Posted by Richard on March 31, 2011
MineFund has a couple of graphs that every American needs to look at. The first shows the change in purchasing power for the US dollar from 1792 to today. The second shows the same for gold.
The relentless and near-precipitous decline in the value of the dollar after it was "unfettered" from gold is sobering. With the Federal Reserve creating new dollars ("monetizing the debt") hand over fist, what do you suppose that graph will look like a few years from now?
Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: debt, economics, gold, inflation | Leave a Comment »
Posted by Richard on March 31, 2011
John Gizzi of Human Events is one of the many people who've expressed concern over who the rebels we're backing in Libya are:
On March 1, British Prime Minister David Cameron said it would be a good idea to find out a little more about the Libyan opposition to Muammar Gaddafi before going any further with talk of any kind of military intervention.
Nearly a month later, with Cameron’s Britain one of several countries involved in Operation Odyssey Dawn, which has been key to the rebels' latest advance, we still know very little about those who seek to rule Libya after Gaddafi.
This could be a case of the age-old warning to be careful of what one wishes for. …
Filling in for Rush Limbaugh today, "America's undocumented anchorman" Mark Steyn observed that the Obama administration seems to have adopted the Nancy Pelosi approach to liberation movements: we have to arm the rebels in order to find out who they are. [rimshot]
Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: libya, obama, pelosi, war | Leave a Comment »
Posted by Richard on March 31, 2011
The Republicans have been pushing for $61 billion in spending cuts for FY2011 (significantly less than the $100 billion they promised before the election), and the Democrats have been denouncing even that modest cut as "draconian" and "extreme."
You'd think this would be a challenge the GOP would be eager to take on. If you have even a modicum of communication skills and public relations savvy, how hard can it be to ridicule the absurd argument that cutting $61 billion — 1.6% — out of a budget of $3,700 billion is "draconian" and "extreme"? It barely puts a tiny dent in the $1,600 billion deficit. Do they really fear that the average American can't grasp that point?
Let's put the federal fiscal crisis into comparable (approximate) household numbers that people can relate to: Let's say your household income is about $42,000 ($3500/month). But you're spending about $74,000 ($6167/month). And you're putting the $32,000 difference on your credit cards (on which you already owe over $300,000). Would cutting your spending by less than $100 a month really be "draconian"? Does it even seriously address the terrible financial situation you're in?
To me, this seems like an argument that's a slam-dunk win, especially in the political climate that gave us the Tea Party movement and resulting electoral tsunami of last November. And yet, the Republican leadership seems terrified of taking a hard stand and drawing a line in the sand. According to the Washington Post, they're ready to cave — settling for $30 billion in cuts and giving up on defunding anything — and Dan Mitchell isn't pleased:
Yesterday, I analyzed how the GOP should fight the budget battle, but I may have made a big mistake. I assumed the Republican leadership actually wanted to do the right thing. I thought they learned the right lessons from the disastrous Bush years, and that the GOP no longer would be handmaidens for big government. And I naively assumed that the Republican leadership would not betray the base and stab the Tea Party in the back.
…
… I thought the GOP leadership would fight and get a decent deal rather than unilaterally surrender. If the Washington Post report is true and Republicans act like the French army, it will discourage the base and cause a rift with the Tea Party. So it’s dumb politics and dumb policy.
And that display of cowardice by House Republican leaders follows on the heels of the report that Senate Republicans are going to agree to support a debt limit increase if the Democrats merely allow a symbolic vote on a balanced budget amendment. No, Democrats don't have to support it — they just have to allow a vote, which the Republicans are guaranteed to lose. A repeat of a vote they've already had (and lost), a vote that they could force by parliamentary means in any case. In other words, they're giving up their biggest leverage in return for … nothing.
Stupid party seems like such a mild and inadequate term.
There are a few shiny gems amidst the steaming pile of cow-flop that is the GOP. Sen. Marco Rubio won't vote for a debt limit increase unless it comes with a whole bunch of serious conditions:
"Raising America's debt limit is a sign of leadership failure." So said then-Sen. Obama in 2006, when he voted against raising the debt ceiling by less than $800 billion to a new limit of $8.965 trillion. As America's debt now approaches its current $14.29 trillion limit, we are witnessing leadership failure of epic proportions.
I will vote to defeat an increase in the debt limit unless it is the last one we ever authorize and is accompanied by a plan for fundamental tax reform, an overhaul of our regulatory structure, a cut to discretionary spending, a balanced-budget amendment, and reforms to save Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid.
Bravo. Read the whole thing.
Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: big government, congress, debt, deficit, fiscal policy, republicans, rubio, spending, stupidity | Leave a Comment »
Posted by Richard on March 29, 2011
Grim reports about the Fukushima nuclear plant continue every day. The media are now reporting that radiation from the plant has been detected in "miniscule" amounts across the US. They don't define miniscule, apparently merely quoting some government source. But every so often, they trot out some "expert" who warns us that there is no safe dose of ionizing radiation, that any additional quantity leads to additional deaths from cancer.
To put all this ominous news into perspective, I suggest that you take a look at xkcd's radiation dose chart (click the image to see it full-size). It elegantly illustrates the relationships across a broad range of radiation exposures, from sleeping next to someone or holding a banana to standing beside the molten core of a reactor. I think Edward Tufte would approve.
After spending some time studying the chart, I wondered if the "no safe dose" advocates always sleep alone, never eat (or even stand near) bananas, never go into buildings containing granite or marble, never fly on airplanes, and live only at sea level. Somehow, I doubt it. But how sad for them if they do.
I'm going to remain in Colorado, where I get lots of extra ionizing radiation due to the altitude. But somehow, people still manage to live longer.
Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: health, radiation | 5 Comments »
Posted by Richard on March 28, 2011
A friend chided me today, and rightly so. Saturday night, Gaia-worshippers across the globe plunged themselves into pre-industrial darkness for the absurd event known as Earth Hour. And I completely forgot to remind my readers to maximize their energy consumption during that hour to celebrate the Industrial Revolution, progress, modernity, and technology. In fact, I forgot to do so myself! Mea culpa!
I'll try to make up for it by increasing my energy consumption throughout the coming week. As I've said before, "My ancestors didn't survive the Black Plague and Dark Ages, create the Enlightenment and Industrial Revolution, and bring about the past two hundred years of astonishing scientific and technological progress so that we could huddle in the dark."
Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: energy, environmentalism, global warming, lights, moonbats | 3 Comments »
Posted by Richard on March 26, 2011
… Never modest about himself, Obama is supremely modest about his country. America should be merely "one of the partners among many," he said Monday. No primus inter pares for him. Even the Clinton administration spoke of America as the indispensable nation. And it remains so. Yet at a time when the world is hungry for America to lead — no one has anything near our capabilities, experience and resources — America is led by a man determined that it should not. A man who dithers over parchment. Who starts a war from which he wants out right away. Good God. If you go to take Vienna, take Vienna. If you're not prepared to do so, better then to stay home and do nothing.
Read the whole thing. (HT: Instapundit)
Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: libya, obama, war | Leave a Comment »
Posted by Richard on March 26, 2011
Various critics have wondered why President Obama felt compelled to stop Moammar Gaddafi from attacking his own people, but doesn't feel compelled to stop Bashar Assad from attacking the Syrian people. I say give it time.
The Obama administration debated and dithered for 4-5 weeks after the slaughter of civilians in Libya began before it acted. The Syrian army has only been gunning down civilians for a few days.
It's quite possible that the US will be ready to take action against Syria by mid to late April. Assuming, of course, that Samantha Power, Susan Rice, and Hillary Clinton — the three women with the big cojones in this administration — prevail again.
Some conservatives have pointed out that if you're going to use the US military to protect civilians from their own governments, there are multiple candidates in Africa, starting with Zimbabwe. I think there's zero chance of that. Robert Mugabe is a hard-core Marxist. And one thing is clear about this administration: it has no bone to pick with Marxists or socialists anywhere.
Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: libya, obama, syria, war | Leave a Comment »
Posted by Richard on March 26, 2011
To date, President Obama has spent more time talking to ESPN about his bracket picks than explaining to the American people his decision to launch "kinetic military action" against Moammar Gaddafi.
In today's Wall Street Journal, Peggy Noonan argued that the President must make the speech he hasn't made, and it must answer many, many questions about his war on Libya:
It all seems rather mad, doesn't it? The decision to become involved militarily in the Libyan civil war couldn't take place within a less hospitable context. The U.S. is reeling from spending and deficits, we're already in two wars, our military has been stretched to the limit, we're restive at home, and no one, really, sees President Obama as the kind of leader you'd follow over the top. "This way, men!" "No, I think I'll stay in my trench." People didn't hire him to start battles but to end them. They didn't expect him to open new fronts. Did he not know this?
He has no happy experience as a rallier of public opinion and a leader of great endeavors; the central initiative of his presidency, the one that gave shape to his leadership, health care, is still unpopular and the cause of continued agitation. When he devoted his entire first year to it, he seemed off point and out of touch.
This was followed by the BP oil spill, which made him look snakebit. Now he seems incompetent and out of his depth in foreign and military affairs. He is more observed than followed, or perhaps I should say you follow him with your eyes and not your heart. So it's funny he'd feel free to launch and lead a war, which is what this confused and uncertain military action may become.
What was he thinking? What is he thinking?
Which gets me to Mr. Obama's speech, the one he hasn't given. I cannot for the life of me see how an American president can launch a serious military action without a full and formal national address in which he explains to the American people why he is doing what he is doing, why it is right, and why it is very much in the national interest. …
Read the whole thing.
This evening, we learned that the President will address the nation about Libya on Monday. He also finally remembered that other branch of government, and deigned to talk about Libya with Congressional leaders via conference call.
Like the military action itself, the speech Monday will be belated and probably not as decisive or satisfying as one might hope. But maybe he can use the occasion to update us on his bracket picks.
Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: libya, obama, war | Leave a Comment »
Posted by Richard on March 24, 2011
One year ago today, ObamaCare became the law of the land. In the Wall Street Journal, freshman Senator Ron Johnson (R-WI) offered a personal and moving op-ed piece about this abomination and the consequences if it's not repealed:
Today is the first anniversary of the greatest single assault on our freedom in my lifetime: the signing of ObamaCare. As we consider what this law may do to our country, I can't help but reflect on a medical miracle made possible by the American health-care system. It's one that holds special meaning for me.
Some years ago, a little girl was born with a serious heart defect: Her aorta and pulmonary artery were reversed. Without immediate intervention, she would not have survived.
The infant was rushed to another hospital where a surgeon performed a procedure at 1 a.m. that saved her life. Eight months later, when her heart was the size of a small plum, an incredibly dedicated and skilled team of medical professionals surgically reconstructed it. Twenty-seven years later, the young woman is now a nurse in a neonatal intensive care unit where she is studying to become a nurse practitioner.
She wasn't saved by a bureaucrat, and no government mandate forced her parents to purchase the coverage that saved her. Instead, her care was provided under a run-of-the-mill plan available to every employee of an Oshkosh, Wis., plastics plant.
If you haven't guessed, this story touches my heart because the girl is my daughter, Carey. …
Please go read the whole thing.
Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: big government, health care, legislation, obamacare | Leave a Comment »
Posted by Richard on March 23, 2011
You know all that leftist carping about tax breaks for the rich and the rich not paying their share? As many of us have pointed out all along, it's bunkum. If they want the US to be more like Europe and the rest of the world, they could start by cutting taxes on the rich. According to the Tax Foundation, the richest 10% of households in the US pay more in taxes as a proportion of their share of income than in any other developed country (emphasis added):
The first column shows that the top 10 percent of households in the U.S. pays 45.1 percent of all income taxes (both personal income and payroll taxes combined) in the country. Italy is the only other country in which the top 10 percent of households pays more than 40 percent of the income tax burden (42.2%). Meanwhile, the average tax burden for the top decile of households in OECD countries is 31.6 percent.
By contrast, column #2 shows that the richest decile in America earned 33.5 percent of the market income in the country in 2005 – the year in which this snapshot was taken, but little has changed since then. But, a few other countries do have a greater or similar concentration of income as does the U.S. For example, the OECD table shows that the wealthiest decile of households in Italy and Poland earn a greater share of their country's market income than do our "rich" – 35.8 percent and 33.9 percent respectively – while the share of income earned by the top decile of households in the U.K. is about on par with those in the U.S. at 32.3 percent.
The table then adjusts for the underlying allocation of income by showing the ratio of income taxes paid to the share of income earned by the top decile in each country. The ratio for U.S. households is 1.35, far greater than the ratio of taxes to income in any other country. Even in the three countries with a comparable distribution of income, the ratio of taxes to income was less, 1.18 in Italy, 0.84 in Poland, and 1.20 in the U.K.
(HT: TaxProf, via Instapundit)
As for that other boogeyman of the left, the corporation — well, the US currently has the second highest corporate tax rate among developed nations. But not for long. Come April 1, we're going to be number one:
According to a study by the Tax Foundation, America’s combined federal and state rate of 39.2 percent is only out paced by Japan’s rate of 39.5 percent – which Japan plans to lower next month. Without Japan in the lead, America’s 39.2 percent will render it the corporate tax rate leader in the developed world, aka the countries comprising the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD).
In recent years, many OECD nations have been lowering their corporate income tax to create more favorable environments for business. The Tax Foundation notes that since 2000 Germany, Canada, Greece, Turkey, Poland, the Slovak Republic, Iceland, and Ireland have all lowered their corporate rates by double-digits.
I'm sure all the Socialist Democrats will celebrate on April 1, chanting "We're number one! We're number one!" as we sink further into a 70s-era stagflation. Or worse.
I suspect Instapundit is correct when he opines that a Carter rerun is now the best-case scenario.
Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: anticapitalism, big government, taxes | Leave a Comment »
Posted by Richard on March 22, 2011
Last Saturday, I wondered when the left would declare President Obama a war criminal and call for his impeachment. The wait wasn't actually too long, but so far it's only the far left fringe, like Ralph Nader and Dennis Kucinich.
Cindy Sheehan made a statement, but nobody noticed. As Tommy De Seno observed, the MSM once granted Sheehan "absolute moral authority" regarding matters of war and endlessly covered her every utterance and camp-out, but today they're just not interested in her point of view:
It’s not like Cindy Sheehan hasn’t said anything yet. Upon passage of the UN resolution for the Libyan no-fly zone, Cindy’s statement was posted at a website called “United Progressives.” No offense to whomever they are, but I doubt they are saved in enough people’s “favorites” list to be called “main-stream media.”
While refusing to mention President Obama by name, Cindy at least continued her eloquent anti-war soliloquy by saying our leaders are “criminally insane.” Newsworthy?
I’d give only long-shot odds that Cindy Sheehan becomes a camera magnet for mainstream media over Libya. Maybe there's just not enough time in today's newscasts to fit in a story about Cindy Sheehan, in between the ceaseless parade of liberal pundits booked to call Obama's bombing of Libya a humanitarian effort.
The best line I've heard regarding the war in Libya came from Rush Limbaugh:
"Imagine how upset the left will be when Khadafy's weapons of mass destruction are not found."
That one really cracked me up. 🙂
Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: constitution, leftists, libya, obama, war | Leave a Comment »
Posted by Richard on March 20, 2011
In October 2002, President Bush asked for and received a joint resolution of Congress, the Authorization for the Use of Military Force Against Iraq (Public Law No. 107-243), authorizing military action against Iraq. Libertarians like Rep. Ron Paul argued that it wasn't technically a declaration of war, which is what the Constitution calls for Congress to do (even though similarly-worded resolutions were considered sufficient to pass Constitutional muster going all the way back to the early days of the Republic). But he asked Congress before attacking, and Congress approved overwhelmingly (297-133 in the House, 77-33 in the Senate).
Today, our current Commander in Chief launched a massive attack on Libya. Without a joint resolution of Congress. Apparently, without even considering whether he needed permission from Congress. Apparently, President Obama believes that the permission of the United Nations is all he needs.
Leftist critics insist that the Iraq War violated international law. Set aside the validity of that claim for a moment. The President of the United States doesn't take an oath to uphold international law, he takes an oath to uphold the Constitution of the United States. Obama went to war without so much as a gesture toward abiding by the Constitutional provision reserving the war-making power to Congress.
Paging Cyndi Sheehan! Paging Code Pink! Paging International A.N.S.W.E.R! When can we expect to see massive anti-war demonstrations in the nation's capital and cities throughout the land? When can we expect a new tent city to be erected? When will we see the "Behead Obama" signs, the cries of "war criminal," and the calls for impeachment?
I'm not holding my breath.
UPDATE: Bless her heart, my representative has voiced concern:
DENVER – U.S. Rep. Diana DeGette (CO-1) tonight issued the following statement regarding President Barack Obama's decision to begin military action in Libya without securing Congressional authority.
"I am concerned by President Obama's decision to commit U.S. forces in Libya without involving Congress. This action may require substantial U.S. resources. While there is no question that Gaddafi's regime is brutalizing the people of Libya, launching military action against another nation requires Congress be fully informed so we can exercise our Constitutional authority.
"I therefore call on Speaker Boehner to call an emergency session, returning Members to Washington, so the President may address a joint session of Congress and be given the opportunity to make the case for war."
DeGette seems to believe the Constitution merely calls for Congress to be "involved" or "informed" (I doubt that she believed that from 2002-2008). But at least she's saying, "Hey, what about Congress?"
UPDATE 2: Instapundit called it the blog comment of the day. I'd rank it much higher. It may be the single most perfect comment I've seen posted anywhere in a very long time. Go right now and read "What I like about Obama"!
Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: congress, constitution, libya, obama, war | 5 Comments »
Posted by Richard on March 18, 2011
Like me, Daffyd was struck by the irony of public employee union protesters and their bused-in supporters in Madison, Wisconsin, using the slogan "This is what democracy looks like!" Unlike me, he thought to draw a parallel with events in Libya (and Egypt, and Iran), and to formulate a test for determining whether a protest movement is furthering democracy (emphasis in original):
I see a very simple test, derived from the rule enunciated by Ann Coulter anent the potential need for a union. Last month, the hot-right chick wrote:
The need for a union comes down to this question: Do you have a boss who wants you to work harder for less money? In the private sector, the answer is yes. In the public sector, the answer is a big, fat NO.
I understand the distinction the blonde bombard is making, though I still disagree with her formulation; if you have a boss who wants you to work harder for less money, your best bet is still Capitalism: Get some "hand" in the game by making yourself a more valuable employee, then negotiate a raise or promotion.
Still, the Coulterism is succinct and full of pith, easily adaptable to the distinction between Libya and Madison. Let's phrase it thus:
- If you're protesting because neither election nor even dissent is allowed, then what you have is an uprising of freedom.
- If you're protesting because you lost the election — then what you have is an anti-democratic, totalitarian front.
See? Politics needn't be abstruse or recondite. Betimes the most basic rules are best.
Just a reminder: Gov. Walker campaigned on the bill that the union protesters protested against, and he won. The Republicans elected to the legislature (in a massive state-wide wipe-out of Democrats) promised to support Walker's bill, and they won. So "what democracy looks like" is exactly what the union thugs objected to.
As Daffyd noted, the union protesters' effort was anti-democratic. In fact, given the numerous death threats against Republican state legislators — totally ignored by the MSM, of course — I'd call it fascism.
Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: hypocrisy, labor union, libya, media bias, politics | Leave a Comment »
Posted by Richard on March 18, 2011
You know the expression "a day late and a dollar short"? This is a month late and a couple of squadrons of F22s short:
The United Nations Security Council approved a resolution Thursday evening authorizing a no-fly zone over Libya and other military action against Libya, as the Obama administration worked to ready plans to enforce a no-fly zone with help from Arab and European allies.
Nice to know that the US is now working to ready plans. Only 31 days after President Obama declared that Gaddafi must go.
The United States, France and Britain pushed for speedy approval because Muammar al-Qaddafi's forces are advancing toward opposition-held Benghazi. The Libyan leader vowed Thursday night to oust the rebels from their eastern stronghold.
France and Britain have been pushing for some time. The US has been distracted by the President's need to attend fund-raisers, plan vacations, and fill his brackets.
French Prime Minister Francois Fillon said if the resolution was approved, France would support military action against Qaddafi within hours. The U.S. said it was preparing for action.
France is ready to act within hours. The US is still, after more than a month, "preparing."
In the last four weeks, compared to France, the US has looked weak, indecisive, and unprepared. Boy, the world sure has changed in the last two years.
Last week, I said "Reasonable people can disagree over whether we should intervene, but this dithering is the worst of all possible responses." Let me amend that a bit: Dithering even longer — until the allies who used to look to the US for leadership decide to take the lead themselves — and then belatedly agreeing to act, apparently without having a plan in place for doing so, is the worst of all possible responses.
Gaddafi's fighter jets and helicopter gunships have been pounding rebel forces and civilian populations in rebel-supporting regions for more than a month. No one knows how many have died. Now that the rebels have been decimated, Gaddafi's mercenaries are ready to drive them out of their last stronghold, Benghazi, and the defeat of the rebellion seems almost certain, the US is almost ready to act.
This is simply disgusting and shameful. It would have been better if the President had declared 31 days ago that what happens in Libya is none of our concern and had unequivocally pledged not to intervene in its internal affairs.
This, as I said, was the worst of all possible responses. For weeks, it gave brave freedom fighters false hope. Now, when it's almost certainly too late, it lets us pretend to be concerned and engaged. While leaving in charge the same UN that put Libya on its Human Rights Council.
The rebels were right to cry out for help from Bush.
Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: libya, middle east, obama, united nations | Leave a Comment »
Posted by Richard on March 11, 2011
It sounds like something from Iowahawk, or Scrappleface, or The Onion, but apparently it's true. President Obama has been whining* about how hard it is to be POTUS compared to president of China. Bill Kristol agrees with him that it really is much easier being president of China:
If you’re president of China, people around the world who are fighting for freedom don’t really expect you to help. If you’re president of China, you don’t have to put up with annoying off-year congressional elections, and then negotiate your budget with a bunch of gun-and-religion-clinging congressmen and senators. If you’re president of China, you can fund your national public radio to your heart’s content. And if you’re president of China, when you host a conference on bullying in schools, people take you seriously.
Unfortunately for him and us, Barack Obama is president of the United States. That job brings with it certain special responsibilities. It’s a tough job—maybe tougher than being president of China. But Barack Obama ran for president of the United States. Maybe he should start behaving as one.
I think Obama's China envy runs deeper than the issues of workload and expectations. His job is harder than the president of China's because the US is politically and socio-economically very different from China, and I think deep down he resents that and wishes it weren't.
Maybe we should propose a trade to the Chinese — Obama for Hu Jintao. Hu might find it difficult adjusting to a system with an independent legislature and judiciary, but at least he wouldn't try to cripple the nation's energy industries.
* OK, I suppose he wasn't literally whining. It's not in his nature to whine. The NYTimes said he "has told people," and I'm sure he told them in his typical professorial manner, as if he were educating them.
Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: china, obama | 2 Comments »
