Government in Exile

FDR, the Obama of Great Depression

"Rook" has some thoughts on FDR and the Great Depression.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

And so was Jimmy Carter.

 

Peter Schiff Euro Pacific Capital Inc. Tells Occupy Wall Street Protesters at Zuccotti Park ‘FDR was Barack Obama of Their Day’ | Video | TheBlaze.com

 

At one point, Schiff tells the social-program-loving activists that President Franklin D. Roosevelt created the Great Depression. “He was the Barack Obama of their day.”

 

And then maybe they did NOT get it quite right:

 

The Great Depression was not CREATED by FDR, it was MADE WORSE and needlessly PROLONGED by FDR -- by the very same stupid fascist / crony capitalist policies that Obama is pushing and therefore making our present situation longer and worser.

 

It was CREATED by the same stupid easy credit policies in the late 1920's that precipitated the housing collapse in the late 2000's, with precisely the wrong remedies put in place by a RINO president in charge in both cases. Followed by even stupider big-government crony-capitalist fascist policies rammed through Congress in a mad flurry of activity by a power-mad egomaniac socialist president in charge in both cases.

 

Except in the 1930's there was no Ronald Reagan as there was in 1980, and there was no TEA party as there is this time.

 

 

What's Up With our Emergency Alert System Tests?

"Rook" has some thoughts on our Emergency Alert System.

Emergency Alert System Nationwide Test | FCC.gov

 

Emergency Alert System (EAS) | Public Safety and Homeland Security Bureau

 

The Feds Will Cut Off TV and Radio on November 9th | TheBlaze.com

 

Television and radio broadcasters, satellite radio and satellite television providers,  cable television andwireline video providers are all involved in the system.

 

Only the President has the authority to activate EAS at the national level, and he has delegated that authority to the Director of FEMA.  The test will be conducted jointly by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) through  FEMA, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s (NOAA) National Weather Service (NWS).

 

 

QUESTIONS:

 

1. Why 2PM, why not 2AM? This is not a test, this is a demonstration, a warning, a display of raw power.

 

2. Why does the test consist of SHUTTING DOWN everything? At the face of it this is utter nonsense. In an emergency you don't want to SHUT DOWN the broadcast stations, you want to use them to broadcast information and instructions. This is not a test, this is a demonstration, a warning, a display of raw power.

 

3. What was wrong with the EBS (emergency broadcast system? Remember the old message that used to say: "This is a test, This station, in VOLUNTARY cooperation with the federal blah blah blah is conducting a test of the emergency broadcast system. If this had been a real emergency, blah blah blah. This is a test." At least the wording conveyed the intention correctly, that there is an emergency and what you should do about it. Nothing about arbitrarily shutting down, taking over EVERYTHING.

 

4. What could the FCC, the NOAA and the NWS possibly have to do with national EMERGENCIES? The appropriate agency to be involved in anything like this, if there really is a national emergency requiring a total nation-wide alert, is the DOD, which at least enjoys the nation's trust. Do you really trust the DHS, parent agency of the TSA, with your safety in a national emergency?

 

5. Who even listens and watches at 2PM EST? Most people are at still at work, not tuned in. Last I heard, most people still have a job, most people are not on the night shift, most people are not retirees. If the government truly wanted to warn the nation about something, they'd ring every phone and pop up a message on every computer, on every cell phone. THAT would be an awesome demonstration of power, right out of OUTER LIMITS (1963).We control your TV. We control your radio, We control your phone. We control your computer. Failing all that, how about just setting off the SIRENS? We have known how to do that since about WW1 or so.... The sound of the sirens would tell everyone to tune in to something for explanation and instructions; the last thing you want at a time like that is DEAD AIR!

 

 

Occupy Wall Street - The Vatican Connection

"Rook" has some thoughts on the Vatican and Free Enterprise.  

 

Vatican Releases Economic Proposal that Seems Supportive of Occupy Wall Street | Video | TheBlaze.com

 

It used to be that anything like this document specifically targeted the remnants of brutal feudalism that survived in parts of Latin America in the form of hyper rich landowners and hyper poor serfs and tenant farmers, and the recommended remedy was "land reform," that is, the assignment of title to the people who actually worked the land. And it used to be that this kind of proposal came from a radical fringe element in the Catholic church, not from the Vatican, and was commonly called "liberation theology," not sanctioned by anything official-sounding from the Vatican itself.

 

But this document targets free market capitalism, calls for "the establishment of ‘a supranational authority with worldwide scope and ’universal jurisdiction’ to guide economic policies and decisions." In other words, pure one-world international socialism. The author admits he is to the left of Obama and Pelosi. And he is some big muckety muck at the VATICAN.

 

The total lack of familiarity with the most fundamental laws of economics in this document is absolutely astounding, given that the Church has for two thousand years claimed scholarly pursuits, as well as observing, examining and trying to correct society's various ills and injustices, as its avocation. 

 

While not coming directly from the Pope himself, the proposal seems to follow up on Pope Benedict XVI’s 2009 economic encyclical that denounced a profit-at-all-cost mentality as responsible for the global financial meltdown.

 

There they go again. Profit is evil. But look at the facts:

 

The only reason that one farmer can feed about a hundred useless city folk is that the farmer's efforts generate a "profit," that is, produces an excess above and beyond his own needs. Not so long ago, it took 10 farmers to produce enough to feed themselves and one city folk.

 

The only reason that an evil industrialist or other exploiter of the working class can PAY the people that he is exploiting is that he is able to generate a profit from the sale of the goods they are producing. And their enterprise is profitable only to the extent that (1) they are able to produce what their customers want and are willing and able to pay for, and (2) the manager is able to keep the production costs below the total income that they generate. Otherwise the business fails and there is no profit in which the workers can share, that is, the income to that evil industrialist exploiter of the working class out of which he is able to pay his employees. But, of course, it is not fashionable to think of employee paychecks as profit sharing right off the top, even ahead of shareholders...

 

The only reason that a greedy merchant can continue to bring his goods to his customers is that he is able to buy those goods at a low bulk price from the manufacturer and sell them at a profit, that is, at a higher price and in smaller quantities, to his retail customers. He is able to provide this service only if he actually makes a profit. Otherwise his business fails and there is no profit in which his own employees can share; and, incidentally, his customers are also deprived of any benefit they'd derive from the possession and use of those goods.

 

You would think that the Church, or the State, or all other such "overhead" organizations would be sensitive to and approving of the productive class's ability to make a profit, for otherwise the productive class would not be able to contribute to or support them with their tithing, taxes and donations. But no; they all have to engage in misdirected moralizing, effectively biting the hand that feeds them. But as anyone who has ever had a pet would instinctively know and could tell you, whose hand WOULD you bite, if not the one that is near your mouth? That too is just common sense...

 

The Arab Spring Turns Cold

"Ernie" has some thoughts on the "Arab Spring."  

 In reviewing the revolutionary changes that have taken place in the Mideast over the past year or so, I think you could say the Islamists have made a "clean sweep" by spreading their Sharia-driven Islam across the entire Arab world.  It also appears that this malignant spread pleases our own Emir, Barack Hussein Obama.  With US troops out of Iraq by the end of the year, Iraq is the next target.   The militant Iraqi Shiite leader, al-Sadr, has already moved from Iran (where he was in "training") back to Iraq.  Even tho he's been out of the country, he has a strong following in the Iraqi s.   Right now he stands out as the biggest threat to any form of peace once the US leaves.

 

     When the Iran's "nationals" were organizing for a take over of the Shiite regime of Ahmadenijad. it was our president who was obvious by his silence.  After the Bush plan of supporting, funding and aiding the take-over during his administration, Obama's plan seems to be let the nationals swing slowly in the wind.  Which by the way, many of them actually have.  The nationals began openly defying the Islamic Mullahs with the death of the Ayatollah, and favoring  a western style democratic form of government.  Bush supported it, Obama has ignored it. 

 

     It's interesting to see who Obama does support in these difficult times.  Let's take a look.  The rioters in Egypt, the rioters in Libya, the rioters in Greece, the rioters on Wall Street, the rioters in Wisconsin, the rioters in the UK, Mexican illegals over Nevada,  the rioters in France, etc.  The only rioters he won't support are those in Syria, Lebanon (Irani strongholds) and those in Iran itself.  Now we look at the aftermath of Egypt and Libya and hear the new leaders talking about forming Shiite nations who are governed by Sharia law.   Already we're seeing destruction of Christian churches in Egypt, along with numerous killings and/or imprisonment of Christian followers.  You'll see the same in Libya in the near future.

 

     The Obama Regime has openly supported the Muslim Brotherhood, a long standing, highly organized Islamic sect who calls for the destruction of Israel and the "West".   For more than 20 years they've been trying to organize the entire Muslim world into one gigantic "United States of Islam".  I think they're getting there.

 

     It's also worth noting that Obama's "lead from waaayy behind" delayed the situation long enough for (rumored) nuclear weapons, rockets and missiles to come up missing in Libya.  Do you hear any urgency from the WH about not letting those weapons fall into the hands of al Qaeda-type organizations?  Nope.

 

     Saudi Arabia bears close scrutiny.   The Royal Family is outnumbered drastically by the Wahabi faction, but they've been able to keep them at bay through entitlements, massive fire power and letting them run most of the social aspects of the country, i.e., education.  However, if Iran decides to lend financial and arms support to the Wahabi, we could easily have another Libya.  Who do you think Obama will support in that conflict?  You're right.  

 

     Want to guess what happens to the US once the Shiites rule the oil producing countries of the middle east?  We could enhance our position significantly by opening up drilling in Alaska, federal lands, the shale reserves in the Dakotas, coal mining, natural gas production,  and offshore drilling.  (That would also cure most of our economic woes).  Anyone who has America's interest at heart (instead of the spread of Islam) would be doing that.  And doing it now.

The Failure of Socialism

"Ernie" has some thoughts on Socialism and current events. 

     Socialism and all its "ism" forms may be easy to explain, but apparently very hard for democrats to understand its implications.  Especially its aftermath.  I seriously doubt that anyone under the age of 40 could accurately describe what communism is, or how it contributed to the death of millions of opposers to its ideology.  For the under 40 group the Berlin Wall, the Cuba blockade and other cold war events are completely meaningless.  Heaven knows most have never been taught anything about it in school.  About how America is an "oppresser", yes, but not much about the millions of people we have freed from the bonds of "isms".  Our educational system is a disaster, but that's for a later article.

 

      The aftermath of modern Socialism should be obvious, even to a Democrat.  All we have to do is look to Europe.  This is a continent in rapid, steady financial decline due almost exclusively to social programs.   Here again, most products of our educational system know nothing about this burgeoning problem that's threatening the stability of the entire "free" world. 

 

     Greece is plagued with violent riots because the government (which got the country in this mess) is now forced to make drastic changes in order to save the country from default, which would take the bulk of the EU down with them, and us not far behind.  In this once paragon of ancient exceptionalism there are 7 government employees for every private sector employee.  Yet it's the private sector that pays the bill for the gov't sector.   (Sound familiar?) As with most of Europe, it's the liberal benefits programs doled out to workers that are to blame.  In Greece employees work 24 hours per week for 7 months a year.  Yet they get 11 monthly checks per year, right up to the day they die.  Similar programs exist throught the continent.

 

     Germany has been largely responsible for bailing out these near-default countries, but it too is facing a gigantic financial implosion.  Its liberal spending policies are second-to-none in the EU.  So, Germany is propping up Greece, Italy, Spain, etc., and America is propping up Germany.  And none of us can actually afford the bill.   You can see what happens when the props start falling.  So to those who say, "who cares about Europe?", this is why what happens in Europe doesn't stay in Europe, it has major implications here in America.

 

     One reason Europe has been so benefits driven is because America pays the cost to defend it.  Instead of these countries pouring out large sums of capital for defense, they've been giving it to their citizens in the way of health care, retirement, massive vacations and other nonsustainable social benefits.  It's no secret to the int'l business world that the EU has long been noncompetitive in the world market because of these lavish programs.

 

     Financing today's expenses with IOU's for future generations will not work.  The EU family averages 1.2 children per family.  (Almost 5 children per family among the Muslim invaders, which poses another problem).  With each family having 2 parents and 1 child, you can see that there won't be enough people in the future to begin to pay down...let alone pay off...these huge debts.  And many people 35 and under aren't even getting married.  They're still living at home with their parents in the same room they were born in.  Even with free education there are very few public sector jobs to be had.

 

     If you're feeling sorry for Europe, that's fine, but what you see happening there is coming to America, and fast.  If we don't start de-Socializing our country we'll be in the same boat.  And that means we have to start right now.  Not 20 years from now.  We can being with the election of 2012.

The Medicare Bomb

"Rook" has some thoughts on the future of Medicare.  

 

I am reading and re-reading this article, but failing to understand why the author thinks this proposal would work. I am afraid that even a "Hertog fellow at the Ethics and Public Policy Center and the editor of National Affairs" is unclear on the basic principles of free market economics.

 

The Medicare Monster | The Weekly Standard

 

Rather than providing insurance directly to all American seniors​—​setting payment rates, making coverage decisions, and directly paying doctors and hospitals​—​Medicare would assign to each senior roughly the amount it would have spent on his coverage and allow him to spend that “premium-support” subsidy on a private health insurer of his choosing. The private insurers would have to provide at least the same minimum level of coverage as Medicare does, but they could organize their plans​—​any coverage beyond the minimum, their payment rates, their arrangements with doctors, and so on​—​as they liked. If a senior chose an insurer that charged less than the premium-support payment provided by Medicare, he could keep some or all of the difference, giving him a strong incentive to shop around and choose carefully (and giving insurers a strong reason to offer cheaper plans). If he chose a plan that cost more than the premium-support level, he would have to make up the difference out of his own pocket. 

 

the premium-support benefit would grow exactly as quickly as required to provide a comprehensive insurance benefit, since the growth rate would be determined by a market process rather than a preset formula. Information about costs and prices would flow from those who had more direct on-the-ground knowledge (insurers, doctors, and hospitals) to those with less (Medicare administrators) rather than the other way around, as now happens. Insurers and providers would have a strong incentive to innovate, to improve efficiency, and to cut costs while offering high-quality services, and the broader health care system would be liberated from the stranglehold of the economically obtuse fee-for-service system. But seniors would not face the risk of greater out-of-pocket costs​—​if markets failed to bring down costs, the federal budget would suffer, but Medicare recipients would not. The risk would be borne by the government, not the elderly.

 

Even this proposed reform ignores one fundamental economic principle, from the real world. It is summarized as "don't leave money on the table." This means, don't refuse to take the money that the customer is offering to you.

 

The way this principle applies to the premium-support model of reforming Medicare is as follows. 

 

The government gives money to the elderly to buy their own health insurance. This amount is well known to all. What insurance company would ever charge less than this amount? Sure, they will compete, but not on price; maybe on minor, tinkering-around-the-edges features, or "customer service," but not on price. They will never leave the money on the table that is there for the taking.

 

Now suppose the level of this support guaranteed by the government proves to be insufficient to meet the rise in real or claimed costs, as the hoped-for competition between insurers, or between health care providers, or both, fails to materialize - because of course even under this program there is no incentive for them to engage in price or cost competition. And therefore the seniors are hit with notices of premium increases. And therefore the government will be under tremendous political pressure to increase the subsidies, further reinforcing the disincentive of the "private" players to compete.

 

The author concedes this point in the last line I included in the selections from this 6 page article: ​"...if markets failed to bring down costs, the federal budget would suffer, but Medicare recipients would not. The risk would be borne by the government, not the elderly."

 

Knowing this, why would any insurer or provider feel any pressure to compete, to streamline, to innovate, to increase efficiency? This is still the same cost-plus model that has plagued government procurements, both civilian and defense-related.

 

The conclusion is inevitable that even the premium-support model will NOT prevent the financial collapse of the Medicare program. If we want to save the program, we have to admit first of all that it cannot be saved if it remains packaged as welfare. The only way it will survive is if it's repackaged along sound free market principles. For example, it must be financed by life-long payroll deductions into a special tax-free account personally owned by the contributor, properly invested to help make it grow in spite of inflation and economic reversals, not to be drawn from except to cover medical insurance premiums and out-of-pocket costs beginning at retirement age. Competitive pressure on insurers and providers will arise from the reluctance of the end customers to spend any more than they have to, being motivated to preserve their funds and to shop around for the best deal. Yes, this will greatly reduce the role of government in health care, if not quite totally eliminate it.

 

Of course we have the problem of currently living adults and retirees being locked into the existing welfare model, so there will have to be a transition program put in place, with the balance between government and private contributions into the account to be adjusted for the age of the contributor. 

 

The same design could be put in place immediately as a substitute for Obamacare: health insurance financed by life-long payroll deductions into a special tax-free account personally owned by the contributor, properly invested to help make it grow in spite of inflation and economic reversals, not to be drawn from except to cover medical insurance premiums and out-of-pocket medical costs as needed. 

 

Yes, of course any reform must be based on legal and moral pressures on individuals to educate themselves and to provide for their own needs, such as the requirement to make life-long contributions into a special health care account, whether subsidized by the government or not. Unlike other social / political models, the free market does not require men to be angels, only to be responsible.

 

Of course any reform will require the repeal or modification of all existing federal and state insurance laws, especially including all the byzantine requirements and constructs that Medicare has piled onto the health insurance and health care industries in the name of regulatory oversight, standardization, cost containment, record keeping, etc. As recently as 1972, Blue Cross was advertising that their administrative overhead costs are only 3 cents per premium dollar, the other 97 cents were going directly to the providers. Today we have to have a LAW that says the insurance company must pay out at least 84 cents. Their 16 cents in overhead costs does not include the cost of the federal bureaucracy that administers the Medicare and related programs, or the armies of private employees whose job consists only of generating and managing the paperwork to enforce, monitor and document compliance with government regulations. We have done much better, and we can do much better again, once we cut the government monster back down to size.

Privacy What Privacy?

"Rook" has some thoughts on privacy.  

 

Verizon Announces Privacy Updates | TheBlaze.com

 

Verizon informed me that it will now start selling the data of the websites I visit, the apps and device features I use, my device location, demographic information gleaned from other companies, as well as the amount of time I use certain products.

 

Follow-Up Study of Website Info Leakage Finds 61% Release Usernames | TheBlaze.com

 

    * Reviewing 185 largest websites, 61 percent release usernames.

    * Previous study found 56 percent of 120 websites reviewed released some sort of information.

    * Usernames, thanks to social networks, give people easy access to full names, photo and other information.

    * Just by clicking on a Home Depot ad, 13 different sites received user first name and email address.

    * Expert says this study isn’t indicative of lack of anonymity on the web, but identifying technical issues.

 

        * Viewing a local ad on the Home Depot website sent the user’s first name and email address to 13 companies.

        * Entering the wrong password on the Wall Street Journal website sent the user’s email address to 7 companies. [...]We identified the Wall Street Journal leak in a different browsing session from the one reported in the spreadsheet – and by accident. In the interest of consistency – we did not test logging out and logging back in on other sites, nor logging in with the wrong password – we decided to discuss the leak in our post but not our spreadsheet.

        * Changing user settings on the video sharing site Metacafe sent first name, last name, birthday, email address, physical address, and phone numbers to 2 companies.

        * Signing up on the NBC website sent the user’s email address to 7 companies.

        * Signing up on Weather Underground sent the user’s email address to 22 companies.

        * The mandatory mailing list page during CNBC signup sent the user’s email address to 2 companies.

        * Clicking the validation link in the Reuters signup email sent the user’s email address to 5 companies.

        * Interacting with Bleacher Report sent the user’s first and last names to 15 companies.

        * Interacting with classmates.com sent the user’s first and last names to 22 companies.

 

Las Vegas GOP Debates

"Rook" has some thoughts on the GOP debates.  I am worried about this crowd running for the GOP nomination. Yesterday they acted like the Democrats' standard criticism, that this is a very weak field, was something they are trying hard to make come true. In the argument over 9-9-9, nobody remembered to mention the Balanced Budget Amendment and the cap on total spending as a percentage of the GNP, without which no reforms will ever stay in place and continue to work as intended.

 

Romney was his usual snarky, arrogant, pedantic, lecturing, talk-down-to-the idiots, obnoxious self; wrong on many issues (global warming, cap-and-trade, energy, taxation, debt and budget), untrustworthy on others (Obamacare, immigration); a typical fast-talking, ivy league, east coast Rockefeller RINO professional politician. Can't imagine having to suffer through four years of him on TV, not after five years of Obama (2008-2012).

 

Perry finally woke up and had a few good lines. He got Romney to admit that yes, he did have illegals in his employ, and that the reason he got rid of them (or the contractor who employed them) is that he (Romney) cannot afford the scandal while he is running for national office....THAT sure is a man of principle....NOT!

 

Ron Paul is trying to stick with simple principles but gets lost in the details, especially in the area of foreign policy; his statements lack a critical detail, such as WHAT he would do in a REAL crisis, or how he would PREVENT a real crisis after he brings all the troops home.

 

Santorum managed to illustrate why the professional leftists, the "moderates" dedicated to no principles or any particular convictions, and people of other persuasions, all fear the religious-right politicians. His insistence that the fundamental building block of society is the family, not the individual, and the resulting argument that he and Ron Paul got into over this point, was very instructive and very disappointing. Paul and Santorum reminded me of the dispute we've had going since before our founding, which was captured in the "Rum, Romanism and Rebellion" slogan in the election of 1884. Maybe the election of JFK was supposed to have put anti-Catholic prejudice to rest; but it sure does look like the issue is not really dead, and in some future election we will still have to deal with anti-Mormon, anti-evangelical and generally anti-Christian prejudice, too.

 

Gingrich continues to shine as the only intelligent and witty debater on the panel. While the others are reducing themselves to sniping at each other, he is the one who always reminds them that their real target should be Obama and everything the "Democrats" stand for.

 

Both Perry and Bachmann managed to show either that they can't think fast on their feet, or they don't bother to think things through in sufficient detail, or that they don't really have a deep enough understanding of economics or even the Constitution. This came to light when they both attacked Cain's 9-9-9 plan. Bachmann was correct when she brought up the "value added tax" idea supposedly embedded in the 9-9-9 plan. Perry was correct in pointing out that (uninformed) people will be unhappy with having to pay federal sales taxes on top of the state and local sales taxes. 

 

However, both Perry and Bachmann (and everybody else who attacked the 9-9-9 plan) missed a number of fundamental points:

 

1. We already have a form of a VAT in force. Any tax that a subcontractor pays must be included in the price that the subcontractor charges to his customer the contractor; otherwise the subcontractor can't meet his expenses and will go out of business. Any tax that the contractor pays must be included in the price that the contractor charges to his customer the general contractor; otherwise the contractor can't meet his expenses and will go out of business. And so on, up the food chain, up to the final (retail) customer. He pays all the taxes, fees, labor, materials and other costs of bringing the final product to him. So in that sense we already have a VAT in force. It does not matter whether the tax is in the form of a corporate income tax or a sales tax or the VAT as the Europeans run it (applying a tax based on some artificial formula for the value added to the product at every step in the manufacturing process), in the end it is all included in the price charged to the last customer who buys and does not resell the product. Of course we could make all this artificial price inflation go away if all tax rates on corporations were zero. Even Cain hasn't yet pointed that out during a debate.

 

2. The current top corporate income tax rate is 35%. Even if nobody but the most helpless idiot, with no competent CPA and tax lawyer to help him, actually pays this top rate, whatever they pay is still higher than Cain's 9%. That in itself is a huge reduction from what they pay now. Again, Cain hasn't yet pointed that out during a debate.

 

3. The current top personal income tax rate is 39%, with about another 20% in Social Security (split between employer and employee) plus Medicare plus unemployment insurance plus workmen's comp insurance plus who knows what else. All these taxes combined will go down to 9% according to Cain's plan. So, even if the working poor were not exempted in other ways from the 9% income tax (which is a fine bit of complication buried in the 9-9-9 plan), their payroll taxes will still be cut to 9% total. That in itself is a huge reduction from what they pay now. Again, Cain hasn't yet pointed that out during a debate.

 

The only remaining argument against this part of 9-9-9 is the earned income credit, by which people with small enough incomes presently get as as a "refund" as if they had excess withholdings. I assume this will go away under 9-9-9 and Cain must anticipate the class-warfare objections by the Democrats and get in front of the argument by explaining how he will handle it before the plan is preemptively demagogued to death.

 

4. Yes, there is the legitimate concern about the federal sales tax, that it's yet another revenue stream for Congress to tap into. But one virtue of the sales tax is that you pay it only when you already have the money to buy something. Another virtue is that the sales tax broadens the tax base to include every consumer, even those who for some legitimate or illegitimate reason manage to pay no other taxes. Again, Cain's plan has a built-in exemption for the poor; the sales tax is applied only to new products. Will this have any side-effects? Look for an increase in garage sales and flea markets. The sales tax also makes government a partner vitally interested in keeping the economy strong and innovative, not lost in the quagmire of class warfare. But even with a federal sales tax, the total cost to each of us will still be lower than what we are paying now. The elimination of the huge overhead just to calculate our taxes, file and process our tax returns, will be much lower than what it is now, and the reduction in costs should result in a general reduction in the prices for everything. Again, Cain hasn't yet pointed that out during a debate.

 

5. The 9-9-9 plan is the most innovative one in this election cycle. It begins with throwing out the entire existing IRS code. Everybody else's plans BEGIN with the current code and just make changes to it. Of course. Politicians don't want to give up their best tool of social engineering. But the most ambitious promise of the 9-9-9 plan is that it is a stepping stone toward the fair tax (national sales tax). The reason for the incremental strategy is that people believe we have to repeal the 16th Amendment to eliminate the federal income tax. Actually, Congress could do that now, simply byresetting all rates in all brackets to ZERO, thereby effecting a de facto repeal; sure, the law is on the books, but it collects nothing. Again, Cain hasn't yet pointed that out during a debate.

 

After all these debates, with more to come, one would think that the participants would LEARN the issues, the key points, the major strengths and weaknesses, the sense of timing to present them in the debate at the right time, and thereby turn the debate into an intelligent, enlightening discussion of the issues, in sharp contrast with the class warfare and the politics of personal destruction favored by the Democrats. The fact that they don't seem to be rising on any learning curve is what gives credibility to the Democrats' chortling argument that this is weak field. 

 

In contrast, Obama the professional campaigner looks polished, experienced and in command of his facts - dead wrong as they are - because he is well practiced in arguing from the ideology and rhetoric of the Marxist class warfare foundations of his positions on the issues. The only way to counter and defeat that is by being similarly well versed in the philosophical foundations and principles of freedom and the free market, and to be in full command of the facts and their contexts. Someone on our side will have to learn to be fully at ease, straight to the point and having fun like Cain; witty and in command of arguments and facts like Gingrich; feisty and forthright like Bachmann; principled like Paul; and down to earth and fundamentally decent like Perry. Obviously Romney, the slick flip-flopping favorite of the establishment, will never be that man. And the establishment is rigging the process by pushing the primaries earlier and earlier, which may have the effect of assuring an early Romney nomination before anyone of the others can get all their ducks in a row.

 

But, not having all their ducks in row will be their own fault!

 

 

Wall Street Protests and Pro Sports

"Ernie" has some thoughts on Occupy Wall Street and sports.

This little article is about Wall Street and pro sports.  If you're wondering what in the world the two have in common, let's just begin by talking salaries and the excuses people make for what athletes are paid.  First, Wall Street.

 

      in 2009 it is estimated that the average Wall Street broker earned about $304,000.  2009 was a banner year for brokerage houses, but was preceeded by 2008 which had record losses.  It's been reported that between '08 and '11,  brokerage house sales fell by $12B.  Bonuses have dropped accordingly as sales dipped downward.   As we look to pro athletes' incomes, keep in mind that it's the Wall Street people who are collecting all the left wing hatred by the Flea Bagger protests.

 

      Recently I heard locals complaining that the reason the Memphis Tigers were such a lousy football team was because of a lack of money.  If only they had a new stadium, new training facilities, new practice facilities and new Escalades for each of their players, it would be much easier to recruit quality players.  Some of which could even read and write and not have police records.  (I threw the "Escalade" thing in for humor).  They never said, but I guess the financing would come from donations and, ultimately, the tax payers.   There was even mention that they needed to pay $4-5 Million if they wanted a good coach.

 

      This is indicative of sports fans (of which I used to be a devout member).  Demonize Halliburton, Exxon/Mobile, Wall Street, corporate presidents, drug companies, etc., but never, ever criticize athlete and team incomes.  They're sacred.

 

      The salaries for the NBA go from 900,000 to $4.7M per year.  The highest are the Dallas Mavericks.  That comes to slightly more than  $2M per player per year.   While a company CEO is responsible for tens of thousands of employees, millions of stockholders and a snarly Board of Directors, the biggest decision an NBA player has to make is what kind of a tattoo to get next.  Or, do I go with an Escalade or Chrysler 300?

 

      The NFL pays about $980k per player which is about $9.8M per team per year.  The biggest decision facing these players is 2-fold:  Go bald or grow long dredlocks;  and, how to improve their "look at me" demonstrations after making a tackle, making a touchdown or hurting an opponent.

 

      MLB spends from $1.3M (KC) to $6.7M (NYYankees) per player per year.  The total revenue for the Yankeeas in 2010 was $600M, with a salary expense of $206M.  They were also hit was a luxury tax of $25M.

 

     It seems to make no difference how much athletes are paid, so long as our favorite team(s) win.  It makes no difference what it costs to have the #1 football program and facilities at  Alabama (for example) so long as they beat LSU (for example).

 

     Are our priorities messed up or is it just me?  I can't help but notice that while China is graduating engineers, physicists, medical doctors, nuclear scientists and such....we're producing basketball players, football players and rap singers.   (You notice I didn't use the word "graduating" when referring to our college athletes.

Occupy Wall Street - The '60s Are Here Again

"Rook" has some thoughts on those who march on Wall Street.  You can see the links and the stories all over the web. The commie rabble is coming out of the woodwork, from Soros and Obama on down through the ranks of the same old "Democrats," professors, teachers, "journalists," unions, community agitators, the American Communist party, the Chicoms, the Persian Ayatollahs, etc. etc. etc. 

 

Gosh, this is unprecedented. Nothing like this has ever happened before...Unless your knowledge history goes back to the 1960's, the 1930's, or the street battles with the newly formed unions in the late 1800's. But, here you go, repeating the history you never bothered to learn. 

 

When I read stories, sometimes there is a background music buzzing in my head with a tune that's strangely appropriate to the general mood of the stories. We are reliving the 60's, so here is one of the anthems of the era.

 

The 60's idiots were illiterate enough not to comprehend past the first line, back then or today... 

 

You say you want a revolution

Well you know

we all want to change the world

You tell me that it's evolution

Well you know

We all want to change the wo-rld

But when you talk about destruction

Don't you know you can count me out,

Don't you know it's gonna be? alright?

Alright Alright

 

You say you got a real solution

Well you know

we'd all love to see the plan

You ask me for a contribution

Well you know

We're all doing what we can

But if you want money for people with minds that hate

All I can tell you is brother you have to wait

Don't you know it's gonna be alright?

 

You say you'll change the constitution

Well you know

we'd all love to change your head

You tell me it's the institution

Well you know

You better free your mind instead

But if you go carrying pictures of Chairman Mao

You ain't going to make it with anyone anyhow

Don't you know it's gonna be alright

Alright ALRIGHT ALRIGHT ALRIGHT ALRIGHT ALRIGHT ALRIGHT ALRIGHT ALRIGHT

 

The message was in the denial. The mere mention, even in the form of a denial, WAS the pointer to the "correct" ideology, the exhortation to action - Mao, class hatred, destruction. Whatever. So now there is another "new generation with a new explanation, people in motion, people in motion" once again, and instead of just coming to San Francisco, they are everywhere and this time they don't have flowers in their hair, just BO from weeks of living in filth.  

 

The only thing more to the point was the Marseillaise and the French Revolution.