Wow, was yesterday a tough day for me financially. Yes ladies and gentlemen, I joined the ranks of the "real world" from a taxation standpoint in 2008, and the outcome was rough. All the wounds are self-inflicted, all are easily overcome, but my oh my, it sure is different out here.
You see, in 2007, I was active duty military. During that time, I was a New Jersey resident, and so fell under "non-resident" rules that assigned to me no state income tax liability. Furthermore, about 20% of my total compensation was "non-taxable" allowances for housing, etc., so my federal tax was lower than it might have been for a comparable civilian salary.
But I retired in 2008. I was on active duty January-March, then began drawing retirement on 1 April. Additionally, I started a new, full-time job in early September. Along the way, I established a new residency in the People's Democratic State of Maryland, mostly as a way of demonstrating my commitment and earnestness to The Kitten. This would prove to be an expensive decision.
So when I sat down to do my taxes yesterday, I had three primary sources of income for 2008, each of which had withholding calculated at differing levels. I knew when I did my taxes this year I would owe money, both federal and state. I knew I would have to re-do W-4's to account for my new economic position...but my God, what a new world of taxation I've entered....
Most egregious of all? This state not only has a state income tax...but it also has county income taxes! COUNTY INCOME TAXES. In terms of state plus county taxes, it is 26% more expensive for me to be a Maryland resident than it is to be a Virginia resident. Are the roads better here in Talbot County, Maryland? Nope. Seems to me most of the extra money goes to pay bureaucrats to natter about trying to enact new and exciting ways of limiting property owners' rights simply because their property abuts a tributary to the Chesapeake Bay.
Yes....I did this to myself. I could have once and for all, become a Virginia resident when I retired from the Navy and not been gobsmacked like this. And I should have been much more curious about the way to fill out the W-4's to account for my new situation. But man oh man, if ANYONE harbored ANY doubts about my commitment to the Republican Party and Conservative ideas about taxation, put those doubts away. The Man is in my pocket, but good this time.
Saturday, February 7, 2009
Friday, February 6, 2009
An Open Letter to the President
Dear President Obama,
Congratulations on assuming the office you worked so hard for and for bringing with you a spirit of positivism, enthusiasm, and seriousness. I did not vote for you nor do I consider myself aligned with your political philosophy, but I wish you success in your term and nothing but happiness and good health for you and your family.
I write today in order to urge you to work closely with the Congress, especially the Senate, to focus and sharpen the economic stimulus package introduced recently in the House. I am under no delusions here; if the Democratic majority wishes to push through a bill bereft of Republican support, it probably can. Elections have consequences, and my party has lost two in a row, leaving it in a poor position to contest policies with which it disagrees.
With that in mind, it appears that you are a man of your word. You indicated throughout the campaign a desire to work across party lines to reach solutions, and you indicated a desire to reach solutions that were not ideologically based, but fact-based. On economic stimulus, I agree with the broad outline of your plan; immediate tax cuts to put more money into working families pockets, and stimulative works projects (often referred to as "shovel ready") to jumpstart the economy. Where we have visceral disagreement is in what constitutes effectively stimulative tax cuts, and what variety of government spending should be considered "shovel ready" and "stimulative".
This is not the place to delve deeply into the particulars of our disagreements; suffice it to say that my views are largely represented by the Republican minority in the Senate and by moderate, fiscally conservative Democrats like Ben Nelson, Jim Webb, and Mary Landrieu. What we all have in common is a desire to move the country forward out of its current economic malaise. There will be time for advancing policy initiatives important to you; however, inserting them into this Trojan Horse of a stimulus bill undercuts your credibility when you refer to our current economy as in crisis. An emergency bill designed to address a crisis should not attempt to remake the political landscape in one fell swoop.
Alice Rivlin, formerly Bill Clinton's budget adviser, advocated exactly this policy in her recent Senate testimony in which she suggested separating out the tax provisions and the immediately stimulative portions of the bill from the longer term policy wants. Republicans would even then have legitimate protests over the bill, as the tax cut mechanism you have selected essentially results in a one time hand-out rather than long-term marginal rate relief. But they would not have the votes or the support of the American people, something they seem to enjoy at this point in the debate, your personal popularity notwithstanding.
Mr. President, your time to lead is now; this is why the American people selected you in a convincing manner. You did indeed win the election, and you do enjoy a mandate to move the country forward. But in the end, you are required to work with 100 Senators and 435 Representatives who also won THEIR elections, and it is their constituencies who are being heard on this issue.
Sincerely,
Bryan McGrath
Blogger, The Conservative Wahoo
Congratulations on assuming the office you worked so hard for and for bringing with you a spirit of positivism, enthusiasm, and seriousness. I did not vote for you nor do I consider myself aligned with your political philosophy, but I wish you success in your term and nothing but happiness and good health for you and your family.
I write today in order to urge you to work closely with the Congress, especially the Senate, to focus and sharpen the economic stimulus package introduced recently in the House. I am under no delusions here; if the Democratic majority wishes to push through a bill bereft of Republican support, it probably can. Elections have consequences, and my party has lost two in a row, leaving it in a poor position to contest policies with which it disagrees.
With that in mind, it appears that you are a man of your word. You indicated throughout the campaign a desire to work across party lines to reach solutions, and you indicated a desire to reach solutions that were not ideologically based, but fact-based. On economic stimulus, I agree with the broad outline of your plan; immediate tax cuts to put more money into working families pockets, and stimulative works projects (often referred to as "shovel ready") to jumpstart the economy. Where we have visceral disagreement is in what constitutes effectively stimulative tax cuts, and what variety of government spending should be considered "shovel ready" and "stimulative".
This is not the place to delve deeply into the particulars of our disagreements; suffice it to say that my views are largely represented by the Republican minority in the Senate and by moderate, fiscally conservative Democrats like Ben Nelson, Jim Webb, and Mary Landrieu. What we all have in common is a desire to move the country forward out of its current economic malaise. There will be time for advancing policy initiatives important to you; however, inserting them into this Trojan Horse of a stimulus bill undercuts your credibility when you refer to our current economy as in crisis. An emergency bill designed to address a crisis should not attempt to remake the political landscape in one fell swoop.
Alice Rivlin, formerly Bill Clinton's budget adviser, advocated exactly this policy in her recent Senate testimony in which she suggested separating out the tax provisions and the immediately stimulative portions of the bill from the longer term policy wants. Republicans would even then have legitimate protests over the bill, as the tax cut mechanism you have selected essentially results in a one time hand-out rather than long-term marginal rate relief. But they would not have the votes or the support of the American people, something they seem to enjoy at this point in the debate, your personal popularity notwithstanding.
Mr. President, your time to lead is now; this is why the American people selected you in a convincing manner. You did indeed win the election, and you do enjoy a mandate to move the country forward. But in the end, you are required to work with 100 Senators and 435 Representatives who also won THEIR elections, and it is their constituencies who are being heard on this issue.
Sincerely,
Bryan McGrath
Blogger, The Conservative Wahoo
Thursday, February 5, 2009
A Superb Essay on the Meaning of Sarah Palin
Yuval Levin has put together perhaps the most lucid and insightful analysis of the Sarah Palin phenomenon. As I read it, I saw the roots of both my enthusiasm for and anxiety about her candidacy and place in the Republican party. I cannot honestly say I've resolved that duality.
A Defense of Bureaucrats!
Mark takes exception with David Brooks little lampoon of Ward 3 Dem/Bureaucrats, and I respond. I thought it would be worthwhile raising here to see if anyone else wants to chime in. Here's his input:
Bryan: I'm not sure how I feel about David Brooks column, or your response. I guess as a career Federal employee (military and civilian), I was kind of turned off by the implict sneer or backhanded denigration of people like me. Bourgeois, middle class, do gooding bureaucrats who can't park their bikes straight. A George Corley Wallace mentality, without the crass racism. Maybe I misread him (and you) or took a light hearted piece too seriously. But we haven't done well by oursleves in denigrating "bureaucrats", most of whom honestly want to do the right thing. Neither have we done well by obeisance to the Masters of the Universe ( to whom we now deliver ukases on the sumptuary law a la Brooks). I guess I'll have to think about this more.....
Mark
Here's my response:
Mark--great post, and a wonderful Wilsonian defense of the able bureaucrat.
Couple of things.
1. Brooks makes a living out of defining subgroups of humans in a light-hearted sort of parody-laced way (see "Bobos in Paradise, his book length version of this genre on Bourgeois Bohemians....). This is his thing, so to speak. And I think he does it with humor.
2. I don't think Brooks is taking a swipe at hard-working, able bureaucrats. He's taking a swipe at hard-working, able bureaucrats who live in Ward 3, and this is a distinction worth making. It is their INSULARITY from the causes they so loudly espouse (and the concomitant hypocrisy) that sets them apart. It is their drinking of each other's bath water and real lack of any intellectual diveristy that is worth lampooning.
3. Ward 3 is the home of Democrats who think education vouchers are a threat to the public education system in the country, and they'll tell you that after dropping their little prodigies off at the National Presbyterian School. Ward 3 is the home of Democrats who wish to see taxes raised, while assessing none on their domestic help. Ward 3 is ground zero for the kind of insidious, liberal pheromones that bathe the collective federal brains (did you happen to hear the girlish cheer that greeted the swearing in of Eric Holder at Justice? At last, one of US!).
Brooks got it right. I don't think he was trying to eviscerate public service....just hypocrisy.
Bryan: I'm not sure how I feel about David Brooks column, or your response. I guess as a career Federal employee (military and civilian), I was kind of turned off by the implict sneer or backhanded denigration of people like me. Bourgeois, middle class, do gooding bureaucrats who can't park their bikes straight. A George Corley Wallace mentality, without the crass racism. Maybe I misread him (and you) or took a light hearted piece too seriously. But we haven't done well by oursleves in denigrating "bureaucrats", most of whom honestly want to do the right thing. Neither have we done well by obeisance to the Masters of the Universe ( to whom we now deliver ukases on the sumptuary law a la Brooks). I guess I'll have to think about this more.....
Mark
Here's my response:
Mark--great post, and a wonderful Wilsonian defense of the able bureaucrat.
Couple of things.
1. Brooks makes a living out of defining subgroups of humans in a light-hearted sort of parody-laced way (see "Bobos in Paradise, his book length version of this genre on Bourgeois Bohemians....). This is his thing, so to speak. And I think he does it with humor.
2. I don't think Brooks is taking a swipe at hard-working, able bureaucrats. He's taking a swipe at hard-working, able bureaucrats who live in Ward 3, and this is a distinction worth making. It is their INSULARITY from the causes they so loudly espouse (and the concomitant hypocrisy) that sets them apart. It is their drinking of each other's bath water and real lack of any intellectual diveristy that is worth lampooning.
3. Ward 3 is the home of Democrats who think education vouchers are a threat to the public education system in the country, and they'll tell you that after dropping their little prodigies off at the National Presbyterian School. Ward 3 is the home of Democrats who wish to see taxes raised, while assessing none on their domestic help. Ward 3 is ground zero for the kind of insidious, liberal pheromones that bathe the collective federal brains (did you happen to hear the girlish cheer that greeted the swearing in of Eric Holder at Justice? At last, one of US!).
Brooks got it right. I don't think he was trying to eviscerate public service....just hypocrisy.
Wednesday, February 4, 2009
Pinch Me To See If I'm Dreaming...I Liked a Maureen Dowd Column....
Here it is. A couple of quotes, perhaps?
"It took Daschle’s resignation to shake the president out of his arrogant attitude that his charmed circle doesn’t have to abide by the lofty standards he lectured the rest of us about for two years." Did she say arrogant? Really? Our President?
"Mr. Obama should have taken a red pencil to the $819 billion stimulus bill and slashed all the provisions that looked like caricatures of Democratic drunken-sailor spending." Having spent a good portion of my life as a drunken-sailor, I resent this comparison. But I am shocked Dowd makes it.
One thing though....I won't listen to Maureen Dowd bitch about CEO perks and compensation until I know how much the New York Times pays her for the crap she writes.
"It took Daschle’s resignation to shake the president out of his arrogant attitude that his charmed circle doesn’t have to abide by the lofty standards he lectured the rest of us about for two years." Did she say arrogant? Really? Our President?
"Mr. Obama should have taken a red pencil to the $819 billion stimulus bill and slashed all the provisions that looked like caricatures of Democratic drunken-sailor spending." Having spent a good portion of my life as a drunken-sailor, I resent this comparison. But I am shocked Dowd makes it.
One thing though....I won't listen to Maureen Dowd bitch about CEO perks and compensation until I know how much the New York Times pays her for the crap she writes.
North Korea Not Feeling the Love
Apparently, North Korea just isn't feeling the Obama magic. Sabre-rattling continues from the world's largest infantalized nation, likely as a result of the non-attention it has received while the Obama Administration deals with the complex, multi-variable issues such as cabinet nominees not paying their taxes.
So they'll rattle and they'll rattle, Hillary Clinton will go to Pyongyang (a la Madeleine Albright) for "direct talks" and North Korea will extort things out of the US for concessions with which it will not follow through.
The real wild-card in the whole Korean Peninsula issue isn't North Korea's nuclear program or even its ballistic missile program. It is what is to be done when North Korea does finally implode, which it will. If you thought German unification was hard on West Germany's economy, wait till you see what nursing the basket case economy of North Korea will do to South Korea. Because of our legacy there, we will (natch) be looked to as a major source of financing for humanitarian matters and reunification details. This will be a headache of massive proportions. Oh, and it isn't necessarily going to be bloodless...
So they'll rattle and they'll rattle, Hillary Clinton will go to Pyongyang (a la Madeleine Albright) for "direct talks" and North Korea will extort things out of the US for concessions with which it will not follow through.
The real wild-card in the whole Korean Peninsula issue isn't North Korea's nuclear program or even its ballistic missile program. It is what is to be done when North Korea does finally implode, which it will. If you thought German unification was hard on West Germany's economy, wait till you see what nursing the basket case economy of North Korea will do to South Korea. Because of our legacy there, we will (natch) be looked to as a major source of financing for humanitarian matters and reunification details. This will be a headache of massive proportions. Oh, and it isn't necessarily going to be bloodless...
Tuesday, February 3, 2009
Are Payroll Taxes Income Taxes?
I got a phone call this morning from one of my readers taking issue with my statement on the video (and elsewhere) in which I decry the number of American workers who pay no income tax.
The caller stated that "social security is an income tax." His point was that those who pay payroll taxes but no income tax do not make the distinction, and being a bit of a conspiracy theorist, he believed it all went into the general fund anyway. That such people do not make the distinction is immaterial; it should be made FOR them.
Payroll taxes (such as social security) go into specified accounts, not the general treasury. In the case of social security, it goes into the Social Security Trust Fund. When people talk about social security going broke, about fewer people paying in than taking out...they are talking about it this way because it is a fenced off account. While the Federal government has on occasion, dipped into the Social Security Trust Fund, it is not routine and it is done with great trepidation.
So, paying into this fund means that someone is lending the government money to draw interest on and accumulate, so that when their retirement time comes, they can draw upon the fund to help meet their financial obligations. Depending on income levels, most people take out of the system what they put in in less than 7 years of retirement. With people living longer and longer, there is an increasing number of Americans who take out far more than they've paid in, even accounting for interest.
But remember, the money paid in is not going for: national defense, building roads, honey bee insurance, early childhood education, or the National Hurricane Center. It is only going to a fund that will eventually push the money back at the contributor.
When I speak of people paying no income tax, I am speaking of those who pay nothing toward the responsibilities of citizenship. That means, the workings of government, some of which are specified above. So while these folks are indeed contributing to a fund from which they will eventually greatly benefit, they are not paying a dime toward the maintenance of this Republic. This is why the distinction MUST be made. From a simple question of responsibility, ALL Americans should pay SOMETHING toward the operations and maintenance of the greatest Republic on Earth.
Here's a proposal.....I'd support raising the income level against which payroll taxes are levied.....if liberals would support the notion that EVERY worker must pay a minimum of 3% of their income into the federal treasury.
The caller stated that "social security is an income tax." His point was that those who pay payroll taxes but no income tax do not make the distinction, and being a bit of a conspiracy theorist, he believed it all went into the general fund anyway. That such people do not make the distinction is immaterial; it should be made FOR them.
Payroll taxes (such as social security) go into specified accounts, not the general treasury. In the case of social security, it goes into the Social Security Trust Fund. When people talk about social security going broke, about fewer people paying in than taking out...they are talking about it this way because it is a fenced off account. While the Federal government has on occasion, dipped into the Social Security Trust Fund, it is not routine and it is done with great trepidation.
So, paying into this fund means that someone is lending the government money to draw interest on and accumulate, so that when their retirement time comes, they can draw upon the fund to help meet their financial obligations. Depending on income levels, most people take out of the system what they put in in less than 7 years of retirement. With people living longer and longer, there is an increasing number of Americans who take out far more than they've paid in, even accounting for interest.
But remember, the money paid in is not going for: national defense, building roads, honey bee insurance, early childhood education, or the National Hurricane Center. It is only going to a fund that will eventually push the money back at the contributor.
When I speak of people paying no income tax, I am speaking of those who pay nothing toward the responsibilities of citizenship. That means, the workings of government, some of which are specified above. So while these folks are indeed contributing to a fund from which they will eventually greatly benefit, they are not paying a dime toward the maintenance of this Republic. This is why the distinction MUST be made. From a simple question of responsibility, ALL Americans should pay SOMETHING toward the operations and maintenance of the greatest Republic on Earth.
Here's a proposal.....I'd support raising the income level against which payroll taxes are levied.....if liberals would support the notion that EVERY worker must pay a minimum of 3% of their income into the federal treasury.
Monday, February 2, 2009
CW Video #2--Oppose the Stimulus Bill
You'll find the new video here. Tried to take some of the guidance from the first one to heart.
Sunday, February 1, 2009
The Bush War on Terror as Continued by Obama...
For years and years, we've listened to Euros and Liberals rail against extraordinary rendition (something started, by the way, by Bill Clinton). Added to the list of George Bush's many sins in the war on terror, rendition was just another one of those imperial over-reaches that the US was perpetrating upon the poor rest of the world.
Guess what? President Obama thinks rendition is a tool he'd like in his bag. It is amazing how much of the Bush plan will continue for years to come, gussied up now that The One is behind it.
H/T Jonah Goldberg.
Guess what? President Obama thinks rendition is a tool he'd like in his bag. It is amazing how much of the Bush plan will continue for years to come, gussied up now that The One is behind it.
H/T Jonah Goldberg.
Conservative Wahoo on Second Life
Well, Chili, his woman and I did some experimenting on Second Life today, the capabilities there for interactive discussions are superb. I urge you to take some time, get over the hesitance to join in this culty, weird world, and start to navigate around. In less than a month, we'll have our first interactive conference, and I assure you, it will kick butt!
What do you need to get on Second Life? Some time, first of all, and some patience. A high speed connection. I recommend a headset with microphone, but your internal mike and speakers should work fine.
My Second Life name is "CW Oller"; I got to pick the first name, it picks the second. Chili is "Chili Streeter" and Nan is "Chrysalis Destiny".
If you sign up and take a name, let me know what it is. I'm building a group that will send out invites and have meetings together.
What do you need to get on Second Life? Some time, first of all, and some patience. A high speed connection. I recommend a headset with microphone, but your internal mike and speakers should work fine.
My Second Life name is "CW Oller"; I got to pick the first name, it picks the second. Chili is "Chili Streeter" and Nan is "Chrysalis Destiny".
If you sign up and take a name, let me know what it is. I'm building a group that will send out invites and have meetings together.
Future Plans for the Conservative Wahoo
I've been working with my technology guru Chili to figure out how to explore and exploit other media options. We're looking at video streaming technology and even "Second Life" (I know, I know) as venues that could provide us with more "interactive" venues.
I'll probably post a new video early next week.
As for interactivity....a couple of things. First, I started this blog so that I could get my ideas out into the mix, or in some cases my views of other people's ideas. I provide the opportunity for readers to comment, and only trash people's comments when they violate site norms. I get a bit of feedback though from folks who get riled up because I don't fully engage them. Sometimes, people take a lot of time and energy and write in very important and very well-framed posts. I read them all, every single one of them. On rare occasions, I respond...usually because something has hit a nerve. But my default response is to let the person's words stand for themselves. I make my argument, you make yours, then others can comment and make theirs. I'm not all that interested in commenting on other people's comments. It may be my Adult ADD, but by the time folks have commented on what I've written, I've usually posted five or six other things and my addled mind has wandered off to other subjects.
This is why Chili and I want to figure out how to create more of an interactive forum. I'd like to give those who wish to get into a little rough and tumble with me the opportunity to do so...but on a very limited basis. What do I mean by limited? I mean the amount of time I have to devote to it. This blog takes up a great bit of my non-work/non-sleep time (in fact, it has reduced my sleep time), and it provides the Kitten with a recurring reason to question my commitment to home and hearth. If I strap on a few new media outlets, I'll find myself with no sleep and no Kitten.
So stay tuned. We're making plans and looking to serve everyone's needs.
I'll probably post a new video early next week.
As for interactivity....a couple of things. First, I started this blog so that I could get my ideas out into the mix, or in some cases my views of other people's ideas. I provide the opportunity for readers to comment, and only trash people's comments when they violate site norms. I get a bit of feedback though from folks who get riled up because I don't fully engage them. Sometimes, people take a lot of time and energy and write in very important and very well-framed posts. I read them all, every single one of them. On rare occasions, I respond...usually because something has hit a nerve. But my default response is to let the person's words stand for themselves. I make my argument, you make yours, then others can comment and make theirs. I'm not all that interested in commenting on other people's comments. It may be my Adult ADD, but by the time folks have commented on what I've written, I've usually posted five or six other things and my addled mind has wandered off to other subjects.
This is why Chili and I want to figure out how to create more of an interactive forum. I'd like to give those who wish to get into a little rough and tumble with me the opportunity to do so...but on a very limited basis. What do I mean by limited? I mean the amount of time I have to devote to it. This blog takes up a great bit of my non-work/non-sleep time (in fact, it has reduced my sleep time), and it provides the Kitten with a recurring reason to question my commitment to home and hearth. If I strap on a few new media outlets, I'll find myself with no sleep and no Kitten.
So stay tuned. We're making plans and looking to serve everyone's needs.
One Alternative Future: The Demise of Nancy Pelosi
Back in the days when I worked strategy for the Navy, one of the most interesting aspects of the job was the work we did (often with very skilled consultants) in constructing alternative futures. An alternative future was a scenario that was designed to stress fundamental assumptions made in the strategies under test. In addition to devising stressing scenarios, we'd assess how likely to occur the scenario was. One important aspect of this kind of scenario planning is that when you conceive of these rather widely spaced outcomes, you put a lot of brainpower to work in identifying those signposts along that way that would lead you to believe you were headed in the direction of the scenario.
I've been thinking of a scenario that appeals to me, and that is one in which Nancy Pelosi loses her position as Speaker of the House. I see this as an extremely low probability of occurring outcome, but one that certainly should be considered. Here's how it works.
Senate Republicans succeed in slowing down the stimulus package in the Senate. As time goes on and Americans are more and more exposed the the extent of the Democrat platform objectives masquerading as economic stimulus, the bill will become less and less popular. Barack Obama will have to expend precious political capital on a measure that should have--by all accounts--been a slam dunk. Eventually, a bill passes that is lighter on the policy wishes of Dems, heavier on immediate stimulation and ultimately something very different than was created in the House. Dems will whine and complain that Republicans were to blame for the delay in getting much needed stimulus to the American people, but the President will know...the source of his defeat (and it will be seen as one) was the over-reaching of the Speaker of the House, and her failure to follow his instructions and desires (which for this scenario to pan out, must have genuinely been a desire to work with Republicans--something I am not willing to bet good money on). Rahm Emmanuel already dislikes Nancy Pelosi, and if the President gets to feeling that she is squandering his mandate, we'll see the real "Chicago Way" in action.
Do I see this as a likely outcome? No. I'd give it a less than 5% chance of occurring. The key though is how to make that chance rise...and how to recognize that such an outcome is becoming more possible.
1. Tie the President and the Speaker together on this one. Call it the "Obama-Pelosi" Non-stimulus package at every turn.
2. Keep up the press on exposing at each and every turn how little of this is actually stimulative, and how slowly even the stimulative stuff is actually paid out.
3. Work like hell to keep the Blue Dog Democrats from going back to the other side on this one.
4. Watch for signs of the Speaker's access to the White House. Watch for suggestions from lawmakers close to the President that the Speaker has over-reached or lost her way.
Again...this is not very likely to happen. But it could. And good scenario planners (which I can only assume we have in the Republican Party, right?) should be looking at this outcome and trying to determine how to make it more likely, and at what costs.
I've been thinking of a scenario that appeals to me, and that is one in which Nancy Pelosi loses her position as Speaker of the House. I see this as an extremely low probability of occurring outcome, but one that certainly should be considered. Here's how it works.
Senate Republicans succeed in slowing down the stimulus package in the Senate. As time goes on and Americans are more and more exposed the the extent of the Democrat platform objectives masquerading as economic stimulus, the bill will become less and less popular. Barack Obama will have to expend precious political capital on a measure that should have--by all accounts--been a slam dunk. Eventually, a bill passes that is lighter on the policy wishes of Dems, heavier on immediate stimulation and ultimately something very different than was created in the House. Dems will whine and complain that Republicans were to blame for the delay in getting much needed stimulus to the American people, but the President will know...the source of his defeat (and it will be seen as one) was the over-reaching of the Speaker of the House, and her failure to follow his instructions and desires (which for this scenario to pan out, must have genuinely been a desire to work with Republicans--something I am not willing to bet good money on). Rahm Emmanuel already dislikes Nancy Pelosi, and if the President gets to feeling that she is squandering his mandate, we'll see the real "Chicago Way" in action.
Do I see this as a likely outcome? No. I'd give it a less than 5% chance of occurring. The key though is how to make that chance rise...and how to recognize that such an outcome is becoming more possible.
1. Tie the President and the Speaker together on this one. Call it the "Obama-Pelosi" Non-stimulus package at every turn.
2. Keep up the press on exposing at each and every turn how little of this is actually stimulative, and how slowly even the stimulative stuff is actually paid out.
3. Work like hell to keep the Blue Dog Democrats from going back to the other side on this one.
4. Watch for signs of the Speaker's access to the White House. Watch for suggestions from lawmakers close to the President that the Speaker has over-reached or lost her way.
Again...this is not very likely to happen. But it could. And good scenario planners (which I can only assume we have in the Republican Party, right?) should be looking at this outcome and trying to determine how to make it more likely, and at what costs.
Washington Post Editorial Urges Obama to Get Involved
A nice piece of work here by the editorialists at the Post, urging President Obama to take on the forces (largely in his own party) who are cluttering the stimulus bill with expensive, non-stimulative measures.
I wonder if the New York Times will reach the same conclusion?
I wonder if the New York Times will reach the same conclusion?
What is Judd Gregg Thinking?
Is he seriously considering taking the Commerce Secretary job? Does he seriously believe that his conservative voice will be anything but a banging gong amidst the din of liberal economists now seemingly running the show? Is he seriously considering being the guy who hands the Dems the filibuster-proof Senate majority? This would be a heavy blow to Republican chances of doing anything to slow the slide into socialism.
The Road to Depression
Tucked into the $819B Democratic Party Platform Bill (a.k.a---the (non)Stimulus Bill) are provisions that begin us down the road to restraint of free trade, protectionism, and ultimately economic depression.
The Fed and Treasury gangs have studied the Great Depression ad infinitum. The government was too tight with the money supply, it raised taxes as soon as things began to get good, and it enacted tariffs that brought international trade to a stop.
So far, the fed has executed superb monetary policy, doing everything possible to un-gum the credit markets. The jury is out on how fast the Obamites will look to raise taxes when things start to improve, so we've got to watch for that.
But these "Buy American" provisions....which prohibit the use of imported steel and other materials in any project funded by the bill...are just plain loony, and move us down the dangerous road to depression. Clearly the work of an unholy alliance of steel manufacturers and union laborers, these provisions just don't fly in the global economy. World trade, the movement of goods (and capital!) must continue...actually, it must be encouraged. All we need now is a trade war, and this global economy will go straight down the tubes.
The Fed and Treasury gangs have studied the Great Depression ad infinitum. The government was too tight with the money supply, it raised taxes as soon as things began to get good, and it enacted tariffs that brought international trade to a stop.
So far, the fed has executed superb monetary policy, doing everything possible to un-gum the credit markets. The jury is out on how fast the Obamites will look to raise taxes when things start to improve, so we've got to watch for that.
But these "Buy American" provisions....which prohibit the use of imported steel and other materials in any project funded by the bill...are just plain loony, and move us down the dangerous road to depression. Clearly the work of an unholy alliance of steel manufacturers and union laborers, these provisions just don't fly in the global economy. World trade, the movement of goods (and capital!) must continue...actually, it must be encouraged. All we need now is a trade war, and this global economy will go straight down the tubes.
Saturday, January 31, 2009
Is Mexico a National Security Threat
Several posters in Free for All Friday want to tee up the issue of our friends to the South, and whether Mexico comprises a national security threat.
I thought about doing a entry just before the Inauguration in which I speculated as to the national security matters that the incoming administration was probably paying insufficient attention to...and Mexico would have been number 1. I see this for a couple of reasons:
1. Geography. They share a border. This by itself, makes a country worth watching. This includes Canada...but as we'll see, Canada doesn't trip any of the other wires.
2. Illegal immigration. A function of #1. If poor, desperate Mexicans can easily cross our border, so can well-financed, well armed jihadis.
3. Economic disparity. A primary driver of #2. Mexico is a country of incredible economic disparity and a middle class insufficiently sized to act as a stabilizing inluence.
4. Political instability. Driven by #3. With much of Central and South America beginning to show a backlash against capitalism (see Venezuela, Nicaragua, Peru), leftist, socialist candidates are sure to gain in popularity in Mexico.
5. Drug and Crime. Both are not only increasing facets of everyday life in Mexico, but also large and growing parts of the economy. A nation whose economic health is propped up by the profits of crime cannot long be a helpful ally.
Yes, Mexico causes me concern. You know what causes me even more concern? President Obama's desire to "review" NAFTA. NAFTA is one of the few bright spots in our relationship with Mexico, and it has helped with the economic incentives to illegally immigrate (when you have a job in Mexico, less reason to swim the Rio Grande). Start to walk away from NAFTA and we'll see the process of deteriorization in Mexico accelerate.
I thought about doing a entry just before the Inauguration in which I speculated as to the national security matters that the incoming administration was probably paying insufficient attention to...and Mexico would have been number 1. I see this for a couple of reasons:
1. Geography. They share a border. This by itself, makes a country worth watching. This includes Canada...but as we'll see, Canada doesn't trip any of the other wires.
2. Illegal immigration. A function of #1. If poor, desperate Mexicans can easily cross our border, so can well-financed, well armed jihadis.
3. Economic disparity. A primary driver of #2. Mexico is a country of incredible economic disparity and a middle class insufficiently sized to act as a stabilizing inluence.
4. Political instability. Driven by #3. With much of Central and South America beginning to show a backlash against capitalism (see Venezuela, Nicaragua, Peru), leftist, socialist candidates are sure to gain in popularity in Mexico.
5. Drug and Crime. Both are not only increasing facets of everyday life in Mexico, but also large and growing parts of the economy. A nation whose economic health is propped up by the profits of crime cannot long be a helpful ally.
Yes, Mexico causes me concern. You know what causes me even more concern? President Obama's desire to "review" NAFTA. NAFTA is one of the few bright spots in our relationship with Mexico, and it has helped with the economic incentives to illegally immigrate (when you have a job in Mexico, less reason to swim the Rio Grande). Start to walk away from NAFTA and we'll see the process of deteriorization in Mexico accelerate.
President Obama's Team
Ok. Let's take a look at "the dream team" thus far:
Attorney General--Eric Holder. Gave the green light for Democratic Party hack Marc Rich's pardon in the waning days of the Clinton Administration, as well as the pardons of the FALN Puerto Rican terrorists who killed an NYC policeman.
Secretary of Commerce--Gov Bill Richardson. Pulled his name from contention after reports he was under Grand Jury investigation for campaign finance irregularities.
Secretary of the Treasury--Tim Geithner. Failed to pay $40,000 in income taxes while acting as a consultant to the IMF. The Treasury Secretary oversees the IRS, incidentally.
Secretary of Health and Human Services--Tom Daschle. Failed to pay over $100,000 in income taxes.
Add to this, Deputy Defense Secretary Bill Lynn, who has done nothing wrong except act as Raytheon' Corporation's top paid lobbyist for several years...for whom Obama made an "exception" to his showy policy of "no lobbyists need apply".
Off to a bit of a rough spot, but no dots to connect here. Nope. Move along. There isn't any issue with the Obama vetting process. Nope. Couldn't be.
Attorney General--Eric Holder. Gave the green light for Democratic Party hack Marc Rich's pardon in the waning days of the Clinton Administration, as well as the pardons of the FALN Puerto Rican terrorists who killed an NYC policeman.
Secretary of Commerce--Gov Bill Richardson. Pulled his name from contention after reports he was under Grand Jury investigation for campaign finance irregularities.
Secretary of the Treasury--Tim Geithner. Failed to pay $40,000 in income taxes while acting as a consultant to the IMF. The Treasury Secretary oversees the IRS, incidentally.
Secretary of Health and Human Services--Tom Daschle. Failed to pay over $100,000 in income taxes.
Add to this, Deputy Defense Secretary Bill Lynn, who has done nothing wrong except act as Raytheon' Corporation's top paid lobbyist for several years...for whom Obama made an "exception" to his showy policy of "no lobbyists need apply".
Off to a bit of a rough spot, but no dots to connect here. Nope. Move along. There isn't any issue with the Obama vetting process. Nope. Couldn't be.
Hard Choices on Weapons Systems
White Asks During Free for All Friday:
"Gates Says ‘Hard Choices’ Needed on Weapons Spending (Update1)
Jan. 26 (Bloomberg) -- Defense Secretary Robert Gates said the Obama administration must make “hard choices” on weapons spending that could include targeting specific programs, according to a draft of his testimony tomorrow to the Senate Armed Services Committee.
“Any changes” Congress makes to the 2010 budget “should avoid across-the-board adjustments, which inefficiently extend all programs,” pushing out schedules and increasing costs, Gates said in his prepared comments on weapons acquisition.
“Five programs account for half of total cost growth in weapons spending,” Gates said. These programs are Lockheed Martin Corp.’s F-35 Joint Strike Fighter; Boeing Co.’s Future Combat Systems; Virginia Class attack submarines built by General Dynamics Corp. and Northrop Grumman Corp.; the Pentagon’s primary satellite-launch program, a joint effort of Lockheed and Boeing; and a program to destroy the U.S. stockpile of chemical weapons which includes a number of defense contractors.
I would be nervous if my livelihood depended on any of the first four of five programs mentioned. The fifth has no chance of failing under this Congress.
---------------------------
Just saw yesterday that the OMB targets sent to DoD for FY10 defense budget deviate in a big way from POM10. To those who don't speak Pentagon, this means that the new President's budget shop has told the Pentagon to go back to the drawing board and find billions of dollars in savings to bring down defense spending.
Lots of waste in the defense budget, no doubt. And any article like this one is sure to stir up Mudge's hornets nest...but let's go on anyway.
We're getting ready to spend $819B on a stimulus package that stimulates very little, at the same time we're looking to cut billions from the defense budget. From where will those cuts come? Not operations and maintenance for our troops in the field...to any large extent. No, the cuts will come from acquisition. Big programs will be canceled and planned new starts won't start. What does this mean? It means a loss of capability that at some point was validated by uniformed leadership to be essential to our fighting forces, and it means the loss of jobs. That's right..every weapons system that gets axed represents thousands of people on production lines, engineers, designers, etc.
Now Mudge, I'm not saying there isn't waste, and I'm not saying that the defense industry cannot get leaner and do better. But I am saying that the money spent on systems like those mentioned in the article above are all about ECONOMIC stimulation, and by that I mean good, high paying, American jobs. Spend $819B on stimulus and then cancel LCS? Well, there goes thousands of jobs, added unemployment benefits, loss of tax revenue, etc.
Defense spending is a big fat target. But what made cutting defense easy in the 90's was that the rest of the economy was HUMMING. Now, defense is an anchor and one of the few places in the larger economy where significant contraction hasn't happened.
"Gates Says ‘Hard Choices’ Needed on Weapons Spending (Update1)
Jan. 26 (Bloomberg) -- Defense Secretary Robert Gates said the Obama administration must make “hard choices” on weapons spending that could include targeting specific programs, according to a draft of his testimony tomorrow to the Senate Armed Services Committee.
“Any changes” Congress makes to the 2010 budget “should avoid across-the-board adjustments, which inefficiently extend all programs,” pushing out schedules and increasing costs, Gates said in his prepared comments on weapons acquisition.
“Five programs account for half of total cost growth in weapons spending,” Gates said. These programs are Lockheed Martin Corp.’s F-35 Joint Strike Fighter; Boeing Co.’s Future Combat Systems; Virginia Class attack submarines built by General Dynamics Corp. and Northrop Grumman Corp.; the Pentagon’s primary satellite-launch program, a joint effort of Lockheed and Boeing; and a program to destroy the U.S. stockpile of chemical weapons which includes a number of defense contractors.
I would be nervous if my livelihood depended on any of the first four of five programs mentioned. The fifth has no chance of failing under this Congress.
---------------------------
Just saw yesterday that the OMB targets sent to DoD for FY10 defense budget deviate in a big way from POM10. To those who don't speak Pentagon, this means that the new President's budget shop has told the Pentagon to go back to the drawing board and find billions of dollars in savings to bring down defense spending.
Lots of waste in the defense budget, no doubt. And any article like this one is sure to stir up Mudge's hornets nest...but let's go on anyway.
We're getting ready to spend $819B on a stimulus package that stimulates very little, at the same time we're looking to cut billions from the defense budget. From where will those cuts come? Not operations and maintenance for our troops in the field...to any large extent. No, the cuts will come from acquisition. Big programs will be canceled and planned new starts won't start. What does this mean? It means a loss of capability that at some point was validated by uniformed leadership to be essential to our fighting forces, and it means the loss of jobs. That's right..every weapons system that gets axed represents thousands of people on production lines, engineers, designers, etc.
Now Mudge, I'm not saying there isn't waste, and I'm not saying that the defense industry cannot get leaner and do better. But I am saying that the money spent on systems like those mentioned in the article above are all about ECONOMIC stimulation, and by that I mean good, high paying, American jobs. Spend $819B on stimulus and then cancel LCS? Well, there goes thousands of jobs, added unemployment benefits, loss of tax revenue, etc.
Defense spending is a big fat target. But what made cutting defense easy in the 90's was that the rest of the economy was HUMMING. Now, defense is an anchor and one of the few places in the larger economy where significant contraction hasn't happened.
Friday, January 30, 2009
The Birth of Octuplets
Tom de Plume asks some very tough questions in FREE FOR ALL FRIDAY about the mother of the octuplets born recently in California. I have reserved comment on this case because of a lack of information, but I must say, it smelled fishy to me from the beginning.
First, I was nearly certain that it would turn out to have been a woman who had put off having children until later in life, such that IVF (and the planting of multiple embryos) would have been her best path to having a child. Upon hearing that the mother was 33, I was a bit surprised.
But the news that this woman already had six children hit me like a ton of bricks. Six kids already, and her mother says, "she just wanted one more". So she gets IVF and has enough embryos implanted to result in eight babies.
We know little of this woman...yet we know even less of the father. Who is the father to these eight children? The same as the father of the other six? She lives with her parents and the other six kids....but where does the father live.
What does she do for a living? Does she have any means of support? Who payed for the IVF? None of my business? Bunk.
You see, forty-six doctors and nurses were called upon to help in the delivery of these babies. One must wonder how much the medical bill for this delivery and the follow-on therapy for eight children will be. She won't pay it though...insurance (presumably) will. And the costs will be spread around to everyone else in the plan. So the costs are borne by thousands who have no right to ask where their money went? Again...bunk.
Now...should the babies have been selectively terminated, as Tom de Plume says? No. I don't think so. She should never have had the IVF. Six kids was enough, and now eight will likely be supported by government hand-outs or almost as bad, by the handouts from an American public all too ready to accept this as normal behavior. It isn't.
First, I was nearly certain that it would turn out to have been a woman who had put off having children until later in life, such that IVF (and the planting of multiple embryos) would have been her best path to having a child. Upon hearing that the mother was 33, I was a bit surprised.
But the news that this woman already had six children hit me like a ton of bricks. Six kids already, and her mother says, "she just wanted one more". So she gets IVF and has enough embryos implanted to result in eight babies.
We know little of this woman...yet we know even less of the father. Who is the father to these eight children? The same as the father of the other six? She lives with her parents and the other six kids....but where does the father live.
What does she do for a living? Does she have any means of support? Who payed for the IVF? None of my business? Bunk.
You see, forty-six doctors and nurses were called upon to help in the delivery of these babies. One must wonder how much the medical bill for this delivery and the follow-on therapy for eight children will be. She won't pay it though...insurance (presumably) will. And the costs will be spread around to everyone else in the plan. So the costs are borne by thousands who have no right to ask where their money went? Again...bunk.
Now...should the babies have been selectively terminated, as Tom de Plume says? No. I don't think so. She should never have had the IVF. Six kids was enough, and now eight will likely be supported by government hand-outs or almost as bad, by the handouts from an American public all too ready to accept this as normal behavior. It isn't.
FREE FOR ALL FRIDAY
Okay everyone, what's on your mind? Anything we should cover more closely here on the blog? Any more input on the video? Go ahead, make my day.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
