Category Archives: Government

Comments On Obama And Boehner

All of this has caveats like crazy. All of this has elements of the “crazy”. All of it. And all of the people.

The Republicans are in the process of picking their nominee. Some are crazy, some are moderate, some are forceful and others are meek. All of that’s true and just because it IS true doesn’t make the process invalid. The primary is a key process in the larger process we loosely call “Democracy”. And THAT process should be respected.

The President wants to deliver a speech. And when the President wants to do that, in front of Congress or not, we should listen and pay attention. And if we are Congress, all the more so. However, with power comes responsibility. Recently I requested meeting with…my boss’s boss’s boss. He found time on his schedule and it was set. As the day to that meeting got closer, HIS boss requested time; the same time that he had blocked for me. He could have simply told me that we had to reschedule, he didn’t. He asked.

With power comes responsibility.

Obama shouldn’t have scheduled this speech on a date that conflicted with the debate. After all, he picked a day more than a week away after, AFTER returning from a 10 day vacation. The time clearly wasn’t crucial. But Obama didn’t do the reasonable thing-he did the partisan thing. And when he did that, he forced the Republican’s hand. And they pushed back.

Now, back to my example. My vice president asked me if we could reschedule. Even if I hadn’t been okay with it, I was, I would’ve agreed; he’s the boss and he gets to do things, even if I don’t like those things. Boehner should have called his Congress and told them to get to DC and be in their seats at the appointed hour.

But he didn’t. He declined to meet with the President of the United States of America. And instead, offered his own new date.

The whole nation was holding its breath, waiting to ee why Obama would do. We all knew it was chumpy of Obama to schedule the speech over the debate, but that Boehner pushed back was remarkable. I’ll be the first to admit that I am not fully comfortable with power. I’m not skilled in the proper use of it. But I’m a low-level manager still learning.

Obama isn’t. He’s the ‘effin President. And he got schooled in about as bad a way as I’ve seen in a long long time.

I don’t know what leaves me more saddened. The fact that we have a Speaker of the House who doesn’t respect the office of the President or that we have a low-level administrator sitting in the White House who doesn’t respect the office of the President.

Either way, today was the day that demonstrated, more than any other day, that Obama is in over his head. That he doesn’t know how to lead, to manage, to drive change, to innovate to take command. He simply doesn’t have the life experience to be the President.

To any reasonable American, today should have removed any doubt that this man does not deserve another term.

Words And Definitions

After the debt debate and compromise, all the talk was about the Tea Part and extremists holding the Republican party hostage.  In fact, our administration even refers to that element as terrorists lamenting the fact that there is simply no compromising with them.  That when faced with a group of people, “that extreme”, there is nothing that can be done.

I resonate.

Compromise in general and typically implies a healthy merging of ideas and policies.  It means we’ll take a little of this and combine it with a little of that and we’ll end up with something that resembles what we each started with.  However, since Barack Obama has come into office, that version of compromise has changed.

Since he famously started “negotiations” with “we won” he has done business differently.  Compromise no longer means moving from one’s position in order to find a reasonable solution.  To this administration compromise doesn’t mean “meeting in the middle”.  It means, rather, how much will it cost me.

So conversations begin with Obama saying that I want this thing.  And that thing doesn’t change during the debate.  What DOES change is what he’s willing to pay to have it.  And THAT is what he calls compromise.

Which means, of course, that there is no compromise.  Instead, you have ideology being forced through salesmanship. And the people we’re dealing with, the ideology of these people, is frightening.  Absolutely frightening.  In normal times, times when people will walk away from the cliff, it’s bad enough.  They are taking positions as a point of negotiation.  But not this President.  Not today’s Democrats  Not these people.

These people wanna rule by force.  They want to impose their agenda and are unwilling to walk it back.  I’ve used words like Socialist and Fascist.  Folks have objected to such language.  It’s very unpleasant being called socialist or fascist.  I get it, I don’t like those words or ideas either.

But when the facts are the facts, it’s hard to hide from ’em:

Rep. Maxine Waters (D-Calif.) has had an outspoken recess, sparring with the Tea Party, the president and other members of Congress during the Congressional Black Caucus’s (CBC) multicity jobs tour.

Tuesday night was no different, as the congresswoman urged President Obama to use his bully pulpit to demand that “gangsta” banks offer mortgage modifications that would enable people to stay in their homes or face withering taxation.

It’s time for the bully pulpit of the White House to bring the gangstas in, put them around the table and let them know that if they don’t come up with loan modifications and keep people in their homes that they’ve worked so hard for, we’re gonna tax them out of business,” Waters said at an event in Los Angeles.

She is specifically advocating that Obama use his power by fiat to force banks to change mortgage contracts for people who can’t pay on them or “force them out of business”.

THAT is the definition of fascist.

THAT is the implication of socialism.

Take from other people in order that others may benefit.  And if that must be done through force of law, gun and sword, so be it.

When Biden says that you can’t negotiate with these people, it’s because there is no negotiating with Obama and his people.  You can not even START to have a conversation that includes the concept of the government taxing these people out of business.

When you combine an administration made up of people unwilling to step away from their ideology and are willing to to use the White House as a “dictator” to institute their version of society, you push away from the table and walk away.

Stimulus And Jobs

More good news today out of California regarding Green Technology and the creation of jobs in that sector through Obama’s stimulus:

Solar company to file for bankruptcy

Knowing what we know about Obama’s business acumen the story here isn’t that he was wrong about a company and it’s ability to flourish.  While interesting, THAT aspect of the story has been told and retold.

No, the REAL story here is the fact that the company failed even though it received some money, a LOT of money:

A California-based solar company that received a $535 million loan guarantee from the Obama administration announced Wednesday that it will shut down.

The company, Solyndra Inc., said Wednesday it would suspend its manufacturing operations and lay off 1,100 employees effective immediately. The company said it intends to file a petition for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection.

Another one bites the dust.

I’m interested though, what were the details surrounding the company’s decision to throw in the towel?

“Regulatory and policy uncertainties in recent months created significant near-term excess supply and price erosion,” Solyndra CEO Brian Harrison said in a statement. “Raising incremental capital in this environment was not possible. This was an unexpected outcome and is most unfortunate.”

Oh.  You mean that laws being passed make it difficult to predict the future?  And this inability to predict the future is creating a situation where banks don’t wanna lend you more money?

Weird.  Who woulda thought THAT?

What The?

You have to win to govern.  And winning vs. losing in political races is a zero sum game.  When your opponent gets more votes, you lose and he wins.  This creates a situation where elected officials want to “win” the vote as much, or more, than they want to “win” the debate.

I get it, but this still sucks:

WASHINGTON — Congressional Republicans are so anti-tax, surely they will fight to prevent a payroll-tax increase on virtually every wage earner starting Jan. 1, right?

Apparently not.

They’re saying a tax cut should end as planned, opposing President Obama, who wants to extend it. The policy helps the 46 percent of all Americans who owe no federal income taxes but who pay a “payroll tax” on practically every dime they earn.

Huh?

Surly they can explain themselves?

Tax reductions, “no matter how well-intended,” will push the deficit higher, making the panel’s task that much harder, Camp’s office said.

Nope.  They can’t.

I may give this whole thing up and just go watch some baseball.

On Teachable Moments

I really REALLY love being lectured by the likes of her:

“This is a tough game. You can’t be intimidated. You can’t be frightened. And as far as I’m concerned — the tea party can go straight to hell,” Waters said, according to Los Angeles television station KABC.

The gentle gentle Left.  So offended at language and words.

If you go listen to the video she even offers to help the Tea Party get to hell.  How sweet.

Taxing The Rich

There were 3,912,980 tax returns in 2009 that had a taxable income of $200,000 or more.  These 3,912,980 households combined for a total taxable income of $1,625,622,124,000.  That is $1.6 trillion.  A lot, right?

Well, in 2009 our deficit was $1.4 trillion.

Blink.  Blink.

Imagine if you were to raise the tax rate on our richest friends and neighbors to 100%.  Not marginal mind you.  Marginal is where an individual is taxed at one percentage for a certain amount of his income, then another higher percentage at the next set of income and then more yet again at the next set.

That is, say the marginal rates were something like this:

Low Boundary High Boundary Rate
$0.00 $20,000.00 10.00%
$21,000.00 $50,000.00 20.00%
$51,001.00 $100,000.00 30.00%
$100,001.00 on up 40.00%

And someone made $200,000.  She would be taxed 10% on her first $20,000 for a total of $2,000.  Next she would be taxed 20% on her next $30,000 for a total of $6,000.  Her next step is to be taxed 30% on her income from $50,000 to $100,000, or $50,000 for a total of $15,000.  Last is her income above $100,000.  Because she makes a total of $200,000, she is taxed 40% on the remaining $100,000, or $40,000.

So, adding her taxes up as she climbs the progressive tax system, her tax is $2,000+$6,000+$15,000+$40,000 for a grand total of $63,000.

Imagine making $200,000 and having to give $63,000 of that to the government.  Ugh!

Anyway.  That’s how the system works today, in general; I didn’t use real numbers.  So, in our NEW tax world, we REALLY hate the rich so we’re gonna tax ’em at 100% total tax.  That is, for every $1 they earn, we’re gonna tax ’em $1.

If they make $285,000 we’ll collect $285,000 from ’em.  Alex Rodriguez and his $22 million contract?  All ours.  All of it.

Every dime.

The United States government would bring in $1.6 trillion.  After paying off the deficit we would have $200 billion left.  Not enough to even dent our remaining debt.

But guess what happens when people work their freakin’ asses off and get no money?  They conduct a value analysis and conclude that they could work for a whole year and make zero dollars OR they could do NOTHING and and make ZERO dollars.  Actually, what they’d ‘prolly do is accept a salary of $199,999 and be allowed to keep at least some of it.  But…but they probably wouldn’t do as much work as they were doing when they were earning all that money before.

The point is this.  You can tax the wealthy at 100% REAL tax and it wouldn’t even make a difference.  Raising the rate by 4 points isn’t gonna make a difference either.

None.

We Were Better Then

We thought different and said different things.  While life is immeasurably better today, I certainly do wish we would talk like this:

If “all men are by nature equally free and independent,” [Virginia Declaration of Rights, art. 1] all men are to be considered as entering into Society on equal conditions; as relinquishing no more, and therefore retaining no less, one than another, of their natural rights. Above all are they to be considered as retaining an “equal title to the free exercise of Religion according to the dictates of Conscience.” [Virginia Declaration of Rights, art. 16] Whilst we assert for ourselves a freedom to embrace, to profess and to observe the Religion which we believe to be of divine origin, we cannot deny an equal freedom to those whose minds have not yet yielded to the evidence which has convinced us. If this freedom be abused, it is an offence against God, not against man: To God, therefore, not to man, must an account of it be rendered.

Via Althouse

To Be Fair: Greens Aren’t The Only Mean People

I’ve always suspected that the Left considers forcing me to contribute to their causes against my will, “charity” on their part.  For example, if the Liberati are able to pass a law that requires me to pay taxes for homeless relief, they are able to tell their other Liberal friends that they contributed to the relief of the homeless.

Hardly.

What they did was cause ME to contribute to the relief of the homeless.

So this should come as no surprise:

According to a study, when people feel they have been morally virtuous by saving the planet through their purchases of organic baby food, for example, it leads to the “licensing [of] selfish and morally questionable behaviour”, otherwise known as “moral balancing” or “compensatory ethics”.

Now, to be fair, I don’t feel this relates only to the greenies.  I’m pretty sure it is applicable to all on the Left.

However, this is good stuff:

…those in their study who bought green products appeared less willing to share with others a set amount of money than those who bought conventional products. When the green consumers were given the chance to boost their money by cheating on a computer game and then given the opportunity to lie about it – in other words, steal – they did, while the conventional consumers did not. Later, in an honour system in which participants were asked to take money from an envelope to pay themselves their spoils, the greens were six times more likely to steal than the conventionals.

In the end, it would appear that the Left and I have more in common than I thought.  We both believe that it’s my responsibility to care for the less fortunate.

Who woulda thunk it?

Cleaning Out My Coyote

If you don’t read Coyote Blog you should.

This latest failure of Green Jobs in Seattle is just a hint of the gems you get from the coyote:

Last year, Seattle Mayor Mike McGinn announced the city had won a coveted $20 million federal grant to invest in weatherization. The unglamorous work of insulating crawl spaces and attics had emerged as a silver bullet in a bleak economy – able to create jobs and shrink carbon footprint – and the announcement came with great fanfare.

McGinn had joined Vice President Joe Biden in the White House to make it. It came on the eve of Earth Day. It had heady goals: creating 2,000 living-wage jobs in Seattle and retrofitting 2,000 homes in poorer neighborhoods.

But more than a year later, Seattle’s numbers are lackluster. As of last week, only three homes had been retrofitted and just 14 new jobs have emerged from the program. Many of the jobs are administrative, and not the entry-level pathways once dreamed of for low-income workers. Some people wonder if the original goals are now achievable.

Yeah.  Let’s use guns to remove private property from productive people to give to the government so they can spend $20 million on 14 jobs.

Of The Voluntary And The Involuntary

I have often asked people who are interested in helping people why they don’t walk to their neighbor’s house and at threat of gun or sword, take their money and give it to those people who they feel are in need and are worthy.

The answer is obvious.

Then I ask them what if they elected enough lawmakers to pass a low that made armed robbery legal if done for the purpose of giving to those who are deemed worthy.

They usually take away the beer they just offered and make me leave their house.  I’m weird though, always have been.

Which makes me rejoice when I hear this via Coyote:

It’s amazing to me how many people think that voting to have the government give poor people money is compassion. Helping poor and suffering people is compassion. Voting for our government to use guns to give money to help poor and suffering people is immoral self-righteous bullying laziness.

People need to be fed, medicated, educated, clothed, and sheltered, and if we’re compassionate we’ll help them, but you get no moral credit for forcing other people to do what you think is right. There is great joy in helping people, but no joy in doing it at gunpoint.

People try to argue that government isn’t really force. You believe that? Try not paying your taxes. (This is only a thought experiment — suggesting on CNN.com that someone not pay his or her taxes is probably a federal offense, and I’m a nut, but I’m not crazy.). When they come to get you for not paying your taxes, try not going to court. Guns will be drawn. Government is force — literally, not figuratively.

I don’t believe the majority always knows what’s best for everyone. The fact that the majority thinks they have a way to get something good does not give them the right to use force on the minority that don’t want to pay for it. If you have to use a gun, I don’t believe you really know jack. Democracy without respect for individual rights sucks. It’s just ganging up against the weird kid, and I’m always the weird kid.

Speak it brotha!