Thursday, April 26

Dem-controlled Senate flouts law for 3 years; MSM yawns

A 1974 law (the "Congressional Budget Act"),  requires that the senate produce a budget for the operation of the government by April 15th of each year.

As you may know, the U.S. senate is controlled by the Democrats.  You probably haven't heard that this Dem-controlled senate hasn't produced a budget since 2009.

They have violated a duly-passed law. Repeatedly.

Democrat propagandists may slyly imply that although they technically have a majority of seats in the senate, they couldn't get a budget passed due to Rethuglican obstruction.  You know, that "filibuster" tactic.  Happens all the time, see?

Oops.  Budget measures can't be filibustered.  And of course the Dem senate didn't even try to pass a budget.

How...interesting.

One reasonable conclusion from this is that the Democrats in the senate see no need to obey those silly things called "laws."  They simply don't apply to congress, see.  "We make laws, we don't obey 'em!"

And of course the Lying Media barely utters a word about it.  Because not having a budget means Lord Obama and his minions in congress are free to spend any amount they like, without debate or discussion.

How many headline stories about this willful defiance by the senate of a duly-passed law of the land do you think you'd you have seen if the senate was under Republican control?

Monday, April 23

Anarchists/communists call for general strike in Bay Area

This is...almost unbelievable.

Start again: If you're a good, solid, hard-working American you'll probably think the following text is satire--a spoof.  Unfortunately it seems to be serious.  It's from leaflet distributed in the San Francisco bay area, calling for a strike on May 1.

For those under 30, May 1st--May Day--is communism's biggest holiday of the year.
What is a general strike? It's when we take back the city, bringing the economy to a standstill.

It's the end of selling our lives to a boss, begging for food or waiting for charity.

It's taking what we need not only for survival but for enjoyment.   [!]

It's the sabotaging of capitalism and our fight for liberation from social control. It's organized autonomous activity bringing together thousands to reclaim the hours stolen from us daily.

We don't need permission from union bureaucrats, support from progressive politicians or mediation from non-profits. Those who seek to manage and contain resistance are our enemies.

A general strike is when whole cities become uncontrollable and the machinery of capital is overwhelmed by our collective rage.

Death to capitalism.
Here's the text from another poster:
Do your bosses want you to work on May Day? Tell them no.

We spend every other day making money for our employer. On May Day we say NO. *Stop asking for favors and take what's yours.*

Let's shut down your employer on May Day. Then let's shut down the rest of the city to take revenge against capitalism.

This, gentle reader, is the face of the enemy. They live in this country but have virtually nothing in common with the rest of us. They resent jobs, work, capitalism and business, instead demanding that you simply give them everything they want.  Or rather, they want the government to give them money from your taxes, taken at gunpoint by the government.

And power-hungry pols are quite eager to give them what they want in exchange for their votes.

If they don't get what they want--as they say, literally, above--they urge their followers to simply take it. 

And for those gullible voters who think the authors are just talking about food to survive, note the end of the comment "It's taking what we need not only for survival but for enjoyment."

Is there anyone who believes these people wouldn't take everything you own if they thought they could?  Anyone think they wouldn't kill you for your house or car if they thought they could get away with it?

It's clear that the members of this group don't grasp the theoretical basis for employment. That is, an employer offers to pay you for doing an agreed amount of work.  If you don't like the offer, quit and find another job.

See, cupcake, the whole "work" thing is a contract--supposedly freely entered into by both parties.  No one makes you do it, but most people seem to like the money they earn. And did we mention that no one makes you do it?

Of course socialists, anarchists, idiots, children and many liberals are pretty fuzzy about this whole concept,  preferring to just hang out and cash government checks instead. Gives 'em that highly-prized free time.

Which is why they're always available for strikes and other demonstrations.

Sunday, April 22

California going under--and it's spreading

The WSJ ran a piece on people leaving California, and many of the comments are full of insight.

The American experiment in democracy and capitalism involved breaking away from the Old World's policies and giving everyone the opportunity for life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

In an astonishingly short time America became the most wealthy, powerful and successful nation of people ever assembled. This happened in large part because our founding principle honored the concept of liberty and freedom. It was a winning concept.

Unfortunately, precisely because of that freedom people are free to praise the cancer that is statism/socialism, and to elect politicians who pass laws allowing that cancer to take root.  And eventually the number of voters who live off the taxes of workers exceeds the number of workers.

Barring a violent revolt, what's happening in California now will happen to the rest of America eventually. Socialists and their ilk have used California's enormous wealth to make promises to pay huge benefits to public-sector employees, and to give substantial benefits to those who don't work, in exchange for votes.

The predictable result is that today those who pay the taxes that run government are outnumbered and out-voted by those who simply demand money.

Compare "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" to "I demand that you give me anything I need!"  Which philosophy do you think will lead to a better outcome?

Sunday, April 15

What's the difference between Liberals and children?

Ever watch one ten-year old explain to another how something works?

It's a hoot, because a lot of the time they're utterly, laughably wrong, but they "explain" the thing with such conviction and sincerity that you can't help but laugh.

Adults are much the same:  How many times have you heard a liberal, Democrat, socialist or "progressive" claim--apparently completely seriously--any of the following?

--"Massive federal deficits don't matter."

--"Islam really really really is 'the religion of peace,' and if only we'd stop doing...X...then Muslims would stop trying to kill the folks they call 'infidels'."

--"Capitalism and corporations are eeeevil, and if we'd all just pay more taxes and stop trying to sell things to other people, most of our problems would be solved."

--"If the government would just give more money to the poor, crime and drug use would disappear."

--"If we'd just stop spending money on the military, other countries would do the same and we could all spend former defense dollars on something useful."

--"If the government would just give free health care to every citizen, the cost of health care would drop for everyone."

--"If we just paid teachers a decent salary, and had modern school buildings, and unbiased textbooks, and...and...and...then the dropout rate and gang membership would drop to almost zero;"

--"Social Security is NOT going broke.  That's just a scare-story pushed by Rethuglicans.  It doesn't need "fixing" or changing to keep it solvent;"

--"What difference does it make if Iran builds an atomic bomb?  After all, they'd never actually, you know, use it or anything. Because, after all, they're really no different than we are."

--"If we would just close that awful, awful prison at Guantanamo, Muslims would stop trying to kill Americans;"

--"It's no problem that Barack didn't close Gitmo right after his inauguration as he promised, because it's actually a comfortable place and all the inmates are eating three good, Islamic-approved meals a day and playing soccer and volleyball.  And of course we've known that all along and you can't prove any of us ever actually said Gitmo was horrible or demanded that awful Booosh person close it!"

--"There's no problem with vote fraud in U.S. elections, and it's just a coincidence that Dems have won every close election in the last 30 years.  People just like our policies better!"

--"States shouldn't be allowed to require a photo ID to vote, because that would impose a horrible, unconscionable hardship on minorities--a clear violation of their human rights.  Besides, there's no vote fraud in the U.S.  Those Acorn people who registered "Mickey Mouse" to vote were just playing around."

--"We're absolutely fine with making everyone from 90-year-old grandmothers to six-year-olds show photo ID to get on an airplane, because we need to be sure that air travel is safe.  Besides, the alternative would be racial profiling--which would violate human rights of Muslims;"

--"The people who hijacked those planes and crashed them into those two buildings in New York did that because Bush had invaded Iraq and our troops were killing literally millions of their kids and wives!"

--"Those two buildings in New York weren't brought down by the planes that flew into them, but by explosives planted by government agents on the orders of George Bush.  We know that's true because fire can't melt steel!   We Dems know that because Rosie O'Donnell said it on her national TV show, and there's an FCC rule that says the networks can't let something go out on national television if it's not true."

--"The economy has been absolutely booming in the last few months--a roaring recovery--and unemployment is way, way down.  And when Republicans claim the only reason unemployment is down is because 11 million people who have lost their jobs are no longer being counted as unemployed because they're no longer looking for work, it's just because they're raaaacist and devisive.  Because they hate the idea that a black man is president;"

--"Cash for Clunkers" was a great idea that resulted in a huge increase in new-car sales.  Republicans who claim it was unconstitutional, or that it merely shifted sales a couple of months earlier than they would have occurred anyway, are just raaacists. Besides, the "commerce clause" gives the president the responsibility to control all commerce in the U.S."

--"Barack's $60-Billion bailout of GM was a great idea.  It saved all those jobs!  People who claim it was unconstitutional are just troublemakers.  Besides, anything the president does is legal by definition, since the president is the highest officer in the country."

--"It's perfectly okay to make a 'recess appointment' even if the senate says it's NOT in recess, because only a Democratic president can determine when the senate is actually in recess.  Besides, that's how the president of Venezuela does it;"

--"It's perfectly okay for a Democrat president to ignore minor laws--like those concerning bankruptcy, or committing American troops overseas without getting congressional approval--because the president has the power to decide which laws need to be obeyed. That's right in the Constitution!;"

--"It's perfectly okay for the Attorney General of the U.S. to let people in the U.S. buy guns and send them to Mexican drug gangs, because the A.G. and the president  decide which laws need to be obeyed;"

--"It's perfectly okay for Barack and the Democrats to make taxpayers subsidize that wonderful Gaia-friendly, global-warming-preventing miracle car--the Chevy Volt--by $7500 per car, because every smart person in the world knows that electric cars help slow global worming.  That small subsidy is needed because without it, not enough people would buy the car.  If something's necessary, that makes it legal.  Besides, Barack is just protecting the taxpayers' $60-billion "investment" in GM;"

--"It's perfectly normal for a presidential candidate to refuse to release any of his college records, because his college grades and the courses he took are none of the public's business. Unless, of course, you're talking about a Republican."

--"No one should be a bit concerned that a recent presidential candidate had five Social Security numbers associated with his name.  After all, that's happened to several people I know.  And the same reasoning applies if the candidate is now using a SSN from a state he never set foot in before taking office, because...well, sometimes those hard-working people at the Social Security office make a mistake.  That's perfectly normal."

--"Barack was right to have the EPA issue regulations that will force dozens of coal-fired electric powerplants to shut down.  Claims by utility execs that this will cause the price of electricity to nearly triple are just scare stories, because everyone knows the laws of supply and demand don't apply to things like electricity;"

--"Barack was right to deny drilling permits in the Gulf of Mexico after the BP spill, because drilling is a dirty business and we ought to discourage it.  When Rethuglicans claim that Barack's refusal to allow drilling in most coastal waters around the U.S. will cause the price of gas to soar to over $4 per gallon it's just because they hate Mother Earth.  Besides, the laws of supply and demand don't apply to oil and gas;"

--"Tim Geithner was the absolute best person available to be Secretary of the Treasury, and his little oopsie on his personal income tax isn't worth mentioning, because, hey, everyone makes mistakes.  In fact, his little mistake was so trivial you probably didn't even hear about it until just now."

--"It's perfectly normal for the government to make billion-dollar "loan guarantees" to wonderful "green" companies like Solyndra.  After all, if the government didn't invest in startup companies, who would?  It's just bad luck that a dozen of the companies the government gave taxpayer-guaranteed loans to ended up going broke.  And it's simply coincidence that all those companies were connected to major Obama donors;"

--"Anyone who doesn't believe humans are causing global warming is a right-wing nut paid by the Koch brothers.  If someone tells you that a huge number of scientific facts weigh against AGW, don't ask to see their proof--no one can understand stuff like that unless you have a degree in global warming--but instead demand that they tell you what oil company is paying them to be divisive and raaaaaaacist!;"

--"Every woman has a right to free contraception.  It's a basic human right, written right in the Constitution, where it says "everyone is endowed by government with certain unalienable rights."  That means everyone on earth has those rights even if they're not U.S. citizens.  Oh, and if you hear Rethuglicans say there's really no such thing as "free," that everything has to be paid for by someone, don't you believe it.  After all, if you don't have to pay for something, it's "free," right?"  I mean, that's a definition!  Duh!

--"We need to make it easier for people to vote.  So states shouldn't be allowed to pass any law that would force people to show identification before voting."

--"If we just banned guns, crime would practically disappear.  After all, Britain banned almost all handguns years ago, and they hardly have any crime at all!";

This list could go on for several pages. In any case, the next time you hear one of these claims from a liberal, think of an oh-so-serious ten-year-old trying to explain sex or isotope separation or neurochemistry or the European Union to one of his friends.

It'll help put the whole charade in perspective. Really.

Eh, that was a weak wrap. Let me try again:

Far too many Liberals, "progressives" and Democrats seem to be idiots, because they constantly say wacked-out crap like all of the statements listed above--the falsity of which should be self-evident to a clever 12-year-old. (For starters, obviously none of the "It's right there in the Constitution" statements are true.)

This is not to say that conservatives don't sometimes make stupid statements of their own--and if you're a liberal/Dem/prog I welcome any submissions citing dumb things conservatives have said.

And no, Meghan McCain doesn't count as a conservative.

Labels:

Friday, April 6

Why are so many politicians so bad?

Wretchard at PJ Media was wondering how the voters of one ward in D.C. could repeatedly vote Marion Barry as their councilman. Because people like Barry or Al Sharpton--and many white pols as well--are so awful (i.e. hateful, corrupt), it defies probability that their selection to office could be by chance.

And when considering how bad congress as a whole is, the probability of coming up with that cast of characters that inhabit the reaches of politics purely at random is astronomically unlikely.

He concludes that there must be a "bias for badness" in politics: a bunch of guys chosen by lottery would be better than the choices thrown up by the party machine process.

Why is that? I think it is because the system actually operates to maximize a different objective function from that advertised. The politicians are not there to serve the people. They are there to serve themselves. And hence we see this extraordinary collection of defectives in office. The system may not be broken. It may be working.

Yes.

Sunday, April 1

Why has government grown so much?

Ever wonder how our country went from prosperity to financial disaster in such a short time? Consider this:

In 1900 the federal government spent about 3 percent of national income, and state and local governments spent about 6 percent. Most of the federal government’s spending was for national defense.

Today, the federal government spends about 30 percent of national income, and state and local governments together spend about 15%.

Most government spending today is on Social Security, Medicare and various welfare programs.

Although the paper at the link is pretty dry, the authors make a good case that interest groups frame proposed new government spending programs as "feel-good" ("for the children") issues. Voters then approve those measures because--duh--voting for them makes voters feel good, regardless of whether the programs can easily be shown to be financial disasters.

While I think the psychology of this is accurate, my problem with this analysis is that voters are rarely given the chance to vote on proposed new government programs. Instead, I think most of the time corrupt and vote-buying congresswhores vote for programs that will buy them votes or line their own pockets.

A much clearer analysis of government spending can be found here.

Short answer: we need to spend less. If we could merely reduce spending back to where it was when Clinton was prez, things would be a lot better. Were things so bad back then?