How many jobs were "created" or "saved"?

Recently someone said that the CBO claimed that 1.3 million jobs were created due to the stimulus. I don't believe that number for a second. It all depends on comparing how many jobs would have been created without the stimulus. We don't know that, so we can't really say whether the stimulus helped at all.

Nonetheless, I am lazy, is there anyone out there who can better explain this?

Balanced Budget

This is one idea that is a winner and one that the Democrats have co-opted from conservatives. I think it's safe to say that everyone understands that you can't spend more than what you earn. If you do, you go bankrupt. The government is no different, and we should make the same argument.

It's irresponsible and reckless to run a country on borrowed money. Our party believes in fiscal responsibility and that's why we are for a balanced budget amendment. Bottom line is this: If you have to live on a budget, so do we.
- Paid for by The New Liberal Democrats

On the practical side a balanced budget accomplishes a bunch of things.

First, it forces the country to pay for the services it demands from government which imposes an immediate cost. "immediate" is important. Who will want to repeal a handout they have gotten for years? Who will remember why their taxes are being raised five years after the fact? No one. Transparency (another huge winning argument) dictates that we try as best as possible to tie cause and effect.

While I know that higher taxes lead to lower economic growth, higher taxes also change people's minds. Especially the minds of people who pay them. The sooner taxpayers feel the bite of higher taxes, the weightier the argument to lower them (by cutting spending) becomes. You take away the false promise of liberals that more and more government services are a free lunch. You make them defend having their cake and 10% unemployment.

Finally, your political brand is strengthened. You are fiscally responsible, like the head of a household who pays the bills when they come due. People understand this and they relate to it.

A Challenge

I constantly hear refrains from liberals that they actually believe in the free market, yet whenever there is a choice between the government and the free market, they always choose government. Can some liberal out there name one thing that the free market does better than the government?

Leftists gone crazy

I like to read the New York Times for entertainment value and to try to understand the other side. But sometimes you come across things that are just despicable. Case in point: this advertisement was run on the online version of their newspaper:




What person working at the Times thought this an appropriate ad? Liberals are the most racist, hate filled people on this earth. They cannot tolerate dissent because what they believe is essentially religious dogma and one cannot argue against "divine" truth. Non-believers, i.e. conservatives are therefore evil and you know who else was evil, Nazis! Thus in their warped mind the sick comparison makes perfect sense. Unbelievable!

OOO

I have been out of the office for a while and for anyone who actually likes reading these posts, my apologies.

There is no actual point of this blog other than to entertain me and hopefully some others out there. What I find entertaining is not only commenting on the buffoonery of liberals and their insane ideas, but offering what I believe are real policy proposals that can make a difference. Any proposals I make are based on assumptions as to how we have arrived at the present situation. I assume certain facts about human nature and how people behave and I do not believe that reason or logic or even those vaunted things called facts have any sway on your typical man.

My experience has led me to conclude that people generally act in their own self interest. They care more about their own well being more than that of others. They care more about their family than about strangers. They care about feeling good about themselves, not about actually being good, but feeling good - perception is reality. Every action has a payoff; charity esteems the giver. And every action has a cost; what's given is lost. People generally act to try to maximize their personal profit.

In order to have any effect, we must take these givens about people and construct systems which incentivize man to act a certain way. Our goal is for men to live peacefully in society with as much liberty as possible and enough security to make liberty valuable. Government is the device to accomplish this goal, and it's task is difficult because conceptually liberty and security are opposed. To be free means giving up some security and to be secure means giving up some freedom.

In the end, it's a balance we seek. And I think that in the end, a balance is what's always achieved. But within that balance, life can be better or worse. I believe that embracing a free market with a modest and simple social safety net is probably the best we will ever do. Lest men be angels.

A subtle enumeration

I went to this meeting for conservative enthusiasts. Essentially it was a meeting of the geriatric sort, they were mad as hell and ready for bed. The most interesting part of the night was near the end, the organizers set up a mock debate for new constitutional amendments in an attempt to impose constitutional limits on our government. Ironic when you think about it. Nonetheless, each amendment had good intentions, but in my opinion were busts. One astute octogenarian noted: what good are new amendments when no one pays attention to today's plain meaning. Good question.

Any honest (and even a dishonest one now and then) person knows that the constitution was a document limiting federal power. More precisely, the constitution is an enumeration of federal powers. What was written was what the government could do and everything else was off limits. Now some time ago that got flipped around and our government..er, constitution became a negative document, i.e. government can do anything except that forbidden by the constitution.

We conservative folks old and young alike prefer the original meaning of the constitution, limited federal government. The question is how to achieve it? I think we need to attack the flanks and in the end achieve our goal: to limit the federal government.

The amendment should be to limit federal tax revenues to 25% of Gross Domestic Product. My libertarian friends would be dismayed, but in the end the goal is to make peace, live in harmony, and put an end to the ever encroaching federal Leviathan. 25% is a lot of money, and it grows every year as the economy grows (nice incentive alignment eh?). That high percentage also has the effect of shaming our representatives (if that's possible). If you can't live within your means, when our means are substantial, then when can you?

I am not the first with this proposal, but I am adding my voice in support. Let's give Caesar more than enough to make him fat and happy, and slothful enough to leave the rest of us alone.

Get an ugly friend

I had a boss who from my estimation wasn't a very good boss. He wasn't a bad guy, in fact he cared a great deal about his employees, but from an objective standpoint I think he wasn't a strong organizer. He lacked the big picture perspective, preferring to put out fires rather than build a well functioning machine. Eventually, the shit hit the fan at my company and there was a house cleaning. The CEO got fired, some other folks were asked to leave, and my boss was one of them.

What's amazing to me is that it took so long for him (and the CEO) to get fired. Objectively they were doing a bad job. But the thing is that they were rated subjectively. At a certain level it's difficult to determine if someone is actually doing a good job. When you have fifty engineers doing the same task, it's easy to grade them against each other. But when you have one guy doing a unique job, how do you know if someone else could have done it better?

The only way we know socialism is a terrible system of government, is that we have capitalism to compare it to. When there is only one system, one way of doing things, no one can compare it to what doesn't exist. Capitalism is far superior to all other forms of social organization. If we want to promote capitalism and the free market, it's not enough to extol it's virtues. We must create an island where the benefits can be seen. America used to be that island, maybe we should start looking elsewhere.

People always adjust

Everywhere you turn you hear people, not just liberals, but well meaning conservatives and libertarians talking about economic disaster scenarios. If X happens, then Y will happen and that will in turn cause Z which will cause the world to end. Really? I didn't know the world was some sort of Rube-Goldberg machine, and the toppling of one little domino would send it all to pieces.

But apparently it is, especially if you are a keynesian (and if you aren't, you ought to be ashamed of yourself). Preventing a deflationary spiral is the justfication for all sorts of economic voodoo. Well, who cares about a deflationary spiral, how about some sanity. Here's the reality, if house prices go down, people (those atomic units who actually make up an economic system) will adjust. And at some point prices will stabilize, wealth will be lost, and we will start over again. Life will go on. What's killing us right now is not a lack of wealth, but uncertainty. And all this talk about home prices declining which causes consumer confidence to go down which tanks consumer spending which tanks...you get the point, is not productive.

Let's get to the bottom, lick our wounds, and rebuild. Yes, we will be poorer because we ARE poorer, government craziness cannot change that simple fact. And let's stop justifying craziness based on hypothetical scenarios which have no basis in reality.

You know it's bad when...

It's called a change over, the movie goes on and nobody in the audience has any idea.
- From the movie "Fight Club"

If you ever wanted to know just how crazy the left is in this country, ponder this: The bastion of socialism, Europe, is rebutting our calls for more deficit spending. They are advocating spending restraint in the face of the Greece bailout and record budget deficits. I have a new found respect for European (read: German) sanity and new found disgust with the American left. At what point will they realize that Keynesian econnomics is bunk? At what point will they actually care that their economic policies are causing hardship to millions of Americans? When will they concern themselves with the welfare of their subjects more than their ideology? It's truly a very different world when Europe gets it before us.

What's wrong with public schools?

In a nutshell, this:

Educators and administrators who accept financial compensation for improving their school’s test performance should be ashamed.

Mary Ogden Condeff
Santa Rosa, Calif., June 11, 2010

The writer has worked in special education in public schools.

Back in the real world, improving a school's test performance means better education for those children. Apparently, that's a bad thing.

Don't run, fight

Rand Paul has been pilloried for stating a perfectly reasonable philosophy:

Private individuals have the right to associate or not associate with whomever they want. Government does not.

There is absolutely nothing objectionable in this statement. Freedom of association means the freedom not to associate. What the hub-bub is about has to do with the fact that that government overstepped its bounds by forcing private businesses to engage in commerce it didn't want to. The civil rights act prevented private businesses from discriminating against blacks. The government was wrong.

Trying to do good, or what we think of as good, at the expense of principles is injustice. For while blacks were the supposed beneficiaries of this act, the reality is that they too belong to the mass whose rights were violated. When they open a business, and choose whom to serve, the government can dictate those terms. Nothing was gained except the reduction of everyone's freedom.

From a political standpoint, trying to muzzle charges of racism is futile. You are conservative, therefore you are racist in the eyes of all liberals regardless of your actions. It's always a mistake to counter insanity with rational argument, and only a man of guilty conscience runs around pleading his innocence. You are not racist, no need to repeat it over and over. Address the issues, ignore the drama.

Attack their implicit beliefs; white people are inherently racist; had the civil rights act not been not passed, blacks would not have made any progress; without whites to do business with, blacks would fall on their face, blacks cannot stand on their own. The bottom line is that their position is offensive. This is not the soft bigotry of low expectations, but the depiction of a race of people as sub-human.

Liberals are inherently racist. They live in segregated and gated communities where they breathe white guilt. To diffuse their uncomfortableness with themselves, they level charges against everyone else.

The next time Rand Paul is asked whether private businesses should be allowed to discriminate. His answer should be an unequivocal yes. And then he should press the question: Do you believe that such a law is necessary today? And why is it necessary that with people like you in positions of power, when progressives have power at every level of government and private business, that such a law is necessary? Are you a racist?

And if it sounds harsh, asking someone point blank if they are a racist, understand that that's exactly what they are asking you.

Leaving - Idealism versus Reality

I saw this independent movie called "Leaving" and the implicit subtext was fascinating. Here's the story in a nutshell: Housewife falls in love with another man; leaves husband to pursue true love; husband objects and makes new life impossible; goes back to husband; shoots husband; Fin.

If that synopsis doesn't whet your appetite, maybe this will. The movie is really about the notion that normal life is unbearable. It's a liberal shot across the bow declaring the terribleness of a content life and raising the unreasonable expectation that life is always a bowl of cherries.

What I find most interesting is that this idealized version of life was not intended; the movie was intended as a love story or some other nonsense, but the director couldn't hide his true feelings. They come out in every scene and they are loud and clear to anyone listening.

Initially, the wife doesn't seem discontented with her life. She has a successful husband who apparently cares about her, and kids who love her. While redesigning her home, she meets Ivan but there is little hint of potential romance. As a result of an (contrived) accident, the wife and Ivan must spend time together to see his daughter in Spain. It's on that trip that she "falls" for him and realizes just how much life she is missing. Why she loves this man is somewhat of a mystery, other than a song he sings to her, there is little to suggest that they are truly compatible. Nonetheless, the sex is fantastic and she can't get enough. She's made the decision, her husband and her former life must go.

Life with Ivan is depicted as continual bliss, every action connotes their eternal true love. But would life with Ivan really be so wonderful? Would the magic last forever? Isn't it possible, that over time, Ivan would become like her husband? After all, Ivan had a daughter with a woman who does not want to be with him? Perhaps he has a few flaws, perhaps they would eventually come out? But that would be three dimensional, real.

In fact, the husband is depicted as the only obstacle to their Eden. It's his actions which prevent Ivan and the wife from being together. The implication could not be more clear, eternal bliss is possible if it weren't for the man keeping the wife down.

I would love to make a movie called "Meeting" where the wife and husband first meet. It could show how they were in love, and how their love and infatuation was going to last forever. Instead of shooting her husband, she could have stayed with Ivan. That ending would be more tragic; life with Ivan would become real, just like the one she left.

Paintball kills people

As a jew I really dislike my people. They are extremely smart on average, yet they are ridiculously stupid when it comes to common sense. Hence, they are liberals and their liberalism is going to get them killed.

First, bullies don't respect weakness and nuance, they respect strength. This isn't rocket science, it's common sense. Most people secretly want to impose their will on others, most don't because they don't want their ass kicked. If they think you are going to kick their ass (or at least make a fight unpleasant enough), they won't f*** with you.

But only liberal jews board a flotilla with PAINTBALL guns. What the f*** were they thinking? They were trying to be nuanced and respectful to people whose entire purpose was to be blunt and disrespectful. Nine people got killed because they weren't scared, because they saw paintball guns and thought they could be a bad ass and attack the commandos. I bet had the Israeli's had real guns, pointed directly at the protesters heads, and the protesters knew it, their bad assness would have gone away. How many of those nine would have done what they did if they knew that was their last day on earth. I'm betting less than nine.

All nuance and proportional force does is make it less costly for your enemies to continue to fight and in the long run, there will be more conflict and more death because of it. You want to prevent violence, you want peace, then you have to kick some serious ass. Unfortunately the Israeli's are a bunch of liberal jews and they are going to get themselves (and others) killed.

Random rant

When the government can force you to buy insurance and penalize you when you don't, what can't it make you do? There are no hard and fast limits any more, our law is no longer founded on any principles, the constitution is meaningless, and government will do what it deems is best for you. Get used to it and get your bribe money handy.

On a brighter note, part of me is happy about all this. Sometimes it can be fun to watch the world burn, especially by its own doing.

In other news...

Democratic ads claim Republican opponents want to raise your taxes. The attacks by Democrat Mark Critz are blatantly false. Yes, his opponent is in favor of raising income taxes, to OFFSET other taxes, leaving on net everything UNCHANGED. To claim his opponent is for raising taxes is a blatant misrepresentation and an outright lie. Not surprisingly, when I was in Texas I saw the exact same attack by a democrat against another republican.

Speaking of liars...

Obama and the liberals' health care plan is the biggest of them all but conservatives ought to be careful in their line of attack. Saying we can't afford another entitlement as the justification for rejecting Obamacare implies that if we could afford it, it would be OK. Here's a better line of attack:

Only charlatans and liars need 2,700 words to tell the truth. Learn how to save your health care at: www.newliberaldemocrat.blogspot.com

Taxes aren't so bad after all?

Here is a fascinating letter to the editor from the Minneapolis Star Tribune:

Tax hike plan reflective of taxable income

As a tax preparer, I am compelled to correct a common misconception held by state politicians, by a May 12 letter writer and now by the Wall Street Journal ("Democrats always want higher taxes," Opinion Exchange, May 13).

The misconception is usually a variation of this thought: "It would be unwise to raise taxes on incomes over $200,000 because that would include most farmers and small businesses. Because small business creates most jobs, to raise their taxes would be a jobs killer."

Taxpayers do not pay taxes on their income. Taxes are paid on taxable income, or income after tax deductions. A small business may have income of $500,000, but taxable income of less than $75,000. By the time a small business arrives at taxable income, it has already taken deductions for all business expenses, which include employee wages and all payroll expenses. If a small business has a taxable income of more than $200,000, that taxable income is no different from that of a wage-earner employee who has a taxable income above $200,000. By the time a small-business taxpayer arrives at taxable income, he or she has already hired (and will receive a tax deduction for) every employee needed. To reduce taxes at this point will neither encourage nor discourage small businesses to hire additional employees.

There is no rational explanation why a small-business owner should pay a lower tax rate on taxable income than a wage earner or investor or any other taxable income earner.

JOHN DEITERING, HOWARD LAKE, MINN.

The letter is completely correct in the technical sense but if you read carefully, you'll realize that what he is really saying doesn't make any common sense. Taxes on small business profits (or as this person calls them - taxable income) is indeed no different than taxes on a wage earner. In fact, a wage earner is nothing more than a very small business owner with 1 employee, selling his product - labor - for a profit. What would happen if you confiscated his profits? He would work less of course.

The assumption in this letter is that employing people is some sort of public service, it is not. The only reason businesses hire anyone is to profit off of their labor, and taxing that profit is a sure fire way to guarantee less job creation.