FT184: “If our big Democrat-controlled cities seceded from the US to form a liberal utopia they’d all become like Detroit.” —Old Pithy

Posted by PITHOCRATES - August 23rd, 2013

Fundamental Truth

The President basically said he doesn’t like Representative Government

President Obama recently said that some Republicans in Congress told him in private that they agree with his policies.  And would like to vote for his policies.  To do what is right for the American people.  But they won’t because they have a primary election coming up.  And if they agree with the president that will hurt them in that election if they go up against some Tea Party candidate.  And they’re afraid what Rush Limbaugh will say.  Him and his conservative extremists.

Now think about what the president is saying.  He said that these Republicans would vote for his policies if they weren’t afraid to vote against the will of the people they represent.  For if these Republicans are afraid they will lose a primary election by voting for the president’s policies that could only mean the people they represent don’t want them voting for the president’s policies.

This is very telling.  For what the president is really saying is that he could do what he wants to do if it wasn’t for representative government.  That is the big obstacle preventing him from passing policies the people oppose.  The people.  Which is why his administration is full of czars to help write and execute policy.  Because they have no elections to worry about.  And can do things against the will of the people all day long without worrying about the consequences of doing so.

If you want to see the Result of Failed Liberal Policies just look at the Big Democrat-Controlled Cities

There’s a reason why those who want to implement liberal policies like the president have to use deceit.  The nation is about twice as conservative as it is liberal (see Conservatives Remain the Largest Ideological Group in U.S. by Lydia Saad posted 1/12/2012 on Gallup).  This is why Republicans in Congress fear the Tea Party.  Because the Tea Party represent about twice as many of the people than they and their liberal friends in Congress do.

There’s a reason why the number of people who call themselves liberal has hovered around 20% for decades.  Because liberal policies are not good for America.  They are only good for the ‘connected’ class.  Those with friends in high places.  America’s aristocracy.  Who hate the Tea Party.  And most of America.  As they talk condescendingly down to them from their lofty perches in academia, the mainstream media, union leadership, Hollywood, government bureaucracies, etc.  People who are wealthier than most.  Who like to force people to live the way they want them to live through the heavy hand of government.  While exempting themselves from the laws they pass for us.  Like Obamacare.

If you want to see the result of their failed policies just look at the big Democrat-controlled cities.  Like Detroit.  Detroit was controlled by Democrats for decades.  Democrats there ushered in their liberal utopia.  They raised taxes so much to fund a massive city government that they chased business out of the city.  While layer upon layer of costly regulatory policies helped chase even more businesses away.  And with the jobs gone the people soon followed.  Now they have half the population they once did.  With their tax base imploded they are now left with unfunded pension and retiree health care obligations for their public sector that can never pay.  Sending them into bankruptcy.

Just imagine all the Good that could come from Paying an Entry-Level Worker $75,000

There are a lot of people on the left that want a federal bailout for Detroit.  They want people who have long suffered the high taxation and the job-killing legislation that caused Detroit’s problems in the first place to bail out the city.  People who do not benefit from those generous pension and retiree health insurance benefits.  And who will not benefit from a bailout.  They will only see higher taxes.  More federal debt.  Or more inflation to eat away the money THEY saved for their own retirements (if the government chooses to monetize the debt).  Just so the people in the public sector can enjoy better and longer retirements than they will enjoy.  Because they’ll have to work closer to their own death as they will never be able to save enough to enjoy a ‘public sector’ retirement if they have to pay for the public sector’s retirement as well as their own.

Here’s a thought, why not have the other big Democrat-controlled cities bail out Detroit?  Oh, wait a minute, they can’t.  Because their public sectors have left them greatly indebted, too.  These cities are irresponsibly running up debts that they never will be able to repay.  No matter how much they raise taxes and implement new taxes.  There’s never enough.  In fact, in creating their little liberal utopias they have chased a lot of business, and their tax base, out of their cities.  Yet these cities vote overwhelmingly Democrat.  Perhaps these cities should band together.  If they are so much more enlightened than the rest of the knuckle-dragging Neanderthals in this country perhaps they should secede from the US.  Declare themselves city-states.  And join a federation with other Democrat city-states.  Then they can live like they want to live.  And tell the rest of us (the 80% or so who don’t think like they do) to go someplace warm but not at all pleasant.

They could raise taxes on everyone to really redistribute wealth.  They can do away with drug laws.  Lessen the severity of our criminal laws so there isn’t such a disparity of offenders in our jails.  Make it a hate crime to criticize anyone who isn’t a conservative.  Have government-funded birth control, abortion and morning-after pills.  Government-funded housing.  Government-funded food.  And government-funded health care.  They can outlaw profits and force businesses to maximize the social good.  Raise the minimum wage to a true living wage.  Say, $75,000 a year.  Just imagine all the good that could come from paying an entry-level worker $75,000.  There would be no more student loan debt.  For there would be no reason to go to college to become engineers, doctors, nurses, dentists, paramedics, pharmacists, etc.  Wouldn’t that be lovely?  Wouldn’t you love to work and live in a city where you could do any kind of drug wherever you wanted?  Even while you were cooking food in an entry-level job?  Where there was no punishment for breaking the law?  And no one was so puritanical to tell us not to have sex as often or with as many people as we wanted?  Wouldn’t women love this?  Sure, there would be an epidemic of venereal disease but there would be free health care to treat that (if anyone still worked hard to learn to become a doctor, nurse, dentist, paramedic or pharmacist, that is).  Can you just see these utopian city-states?

Actually, you can see it right now.  For I dare say anyone wanting to open a business or raise a family would NOT want to do so in a city like this.  The jobs would leave first.  Then the people.  Imploding the tax base.  Until you’d have nothing but Detroits dotting the landscape of this utopian federation of liberal city-states.  This is what the president and those in the 20% want.  While of course exempting themselves from this world.  Living in their gated fortresses.  Comfortably.  Where they’ll blame the people who abandoned their utopian city-states as unpatriotic.  Who wouldn’t have fled if it wasn’t for the Tea Party.  Rush Limbaugh.  And, of course, George W. Bush.  Who the left will never tire of hating.  Or blaming.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

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

The Muslim Brotherhood is out in Egypt for Ruling against the Will of the People

Posted by PITHOCRATES - July 4th, 2013

Politics 101

The Muslim Brotherhood did not like Hosni Mubarak or Peace in the Middle East

President Mohammed Morsi is no longer president of Egypt.  Thanks to a bloodless military coup.  Why did the military do this?  Is there some power-hungry general that wanted to become dictator?  No.  The army stepped in to prevent the country from degenerating into civil war.  As the people were unhappy.  And angry.  Filling Tahrir Square.  Protesting the rule of President Morsi.  Just as they protested the rule of Hosni Mubarak.  Back during the Arab Spring.  When democracy was flowering all over the Arab world.

The people were unhappy with Hosni Mubarak because of soaring unemployment.  And his oppressive police state.  To name two things.  The people wanted jobs.  And liberty.  So they demanded democracy.  And got it.  They had free elections.  And the people chose their new leader.  Mohammed Morsi.  Who since becoming president did nothing to improve the employment picture.  And seemed more interested in imposing Sharia law on the Egyptian people than liberty.  In fact, he seemed more interested in restricting liberty.  Especially for Coptic Christians.  And women.

Mubarak’s police state did a lot to suppress the Muslim Brotherhood.  President Morsi’s party.  The Muslim Brotherhood also wanted to impose Sharia law on the Egyptian people.  And did not like Hosni Mubarak for making peace with Israel.  Being secular.  Making it harder to smuggle arms into the Gaza Strip to their friend.  The terrorist group Hamas.  A militant Palestinian Islamic movement dedicated to the destruction of Israel.  And member of the Palestinian branch of the Muslim Brotherhood.  So the Brotherhood was no friend of peace in the Middle East.  Or secularism.  Which is why Mubarak brutally suppressed the Muslim Brotherhood.  But now the Brotherhood was in power.  And they would have their revenge.  As they put Egypt on the road to Sharia law.

Both the Nazis and the Muslim Brotherhood lied to Rise to Power

Hosni Mubarak was a friend to America.  Israel.  And Middle East peace.  He had his faults.  But he was so critical to peace and stability in the region the United States and their friends and allies should have tried to help Mubarak reform Egypt.  Instead of throwing him under the bus.  Like President Obama did.  Who spent his political career bashing George W. Bush for trying to bring democracy to the Middle East.  And here he was.  President Obama.  Trying to bring democracy to Egypt.  Telling our friend and ally, Hosni Mubarak, he had to go.  When the only opposition party in Egypt was the friend of Hamas and Iran.  The Muslim Brotherhood.

The conservatives warned President Obama about letting the Muslim Brotherhood rise to power.  That it was not in America’s best interests.  Israel’s.  Or the Middle East’s.  And the Brotherhood knew the Americans and Israelis and the West in general were uncomfortable with them in power.  So to appease everyone they said not to worry.  They weren’t interested in rising to power.  And they wouldn’t run for the presidency.  They just wanted to help the nation they loved, Egypt, to be free.  That’s all.  But then one thing led to another.  And the Muslim Brotherhood rose to power.  With one of their own becoming president.  Just like conservatives warned would happen.  And the Brotherhood promised wouldn’t happen.  So what happened?

The Muslim Brotherhood, of course, lied.  That’s how you rise to power when you want to change the country against the will of the people.  Adolf Hitler didn’t rise to power through a military coup.  The Nazis won elections.  They didn’t campaign on the truth.  They didn’t tell the people that they were going to invade Poland, Norway, North Africa, the Low Countries, France, Greece, the Soviet Union, etc.  That they were going to build death camps.  Or use a brutal secret police (the Gestapo) to terrorize their own people.  For these aren’t the kinds of things people vote for.  So you lie to the people.  And say you want to do other things.  Not the things people warned would happen if the Nazis rose to power.  Especially those who read Mein Kampf.  Where Hitler himself told the world what he planned on doing.  It was all there.  All you had to do was read his book.

Candidates who Promise Everything typically want to Change the Country Against the Will of the People

Iranian students protested the Shah of Iran.  Just like the Egyptians protested Hosni Mubarak.  Men and women.  Including a lot of college graduates who could not find any work with their new degrees.  They blamed the Shah.  Another friend and ally of the United States.  They demanded jobs.  And liberty.  A democracy of the people.  And that’s exactly what they got.  Then they voted for an Islamic republic.  And those people who protested to overthrow the Shah lost everything they wanted.  Especially the women.  Who had fewer liberties after the Iranian Revolution than they had under the Shah of Iran.  During the elections the Islamists didn’t say they were going to do this.  For people demanding liberty and jobs are not going to vote for someone promising to take away even more of their liberties.  So they lied.  Allowing them to rise to power.  To change the country against the will of the people.

Removing the Muslim Brotherhood from power is good for the United States.  For Israel.  And for peace in the Middle East.  Because with the Muslim Brotherhood in power Iran had a good friend in Egypt.  To help expand their hegemony in the region.  Shiite rule in a predominantly Sunni area.  And what was once a more secular area.  Before the Arab Spring.  Some expressed concern about the military removing a democratically elected president.  Of course they must express this publically.  Especially when they’re trying to spread democracy.  But there is a difference between good democracy and bad democracy.  Bad democracy is the kind that is only transitory.  A tool.  A means to an end.  When you want to change a country against the will of the people.  And once you achieve the end you can dispose of that ridiculous thing called democracy.  Like the Nazis did.  Like the Iranians did.  And like the Muslim Brotherhood was well along the way in doing.

This is something people need to learn.  Not to trust those running for office.  Especially those who promise everything the people want.  You see, there is a reason why the people don’t have everything they want.  It’s just not possible.  It’s too costly.  And you just can’t please everyone.  So no matter how much you give the people there will still be some who want something else.  Always.  Which is good for people running for office.  As they always have something to lie about.  That is, to make a promise they can’t keep.  Or simply have no intention of keeping.  Because they want to change the country against the will of the people.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

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

FT124: “Liberals use the courts to give them what the people won’t.” -Old Pithy

Posted by PITHOCRATES - June 29th, 2012

Fundamental Truth

Magna Carta led to Constitutional Monarchy and Representative Government

Medieval kings liked doing as they pleased.  From living well.  To expanding their kingdoms by force.  Or trying to.  As kingdoms got larger, though, this was more difficult to do.  Because the larger the kingdom got the more food they had to produce.  And kings didn’t feed their kingdoms from their castle vegetable gardens.  They needed the wealthy and powerful landowners.  Who owned the land.  Grew the food.  And provided the kingdom’s wealth.

These landowners made land valuable.  By growing food on it.  As famine was no stranger during the Middle Ages there was nothing more important than growing food.  Those who did became wealthy.  And their estates became mini kingdoms.  With lots of peasants working the fields.  And lots of soldiers to defend their land.  And to fight for their king in times of war.  Kings needed to maintain good relationships with these wealthy landowners.  To keep them supporting their kingdoms.  And to prevent any one of them from rising up and challenging the king for his throne.

King John of England was hurting his relationships with the wealthy landowners.  He fought a lot of expensive wars across the English Channel in France.  Which required high taxes on the English landowners.  The barons.  Worse, King John lost a lot of his battles in France.  Losing the barons some of their Normandy lands.  So the barons were becoming a little disgruntled with their king.  And they rebelled.  Eventually forcing the king to place his Great Seal on Magna Carta.  Limiting his powers.  It didn’t change things much at the time.  But it would lead to constitutional monarchy.  And representative government.

The Patriots of 1776 were none too keen on Creating a New Central Power

Kings don’t like limits on their power.  King John would go on to renounce Magna Carta.  And got the Pope’s approval to not honor the promises he made with the barons.  But these barons sowed the seeds of representative government in England.  And the Western World.  Greatly influencing the Founding Fathers in America.  Whose Constitution placed great limits on the government’s power.

The Americans were having some problems with their Articles of Confederation.  The sovereign states were taking care of themselves.  Sometimes at the expense of the other states.  Or the new nation.  And the new nation wasn’t making much progress in the international community.  A bit of a laughing stock to other nations.  Who were all sure it was only a matter of time before the American colonies would be British again.  For once the war was over there was little united about the states anymore.  So James Madison urged a meeting of the several states to revise the Articles of Confederation.  To help make a more perfect union.  And to move the new nation forward.  They met in Philadelphia in 1787.  And caused a firestorm.  For they didn’t revise the Articles.  They threw them away.  And wrote a brand new Constitution.

This inflamed a lot of the Patriots of 1776.  Who had voted to sever the bonds from a distant central power about a decade earlier.  And they were none too keen on creating a new central power to replace the one they just banished.  It took awhile but with the presence of George Washington and some words from Benjamin Franklin, two of the most trusted and experienced Americans who sacrificed a lot in securing their independence, they completed their task.  It wasn’t a perfect document.  But it was the best they were ever going to produce considering the sectional differences in the country.  And they sent it to the states for ratification.  James Madison, Alexander Hamilton and John Jay helped to secure ratification by writing a series of articles that we know today as the Federalist Papers.  Some of the finest Constitutional scholarship ever written.

As Few as Five People in Black Robes can Fundamentally Change the Nation

Key to the Constitution was the separation of powers that restricted the power of the new federal government that no one trusted.  There was a legislature to write law.  An executive branch to enforce law.  And a judicial branch to interpret law.  To make sure that the other two branches did not violate the Constitution.  Such a system would have really crimped King John’s style.  For the law was above all the people.  Including the executive.  He could only do the things the laws allowed him to do.  And the things the laws allowed him to do he could only do if the legislature agreed to pay for them.  It was a system of checks and balances that helped the nation to grow while maintaining personal liberty.

King John would have been particularly irked by the legislature.  Made up by representatives of the people.  Who enacted legislation that was in the best interest of the people.  Not him.  Fast forward to modern times and you find history littered with people who wanted to expand their power only to have that representative body of the people foil them.  Ruling elites.  Modern aristocrats.  Those who feel an entitlement due to a superior education.  A superior bloodline.  Or simply like-minded people who would rather have the days of unlimited power like they had in Medieval Europe.  Before the barons had to muck up the works with Magna Carta.

Over time they learned how to bring back some of the old ways.  The easiest way was just to get people to vote for them.  And they did this by giving them a lot of free stuff.  But there were some things that they just couldn’t bribe out of the people.  So they turned to the courts.  And did a little legislating with activist judges.  Sometimes bringing a suit all the way to the Supreme Court to create a law where there was no law.  Abortion is now legal even though there was never any federal legislation addressing it.  While there was plenty of state legislation forbidding it.  Until seven men in black robes overruled the will of the people in those states.

The Supreme Court is powerful.  For as few as five people in black robes can fundamentally change the nation.  Which is why presidential elections are so important.  Because presidents nominate judges to the Supreme Court.  And those on the Left depend on the timely deaths and/or retirements of Supreme Court judges so they can nominate activist judges.  To get a majority on the high court to rule in their favor on bad law.  Such as Obamacare.  An unpopular law.  A law the majority of the people want repealed.  A law that became law only with subterfuge (the mandate is not a tax).  A law that clearly violated the Constitution (forcing people to buy something).  Yet five people in black robes just fundamentally changed the nation by voting that Obamacare was Constitutional (the mandate is a tax).  Which just goes to show you that where there is a will there is a way.  A way to rule like a king.  Against the will of the people.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

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

Obamacare will Slash Medicare Advantage to the Bone – After the 2012 Election

Posted by PITHOCRATES - April 29th, 2012

Week in Review

First Nancy Pelosi said we had to pass Obamacare to find out what’s in it.  So our representatives passed it.  Along pure party lines.  Against the will of the people.  Something the people didn’t forget by the 2010 midterm elections.  Voting the Democrats from power in the House.  Removing their filibuster-proof majority in the Senate.  Taking a majority of the governorships.  And state houses.  The Democrats paid a high price for passing legislation the people did not want.  And now it may be their president who has to answer for this assault on the will of the people.  Who has no illusions that his signature piece of legislation was rammed down the people’s throats with some of the dirtiest political deal making to ever besmirch the halls of Congress.  And he’s working his hardest to hide the facts of Obamacare before the 2012 election (see Obama’s $8.3 Billion Re-Election Slush Fund posted 4/23/2012 on Investors.com).

Backers like to say the more people know about ObamaCare, the more they’ll like it. So why is the administration spending $8.3 billion to hide a key provision from millions of seniors until after the election?

That’s precisely what administration officials are doing right now as a way to mask the effect of ObamaCare’s deep cuts to the popular Medicare Advantage program.

Championed by Republicans in 1997, Medicare Advantage offers seniors an escape valve from the creaky, government-run Medicare insurance program…

Medicare Advantage has proved popular with seniors, 12 million of whom have enrolled. But the left loathes it, arguing that Medicare overpays insurance companies, thereby ripping off taxpayers to enrich this industry…

Medicare’s own actuary reported that ObamaCare would eventually force more than 7 million seniors off their private plans and back onto traditional Medicare as insurers flee the market.

Obama may not care that this violates his endlessly repeated promise that “if you like your health plan you can keep it.”

But somewhere along the way, someone in his administration realized that millions of seniors would soon catch on that he was lying — and that this would happen just before the November election, when seniors make their annual Medicare Advantage selections.

Not wanting to confront angry voters who’ve seen their health care choice eliminated by ObamaCare, the administration apparently decided instead to paper over these spending cuts, pumping $8.3 billion back into the program through “bonuses” to Medicare Advantage plans…

Almost all the bonus money is front-loaded. In fact, in the first year, the extra bonuses will fill in more than 70% of ObamaCare’s scheduled Medicare Advantage cuts. That will, conveniently, keep Medicare Advantage plans up and running through the election.

So the more you learn about Obamacare the more Barack Obama fears his reelection chances.  So he’s spending $8.3 billion to hush up the truth.  To lie to seniors.  Apparently.  So the seniors don’t learn that Obamacare is going to reduce the quality of their health care.  To lull them in a false sense of security to get him through the 2012 election.  For by hiding the truth his chances of reelection improve.  Which is a sad commentary on President Obama.  And Obamacare.

Should he win reelection then he’ll spring the truth on these unsuspecting seniors.  By destroying Medicare Advantage.  And forcing them into health care plans they don’t want.  Confessing that he was lying when he said “if you like your health plan you can keep it.”  Which makes one wonder what else he has in store for our seniors.  For the cost of programs for seniors (Social Security and Medicare) are the largest and fastest rising costs in the federal budget.  So if he will ax Medicare Advantage just how much more will he cut from programs for seniors?  Now that there are no more elections to worry about?

No wonder he’s spending $8.3 billion to hide the truth.  If this truth comes out who knows what else will come out before the 2012 election.  And that’s something clearly the president can’t afford to chance.  For when you are passing policies the people don’t want the truth is the last thing you want to come out.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

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

The Irish Parliament begins Debate on Bill that will Provide Limited Access to Abortion

Posted by PITHOCRATES - April 22nd, 2012

Week in Review

Representative government transferred the power from the privileged few to the people.  And once they did things got better for the people.  Because the government started serving the people instead of the people serving the government.  And to keep it that way representative governments introduced separations of powers.  And checks and balances.  They created legislative bodies to write laws.  Where legislators represented the people in proportion to the population.  So laws represented the will of the people.  And not minority interests. 

Of course, this made it difficult to pass some laws.  Especially those that went against the will of the people.  So some found a way to get around the will of the people.  By legislating from the bench.  Where instead of needing a majority of hundreds of legislators you only needed a majority of a handful of judges.  Which has been the legislative tool of choice for liberals to write laws.  Using the judiciary to write law that they could not write in the legislature.  Violating the separation of powers.  And going against the will of the people.  Such as making abortion legal in countries where the majority oppose it.  Like the United States.  And Ireland (see Ireland Takes Up Bill on Abortion Access by DOUGLAS DALBY posted 4/18/2012 on The New York Times).

One of the most deeply divisive issues in Irish society was reignited Wednesday night when the Irish Parliament began debate on a bill that would provide for limited access to abortion.

As in the United States, it was the Supreme Court here that legalized abortion, although in strictly limited circumstances. But in the 20 years since the decision in the “X Case,” successive governments have shied away from enacting the legislation needed to carry out the order…

“We believe that it is only a first step for abortion to be legalized in Ireland in all circumstances. We have waited long enough,” Ms. Daly said. “Over 100,000 Irish abortions have taken place in Britain for many different reasons, none of them easy, all of them valid. The hypocrisy, injustice and expense of having to travel to England for terminations, away from family and friends, is a disgrace.”

But in this conservative and Catholic nation, sentiment against abortion runs strong, and over the past few months anti-abortion groups have been pressuring politicians to oppose the bill, and are confident it will be defeated.

Governments shy away from putting abortion in the hands of the legislature.  Especially in countries with large Catholic populations.  Which is why there are no abortion laws on the books in the U.S. or Ireland.  Just Supreme Court rulings that created an abortion law from the bench.  As Supreme Court justices typically serve for life they don’t have to worry about the political fallout of their decisions.  Which gives some a green light for judicial activism.  Giving them leeway to disagree with laws they don’t like.  Or creating laws they like that the people don’t.  They can do this.  Legislators can’t.  Which is why they shy away from abortion law.  Because a legislator usually has another election to try to win.  And that isn’t easy to do when you go against the will of the people.  As many found out in the U.S. after they voted for Obamacare.  And lost their jobs in the 2010 midterm elections.  Because they not only acted against the will of the people but against their own constituents.

Ireland is a Catholic country.  And they take their Catholicism pretty seriously.  Which is why so many Irish hate the English.  Who are Protestant.  If you’re not familiar with this history read up a little on it.  Perhaps looking up some names like Elizabeth I, James I or the Earl of Stafford.  Then you’ll get a feeling for the love between Irish Catholics and English Protestants.  So the Irish are Catholic.  And fiercely so.  They stay true to their Catholic beliefs.  Which includes an absolute opposition to abortion.  Which is why there is no abortion law in Ireland.  Only a Supreme Court decision.  Until now, perhaps.  As the Irish legislature is now debating this subject.  What will the Irish Catholic do?   Whatever they do one thing is for certain.  It won’t make the issue any less divisive.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

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

LESSONS LEARNED #76: “You know they’re governing against the will of the people when they play with the meaning of words to fool the people.” -Old Pithy

Posted by PITHOCRATES - July 28th, 2011

When is a Spending Cut an Increase in Spending? 

I have a riddle for you.  When is a spending cut an increase in spending?  “Well, that’s when…, hey, wait minute,” you say.  “That’s not a riddle.  That’s a paradox.  It’s like saying draw a square circle.  Or a name an objective journalist.  You just can’t do these things.  Just as a ‘cut’ can’t be an ‘increase’.  They are the very opposite of each other.”

Yeah, you would think.  Not that much of a riddle, then, is it?  For a true riddle is solvable.  Or should be.  Like, say, I have two coins that add up to thirty cents.  One of them isn’t a nickel.  What are they?  You’re a bit stymied, aren’t you.  Because a quarter and a nickel are the only two coins that add up to thirty cents.  So what’s the answer?  A quarter and a nickel.  “But you said one of them wasn’t a nickel,” you say.  “Right,” I say.  “One of them isn’t a nickel.  But the other one is.”

Now that’s a riddle.  Clever.  But solvable.  So now back to my first riddle.  When is a spending cut an increase in spending?  The answer is when you use baseline budgeting.

The Power of Baseline Budgeting

Politicians lie.  And they love to spend our money.  Put the two together and what do you get?  Baseline budgeting.   Which in a nutshell is government spending on autopilot.  Next year’s spending is this year’s spending plus a little extra.  That ‘little extra’ is the amount in all budget negotiations. 

For example, let’s say there is an item in the budget with a billion dollar budget amount this year.  That’s the baseline.  That’s where we start budgeting for next year.  Next year’s budget will be one billion dollars plus or minus that ‘extra amount’.

Typically they set this ‘extra amount’ to be equal to or greater than the rate of inflation.  And/or changes in legislation for that budgetary item.  Let’s say there is no change in the program legislation.  And they set the program’s budget so that next year’s budget equals this year’s budget plus 10%.  So this budget item will be $1 billion this year.  And $1.1 billion next year.  Projecting this out for 10 years, this will automatically add $1.36 billion to this budgetary item.

In Baseline Budgeting a Spending Cut is an Increase in Spending

A couple of things should jump out at you.  For one you see why government programs never die.  Once they add them to the budget they stay in the budget.  And grow.  Always.  Forever.  And the bigger the starting budget amount the bigger the program will grow over time.  Again, automatically.  So you can see why baseline budgeting has been a godsend to Big Government.  It guarantees the growth of government.  Now.  And forever.

Now let’s look at a spending cut.  Let’s say spending is getting out of control.  Deficits are growing.  (As hard as that is to imagine.)  So there’s a budget deal to ‘cut’ the budget by 2%.  But this is a 2% cut in baseline budgeting.  So we’re not reducing the budget amount.  We’re only reducing the amount above the baseline.  Spending was going to increase 10% the following year.  But with this 2% cut, that 10% increase becomes only an 8% increase. 

This is where the language play comes in.  The budget is increased by 8%.  But in baseline budgeting it is a 2% decrease.  Instead of increasing the budget by $100 million, they only increase it by $80 million.  The budget is increased by $80 million but they count it as a $20 million cut.  Because future spending was cut $20 million.  So it’s a cut even though no spending was actually cut.  Spending still increases.  Just not as much as previously budgeted.  And that’s the wonderful world of baseline budgeting.  Where a spending cut increases spending.

The Government Shutdown of 1995 and 1996 

When CBO takes these projections out to 10 years it makes these spending ‘cuts’ look draconian.  As originally budgeted, this item would have been increased by $1.36 billion over 10 years.  Because of the reduction in the size of future spending, it will only increase $1 billion over 10 years.  But instead of calling this a $1 billion increase (which it is), they will call it a draconian cut of $359 million (which it isn’t).  Instead of saying this budget item will increase by 99.9% (which it will), they say it will be cut by 26.4% (which it obviously won’t).  Now politicians understand this baseline doublespeak.  But the average American doesn’t.  They hear ‘26.4%’ cut in some program for single mothers or hungry children and think what vicious, heartless bastards Republicans are.

And this was the stage for the government shutdown of 1995 and 1996Bill Clinton campaigned as a moderate in the 1992 presidential election.  After winning, though, he governed as a tax and spend liberal.  The people expressed their disapproval and gave both houses of Congress to the Republicans in the 1994 midterm electionsNewt Gingrich became Speaker of the House.  Gingrich and the Republicans saw their election as a mandate to stop the out of control government spending.  And that’s what they were trying to do in the budget battles beginning in 1995.

The Republicans were trying to reduce the rate of growth of government spending per the will of the people.  Spending would still increase.  But at a slower rate.  Clinton, though, fought against the will of the people.  Using baseline budgeting newspeak to mislead the people.  Clinton called these reductions in growth rates draconian spending cuts.  Even though there were no real cuts in spending.  But being a tax and spend liberal, he wasn’t about to cut the rate of growth.  So they squared off in budget battle.  It all came to a head when the government hit its borrowing limit.  The Republicans tried to get some spending cuts in exchange for increasing the debt ceiling.  Clinton refused.  Unable to pay its bills, the government shutdown.  And the United States collapsed.

Baseline Budgeting helps you Govern against the Will of the People

Not really.  Few people even noticed the shutdown.  Everyone still went to work.  Collected their pay (unless you worked in a national park).  And life went on.  Social Security checks went out.  Interest on the national debt was paid.  The credit rating on U.S. sovereign debt remained AAA.  So there was little damage.  Clinton came out okay from the crisis.  Newt Gingrich not so well.  Many believe that this helped Clinton’s reelection in 1996.  Of course a lot of that had to do with Dick Morris.  Who pulled Clinton to the center.  And became the moderate the people thought they elected.

Clinton may have won reelection, but he paid a price.   Republicans still held both houses of Congress.  Who ultimately won in the long-run.  Their Balanced Budget Act of 1997 did cut the growth rate of government spending.  And then the dot-com boom of the late Nineties produced a windfall of tax revenue that, with the ‘spending cuts’ of the Balanced Budget Act, actually balanced the budget.  For a few years.  But it turned out that the dot-com boom was actually a dot-com bubble.  Thanks to a lot of irrational exuberance.  And the bubble popped.  With the resulting recession tax revenue fell.  And those balanced budgets were no more.

Unwilling to concede to the will of the people, Clinton played with the meaning of words.  Called a spending increase a spending cut.  Because he knew the average American didn’t understand baseline budgeting.  And politicians continue to this day scaring people about draconian spending cuts where there are no spending cuts.  Not in the world of baseline budgeting.  Which makes it easy for them to continue to govern against the will of the people.  As they continue to do.  As they always have done.  Because nothing is more important than growing government.  And spending as much of our money as possible before we get a chance to spend it ourselves.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

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

FUNDAMENTAL TRUTH #76: “You know they’re governing against the will of the people when they play with the meaning of words to fool the people.” -Old Pithy

Posted by PITHOCRATES - July 26th, 2011

The More they Trust You the Easier it is to Lie to Them

People lie for one reason.  They don’t want you to hear the truth. Sometimes it’s done with good intentions.  “No, those jeans don’t make your butt look big.”  Most times it’s not.  “I am not having an affair.  And I can explain those earrings you found in the backseat.  And the underwear that’s not yours.  Just give me a minute.”

The truth about lying is the truth.  And someone’s attempt to hide it.  A husband doesn’t tell his wife about an affair.  Because he doesn’t want his wife to know about the affair.  For a variety of reasons.  But mostly so he can keep having the affair.

And this is why people lie.  To continue doing something they couldn’t otherwise do.  By misleading those people who know them.  Who love them.  Who trust them.  And the funny thing is, the more they trust you the easier it is to lie to them.  “Look, honey, I didn’t want to say anything before.  But the rumor at work was that John and Mary were having an affair.  I didn’t believe it at first.  I mean, they’re both married.  And they’re more than just my coworkers.  They’re my friends.  Then one day John had to borrow my car.  So I lent it to him.  The next thing Bill tells me is that he sees John and Mary in my car turning into an alley.  Guess I know what they were doing in that alley.”

See?  Easy.

Good Lying is about Creative Language and Class Warfare

So if you’re into lying it’s best to get yourself into a position where lots of people trust you.  Like elected office.  Because for some reason people tend to trust anyone in government.  Far more than those evil greedy people in corporate America.  Or rich people in general.  Even though it’s a given that politicians lie.  It is an interesting dynamic.  How this inherently dishonest institution is trusted first then questioned about their honesty later.  Long after the scandals that follow them.  So how do they do it?  How do these liars get to be so trusted?

It’s all about creative language.  And class warfare.  You need to get people to hate each other.  And then you stoke those passions.  Keep them burning hot.  So they feel more than think.  For the less they think the more they’ll fall for your soaring rhetoric.  You say the rich should pay their fair share (even though they pay a disproportionate high percentage of taxes).  And that rich CEOs shouldn’t get tax breaks to fly around in their private jets (even though they use them for legitimate business purposes).  You cast yourself as the protector of the little guy against rich and corporate interests.  Even though you’re anything but.  But that’s how it’s done.  And no one does it better than liberal Democrats.

For they are the king of liars.  Ivy League educated.  Arrogant.  Pompous.  Filled with an air of all-knowing condescension.  They just brim with loathing and self-confidence.  They loath you and I who are not their equals.  And they believe that there is nothing that they can’t do.  And what do they want to do?  Tax and spend.  Control the economy.  And tell us how we should live.  In the enlightened world they envision.  Of course, this has not proven to be a successful political platform.  People don’t want to elect people like this.  So they lie about what they want.  And who they are.  With a creative use of language.

Twisting the Meanings of Words

No one likes paying taxes.  No one will vote for someone who says they’re going to raise their taxes.  Which is a bit of a problem for a tax and spend liberal.  So they don’t use the ‘T’ word.  No.  Instead, taxes are called ‘contributions’.  Or simply ‘revenue’.  Because contributions sound voluntary.  And revenue sounds kind of warm and fuzzy.  In the business world, raising revenue is a good thing.  And they hate taxes in the business world.  Just like you.  So you feel less threatened about talks to raise revenue than you do about talks to raise taxes.  Even though they are the same thing.

With ever growing deficits, some people are growing a little skittish about excessive government spending.  At least, the people paying the taxes.  Those people with jobs.  They don’t want to pay more in taxes.  And they’re getting a little nervous about the huge federal debt.  So the responsible side in them tells them to say ‘no’ to more spending.  So the tax and spend liberal uses the word ‘investment’ instead.  They say we need to invest in infrastructure to rebuild our aging roads and bridges (even though gasoline taxes already pay for this work).  That we need to invest in education and research to keep America on the forefront of technology (even though we already spend a fortune on these already).  Investing in our future?  Well, yes, that sounds good.  And perhaps we should.  So we agree not to cut these investments.  But we’ll still resist excessive government spending.  Even though these are the same thing.

You see, the tax and spend liberal looks at the economy differently.  They see all money belonging to them.  Including ours.  They let us work.  Earn a paycheck.  But your net pay is only the portion of their money they begrudgingly let you keep.  In fact, what they don’t tax away from you they call government spending.  Or tax expenditures.  They’ll say things like, “We can’t afford to pay for these tax cuts.”  Of course, you don’t pay for ‘tax cuts’.  A tax cut is when the rightful owner of the money gets to keep it.  Instead of the government taking it away.  But calling this ‘government spending’ makes it easier to cut.  For cutting spending is a responsible thing to do.  But when they cut this spending they are actually raising taxes.  Clever, eh?  Talk about twisting the meaning of words.

Here are some other words and phrases they use and their translation:

  • Bipartisan = Republicans giving Democrats everything they want
  • Compromise = see bipartisan
  • Future spending cuts = no spending cuts
  • A balanced budget approach = higher taxes now and future spending cuts later (see future spending cuts above)
  • Get serious about deficit reduction = increase both spending and taxes
  • Blue ribbon panel/special commission = where you place an issue that you’re afraid to address
  • Failed policies of the past = the very successful policies of Reaganomics
  • Radical right wing = any Republican that doesn’t vote for more Democrat spending

 Republicans have Less to Hide

Liberal Democrats lie because no one wants what they’re selling.  But because they’re so much smarter than we are they’ve come up with a way to fool us.  By lying.  And using Orwellian language.  To make us accept things that we would normally not accept.

Just look at their campaigns.  And their language.  They campaign as moderates.  Then govern as liberals.  They want to raise our taxes.  But they don’t tell us that they want to raise our taxes.  Why?  Because taxpayers don’t share their Orwellian vision.  For if the people believed as they believed they would be honest.  But they don’t.  So they are less than honest.

Republicans, on the other hand, call ‘tax cuts’ tax cuts.  And ‘tax hikes’ tax hikes.  They run as conservatives.  And govern as conservatives.  Until they’re corrupted by Washington, at least.  But based on language usage alone even the most partisan hack would have to admit that the Republicans have less to hide.  And, therefore, govern more according to the will of the people.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

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

Rich Liberals Champion the Poor to Maintain their Privileged Lives

Posted by PITHOCRATES - April 2nd, 2011

Per-Vote-Subsidy replaces Corporate and Union Money

Canada has a spoils system when it comes to public financing of political campaigns.  The big pile of public money ‘donated’ by the Canadian taxpayer is divided between the parties by vote.  The more votes a party gets, the more tax subsidies that party gets.  The Canadian prime minister, Stephen Harper, wants to do away with these subsidies (see Harper vows to scrap per-vote subsidies by CTV.ca News Staff posted 4/1/2011 on CTV.ca).

Currently, political parties receive a $2-per-vote subsidy, but Harper has long opposed the system, which was brought in by the Liberals when corporate and union donations were banned.

He said Friday that political parties already enjoy “enormous tax advantages” and taxpayers should not have to support parties they don’t support with their votes. Harper added that the subsidy only helps to ease the way for frequent elections.

Interesting.  Unlike the United States, Canada does not allow corporations or unions donate to political parties.  And when that ban went into place, the liberals brought in the per-vote-subsidy.  It takes money to win political contests.  And when you shut down two big sources (corporations and unions), that money has to come from somewhere else.  So the liberals decided to get that money from the taxpayer.  Fair, right?  I mean, without these subsidies, political power falls to the rich.  And that’s not fair, is it?

The Liberals are the Rich trying to Buy Political Power

When they banned corporate and union donations that left private donations.  From actual people.  So I guess we would have to see how that money flowed to see whether the per-vote-subsidy is fair and serves its purpose.  To keep the rich from wielding political power over the poor (see Analysis: Fears about scrapping per-vote subsidies wildly off target by Patrick Brethour, Vancouver, posted 4/2/2011 on The Globe and Mail).

Data compiled by the website Punditsguide.ca show that funds raised by the parties largely come from small donors, in amounts that would make few Canadian households cringe…

Take the Conservative Party in 2009, which raised… an average [per person] donation of $174.60…

The story is pretty much the same with the other parties: the NDP, with an average donation of $169.11; the Bloc Quebecois, average $102.63; Green Party, $123.21; and the Liberals, with an average of $239.23, the highest of the major federal parties.

Looking at the average per-person donation, it appears the liberal donors are richer than the conservative donors.  Kind of goes against everything the liberals tell us.  That conservatives are nothing but a bunch of rich fat-cats who want to use the poor as footstools.  Either that or conservatives are just cheap bastards.

The same picture emerges when looking at the distribution of donations by size. For the Conservatives, about 10 per cent of the funds raised came from those giving between $1,000 and the maximum of $1,100; conversely, two-thirds came from those giving $400 or less. The NDP were similar, with 7 per cent coming from the highest donated amount, and 70 per cent coming from donations $400 and under. The Liberals – who have fulminated against the perils of the rich controlling the political process – were actually the party most dependent on big donations, with 35 per cent of their cash coming from donors giving between $1,000 and $1,100, while sub-$400 donors accounted for just 38 per cent of the funds the party raised.

In fact, the Liberals outperformed among big donors, raising $3.2-million to the Conservatives’ $1.7-million. The Tories made up that ground, and more, with small donors.

And what do these numbers tell you?  Liberals rely on rich people for their political donations.  Conservatives rely on the little guy, the average working person who can barely afford to donate $200.  And the big corporations and the big unions pour money into liberal political parties.  In ‘soft ways‘ these days.  In Canada.  In the United States.  All around the world.  So much money that it was hard for the little guy to fight against it.  Leaving political power in the hands of the rich.  Much like the liberals say they want to prevent with the per-vote-subsidy.  But, in fact, that’s exactly what they want to do.  Leave political power in their rich hands.

You see, the crony capitalists and the snooty rich don’t like the little guy.  They like the good life that few can enjoy.  And sometimes they need special favors from government to continue that privileged life.  Which is why they donate to liberal parties.  But when they banned ‘hard money’ donations from corporations and unions, liberals had to scramble for other financing.  Because the majority of people don’t support their views.  So they need to ‘force’ donations through these per-vote-subsidies.  For it is the only way they can continue to rule against the will of the people.

The People who Supported Obamacare get Obamacare Waivers

It’s always about the money.  Whenever you’re confused about some political debate, just ask yourself this simple question.  Where’s the money?  Take health care, for example.  The goal of Obamacare was to provide everyone with high-quality yet affordable health care insurance.  Sort of like paying for a Big Mac and getting filet mignon.  Impossible, yes, but that’s what they told us. 

Big Business and the unions were all behind it.  Everyone (employers and unions) wants to dump their health care costs.  That’s why they were anxious for that public option.  Well, they didn’t get the public option.  Not yet.  First Obamacare has to put the private insurers out of business.  Once it does that then the government can step in as the insurer of last resort and, presto, they’ll get their national health care.  But leaves a costly problem for the here and now.

To ‘pass’ CBO, they had to include some onerous requirements.  The new law forced everyone to buy insurance.  The insurers had to cover preexisting conditions.  And they forbade insurance companies to recover their full overhead expenses.  Suddenly affordable insurance was going to become unaffordable.  Or people were simply going to lose their insurance because they couldn’t afford the premiums that were necessary to comply with the requirements of Obamacare.  So many of those who supported this legislation want no part of it.  For themselves, that is.  It’s okay for us.  But not for them.  So they’re asking that the law does not apply to them.  Only us (see List of health reform waivers keeps growing by Jason Millman posted 4/2/2011 on The Hill).

The number of waivers the Obama administration has awarded for a provision of the year-old healthcare reform law grew by 128 in March.

With the new waivers, that means 1,168 businesses, insurers, unions and other organizations have received one-year exemptions from a healthcare reform provision requiring at least $750,000 in annual benefits.

Nancy Pelosi said we needed to pass Obamacare to learn what was in it.  Apparently another 128 insurance plans learned what was in it this past March.  And they want out.  Like the majority of Americans.  Which really begs the question why Obamacare?  It isn’t popular.  They had to pass it quickly before anyone could read the bill.  None of the unions want it.  So why have it?  Because liberals want it.  And why do politicians want anything?  Follow the money.

The Free Market provides High Quality and Low Prices

Hillary Clinton tried to socialize our health care.  Now Obamacare is a short step from doing just that.  Because they said only government could step in and fix our health care system.  That the so-called free market had failed.  Really now?  Because that’s the one thing that has been missing from our health care system.  Market forces.  Doctors providing medical services for a fee that their patients actually pay for.  Not a third party insurance bureaucrat.  But the actual patient.  Until now, that is.  And that free market?  It works.  It’s providing a fully funded quality system that people of average means can afford (see High-end medical option prompts Medicare worries by Ricardo Alonso-Zaldivar, Associated Press, posted 4/2/2011 on the Sun Journal).

Every year, thousands of people make a deal with their doctor: I’ll pay you a fixed annual fee, whether or not I need your services, and in return you’ll see me the day I call, remember who I am and what ails me, and give me your undivided attention.

But this arrangement potentially poses a big threat to Medicare and to the new world of medical care envisioned under President Barack Obama’s health overhaul.

The spread of “concierge medicine,” where doctors limit their practice to patients who pay a fee of about $1,500 a year, could drive a wedge among the insured. Eventually, people unable to afford the retainer might find themselves stuck on a lower tier, facing less time with doctors and longer waits.

People actually paying to see a doctor?  Imagine that?  Just like in the old days.  Before there was a health care crisis.  The patients are happy.  The doctors are happy.  And making a very nice living.  You can’t get much more of a win-win situation, can you?  Who could find fault with this?

The trend caught the eye of MedPAC, a commission created by Congress that advises lawmakers on Medicare and watches for problems with access. It hired consultants to investigate.

I guess the government could.  Big Brother is everywhere.  And he is looking at this free market solution.  And Big Brother is not amused.  People paying for their own medical care?  That’s a problem for those in government.  A big problem.

Several members said it appears to be fulfilling a central goal of Obama’s overhaul, enhancing the role of primary care and restoring the doctor-patient relationship.

Yet the approach envisioned under the law is different from the one-on-one attention in concierge medicine. It calls for a team strategy where the doctor is helped by nurses and physician assistants, who handle much of the contact with patients.

John Goodman, a conservative health policy expert, predicts the health care law will drive more patients to try concierge medicine. “Seniors who can pay for it will go outside the system,” he said.

MedPAC’s Hackbarth declined to be interviewed. But Berenson, a physician and policy expert, said “the fact that excellent doctors are doing this suggests we’ve got a problem.”

You see, one-on-one concierge medicine is bad because it lets doctors work freely with patients.  The government would prefer something along the current lines.  You treat patients.  And then we’ll think about paying you.  And how much we’ll pay you.  Like in the Medicare program now.  That way you’re our bitch.  But if you work outside the system, you and your patients will be free.  And we don’t like that.  Why?  Follow the money.

Follow the Money for the Money Never Lies

Politics is always about the money.  Always has been.  Always will be.  Because it takes money to gain and maintain political power.  Whether you’re running a political campaign.  Or supporting a campaign with your union dues in exchange for political favors (such as legislation that limits competition so unions can maintain their high wage and benefit packages).

Liberals are a minority of the population.  Wherever you are.  The majority of people don’t belong to a union or work for the government.  This majority has jobs.  They take care of their family.  And want Big Brother to leave them alone.  Union dues from a small percentage of the population can greatly influence elections, though.  They can’t donate directly.  But that money finds its way to liberals.  Liberals in the U.S. desperately need this money.  In fact, union dues have become so important to the ruling liberal elite that they created an entire new class of union-paying people.  The public sector union class.  Who has but one purpose.  To launder tax dollars from taxpayers to the Democrat Party.

The 2010 mid-term elections shook up the political establishment.  Conservative governors are fighting back against this new political class.  And the liberal left is attacking these governors.  Even President Obama sent activists to Madison, Wisconsin, to protest against Governor Walker as they voted to make their public sector workers live more like the rest of the people in Wisconsin.  This is why Obamacare is so important to the left.  Health care is 17% of GDP.  That’s a lot of money.  That’s why the public option is so important.  Why nationalized health care is so important.  Because of this money.  Liberals want this money to pass through Washington.  Where they can easily skim a little off the top for their political needs.  And to live well.  Without actually having to work.  Like that majority that pays all those taxes.

Life’s greatest question can be easiest answered by following the money.  For the money never lies.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

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.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

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

Hmmm, Help the Economy or Class War?

Posted by PITHOCRATES - September 17th, 2010

Do you know why some Democrats are now urging their leaders to extend the George W. Bush tax cuts?  That’s right, because Bush and the Republicans were right. 

The Democrats want to tax and spend.  But you can’t tax and spend if you don’t win reelection.  And there lies the problem.  They’ve crashed the economy.  Created a permanent underclass.  And shook down the average working stiff to pay for it.  The problem the Democrats have is that there are still too many people who want to have a job.  And until they can take the vote away from these people, they can’t just take their money.  They have to…represent them.  Yeech.  (That would be how these Democrats feel.  Personally, I feel that representing your constituent is a beautiful thing.  So rare these days.)

You see, Democrats are elitists.  They’re part of the Washington aristocracy (which includes RINOs, too).  Life was simpler in the 15th century.  Or so they would think.  And this is what they would say.  If they were honest. 

People knew their places in the 15th century.  The noble classes owned the land.  And the land was everything.  The lord of the manor enjoyed the good life while the peasants worked the land.  Feudalism.  The way it was supposed to be.  Not these days.  This uppity middle class works wherever they want and does whatever they wish.   With no deference to us.  We who are better than they.  No, they act, well, as if they are our equals.  Imagine that!  These impertinent, despicable guttersnipes.

But they’re not honest.  So they don’t say this.  But when they act against the will of the people, they don’t have to.  Their actions speak louder than words.

So now they must deign to listen to these voters.  And these voters want something that’s alien to them.  Jobs.  So they must turn to the alchemy of the Republican Party.  That mysterious witch’s brew.  They have no idea what it is.  But it stimulates the economy.  For real.  It’s one part tax cuts.  Something else.  They don’t know.  It’s all Greek to them.  They don’t know anything about the economy.  But when the Republicans get their way, a crap-load of money comes into Washington.  And they can take it from there.  For they know how to spend that money.  Their money.  So they’ll act like Republicans.  For a little while.  Just long enough to make it through another election cycle.  Then they can stop that nonsense and return to tax and spend.  With a great, big pile of new money.  Their money.  Yeah, that’s right.  To them, it’s all their money.  If only us dunderheads would get it through our thick skulls.

So the Washington aristocracy will call a temporary truce in the class war.  And they will try to stimulate the economy.  And this time it won’t be another spending bill to fund some underfunded union pension plan.  It’ll be something that actually stimulates.  Because it’s for real this time.  It’s election time.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

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