 |
| Tom, making friends with the locals in New Orleans |
Friday, July 15, 2011
Big Fat Friday Free For All
Here it is again, ladies and gentlemen, your chance to get it off your chest! Worried about a debt crisis getting in the way of your birthday plans? Think Iowa's got too much pull with too many zanies in the Presidential primary contest? Share, people share.
In the meantime, I'll enjoy New Orleans with Big Brother Tom. You shoulda been here, Mudge. You shoulda been here...
Thursday, July 14, 2011
Tone Deafness on Steroids
Perhaps you've heard the economy is potentially going to crater on August 2nd.
This is not stopping our leader from celebrating his 50th birthday on August 3rd (a day before his actual birthday, for those who wanted to send a fruit basket). Nothing wrong with celebrating your birthday...but the fact that the birthday celebration is a fundraiser, with tickets ranging from $50 to $35,800 (the latter earns you a private dinner with O), is a bit tone-deaf with the threat of economic disaster hanging over the country.
Can you imagine the bad optics of this, if the debt doomsday scenario comes to fruition? The tone deafness is breathtaking.
This is not stopping our leader from celebrating his 50th birthday on August 3rd (a day before his actual birthday, for those who wanted to send a fruit basket). Nothing wrong with celebrating your birthday...but the fact that the birthday celebration is a fundraiser, with tickets ranging from $50 to $35,800 (the latter earns you a private dinner with O), is a bit tone-deaf with the threat of economic disaster hanging over the country.
Can you imagine the bad optics of this, if the debt doomsday scenario comes to fruition? The tone deafness is breathtaking.
Why Do House Republicans Need A Majority Leader?
One of the questions that keeps popping up in my head as the debt limit debate grinds on is why Republicans need three noses in the tent (McConnell, Boehner, and Cantor) when there are only two bodies of Congress? Don't get me wrong--I'm not here to rant against the tactics of Eric Cantor. But presumably, the Speaker of the House--who does not preside over the body ordinarily, who does not routinely even vote on legislation, and who generally does not serve on any committee--has both the time AND the mandate to "lead" the majority in the House. Clausewitz gave us "unity of command" for a reason...we should heed his prescription.
WSJ on the Debt Limit
Here's a pretty good summation (summary?) of the strength of relative positions on this matter. As much as folks on our side want things to go their way, they still have to get by the fact that the other side has the Presidency and the Senate. Best line in the whole article:
The tea party/talk-radio expectations for what Republicans can accomplish over the debt-limit showdown have always been unrealistic. As former Senator Phil Gramm once told us, never take a hostage you're not prepared to shoot. Republicans aren't prepared to stop a debt-limit increase because the political costs are unbearable. Republicans might have played this game better, but the truth is that Mr. Obama has more cards to play.
We may need one more election before we can get what we want--it may be too soon.
The tea party/talk-radio expectations for what Republicans can accomplish over the debt-limit showdown have always been unrealistic. As former Senator Phil Gramm once told us, never take a hostage you're not prepared to shoot. Republicans aren't prepared to stop a debt-limit increase because the political costs are unbearable. Republicans might have played this game better, but the truth is that Mr. Obama has more cards to play.
We may need one more election before we can get what we want--it may be too soon.
Tuesday, July 12, 2011
Why does this bozo still have a job?
Eric Holder apparently has too much time on his hands, so he's launched a new crusade: getting banks to relax their mortage underwriting standards so that minorities with bad credit won't be turned down for a mortgage.
Banks in some instances have been required to post a notice that minorities cannot be turned down for a mortgage because they receive public assistance--food stamps, welfare or receiving unemployment.
Haven't we already seen how this movie ends?
Monday, July 11, 2011
How They Did It in 1997
Keith Hennessey has a great post up reminding us what ACTUAL compromise looks like in setting economic policy. The 1997 Bipartisan Budget Agreement cut spending enough to balance the budget AND cut taxes. Republicans this time--seek only not to RAISE any taxes.
If Bill Clinton and Trent Lott could do it, so can Barack Obama and John Boehner. Unless of course the President really IS what conservatives have suspected all along---a left-wing ideologue bent on reshaping the relationship of government and the governed....
If Bill Clinton and Trent Lott could do it, so can Barack Obama and John Boehner. Unless of course the President really IS what conservatives have suspected all along---a left-wing ideologue bent on reshaping the relationship of government and the governed....
Robert Samuelson Nails It
I do enjoy reading Mr. Samuelson's work, including this ditty from the morning WaPost in which he eviscerates both sides of the same coin--the increasingly marginal Grover Norquist who would take the country down in pursuit of the perfect and liberal Center for Budget and Policy Priorities which has never seen an entitlement it doesn't like.
As long as we live in a Democracy folks, in order to get things done we have to make compromises. Yes, I realize it is untidy and it makes things harder, but let's face it; ultimately, it is what separates us from the Chinese. As far as I'm concerned, the grander the bargain, the better. A slight course change only delays the trip into shoal water; we need to get back in the center of the channel, where the water is deep and wide. This is going to hurt--and the more people it hurts (as in, more KINDS of people), the better.
As long as we live in a Democracy folks, in order to get things done we have to make compromises. Yes, I realize it is untidy and it makes things harder, but let's face it; ultimately, it is what separates us from the Chinese. As far as I'm concerned, the grander the bargain, the better. A slight course change only delays the trip into shoal water; we need to get back in the center of the channel, where the water is deep and wide. This is going to hurt--and the more people it hurts (as in, more KINDS of people), the better.
Saturday, July 9, 2011
Kinsey Research Institute Confuses Researchers with Office "Opposite Day"
A recent report out of Kinsey Research Institute is making the news with its findings that women enjoy sex more than men and that men enjoy kissing and cuddling more than women. Additional findings:
men are more likely than women to:
-- enjoy watching Oprah
-- choose white wine spritzers over beer
-- scream at the sight of a spider
-- share their feelings with other men
-- call their buddies upon discovering a major shoe sale
-- put on their jammies and curl up in their chair with a good book and a cup of yummy hot cocoa
I haven't read all the other findings yet but I suspect there are LOTS more.
men are more likely than women to:
-- enjoy watching Oprah
-- choose white wine spritzers over beer
-- scream at the sight of a spider
-- share their feelings with other men
-- call their buddies upon discovering a major shoe sale
-- put on their jammies and curl up in their chair with a good book and a cup of yummy hot cocoa
I haven't read all the other findings yet but I suspect there are LOTS more.
Yuval Levin on the Welfare State
Yuval Levin is the Editor of National Affairs, which to my mind, is the finest journal of right-of-center domestic policy thinking anywhere. The writing is superb and the contributors are top notch, resulting in a must-read for anyone seriously interested in the rich field of intellectual conservatism.
In the issue currently on my coffee table (probably not the most recent), Levin provides an insightful, non-polemical look into the modern welfare state. Blending both history and analysis, the piece gives credit where credit is due (conservatives have to wrestle with the fact that our grand rise in power occurred at the same time as we created the welfare state) and makes some very sound policy suggestions to conclude it.
Here's a sample from the piece that made me sit back and nod my head:
"This was not the purpose of our welfare state, but it is among its many unintended consequences. As Irving Kristol put it in 1997, "The secular, social-democratic founders of the modern welfare state really did think that in the kind of welfare state we have today people would be more public-spirited, more high-minded, more humanly ‘fulfilled.'" They were wrong about this for the same reason that their expectations of the administrative state have proven misguided — because their understanding of the human person was far too shallow and emaciated. They assumed that moral problems were functions of material problems, so that addressing the latter would resolve the former, when the opposite is more often the case. And guided by the ethic of the modern left, they imagined that traditional institutions like the family, the church, and the local association were sources of division, prejudice, and backwardness, rather than essential pillars of our moral lives. The failure of the social-democratic vision is, in this sense, fundamentally a failure of moral wisdom.
That is not to say, of course, that it did not produce positive benefits along the way. Indeed, the era in which the social-democratic vision has dominated our politics has hardly been an age of decline for America — it has been, if anything, the American century. And it has been a time of diminishing poverty and rising standards of living. But it is now becoming apparent that this was achieved by our spending our capital (economic, moral, and human) without replenishing it, and that this failure, too, is a defining characteristic of the social-democratic vision."
Read the whole thing.
In the issue currently on my coffee table (probably not the most recent), Levin provides an insightful, non-polemical look into the modern welfare state. Blending both history and analysis, the piece gives credit where credit is due (conservatives have to wrestle with the fact that our grand rise in power occurred at the same time as we created the welfare state) and makes some very sound policy suggestions to conclude it.
Here's a sample from the piece that made me sit back and nod my head:
"This was not the purpose of our welfare state, but it is among its many unintended consequences. As Irving Kristol put it in 1997, "The secular, social-democratic founders of the modern welfare state really did think that in the kind of welfare state we have today people would be more public-spirited, more high-minded, more humanly ‘fulfilled.'" They were wrong about this for the same reason that their expectations of the administrative state have proven misguided — because their understanding of the human person was far too shallow and emaciated. They assumed that moral problems were functions of material problems, so that addressing the latter would resolve the former, when the opposite is more often the case. And guided by the ethic of the modern left, they imagined that traditional institutions like the family, the church, and the local association were sources of division, prejudice, and backwardness, rather than essential pillars of our moral lives. The failure of the social-democratic vision is, in this sense, fundamentally a failure of moral wisdom.
That is not to say, of course, that it did not produce positive benefits along the way. Indeed, the era in which the social-democratic vision has dominated our politics has hardly been an age of decline for America — it has been, if anything, the American century. And it has been a time of diminishing poverty and rising standards of living. But it is now becoming apparent that this was achieved by our spending our capital (economic, moral, and human) without replenishing it, and that this failure, too, is a defining characteristic of the social-democratic vision."
Read the whole thing.
Friday, July 8, 2011
2011: A Budget Odyssey
Via Allahpundit:
Hat tip: Iowahawk.
If Treasury were to decide to delay payments, it would need to re-program government computers that generate automatic payments as they fall due — a massive and difficult undertaking. Treasury makes about 3 million payments each day.
Hat tip: Iowahawk.
Information Dissemination Rocks!
Information Dissemination--where I do my Navy blogging--named one of the top 10 defense blogs. On a good day, I get 200 hits here. Most of what I write there gets 12,000....
How The Debt/Budget Crisis Will End
When the Republicans took the House back by storm, I predicted that it would increase Barack Obama's chances of being re-elected. My logic went went this way--Obama would have to tack toward (not to, but toward) the center to get anything done with the new Congress, and in the process, he would appear more reasonable to what had become an increasingly dissatisfied "muddled middle"--those who had voted for him in 2008, but who abandoned him in the mid-term Congressional election.
Fast forward to today, as we move slowly toward national default. Republicans have quite rightly seized the opportunity to use the crisis (hear that, Rahm?) to drive serious spending cuts into the mix. The Democrats have taken to their sedan chairs with a collective case of the vapors, telling all who will listen that the Republicans are going to starve the hungry, take money from the poor, and hasten the demise of the elderly. Some time in August, we will default on our national debt, and while I have little technical knowledge of what that would entail, I believe it will be--in the words of our hyper-eloquent Vice President--a "big f---ing deal".
So--how will it all end?
1. In the end, the President will be in a strengthened position for re-election. Democrats in Congress will be fuming, and Republicans in Congress will wonder if they've achieved a Pyrrhic victory.
2. The Tea Party will loudly trumpet both the success they've achieved in dramatic debt reduction AND complain about the lack of backbone of Republicans in Congress. They will be correct on both counts, and they will vote largely Republican in 2012.
3. There will be dramatic debt reduction ($3T or more), and there will be increases in total revenue (tax increases, loop-hole closures, etc). No one will be entirely happy with the outcome, but Congressional Democrats will be least happy of all.
Here's my logic. Barack Obama wants to be re-elected, and he wants it badly. He knows that his signature legislative achievement (Obamacare) is despised by large portions of the voting public, he realizes that his record on the economy is dismal, and he is certain that sticking close to Nancy Pelosi is what got him there (in addition to his own ideological bent). He must present himself as the great uniter, the man who brought everyone together to save the country from default. The only way to do that is to come down closer to what Republicans want than what Democrats want. Let's face it--the discussion right now isn't whether to cut spending, it is "by how much". To some extent, Republicans have already won.
Congressional Republicans? Well, they are in the driver's seat, but they must be careful not to overplay it. They can and will walk away from this debate with major spending cuts--if they are willing to treat those (laregly Tea Partiers) who would counsel "never surrender" with respect, but firmness. Perfect is a dismal enemy of good enough, and perfection is simply unattainable here.
I laid this line out for a few friends yesterday, and one offered that in order for the logic to hold up, Congressional Republicans have to actually WANT to solve this, rather than just weaken Mr. Obama politically. While that is definitely a possibility, it is one so incredibly craven that were I to realize that as their ACTUAL strategy, I would become a loud and instant critic of the Republican caucus. I simply cannot believe that they would hazard the full faith and credit of the country to score a dubious political victory.
But we shall see.....
UPDATE: Things look even bleaker for Mr. Obama--he will fold like a cheap suit.
Fast forward to today, as we move slowly toward national default. Republicans have quite rightly seized the opportunity to use the crisis (hear that, Rahm?) to drive serious spending cuts into the mix. The Democrats have taken to their sedan chairs with a collective case of the vapors, telling all who will listen that the Republicans are going to starve the hungry, take money from the poor, and hasten the demise of the elderly. Some time in August, we will default on our national debt, and while I have little technical knowledge of what that would entail, I believe it will be--in the words of our hyper-eloquent Vice President--a "big f---ing deal".
So--how will it all end?
1. In the end, the President will be in a strengthened position for re-election. Democrats in Congress will be fuming, and Republicans in Congress will wonder if they've achieved a Pyrrhic victory.
2. The Tea Party will loudly trumpet both the success they've achieved in dramatic debt reduction AND complain about the lack of backbone of Republicans in Congress. They will be correct on both counts, and they will vote largely Republican in 2012.
3. There will be dramatic debt reduction ($3T or more), and there will be increases in total revenue (tax increases, loop-hole closures, etc). No one will be entirely happy with the outcome, but Congressional Democrats will be least happy of all.
Here's my logic. Barack Obama wants to be re-elected, and he wants it badly. He knows that his signature legislative achievement (Obamacare) is despised by large portions of the voting public, he realizes that his record on the economy is dismal, and he is certain that sticking close to Nancy Pelosi is what got him there (in addition to his own ideological bent). He must present himself as the great uniter, the man who brought everyone together to save the country from default. The only way to do that is to come down closer to what Republicans want than what Democrats want. Let's face it--the discussion right now isn't whether to cut spending, it is "by how much". To some extent, Republicans have already won.
Congressional Republicans? Well, they are in the driver's seat, but they must be careful not to overplay it. They can and will walk away from this debate with major spending cuts--if they are willing to treat those (laregly Tea Partiers) who would counsel "never surrender" with respect, but firmness. Perfect is a dismal enemy of good enough, and perfection is simply unattainable here.
I laid this line out for a few friends yesterday, and one offered that in order for the logic to hold up, Congressional Republicans have to actually WANT to solve this, rather than just weaken Mr. Obama politically. While that is definitely a possibility, it is one so incredibly craven that were I to realize that as their ACTUAL strategy, I would become a loud and instant critic of the Republican caucus. I simply cannot believe that they would hazard the full faith and credit of the country to score a dubious political victory.
But we shall see.....
UPDATE: Things look even bleaker for Mr. Obama--he will fold like a cheap suit.
Hipster-in-Chief Twitter Town Hall
Yesterday, POTUS held a Twitter Town Hall in which his subjects could tweet their questions in hopes of receiving a personal answer from the President himself. Although it is difficult to say "Iowahawk" without its preceding "The Incomparable," you simply must read the tweets T.I. Iowahawk sent. A quick sampling of some of the better ones (but do visit the link):
"An $8 billion high speed train leaves Chicago for Iowa City at 8:15am at 40mph. Why?
If shovel-ready projects create jobs, wouldn't spoon-ready projects create even more jobs?
Subtract Malia's age from the number of states. Multiply the result by the number of jobs saved or created.
I let my Mexican drug lord license expire. Am I still eligible for the free machine gun program?
When you're visiting his volcano lair, does George Soros let you feed the laser sharks?
The staffer who suggested this Twitter Town Hall is fired, isn't he?
Why isn't your cabinet unionized?
If Joe Biden has a massive stroke, (a) do you have a replacement in mind, and (b) how would you tell?
When you said "days not weeks" did you mean Venusian days?
I understand you finally quit smoking. Do they make a patch for spending addicts too?
Is this question racist?
Why do you need permission to be clear, and not need permission to bomb Libya?
Are you in favor of gay marriage for Libyan bombing crews on Boeing planes made in South Carolina?
On behalf of the entire US population: dude, WTF?
Let's say instead of winning the future, we end up in a tie. Do we then go to sudden death overtime?
If we reneg on the debt, where's the best place to hide our stuff from the repo men?
If ATMs are so bad, why do you keep treating me like one?
Are strawmen cheaper when you buy them by the gross?
How much CO2 is created by a burning straw man?
This whole Twitter Town Hall thing is turning out to be another amateur disaster, isn't it?
If Eric Holder gets indicted in Operation Fast & Furious, should he get a civilian trial?
If we eat the rich, what do we get for dessert?
if punishing employers results in more employment, can you also punish beer makers?
Psst... got any spare tix for the 2016 Chicago Olympics?
Since you've doubled the number of wars, shouldn't you be getting another Nobel Peace Prize?
Does it bother you that your Twitter stunt worked out better for me than you?
Will you be my 10,000th follower?"
This guy (Iowahawk, not POTUS) is an absolute pro.
"An $8 billion high speed train leaves Chicago for Iowa City at 8:15am at 40mph. Why?
If shovel-ready projects create jobs, wouldn't spoon-ready projects create even more jobs?
Subtract Malia's age from the number of states. Multiply the result by the number of jobs saved or created.
I let my Mexican drug lord license expire. Am I still eligible for the free machine gun program?
When you're visiting his volcano lair, does George Soros let you feed the laser sharks?
The staffer who suggested this Twitter Town Hall is fired, isn't he?
Why isn't your cabinet unionized?
If Joe Biden has a massive stroke, (a) do you have a replacement in mind, and (b) how would you tell?
When you said "days not weeks" did you mean Venusian days?
I understand you finally quit smoking. Do they make a patch for spending addicts too?
Is this question racist?
Why do you need permission to be clear, and not need permission to bomb Libya?
Are you in favor of gay marriage for Libyan bombing crews on Boeing planes made in South Carolina?
On behalf of the entire US population: dude, WTF?
Let's say instead of winning the future, we end up in a tie. Do we then go to sudden death overtime?
If we reneg on the debt, where's the best place to hide our stuff from the repo men?
If ATMs are so bad, why do you keep treating me like one?
Are strawmen cheaper when you buy them by the gross?
How much CO2 is created by a burning straw man?
This whole Twitter Town Hall thing is turning out to be another amateur disaster, isn't it?
If Eric Holder gets indicted in Operation Fast & Furious, should he get a civilian trial?
If we eat the rich, what do we get for dessert?
if punishing employers results in more employment, can you also punish beer makers?
Psst... got any spare tix for the 2016 Chicago Olympics?
Since you've doubled the number of wars, shouldn't you be getting another Nobel Peace Prize?
Does it bother you that your Twitter stunt worked out better for me than you?
Will you be my 10,000th follower?"
This guy (Iowahawk, not POTUS) is an absolute pro.
Big Fat Friday Free For All
What's keeping you agitated, folks? Worried about the debt crisis? Casey Anthony got you down? Tired of watching little panty-waist David Brooks kick the Tea Party's ass? Let it all out, folks. Emote.
Wednesday, July 6, 2011
Hammer's Favorite Country Clubber Shoots the Tea Party in the Face
I came across this David Brooks editorial on Facebook, where Hammer posted it, closing with "what an ass-wipe". And while Mr. Brooks has disappointed me in the past now and then, I must depart company with my Facebook pal Hammer and applaud Mr. Brooks on this one.
Brooks has painted an unflattering portrait of the Tea Partiers, one they have earned in spades. They are becoming what Don Rumsfeld used to call the insurgents in Baghdad--"Dead-enders", folks who have no desire to negotiate, no ability to recognize incremental (and sizable) attainment of long sought after goals. The Tea Party is increasingly coming to mirror ideological libertarianism, interesting stuff to talk about in a dorm room but utterly incapable of serving as an actual approach to governing in anything but an autocracy.
As inconvenient as it is for Hammer and others, we live in a Democracy in which a sizable MAJORITY of the American public disagrees with the ideology of the Tea Party. Not a plurality, a MAJORITY. Not that there aren't wonderfully inspiring elements in that ideology, elements which have already shaped the debate in positive ways bound to put a spring in the step of any conservative. Far too many people disagree with far too much of what the Tea Party represents for its approach to be adopted in toto. Like "useful" libertarianism, Tea Party ideas will alloy with "country club" Republican ideas to form governing approaches that appeal to the "muddled middle", those who thought Mr. Obama gave a good speech but who now wonder whether there was any there, there. This alloyed Republican Party will be stronger and more successful at the ballot box than any singular Country Club or Tea Party approach would produce.
My advice to the Tea Party Dead-enders? Win first, then get cocky about your ideology. And by win, I mean win a big policy debate. And win it within the system, the system of public debate and legislative compromise. Join with the dreaded "Country Clubbers" to dramatically reduce the scope and whim of government. Show the American people what a new and idea-brimming Republican Party is all about. Take back the Senate. Defeat Barack Obama. Once we've reached this point, well then if the Tea Party wants to conduct a Stalinist purge of the David Brooks/Bryan McGrath wing of the party, so be it. I'll accept my fate.
UPDATE--here's a good interview with David Brooks from The Daily Caller in which he 'splains himself. Pretty straightforward stuff, from where I sit.
Brooks has painted an unflattering portrait of the Tea Partiers, one they have earned in spades. They are becoming what Don Rumsfeld used to call the insurgents in Baghdad--"Dead-enders", folks who have no desire to negotiate, no ability to recognize incremental (and sizable) attainment of long sought after goals. The Tea Party is increasingly coming to mirror ideological libertarianism, interesting stuff to talk about in a dorm room but utterly incapable of serving as an actual approach to governing in anything but an autocracy.
As inconvenient as it is for Hammer and others, we live in a Democracy in which a sizable MAJORITY of the American public disagrees with the ideology of the Tea Party. Not a plurality, a MAJORITY. Not that there aren't wonderfully inspiring elements in that ideology, elements which have already shaped the debate in positive ways bound to put a spring in the step of any conservative. Far too many people disagree with far too much of what the Tea Party represents for its approach to be adopted in toto. Like "useful" libertarianism, Tea Party ideas will alloy with "country club" Republican ideas to form governing approaches that appeal to the "muddled middle", those who thought Mr. Obama gave a good speech but who now wonder whether there was any there, there. This alloyed Republican Party will be stronger and more successful at the ballot box than any singular Country Club or Tea Party approach would produce.
My advice to the Tea Party Dead-enders? Win first, then get cocky about your ideology. And by win, I mean win a big policy debate. And win it within the system, the system of public debate and legislative compromise. Join with the dreaded "Country Clubbers" to dramatically reduce the scope and whim of government. Show the American people what a new and idea-brimming Republican Party is all about. Take back the Senate. Defeat Barack Obama. Once we've reached this point, well then if the Tea Party wants to conduct a Stalinist purge of the David Brooks/Bryan McGrath wing of the party, so be it. I'll accept my fate.
UPDATE--here's a good interview with David Brooks from The Daily Caller in which he 'splains himself. Pretty straightforward stuff, from where I sit.
Tuesday, July 5, 2011
The Bush/Obama War on Terror Continues
Where is the bought and paid for media with regard to the biggest story of the Obama Presidency--that the policies and practices of the Bush Administration--which he relentlessly criticized while on the stump--remain the policies and practices of the Obama Administration? Here's the story of a Somali miscreant captured in the Gulf of Aden and---wait-----held on a Navy ship for two months. Was he spirited to the loving arms of the Eric Holder justice system? Eh, no. Did we let him lawyer up with folks who haven't yet earned their spurs into the Holder Justice Department? Eh, no. We held him without warrant, we interrogated him without counsel, we treated him like the vermin he is and now--he'll be turned over to the Holder Justice Department, for trial.
When will the media hold this man accountable? When will Barack Obama have to answer for his over the top and irresponsible campaign rhetoric? When will he apologize to George Bush for the things he said about the way the Bush Administration pursued the war on terror?
When will the media hold this man accountable? When will Barack Obama have to answer for his over the top and irresponsible campaign rhetoric? When will he apologize to George Bush for the things he said about the way the Bush Administration pursued the war on terror?
Monday, July 4, 2011
Wisconsin Collective Bargaining Update
Let's hope the following is but one of hundreds of similar instances in the state of Wisconsin and around the country. Let's also hope that the BPFM starts to report on these little victories. Don't hold your breath, though.
In the past, Kaukauna's agreement with the teachers union required the school district to purchase health insurance coverage from something called WEA Trust -- a company created by the Wisconsin teachers union. "It was in the collective bargaining agreement that we could only negotiate with them," says Arnoldussen. "Well, you know what happens when you can only negotiate with one vendor." This year, WEA Trust told Kaukauna that it would face a significant increase in premiums.
Now, the collective bargaining agreement is gone, and the school district is free to shop around for coverage. And all of a sudden, WEA Trust has changed its position. "With these changes, the schools could go out for bids, and lo and behold, WEA Trust said, 'We can match the lowest bid,'" says Republican state Rep. Jim Steineke, who represents the area and supports the Walker changes. At least for the moment, Kaukauna is staying with WEA Trust, but saving substantial amounts of money.
Hat tip: Betsy's Page
Some Sound Thinking on Restraint
America needs to guard against "imperial over-reach". John R. Miller makes an excellent case here.
CW Turns 3
Well folks, the little blog project celebrated its 3rd anniversary last week. Thanks to everyone who makes it a part of their daily scan and to those who stumble across it during Google searches. Special thanks to Mudge, Goldwater's Ghost, Sally and Robert Thorn for their blog posts, and to Hammer for his commentary.
Annual Reading of the Declaration of Independence
I did it this morning.....did you?
The Unanimous Declaration
When, in the course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bonds which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the laws of nature and of nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. That whenever any form of government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shown that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government, and to provide new guards for their future security. --Such has been the patient sufferance of these colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former systems of government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute tyranny over these states. To prove this, let facts be submitted to a candid world.
He has refused his assent to laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.
He has forbidden his governors to pass laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.
He has refused to pass other laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of representation in the legislature, a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only.
He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their public records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures.
He has dissolved representative houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people.
He has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause others to be elected; whereby the legislative powers, incapable of annihilation, have returned to the people at large for their exercise; the state remaining in the meantime exposed to all the dangers of invasion from without, and convulsions within.
He has endeavored to prevent the population of these states; for that purpose obstructing the laws for naturalization of foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migration hither, and raising the conditions of new appropriations of lands.
He has obstructed the administration of justice, by refusing his assent to laws for establishing judiciary powers.
He has made judges dependent on his will alone, for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.
He has erected a multitude of new offices, and sent hither swarms of officers to harass our people, and eat out their substance.
He has kept among us, in times of peace, standing armies without the consent of our legislature.
He has affected to render the military independent of and superior to civil power.
He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his assent to their acts of pretended legislation:
For quartering large bodies of armed troops among us:
For protecting them, by mock trial, from punishment for any murders which they should commit on the inhabitants of these states:
For cutting off our trade with all parts of the world:
For imposing taxes on us without our consent:
For depriving us in many cases, of the benefits of trial by jury:
For transporting us beyond seas to be tried for pretended offenses:
For abolishing the free system of English laws in a neighboring province, establishing therein an arbitrary government, and enlarging its boundaries so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule in these colonies:
For taking away our charters, abolishing our most valuable laws, and altering fundamentally the forms of our governments:
For suspending our own legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever.
He has abdicated government here, by declaring us out of his protection and waging war against us.
He has plundered our seas, ravaged our coasts, burned our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people.
He is at this time transporting large armies of foreign mercenaries to complete the works of death, desolation and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of cruelty and perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the head of a civilized nation.
He has constrained our fellow citizens taken captive on the high seas to bear arms against their country, to become the executioners of their friends and brethren, or to fall themselves by their hands.
He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavored to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian savages, whose known rule of warfare, is undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.
In every stage of these oppressions we have petitioned for redress in the most humble terms: our repeated petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A prince, whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.
Nor have we been wanting in attention to our British brethren. We have warned them from time to time of attempts by their legislature to extend an unwarrantable jurisdiction over us. We have reminded them of the circumstances of our emigration and settlement here. We have appealed to their native justice and magnanimity, and we have conjured them by the ties of our common kindred to disavow these usurpations, which, would inevitably interrupt our connections and correspondence. They too have been deaf to the voice of justice and of consanguinity. We must, therefore, acquiesce in the necessity, which denounces our separation, and hold them, as we hold the rest of mankind, enemies in war, in peace friends.
We, therefore, the representatives of the United States of America, in General Congress, assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the name, and by the authority of the good people of these colonies, solemnly publish and declare, that these united colonies are, and of right ought to be free and independent states; that they are absolved from all allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the state of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as free and independent states, they have full power to levy war, conclude peace, contract alliances, establish commerce, and to do all other acts and things which independent states may of right do. And for the support of this declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our lives, our fortunes and our sacred honor.
New Hampshire: Josiah Bartlett, William Whipple, Matthew Thornton
Massachusetts: John Hancock, Samual Adams, John Adams, Robert Treat Paine, Elbridge Gerry
Rhode Island: Stephen Hopkins, William Ellery
Connecticut: Roger Sherman, Samuel Huntington, William Williams, Oliver Wolcott
New York: William Floyd, Philip Livingston, Francis Lewis, Lewis Morris
New Jersey: Richard Stockton, John Witherspoon, Francis Hopkinson, John Hart, Abraham Clark
Pennsylvania: Robert Morris, Benjamin Rush, Benjamin Franklin, John Morton, George Clymer, James Smith, George Taylor, James Wilson, George Ross
Delaware: Caesar Rodney, George Read, Thomas McKean
Maryland: Samuel Chase, William Paca, Thomas Stone, Charles Carroll of Carrollton
Virginia: George Wythe, Richard Henry Lee, Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Harrison, Thomas Nelson, Jr., Francis Lightfoot Lee, Carter Braxton
North Carolina: William Hooper, Joseph Hewes, John Penn
South Carolina: Edward Rutledge, Thomas Heyward, Jr., Thomas Lynch, Jr., Arthur Middleton
Georgia: Button Gwinnett, Lyman Hall, George Walton
The Unanimous Declaration
of the Thirteen United States of America
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. That whenever any form of government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shown that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government, and to provide new guards for their future security. --Such has been the patient sufferance of these colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former systems of government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute tyranny over these states. To prove this, let facts be submitted to a candid world.
He has refused his assent to laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.
He has forbidden his governors to pass laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.
He has refused to pass other laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of representation in the legislature, a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only.
He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their public records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures.
He has dissolved representative houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people.
He has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause others to be elected; whereby the legislative powers, incapable of annihilation, have returned to the people at large for their exercise; the state remaining in the meantime exposed to all the dangers of invasion from without, and convulsions within.
He has endeavored to prevent the population of these states; for that purpose obstructing the laws for naturalization of foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migration hither, and raising the conditions of new appropriations of lands.
He has obstructed the administration of justice, by refusing his assent to laws for establishing judiciary powers.
He has made judges dependent on his will alone, for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.
He has erected a multitude of new offices, and sent hither swarms of officers to harass our people, and eat out their substance.
He has kept among us, in times of peace, standing armies without the consent of our legislature.
He has affected to render the military independent of and superior to civil power.
He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his assent to their acts of pretended legislation:
For quartering large bodies of armed troops among us:
For protecting them, by mock trial, from punishment for any murders which they should commit on the inhabitants of these states:
For cutting off our trade with all parts of the world:
For imposing taxes on us without our consent:
For depriving us in many cases, of the benefits of trial by jury:
For transporting us beyond seas to be tried for pretended offenses:
For taking away our charters, abolishing our most valuable laws, and altering fundamentally the forms of our governments:
For suspending our own legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever.
He has abdicated government here, by declaring us out of his protection and waging war against us.
He has plundered our seas, ravaged our coasts, burned our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people.
He is at this time transporting large armies of foreign mercenaries to complete the works of death, desolation and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of cruelty and perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the head of a civilized nation.
He has constrained our fellow citizens taken captive on the high seas to bear arms against their country, to become the executioners of their friends and brethren, or to fall themselves by their hands.
He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavored to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian savages, whose known rule of warfare, is undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.
In every stage of these oppressions we have petitioned for redress in the most humble terms: our repeated petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A prince, whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.
Nor have we been wanting in attention to our British brethren. We have warned them from time to time of attempts by their legislature to extend an unwarrantable jurisdiction over us. We have reminded them of the circumstances of our emigration and settlement here. We have appealed to their native justice and magnanimity, and we have conjured them by the ties of our common kindred to disavow these usurpations, which, would inevitably interrupt our connections and correspondence. They too have been deaf to the voice of justice and of consanguinity. We must, therefore, acquiesce in the necessity, which denounces our separation, and hold them, as we hold the rest of mankind, enemies in war, in peace friends.
We, therefore, the representatives of the United States of America, in General Congress, assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the name, and by the authority of the good people of these colonies, solemnly publish and declare, that these united colonies are, and of right ought to be free and independent states; that they are absolved from all allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the state of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as free and independent states, they have full power to levy war, conclude peace, contract alliances, establish commerce, and to do all other acts and things which independent states may of right do. And for the support of this declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our lives, our fortunes and our sacred honor.
New Hampshire: Josiah Bartlett, William Whipple, Matthew Thornton
Massachusetts: John Hancock, Samual Adams, John Adams, Robert Treat Paine, Elbridge Gerry
Rhode Island: Stephen Hopkins, William Ellery
Connecticut: Roger Sherman, Samuel Huntington, William Williams, Oliver Wolcott
New York: William Floyd, Philip Livingston, Francis Lewis, Lewis Morris
New Jersey: Richard Stockton, John Witherspoon, Francis Hopkinson, John Hart, Abraham Clark
Pennsylvania: Robert Morris, Benjamin Rush, Benjamin Franklin, John Morton, George Clymer, James Smith, George Taylor, James Wilson, George Ross
Delaware: Caesar Rodney, George Read, Thomas McKean
Maryland: Samuel Chase, William Paca, Thomas Stone, Charles Carroll of Carrollton
Virginia: George Wythe, Richard Henry Lee, Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Harrison, Thomas Nelson, Jr., Francis Lightfoot Lee, Carter Braxton
North Carolina: William Hooper, Joseph Hewes, John Penn
South Carolina: Edward Rutledge, Thomas Heyward, Jr., Thomas Lynch, Jr., Arthur Middleton
Georgia: Button Gwinnett, Lyman Hall, George Walton
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
