from the people.  Unless we figure out a way to tax away more than 100% of their earnings.



Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Primary and General Elections

Posted by PITHOCRATES - December 15th, 2011

Politics 101

The Founding Fathers pledged to each other their Lives, their Fortunes and their Sacred Honor

People have protested and died fighting for the right to vote throughout history.  The American Revolutionary War was over taxation without representation.  Meaning that the American colonies wanted representation in British Parliament.  Something the British government did not allow.  Worse, they started taxing the Americans.  Who had no representation in Parliament.  And this did not go over well with the American colonists.  They had had enough.  They wanted a say in their government.

So the Founding Fathers committed treason.  They signed the Declaration of Independence.  And fought 8 years to have that say in their government.  It took awhile.  And a lot of the signers of the Declaration of Independence suffered for their treason.  They lost their property.  Their wealth.  And even their families.  Who suffered all sorts of brutality at the hands of the British.  These traitors.  Who defied their king.  But the cause persevered.  And the Americans won their independence.  As well as their right to self-government.

Back then people cared.  Enough to pledge to each other their lives, their fortunes and their sacred honor.  But today?  People have other priorities in life.  Where reality television is more important in their lives than having that say in their government.  For they have no idea what the Founding Fathers paid to give us this cushy life of plenty.  And just assume the good times will continue to roll.  Especially if they keep voting for whoever promises to give them more free stuff.

Candidates move to the Center after Winning their Party’s Nomination and become someone Completely Different

In the country that struggled for 8 years to get the right to vote.  In the country that inspired people all around the world to follow them in the pursuit of happiness.  In the very bastion of liberty and self-government.  In America.  Guess how many people vote today in a typical presidential election.  Little more than half of eligible voters.  And that’s in the general election.  It’s far worse in the primary election.  Where we see maybe half of that turnout.  Which is rather sad.  Considering that these are the people who actually pay attention to politics.  For this is where a political party chooses their candidate for the general election.  You see, each party has a platform.  A set of political ideas.  Their core philosophy.  And the people choose who they think will best advance their party platform in the primary election.

So during the primary election candidates try to be that candidate.  The one who will best advance the party platform.  Typically the conservative moves as far right as possible to show his or her conservative bona fides.  And the liberal moves as far left as possible to show his or her liberal bona fides.  Here they’re trying to appeal to the party base.  The hardcore.  Those who are as far away from the political center as is possible.  Those who don’t give a whit about compromise or bipartisanship.  They want a purebred candidate that will take the country where they feel it should be.  They don’t want someone who will reach across the aisle and compromise away their most cherished principles.

The population roughly breaks down to 40% conservative, 20% liberal and 40% moderate/independent.  Which is all fine and dandy during the primary election.  But it’s a bit of a problem during the general election.  For that 40% moderate/independent forms the political center.  That area the candidates run away from during the primary election.  So they must scramble back to it after winning their party’s nomination.  And hope that most of those in the center didn’t pay attention during the primary.  To make the lying easier.  To no longer be who they said they were during the primary.  But to be someone completely different.  Someone who can reach across the aisle.  Someone who can compromise away their base’s most cherished principles.  Someone who believes politics should be bipartisan.  Or, better still, nonpartisan.  In other words, the last person their base would want.

When the Choice is between two Moderates, Democrats will always Choose the Democrat Moderate

Liberals have to run to the center.  For their base only amounts to about 20% of the electorate.  But it’s not quite the same for conservatives.  At 40% of the electorate they don’t have to run the center.  They only need another 10% or so of the vote to win.  So running to the center actually hurts them.  Because a lot of that political center is Democrat.  And if the vote comes down to 2 moderates they’re going to vote for the Democrat moderate over the Republican moderate every time.  Because all things being equal, a Democrat will vote for a Democrat.

When the Republicans ran a moderate who campaigned as someone who would reach across the aisle and compromise away his base’s most cherished principles, John McCain didn’t get the moderate vote.  They voted for the Democrat.  Who lied during the general election and ran as a moderate.  Sometimes he even talked like a conservative.  Even though Barack Obama was as liberal as they came.  At least based on his voting record in public office.

When Republican Ronald Reagan won his party nomination he didn’t run to the center.  He remained a conservative.  And he won.  Because a lot of Democrats voted for him.  The Reagan Democrats.  Because there was a real difference between him and Jimmy Carter.  There was a conservative and a liberal.  And the Reagan Democrats decided to vote for the conservative because they liked the conservative message better than the liberal message.  But when the choice is between two moderates who promise to reach across the aisle more than the other there’s no real difference between the candidates.  And no reason to vote for the other guy when he or she is no different than the one from your own party.

Ignoring the Primary Elections ignores the Philosophical Debate and turns the General Election into a Populist Contest

It is a shame the level of voter apathy in the country that stands for self-government.  Almost half of the eligible voters ignore politics 3 years out of 4.  And only vote in the presidential general election.  It’s a shame because we have a 2-party system.  Like it or not.  There are only two core political philosophies to choose from.  For those in the middle don’t have a philosophy.  A party.  A party platform.  A primary election.  Or a political convention.  They only get involved once every 4 years at the general election.  And ultimately end up voting for a Democrat or a Republican.  Even though they refuse to identify themselves with either party.

But ignoring the primary elections ignores the party platforms.  The meat and potatoes of the philosophical debate.  And turns the general election into nothing but a populist contest.  True democracy.  Mob rule.  With the winner often being the one who promises the most to the least politically informed.

Politics has come a long way since the Founding Fathers pledged to each other their lives, their fortunes and their sacred honor.  It’s probably a good thing they’re not here to see what has become of their self-government.  They wouldn’t like what they would see.  Especially the voter apathy.



Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Moderate (mŏd’ər-ĭt), n., One who holds or champions moderate views or opinions, especially in politics or religion.

Posted by PITHOCRATES - November 3rd, 2011

Politics 101

Moderates just want to Get Along with Everyone and Believe in Consensus and Bipartisanship

Moderates are people who like to pick and choose.  A little from this philosophy.  And a little from that philosophy.  For example, a moderate Catholic may approve of abortion.  Because they disagree with the extreme view of no abortions in Catholicism.  Of course, there is no such thing as being a little bit Catholic.  Just like you can’t be a little bit pregnant.

A moderate, then, has no philosophical basis.  And doesn’t have a definite opinion.  They don’t know what they want.  But they know what they don’t want.  Extreme opinions.  Even just your run of the mill opinions.  To them everything is just an opinion.  And no opinion is right.  Or wrong.  It’s just an opinion.  And they don’t like to face the extreme unpleasantness that is life.  They’d rather avoid addressing problems that can make life unpleasant.  So they procrastinate.  And are great procrastinators.  Their motto is this.  Why solve today what we can solve tomorrow?  And then they hope that tomorrow never comes.

Moderates just want to get along with everyone.  They believe in consensus.  Reaching across the aisle.  Bipartisanship.  For they believe that there is a middle ground in every issue.  And they desperately seek the middle ground to avoid confrontation.  Which means that you can lie to them.  If you tell them what they want to hear.  And they will believe you.  Because they want to believe you.  Especially if you’re telling them what they want to hear.

Adolf Hitler lied Charismatically to Win Votes and Seize Power

Moderates are good people.  Who can be led astray.  Such as in Nazi Germany.  The vast majority of Germans were not Nazis.  If they were they wouldn’t have needed such an oppressive police state.  And there would have been no Gestapo.  But there was a police state.  And a Gestapo.

Most Germans just wanted to work.  And support their families.  Which was hard to do coming out of World War I, the Great Depression and hyperinflation.  Caused by Keynesian policies.  That is, printing money.  To pay their war reparations per a rather harsh Versailles Treaty.

Adolf Hitler knew how to sweet talk the masses.  Tell them what they wanted to hear.  And he did.  He was charismatic.  A populist.  Could give a great speech.  And he lied through his teeth.  The people heard what they wanted to hear.  And they voted for him.  That’s right.  Hitler didn’t seize power in a military coup.  He seized power by winning votes.  And passing populist laws.  After he had failed to seize power in a military coup.

Moderates may not Know what they Want but they Sure Know what they Don’t Want, such as National Health Care

In the U.S. the moderates typically determine elections.  Because about 40% of the people are limited-government conservatives.  About 20% are big-government liberals.  And the rest are moderates.  And they tend to vote Democrat.  Because the Democrats say the things they want to hear.  Consensus.  Bipartisan.  Working together to solve the people’s problems.

Some big-government liberals run as conservatives during elections.  And they lie so well that often a large percentage of these moderates vote Democrat.  Because, for some reason, they want to vote conservative.  But only if the conservative is a Democrat.

Both Bill Clinton and Barack Obama campaigned as moderates.  In fact, some even compared Barack Obama to the great Ronald Reagan.  A conservative Republican.  And it worked.  Clinton and Obama won their elections.  By lying.  They campaigned as limited-government moderates.  But they governed as big-government liberals.  They swung so far to the left that they both lost their mid-term elections.  Clinton lost the midterms for trying to pass Hillarycare.  And Obama loss the midterms for passing Obamacare.

The moderates may not know what they want.  But they know what they don’t want.  And they sure don’t want national health care.

The Consequence of having no Philosophical Basis is that Decisions are based on Populist Views and Feelings

Moderates don’t like extreme opinions.  Like the government can’t spend money it doesn’t have.  So Democrats campaign saying they will get the rich to pay their fair share.  Which sounds good.  Because moderates aren’t rich.  They’re hardworking middle class people.  So moderates vote Democrat because it seems like the nice thing to do.  The fair thing to do.  So the government continues to spend money it doesn’t have.  Knowing that they can continue in their irresponsible ways as long as they can get moderates to believe their lies.

This is the consequence of having no philosophical basis.  Decisions are based on populist views.  And feelings.  Which a cunning big-government liberal politician can always exploit.  And they have to if they ever hope to win an election.  For they aren’t going to convert the 40% of the people who are limited-government conservatives.  Because limited-government conservatives actually believe in something.  And tend to be impervious to their lies.



Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Obama Calls for Dems and GOP to Cooperate, Wants to Keep Governing against the Will of the People

Posted by PITHOCRATES - January 1st, 2011

Liberals Always Call for Bipartisanship when they Lose Elections

When Nancy Pelosi and her Democrats won in the 2006 midterm elections, it was the end of conservatism.  They said so.  When Obama won in 2008, he advised those across the aisle that elections have consequences (see The roots of Obama’s demise by Marc A. Thiessen posted 10/25/2010 on The Washington Post). 

The decline of the Obama presidency can be traced to a meeting at the White House just three days after the inauguration, when the new president gathered congressional leaders of both parties to discuss his proposed economic stimulus. House Republican Whip Eric Cantor gave President Obama a list of modest proposals for the bill. Obama said he would consider the GOP ideas, but told the assembled Republicans that “elections have consequences” and “I won.” Backed by the largest congressional majorities in decades, the president was not terribly interested in giving ground to his vanquished adversaries.

When the far left lies and tricks voters to elect them, they confuse that for a mandate.  When the truth of their policies comes out, though, they lose subsequent elections.  Then demand that Republicans work with them.  For the best interests of the American people.  Unlike Nancy Pelosi.  Or President Obama.

When liberal Democrats have the majority in Congress, bipartisanship means that Republicans should accept being the Democrats’ bitch.  When they’re out of power, it means something completely different.  That Republicans shouldn’t govern like Democrats.  Governing roughshod all over the opposition party.  Why?  “Because,” they say.  Pouting.  (They really don’t have anything better.  They just HATE not having power.)

It was Always about Growing Government, not Improving the Economy

And as the new year begins, President Obama is giving us a Bill Clinton wag of the finger (figuratively), telling us to play nice.  Which is what bullies typically do when they lost their power to bully (see Obama: Dems, GOP must cooperate in new year by Julie Pace, Associated Press, posted 1/1/2011 on Yahoo! News).

In his weekly radio and Internet address, Obama said Saturday that lawmakers must return to Washington next week prepared to make serious decisions about how to grow the economy in the short run and stay competitive in the future.

“I’m willing to work with anyone of either party who’s got a good idea and the commitment to see it through,” Obama said. “And we should all expect you to hold us accountable for our progress or our failure to deliver.”

Not quite the ‘thanks but no thanks’ he told the Republicans 3 days after his inauguration.  And all that talk about jobs being job one?  And that laser like focus on jobs?  It was all bull [deleted expletive].  Unemployment went up after his stimulus plan to keep unemployment under 8%.  It’s still flirting with 10% some 2 years later.  But the size of government spending exploded.  Which is what the Left wants.  It’s what they always want.  So they got what they wanted.  The only problem is that some of their supporters believed they were trying to improve the economy.

The Public Sector’s Message to the Taxpayers:  Let Them Eat Cake

The liberal left comprises approximately 20% of the population.  That’s why it’s hard for them to win elections.  Especially after they’ve exploded government spending following an election win.  And that spending is bankrupting the country.  Our states.  And our cities.

A big chunk of that spending goes to support the public sector.  Public sector unions have made public sector jobs very cushy.  No one in the private sector comes close to their wage and benefit packages.  And no one in the private sector enjoys job security like they have in the public sector.  Until now.  In Wisconsin, the Republicans are in power.  And the public sector is getting nervous (see Wisconsin State Workers Fret, as G.O.P. Takes Over by Monica Davey posted 1/1/2011 on The New York Times)

But it’s just not in Wisconsin.  Public sector unions are nervous wherever Republicans have ascended to power.  Because they worry that the good times may come to an end.  And they may have to live like the rest of us.  Some are even predicting that we may see a little European rioting here in the United States (see Topic A: What will be 2011’s biggest political surprise? by Ed Rogers posted 1/2/2011 on The Washington Post).

The biggest political surprise in 2011 may come in the form of the shock produced by public-sector labor strikes and demonstrations that could stray into civil disorder as state and local governments cut budgets. Government workers could be laid off by the thousands, and millions of the beneficiaries of government-supplied salaries, pensions and benefits could see reductions in pay and program allowances they have been told to expect.

The same kind of protests that have rocked Paris, London and Rome could erupt in California, New York and Illinois.

When European Socialism cuts back on pensions, college tuition assistance, health care, etc., the beneficiaries of European Socialism burn cities.  And this anarchy may be coming to a city near you.

The schism between the governed and those governing could become greater than ever as the government tries to protect itself for its own sake and not for the public good. The millions of Americans who have lost jobs or face increasing economic uncertainty resent the relative posterity and security that government now provides for itself. President Obama will say he is for more “stimulus,” but even the money-making printing presses in Washington are at their limits.

It’s a master-slave mentality.  The masters are the public sector.  The slaves are the taxpayers.  And the masters have lost touch with reality.  They laugh at the poor suffering masses struggling to pay their taxes.  When advised of the taxpayer’s plight what do they say?  “Let them eat cake.”  (A reference to what Marie Antoinette reportedly said during the French Revolution.  While the upper classes had food, the lower classes were to be satisfied with oven scrapings.)

Pennsylvania Liquor Stores a Microcosm of Public Sectors Everywhere

Of course, the poor, suffering taxpayers would probably not be in such a foul mood if it wasn’t for the value they were getting for those high taxes.  That public sector sucks.  As any enterprise without competition does.  Why give a damn about what you’re doing if you’re the only caterer in town?

In Pennsylvania, you can only buy wine and liquor in a government store.  And the service stinks to high heaven.  The good people of Pennsylvania want to privatize their booze.  But the public sector union oppose privatization (see A Push to Privatize Pennsylvania Liquor Stores by Julie Pace, Associated Press, posted 12/31/2010 on The New York Times).

Like prisoners in the gulag, consumers here can only fantasize about buying their wine and liquor in a competitive free market. The Commonwealth of Pennsylvania has run the liquor stores for eight decades, a relic of the post-Prohibition era, when government thought controlling the sale of alcohol would limit consumption.

The legislature has consistently dismissed talk of privatizing the system, mainly because of opposition from the union representing the store workers and from groups like Mothers Against Drunk Driving and conservative teetotalers, all influential in the state.

And what’s the recourse for an angry people?

“This is insane!” said Bill Conrad, 68, a retired electrical engineer. “People are going to New York and Jersey” to buy alcohol.

And there it is.  Competition makes everything better.  Should you be lucky enough to live close to the state border.  Where I live, I can go to most any party store, some drugstores, even some supermarkets.  And you know what?  I can go to anyone and buy whatever I want whenever I want.  Private stores have competition so they have an incentive to keep their shelves stocked.  And their doors open for customers.

If you want to get an idea about how Obamacare will be, you can look at the liquor stores in Pennsylvania.  That’s what happens when the governments tries to run anything.

The Taxpayers Message to the Public Sector Employees:  Get a Job

The Democrats took a shellacking at the 2010 midterm elections.  The people have rejected their Big Government liberal agenda.  And they know it.  So they’re now trying to shame the Republicans into working with them to keep their Big Government dreams alive.  It’s either that or they have to figure out a way to get rid of those pesky elections.

But the public sector is bankrupting the country.  And the people paying the taxes to support that public sector are saying enough is enough.  They don’t like making sacrifices in their own life so others in government can live a better life.  Especially when they have to settle for such rotten service from the public sector they’re paying more and more to fund.

Their message to these pampered public sector employees?  The same parents have been telling their kids for ages.  Get a job.



Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Republicans and Obama Compromise to Extend the Bush Tax Cuts

Posted by PITHOCRATES - December 8th, 2010

It’s not that the American People Disagree with Obama.  They’re just not Smart enough to know what’s Best for Them.

Well, problem solved.  Sort of.  For a year or so.  Then they’ll have to do it all over again.

Obama will extend the Bush tax cuts.  And it will only cost another year of unemployment benefits.  That’s good because we have all grown weary of this recession (see Obama defends tax deal, says he’s kept promises by Ben Feller, AP White House Correspondent, posted 12/7/2010 on Yahoo! News).

With fellow Democrats balking, President Barack Obama declared Tuesday that a compromise with Republicans on tax cuts was necessary to help the economy and protect recession-weary Americans. He passionately defended his record against Democrats who complain he’s breaking campaign promises.

What’s this?  Some of that bipartisanship he was talking about when Obama ran as a moderate during the 2008 presidential campaign?  Can you feel the love?  You better pinch me because I must be dreaming.

Obama cast his decision to accede to the GOP position on extending the tax cuts in stark terms.

“It’s tempting not to negotiate with hostage takers — unless the hostage gets harmed. Then, people will question the wisdom of that strategy. In this case, the hostage was the American people, and I was not willing to see them get harmed.”

He said the American people agree with his position, but “I haven’t persuaded the Republican Party.” Reflecting the newly increased Republican clout in Congress, he said: “I haven’t persuaded (Senate Republican leader) Mitch McConnell and I haven’t persuaded (House GOP leader) John Boehner.”

Now there’s the Obama we all know and…., well, know.  Who else could suffer such a categorical rejection of his polices and still think the American people agree with him?  Talk about illusions of grandeur. 

It reminds me of that line in the movie Tootsie where some aging soap opera star was lamenting about being an old has-been.  Dorothy (Dustin Hoffman) soothed his feelings by saying he wasn’t an old has-been.  He couldn’t be.  Because you had to be famous first to be a has-been.

Or that scene in that classic movie This is Spinal Tap, the fake documentary about a fake, aging rock band.  The interviewer noted they were playing smaller venues instead of arenas like in their heyday and asked if that was a reflection on their popularity.  They said ‘no’.  Their audiences weren’t getting smaller.  They were just becoming more selective.

And you can forget about pinching me.

Americans Lose Faith in the Unmanly Obama

Unhappy with this compromise, the Left is questioning Obama’s manliness (see Left sees tax surrender, says Obama reelection bid now crippled by Sam Youngman posted 12/7/2010 on The Hill).

“President Obama has shown a complete refusal to fight Republicans throughout his presidency even when the public is on his side — and millions of his former supporters are now growing disappointed and infuriated by this refusal to fight,” said Adam Green, co-founder of the Progressive Change Campaign Committee.

The public is with Obama?  Talk about a struggle with reality.  Or a very, very short memory.  If the midterm elections weren’t a rejection of Obama’s liberal agenda I don’t know what rejection is.  So, no, the public is not with Obama on this.  Only the far Left is with Obama.  That 20% of the population that the other 80% can’t stand.

“This is only a tough fight [now] because Americans have lost faith that President Obama is fighting for their economic futures,” said Jamal Simmons, a Democratic strategist and former official with the Clinton administration.

Do you think?  Things have gotten worse under Obama.  Even after he spent billions of dollars to make things better.  So, yeah, most Americans have lost faith in Obama.  If they even had any in him in the first place.

Compromise is a Four-Letter Word on the Left

Bipartisanship is all well and good.  As long as you can make the other guy be bipartisan, that is.  The Democrats aren’t happy.  Especially the leadership, who usually march in lockstep with Obama (see Obama defends tax deal while Reid seeks changes by Charles Babington, Associated Press, posted 12/7/2010 on Yahoo! News).

“It’s something that’s not done yet,” said Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev. “We’re going to have to do some more work,” Reid said after a closed-door meeting with Vice President Joe Biden and members of the Democratic rank-and-file.

Reid isn’t happy.  Neither is Pelosi.

Across the Capitol, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, normally one of Obama’s staunchest allies, made plain her unhappiness, issuing a statement that contained no commitment to help pass the plan. “We will continue discussions with the president and our caucus in the days ahead.”

Yes, Reid and Pelosi are all for compromise.  As long it’s not them doing the compromising.  Typical liberals.  Never happy.  Even with the most liberal president ever to inhabit the White House.  He just isn’t liberal enough for them.

The Really Sad thing is that Pelosi got Reelected with 80% of the Vote

Furious, Pelosi vented on Twitter (see Pelosi attacks Obama-GOP tax plan as House Democrats signal fight by Russell Berman posted 12/7/2010 on The Hill).

In a post on Twitter, Pelosi said the GOP provisions in the tax proposal would add to the deficit and help the rich without creating jobs. The GOP provisions “help only wealthiest 3%, don’t create jobs & add tens of billions to deficit,” the Pelosi tweet said.

Then issued a statement.

“We will continue discussions with the president and our caucus in the days ahead,” Pelosi said. “Democratic priorities remain clear: to provide a tax cut for working families, to promote policies that produce jobs and economic growth, and to assist millions of our fellow Americans who have lost their jobs through no fault of their own.”

Nevadans barely reelected Reid.  Pelosi, on the other hand, got something like 80% of the vote.  Scary.  So that means about 80% of the people in her district agree with the political philosophy of about 20% of the country.  That screwball far Left.  The same people that supported Joseph Stalin.  And Fidel Castro.  Is it any wonder that Pelosi doesn’t have the foggiest idea about creating jobs?

Pelosi and the Democrats have been in power since 2006, 2 years before Obama’s election.  That’s 4 years of legislative control.  And things have declined during those 4 years.  So why in the world would anyone believe that she and her Democrats know anything about jobs and economic growth?  I’m sure she believes they do.  They just need more time.  Because that fifth year is always the charm.  Stalin, Mao, Castro – they all had 5 year plans.  And all the magic happens in that fifth year.  Apparently. 

Elections Have Consequences

The 2010 midterm elections were a mandate to shrink the power and scope of government.  Yet you wouldn’t know that listening to Obama, Pelosi and Reid.  Even some Republicans seem a little too eager to reach across the aisle. 

The Republicans need to acknowledge that Obama was right.  Elections have consequences.  And they won this time.  Not the Democrats.  And they need to legislate like they got a pair. 

Many feel the extension of the Bush tax cuts came at a high price.  No doubt they’re wondering what they will pay to repeal Obamacare.



Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

FUNDAMENTAL TRUTH #23: “Those who seek a third party cede the election to the opposition.” -Old Pithy

Posted by PITHOCRATES - July 20th, 2010

THIRD PARTY CANDIDATES are often election spoilers.  Dissatisfied with the direction of their party, they leave that party to form a new party.  This, of course, will split the party they left.  Some may follow.  Most will probably not.

Third party candidates have small followings.  They typically have a single issue that pushes them to leave their party.  That single issue, though, may not be as important to those they leave behind.  And this one issue may be anathema to the opposition.  Guaranteeing very few, if any, will follow that candidate into a third party.

The Green Party, for example, is an environmental party.  Environmental issues, then, dominate their political agenda.  Environmental policies typically do not result in jobs or economic prosperity.  They will draw some people from the Democratic Party.  But only those with extreme environmental views.  They will draw no one from the Republican Party which is more associated with jobs and economic issues than environmental issues.  They, then, would have little impact on the party they oppose.  But they may have a negative impact on the party that they would have otherwise supported.

And then you have your core voters.  They have and always will vote for their party.  Populist movements rarely change the way they vote.  Populist movements may be single-issue.  They may be more of a subset of an existing political party.  Or they may be vague on details completely.  They may be many things but the paramount thing they are is popular.  And they pander to the people that are demanding something.  And whatever that is, they say they will give it to them.  Populist trends, though, don’t sway core voters.

SO WHO ARE in the two core parties?  The liberals?  And the conservatives?

Liberals are pseudo-intellectuals who want to tell others how to live.  Because they are ‘smarter’ than everyone else.  Most have never held a real job.  They inherited their money or made it big in Hollywood or in some other entertainment genre (the guilty rich), are college professors, sponged off of government (the self-proclaimed political aristocracy) or are in the mainstream media. 

Conservatives typically have jobs.

Few people agree with liberals so they have to offer special privileges in exchange for votes and political power.  They get the support of the poor because they get the poor dependent on their charity.  They get the entertainment elite by stroking their intellectual vanity.  They get the various minorities and single-issue groups by throwing a few bones to them (i.e., by buying their votes).  They get Big Business with crony capitalism.  They get the unions in exchange for anti-business legislation.  They get the young by being weak on drugs and morality.  They get a lot of women because of their abortion stance.  They get the illegal immigration community because they dangle citizenship in front of them while getting as many as they can addicted to welfare (so when they do become citizens they will become good Democrats.  Of course, with the majority of illegal immigrants in question being Hispanic, it will be interesting to see how that loyalty will play out.  A lot of Hispanics are practicing Catholics.  Will they continue to support the party that attacks their religion and religious values?  After all, they’re leaving a corrupt nation where only the ruling elite live well.  They come here for a better life for themselves and their families.  And many work hard for it.  With their religious values being a strong part of their lives.  Will the liberals tempt them with their welfare state after citizenship?  Time will tell).

Many agree with conservatives because they, too, just want to work and provide for their families.  And they would like their children’s future to be a good one.  (Again, the Hispanic question is interesting.  For they have conservative values, too.  Amnesty for illegals may be a Faustian bargain, but wouldn’t be ironic if it’s the Democrats who are selling their souls?  I mean, this large bloc of Catholics could very well vote for the religious right after citizenship.)

So liberals must appeal to their base during the primary election to get their party’s nomination.  Once they have that, they then must start lying about who they really are during the general election.  Because their views and opinions are minority views and opinions. 

The conservatives just need to be themselves.  When Ronald Reagan did just that, he won in a landslide.  Twice.

LET’S CRUNCH SOME numbers.  Some simple numbers.  Let’s say there are only 11 voters.  America is a center-right country based on honest polling.  So let’s say that 4 voters are conservative and 3 voters are liberals.  The 4 in the middle are independents and moderates.  So what happens at an election?

If all of the independents and moderates do not vote, conservatives win (4-3). 

Liberals cannot win unless some moderates and independents do vote.  So liberals must encourage the moderates and independents to vote.  And, of course, to vote for them.  While making sure their base votes (‘vote early and often’ is their mantra).  As well as some criminals.  And some dead who haven’t been purged from the election rolls.

Independents and moderates, therefore, determine elections.  And the general election is all about getting these votes.  Both sides turn down the volume on the ‘extremist’ positions they held during the primaries.  Conservatives talk about bipartisanship and reaching across the aisle.  Liberals campaign as conservatives.  (Bill Clinton ran as a new kind of Democrat with some very conservative planks in his platform.  When he won, though, he moved so far back to the left that he lost the House and Senate at the midterm elections, proving once again America is a center-right country.)

So back to our little example.  If the conservatives get 2 of the 4 independent and moderate votes, they win (6-5).  Liberals need 3 of their votes for the same winning margin.  Advantage, conservatives.

Now let’s look at a rift in the conservative party.  Two leave and form a third party.  And take 2 votes with them.  For the sake of argument, let’s say these two call themselves the Anti-Abortion Party.  It is doubtful that any liberals will leave their party to join them.  And it is doubtful that independents and moderates would make overturning a Supreme Court decision a key voting issue.  They tend to tack to a centrist course through the prevailing political winds.

So the Anti-Abortion Party candidate will only get 2 votes.  This candidate will not win.  That leaves only 9 votes in play.  Which means getting only 5 votes will win the election (less than a majority of the total 11).  All the third party candidate did was to make it easier for the liberals to win.  They only need 2 of the 4 of the independent and moderate votes.  Conservatives now need 3.  The third party took the conservative advantage (only needing 2 additional votes to win) and gave it to the liberals.

THE MORAL OF the story here is that a vote for a third party candidate is a vote for the opposition.  The lesser of two evils may still be evil, but it is still ‘less’ evil.  You should never lose sight of that.  If a political statement is only going to result in the greater evil, it is better to be more pragmatic than idealistic when voting in a general election. 

The energy of a third party or third party-like movements (such as the new Tea Party) should be marshaled during the primary election.  To get good candidates who can win general elections.  And who will remember that they are the people’s representative, not a member of a privileged, ruling elite.



Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,