Gay Patriot Header Image

He will propose spending cuts?

A few weeks ago, I took a dim view of President Trump’s tax proposal:

The true level of taxation is the government’s spending level. All spending must be paid for, one way or another. There are 3 possibilities.

1. Overt taxes.
2. Borrowing. This is a covert tax, a tax on the future (when either the debt must be repudiated, or more and more government revenues must be diverted to servicing it).
3. Money-printing. Another hidden tax, this time on the real value (the purchasing power) of everyone’s wages and savings. Also known as “inflation”.

So really, it isn’t a tax cut unless it’s a spending cut also. Trump wants to cut the overt taxes. So, what? Without spending cuts, it’s only a corresponding increase in the hidden taxes: borrowing and/or money-printing.

I gotta give credit where it’s due. It looks like Trump is going to propose spending cuts?

More details from President Donald Trump’s first budget proposal are trickling out via a flurry of overnight reports from The Washington Post, Associated Press and Bloomberg News…

The budget will slash $1.7 trillion in spending on entitlement programs, according to Bloomberg.
Trump’s budget will include a massive nearly $200 billion cut to the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, the modern version of food stamps, over the next 10 years – what amounts to a 25% reduction, according to The Washington Post.
The food stamp cuts are part of a broader $274 billion welfare-reform effort, according to a report by The Associated Press.
The budget calls for about $800 billion in cuts to Medicaid for fiscal year 2018, WaPo reported.
The budget is also expected to propose major domestic discretionary spending cuts – an earlier version of the budget called for $54 billion in such cuts next year alone.

Whether the Republicans in Congress will tolerate any cuts, is another matter.

Note that these cuts are hardly draconian. OK, the numbers sound large. But only because:

  1. some of the numbers are totals across many fiscal years, and
  2. the government IS large. Spending and promises (entitlements) skyrocketed under Bush 43 and Obama.

But the Controlled Media is sure to make them sound like the Entropic Heat Death of the Universe.

Why socialism always puts bad people in charge

In Monday night’s Venezuela post, our wise commenters said:

socialism doesn’t work because it is an unjust economic system. the people in power take things from people that work…

The wrong people will ALWAYS be in charge, because for socialism to work you have to have completely altruistic people in charge…

Yes. Except, it’s even worse than that 😉 The biggest problems with socialism are:

  1. It wrecks the Price Mechanism. Even if you had truly altruistic people in charge, such an economy still can’t function.
  2. Only bad-or-stupid people want a wrecked price mechanism. Thus, only bad-or-stupid people advocate socialism. And the bad people know how to shepherd the stupid people; thus, the bad people always end up in charge.

By Price Mechanism, I mean free markets discovering and signalling the prices of things. To review how that works:

  • All goods and services must be rationed, by one means or another.
    • because human needs are infinite
    • whereas human time (used to produce goods and services) is not
  • Markets ration things by having people pay a market price for the available supply.
    • If something is in short supply, those who have the highest “score” in terms of being both able and willing to pay, will get it.
    • “Willing” as in, free will / the person’s choice.
  • The market price moves up and down, accomplishing two big things as it does so.
    1. It coordinates people’s consumption activities. (Those who are unwilling or unable to pay for a thing at its current price, look for substitutes.)
    2. It coordinates people’s production activities. (As a thing’s price moves higher, it induces people to produce more of it.)
  • The coordination is spontaneous and responsive to changing conditions, because it is voluntary.
  • If you interfere with the price mechanism, you interfere with (or even block) that coordination.

OK, so the price mechanism is objectively great. It induces voluntary coordination among vast numbers of people – thus enabling the Division of Labor. Who would want to mess with that?

The answer is: People who gain by interactions that are not voluntary. People such as moochers, thieves, thugs, politicians and bureaucrats. People who lack the ability or willingness to produce. People who hope to live by altering or preventing market outcomes. People who think they can plan and control others better than those others can. People who are willing to gain by keeping others down.

In short: People who gain by dictatorship. Arrogant people who enjoy using force on others to prevent the peaceful activities and outcomes that people would otherwise create on their own.

That’s the nature of socialism. It’s not a noble ideal. It’s a curse, an evil. Like the Mafia, it’s always led by bad people because it *is* bad, in its nature. It can never be desired by people who are both good-hearted and knowledgeable. Therefore, it can never be led by them. And, even if it were somehow, it still wouldn’t function – because of the wrecked price mechanism.

This feeds into how the term “socialism” is defined.

  • An old, strict definition is: public ownership of the means of production.
  • But people today use the word with a much broader meaning: Any system where a governing authority intervenes in markets, preventing the market price mechanism from operating.

The socialist planners always proclaim their good intentions. And they always make things worse. And it’s not an accident or a failure to apply socialism; it’s inherent in socialism.

Wrecking the price mechanism kills spontaneous, voluntary coordination; and that’s the point of the thing. It’s why stupid-or-bad people love socialism. They WANT to control others and prevent market outcomes. It’s not a proverbial “unforeseen consequence”; it’s the point.

(more…)

The Venezuela Diet

YouTube Preview Image

Via HotAir, where John Sexton notes:

There’s nothing funny about the situation in Venezuela, but there is something funny about the socialists who cheered for the country and are just beginning to realize it might be an authoritarian hellhole.

Reminder: Government health care is sub-DMV health care

Talk to a leftie and you will often hear how wonderful Canadian health care is. “Why can’t we be like them?” Crowder did an expose of Canadian health care in 2009 that is still relevant:

YouTube Preview Image

Here’s the summary. Canadians pay huge taxes for “free”, “universal” health care. It makes people wait, and wait, and wait. Many people either give up altogether (and their condition gets worse), or go to a private clinic.

That’s how they reduce patients to a manageable number. Economics 101 teaches us that all goods must be rationed by one means or another, and “waiting” for people to quit the queue is how they ration Canada’s public health care.

From Crowder’s anecdotes it seems that Canadians, if they don’t quit, will wait usually about four times as long as Americans. For example, last year I went to an emergency room on a Sunday afternoon. It took 20 minutes to get the triage nurse’s attention, then another hour to see a doctor. In Crowder’s video, they visit a Canadian emergency room on a Sunday. It takes them about an hour and a half to see the triage nurse, and then 5+ hours to see a doctor (except they quit at the 4-hour mark).

Likewise, an acquaintance of mine recently needed a cancer surgery. He got it in weeks; in Canada it would have taken months. This is what Bernie and Hillary want to bring us to.

Trump’s tax plan

Yesterday, President Trump outlined his tax plan. Key features:

  • Slightly lower personal income tax rates. (Top rate from near-40% to 35%.)
  • Eliminating almost all income tax deductions, except mortgage interest and charitable contributions. (No more deduction for your State or property taxes, among other things.) Increase in the “standard deduction”.
  • Much lower corporate income tax rates. (Top rate from 35%, one of the world’s highest, to 15%.)
  • A one-time tax on overseas business profits. (That haven’t been repatriated to the U.S. Apple has a lot.)
  • A “territorial system” where future profits that corporations earn abroad, are not taxed.
  • Repealing a bunch of taxes and complications, most notably the Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT) and the estate tax.

Of course, Congress still has to chew on it.

Taking Trump’s proposals by themselves, I have little objection. Rates should be lower. High income taxes are a form of slavery. Corporate income taxes are stupid because they are an indirect, distorted sales tax (that is, a tax paid ultimately by consumers). Estate taxes destroy many small businesses (forcing families to liquidate the business in order to pay the 50% tax or whatever).

Nonetheless, I can’t praise this plan. Because it will reduce revenues at first, without being matched by spending cuts. Our budget will come no closer to balance.

President Obama already doubled the U.S. national debt in his 8 years, from roughly $10 trillion to roughly $20 trillion, for an average real annual deficit around $1.25 trillion. Is Trump going to beat Obama’s record? I sure hope not.

This is an important point. The true level of taxation is the government’s spending level. All spending must be paid for, one way or another. There are 3 possibilities.

  1. Overt taxes.
  2. Borrowing. This is a covert tax, a tax on the future (when either the debt must be repudiated, or more and more government revenues must be diverted to servicing it).
  3. Money-printing. Another hidden tax, this time on the real value (the purchasing power) of everyone’s wages and savings. Also known as “inflation”.

So really, it isn’t a tax cut unless it’s a spending cut also. Trump wants to cut the overt taxes. So, what? Without spending cuts, it’s only a corresponding increase in the hidden taxes: borrowing and/or money-printing.

And what happens when we add (say) a Trump infrastructure spending package and a Syria or North Korea war on top of that? More of the hidden taxes: borrowing and/or money-printing.

Stefan Molyneux on “Climate Change”

I find Molyneux’s video-enlarged, ranting bald head a bit creepy. But his content is often brilliant. I recently listened to this one from 2015.

Molyneux proposes the following thought experiment:

  1. Suppose stockbrokers (or bankers or politicians or oil company CEOs – whomever you view as corruptible) are in charge of calculating some important measure of the world.
  2. Let’s call it the Economy Rate (ER). It could go up or down. The stockbrokers fudge and massage the ER data, as they see fit.
  3. First, the stockbrokers say “The ER is so important! and it’s going DOWN! That’s bad! Give us tens of billions of taxpayer money, and we’ll watch it and figure out what to do.”
  4. But over the years, the ER rises. The stockbrokers say “The ER is so important! and it’s going UP! That’s bad! Give us tens of billions of taxpayer money, and we’ll watch it and figure out what to do.”
  5. But then the ER stops going up. The stockbrokers say “The ER is so important! and it could go UP OR DOWN! With unpredictable pauses! That’s bad! Give us tens of billions of taxpayer money, and we’ll watch it and figure out what to do.”

At what point do you begin to see that the stockbrokers are taking you, in a racket?

  • Point 1 is climate scientists – who are a huge, publicly-funded industry. Each scientist profits (as wage/salary payments, benefits, etc.) from the grants she receives.
  • Point 2 is the world average temperature, which climate scientists derive from data that they themselves fudge and massage.
  • Point 3 is the 1970s, when climate scientists gave alarming predictions of a New Ice Age.
  • Point 4 is the 1980s to the 2000s, when their monster was Global Warming. The famous “hockey stick” upward graph.
  • Point 5 is recent years, when the “hockey stick” graph failed and they switched it to Climate Change – in whatever direction.

Do you believe that climate scientists are less corruptible than stockbrokers (or bankers or politicians or oil company CEOs)? That they’re somehow more objective and noble?

I don’t. You who do (lefties) have a RELIGIOUS FAITH in climate scientists, that you’re not admitting. And it’s exactly what climate scientists want you to have.

Your delusional, gullible faith is how they keep their tens of billions of taxpayer dollars coming. And of course they would have a “consensus” that they are objective and noble and deserve it and should be listened to and those dollars should keep coming. Of course they would.

Happy Earth Day!

Georgia Special Election; a Lot of Hype, But Ultimately Meaningless

Posted by V the K at 7:59 am - April 18, 2017.
Filed under: Big Government Follies

Democrats have spent over $12 Million dollars to try and flip a Republican Congressional District in Georgia. The Democrat running for this seat has joined Wendy Davis and  Sandra Fluke in the Pantheon of Democrat Heroes.(Although you really wouldn’t know he was a Democrat from the barrage of campaign ads running in the district; few of which mention his party affiliation.)

Democrats may actually flip the seat. Mainly because Republicans — who learned nothing from how Trump beat them in the primaries — have clown-carred about a dozen candidates into the race, imagining that they can winnow the race down to a runoff and beat him there. The Jeb Bush Strategery.

But so what?

The Georgia 6 special election doesn’t mean a lot in the long run. It won’t affect the make-up of the House. The seat will probably revert to red in 2018. It will make the lefties feel good for maybe a day. But the next day, Donald Trump will still be president, the House and Senate will still be under Republican control, and Neil Gorsuch will still be on the Supreme Court.

If they win, the Democrats will have spent a fortune for a high that will be over in a day. That’s the nature of addiction. It takes ever more expenditure to achieve an ever-diminishing result. Democrats are making a huge investment because winning the seat will make them feel good temporarily, but as a practical matter, means nothing.

The seat will not be a harbinger for a Democrat takeover of the House and Senate in 2018. That will happen if Republicans fail to deliver on the agenda of Border Security, Obamacare Repeal, and Tax Reform they promised … and promised… and promised… and are finding every possible excuse not to deliver.

Now we know what Trump is

A lot has happened in the last few weeks, to let us know what kind of president Trump is going to be.

He isn’t the new Hitler. And he isn’t the new Ronald Reagan. He’s Obama-Lite, or roughly what President Obama would have been if were saner and more authentically masculine and pro-American. (Like Obama, President Trump often talks about his own good intentions/hopes as if they were accomplishments.
They aren’t.) “The Swamp” and/or Deep State will stay in business for quite awhile yet. I suspect that Trump has cut some sort of deal with several of its important factions.

That still makes him 100 times better than Hillary.

Hillary would have done none of the above. On his own, Trump is not all that hot. But when compared to Hillary, he still is.

Because Your Government Cares About You

Posted by V the K at 11:46 pm - April 11, 2017.
Filed under: Big Government Follies

The EPA conducted unlawful experiments on humans, then lied about it and tried to cover it up.

The Nuremberg Code; the Helsinki Accords; the Belmont Report; and U.S. common law, statutes, and regulations, to include state laws and the Federal Code “Common Rule” and EPA rule 1000.17, all prohibit human experimentation that might cause harm to the subjects.  Human risk can be considered only for the researchers themselves in circumstances where the research is essential and vital.  The civil or criminal offense of human experimentation that risks harm to the subjects would be either exposure to harm or the fear of harm by infliction of mental distress if subjects found out that the public position of the EPA is that small particles are toxic and lethal and cause cancer.  Which lie to believe?  That is the twist – you can’t make these things up.

In 2011 and 2012, Milloy and Dunn wrote letters to the EPA, the NIH journal editor who published the article, the EPA inspector general, and the federal Office for Scientific Integrity.  They wrote to all the physicians in Congress, all the deans of the ten domestic medical schools doing human experiments, and state medical boards in North Carolina and Michigan, all attempting to stop the human experiments.

The authors have written about the EPA project of research that exposed human beings of all ages, even children, to that same small particle air pollution to see if they could cause some harm.  EPA sponsorship of these studies at ten domestic and six foreign medical schools was admitted under oath by an EPA official, Wayne Cascio, M.D., and it is unethical and illegal.

And when they got caught, they hired another agency to conduct an “investigation,” (cough… cover up … cough) by forming a committee stacked with EPA cronies and apparatchiks.

 

USDA Threatens to Shut Down Farm for Opposing Gay Marriage

Under an Obama Era Rule,  Federal Inspectors can shut down an operation for wrongthink.

In 2015, following the Supreme Court decision in Obergefell v. Hodges that purported to redefine marriage for the entire country, various employees shared articles and information related to the decision. Don participated by sharing an article that expressed the traditional Christian view that God designed marriage as a union between a man and a woman and set forth reasons for that position.

When a USDA public health veterinarian, the on-site inspector, saw the article in the breakroom, well, he had a cow. He removed the article and reported it to his USDA supervisor. The pair stampeded into Don’s office and threatened to remove USDA inspectors—effectively shutting down the facility—if Don returned the article to the breakroom, stating the article was offensive and harassing under expanded agency rules.

This ban on Don’s speech appears to have been grounded on the USDA’s “Anti-Harassment Policy Statement” issued in July 2015, which prohibits written or oral communications that USDA officials consider “disrespectful” or “insult[ing]” on the basis of sexual orientation.

This is part of the reason the left has gone nanners. For eight years under Obama, they had unfettered ability to punish people for not agreeing with their progressive, politically correct ideology using every agency of Government. They got used to being bullies. They got to like being bullies. They thought they would get to bully their opponents forever once Hillary cemented the Progressive Authoritarian Government Obama had begun. One more left-wing Justice on the Supreme Court and it was all theirs.

But now, there’s a slim chance that the people they straight-up bullied for eight years might just have their rights restored.

BTW: The five leftists on the Supreme Court have just decided that a jury’s verdict can be nullified if one of the jurors is politically incorrect. So, I guess this means, if a white guy is convicted of rape, but his defense attorneys can prove that one of the jurors was a man-hating, racist black lesbian… they can overturn that verdict. Right?

This Is Why We Can’t Have Nice Things

Posted by V the K at 6:35 pm - March 8, 2017.
Filed under: Big Government Follies

Whining, selfish leftists + the stupid Americans with Disabilities Act = the loss of a great public asset.

Berkeley previously housed an online library consisting of more than 20,000 videos of lectures. These videos were free and accessible to the public. But they are free no longer: next week, administrators will withdraw access to anyone who isn’t a Berkeley student or professor.

Two employees of Gallaudet University—a school for the deaf in Washington, D.C.—filed a complaint with DOJ alleging that Berkeley’s online content was inaccessible to the hearing-disabled community. After looking into the matter, DOJ determined that Berkeley had indeed violated the Americans with Disabilities Act, according to Inside Higher Ed.

Berkeley had two choices: spend a fortune adding closed captioning to the videos, or remove them from public view. Cost-conscious administrators chose the latter option.

“If we can’t have it, then no one can,” said the selfish bastards.

Progressive Government at Work

Posted by V the K at 11:09 am - February 19, 2017.
Filed under: Big Government Follies

Until I read this article, I had not realized what y-u-u-u-g-e  role the welfare state had played in bringing about the current epidemic of opioid addiction. And, of course, it was idiot progressive policies what did it.

[The Medicaid card] pays for medicine—whatever pills a doctor deems that the insured patient needs. Among those who receive Medicaid cards are people on state welfare or on a federal disability program known as SSI. . . . If you could get a prescription from a willing doctor—and Portsmouth had plenty of them—Medicaid health-insurance cards paid for that prescription every month. For a three-dollar Medicaid co-pay, therefore, addicts got pills priced at thousands of dollars, with the difference paid for by U.S. and state taxpayers. A user could turn around and sell those pills, obtained for that three-dollar co-pay, for as much as ten thousand dollars on the street.

According to the article, 1 in 5 males between the ages of 25 and 55 is on MedicAid.

The reason Conservatives oppose Government-as-the-solution-to-every-problem is not because we hate poor people. It’s because we have the ability to recognize patterns and understand the reason for those patterns. And one persistent pattern is that when Government gets involved in social engineering, it makes every problem worse. And our understanding of this problem is that bureaucracies do not exist to solve problems, because doing so would negate the reason for their own existence and then all the bureaucrats would lose their power and jobs. The imperative of Government bureaucracies is to perpetuate and exacerbate problems so they can grow their power.

The terror attacks of 9-11-2001 are an excellent example. They represented a massive failure on the part of our intelligence agencies and security apparatus to protect the public. These same bureaucracies were rewarded  for their failure with massive increases in funding and power; not a single bureaucrat lost her job, and the worst of them — Clinton crony Jamie Gorelick — went on to  play a role in the financial collapse of 2008 while becoming a multimillionaire in the process. Public education is another example; the more it fails (as measured by our dismal test scores compared with other industrialized countries), the more money it gets.

To be conservative is to have the wisdom to understand that when you reward failure, you get more failure. Whenever possible, we should rely on people who actually want to fix problems, not make a career out of worsening them.

How Washington Works

Posted by V the K at 2:10 pm - January 12, 2017.
Filed under: Big Government Follies

1. High-Ranking Political Idiot sets his email to ‘password,’ responds to phishing emails, embarrasses Democrat Party.

2. Billions in taxpayer funds allocated for ‘Cyber Security.’

The Obama Regime Spends More Money on Lesbians Than Charlie Sheen

Posted by V the K at 11:04 am - August 29, 2016.
Filed under: Big Government Follies

The Obama Administration isn’t just spending money to get lesbian farmers to sign up for food stamps, it’s also funding a study to see if the Patriarchy causes Lesbians to drink too much

The National Institutes of Health is spending nearly $1 million on a study of lesbian couples to see if stress makes them drink too much.

Not just any kind of stress, but the stress of living under Oppressive Patriarchy of White Privilege and Heteronormative Microaggression Triggers.

The research will be grounded in “Minority Stress Theory,” which blames discrimination and stigma for “negative mental health outcomes.” The latest grant, awarded this year, is a follow up to previous work that found “minority stress is associated with alcohol use and related problems via negative affect among lesbians.”

I strongly suspect the study will conclude: 1. Lesbians drink too much because of The Patriarchy 2. Millions of tax dollars need to be invested in programs to prevent lesbians from becoming alcoholics because of The Patriarchy, and 3. Anyone who questions the use of public funding for this study or the programs it recommends wants gay teenagers to commit suicide.

I wonder if anyone could get a grant to study whether the Government wasting money on stupid studies while running up a $20 Trillion debt drives people to drink.

Stuff Like this Makes Our $20 Trillion Public Debt Totally Worthwhile

Posted by V the K at 8:32 am - August 17, 2016.
Filed under: Big Government Follies

Obama’s USDA is funding a program to get rural gays and lesbians (and all the others sexual variations) hooked on Government Dependence.

The U.S. Department of Agriculture is holding summits to promote the role of lesbian farmers as a part of its “Rural Pride” campaign.

The agency is working with singer and LGBT activist Cyndi Lauper for a “day of conversation” about the struggles of gay and transgender individuals in rural America. The agency says its wants to change the perception of what it means to be a farmer in America away from the “white, rich male.”

And of course, the focus is on getting more people hooked on Free-Sh-t-From-the-Government.

The all-day summit will teach lesbian and transgender hillbillies how to get subsidies from the government like rural housing loans and “community facility grants.” Bullying will also be discussed.

Democrat-Run Armpit State Looks to Ban Drinking Coffee While Driving

Posted by V the K at 7:35 pm - August 8, 2016.
Filed under: Big Government Follies

New Jersey, the state that regards its citizens as too stupid to pump their own gas and regulates the living f— out of firearms is also looking into making it illegal to drink coffee (or anything else) while driving. Because nannies gotta nanny.

Assemblymen John Wisniewski (D-Middlesex) and Nicholas Chiaravalloti (D-Hudson) would advance a bill that calls for a ban on drinking coffee, eating of any kind and personal grooming.

Wisniewski and Chiaravalloti’s bill calls for a $200-$400 fine on the first offense, $400-$600 for a second offense and $600-800 for a third violation. At that point, a driver would receive points on their license and face the possibility of a 90-day suspension.

Yeah, let’s give cops ONE MORE STUPID REASON to pull someone over and make a traffic stop and potentially got shot. (As we are repeatedly told that traffic stops are the most dangerous part of a cop’s job.)

I seriously wonder how long History and Nature can tolerate the existence of a culture as stupid and detached from reality as ours has become.

(more…)

Darn

Posted by Jeff (ILoveCapitalism) at 6:01 pm - June 30, 2016.
Filed under: Big Government Follies,Freedom,Great Americans,Media Bias

This quote is brilliant:

If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their currency, first by inflation, then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around them will deprive the people of all property until their children wake up homeless on the continent their Fathers conquered…. I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies…. The issuing power should be taken from the banks and restored to the people, to whom it properly belongs.

It’s usually attributed to Thomas Jefferson. It pops up on well-meaning Internet sites which favor liberty and sound money. Recent example here.

Unfortunately, Jefferson scholars say it’s a fake.

The first part of the quotation…has not been found anywhere in Thomas Jefferson’s writings…the words “inflation” and “deflation” are not documented until after Jefferson’s lifetime.

[The second and third parts are loose paraphrases of Jefferson…] The first known occurrence in print of the spurious first part with the two other quotations is in 1948…

Chalk it up to “Things that Jefferson should and probably would say, if he could see us now.” And always Google your quotes from dead people; especially if they’re too good to be true.

Addendum: Even though the Community Conservatives article linked above used a fake Jefferson quote, it had a number of other good things to say. For just one, it is the first place where I have seen the phrase “political/financial complex” to describe the elites who (mostly) rule us today.

I myself use (and I had the experience of coining) the phrase “Big Government / Big Banking complex.” Saying “political/financial complex” conveys the same idea – in fewer words. (But the same number of syllables. Odd.)

UPDATE and shifting topic, since this is sort of a Random Thoughts post: Here’s anti-Brexit harpie Christiane Amanpour trying to play ‘gotcha’ with Daniel Hannan of the pro-Brexit campaign, for nine minutes.

It’s a bit tragic. Hannan is clearly telling the truth and making good points. But Amanpour’s thinking is so cliched, so stuck, so “canalized” on her You Are All Racists narrative, that she can hardly let him talk, and ends up interviewing herself. She must have felt that she was scoring points on Hannan; others of us shake our heads at her foolishness and incompetence.

A new day for Britain

Congratulations to the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Nothern Ireland for voting to leave the European Union. It seems real because it has prompted Cameron to resign.

The EU began in 1957 as the European Economic Community, originally a free-trade zone for western Europe. And that’s a good thing. Unfortunately, over the decades (and especially after it became the European Union in 1993), the EU devolved into an intensively oppressive bureaucracy that imposes endless, krazy regulations on its member states and, for practical purposes, voids democracy in them.

Britain should gain a brighter economic future from the separation. The “Remain” campaign, of course, tried to claim the opposite. Britain does massive trade with the rest of the EU, and the “Remain” campaign tried to scare voters that the trade will be lost. Which is ridiculous; the EU itself needs its British trade, and the example of Switzerland (not to mention China or the U.S.) proves that independent countries can do massive trade with the EU.

But it’s not just the economics: Separating from the EU (if that is now put into practice) should mean that Britain has regained an important part of its sovereignty and its democracy.

On a personal note: This event is a pleasant surprise for me. Despite the “Leave” campaign’s leading in many British polls, I was sure that the British-EU elites would manipulate the election so that “Remain” had to win. (Manipulate the voters and/or the voting, the counting, etc.)

In other words, I was sure that British democracy was already dead. Today’s news reminds me, in a happy way, that I don’t know everything. Just to put sprinkles on the ice cream, it’s also a well-deserved slap in President Obama’s face.

UPDATE:

UP-UPDATE: Cyril’s comment inspired me to adorn the post thusly:

keep calm and f--k socialism, on a Union Jack background

How to Micromanage a Nation of 300Million People

Posted by V the K at 5:30 am - May 5, 2016.
Filed under: Big Government Follies

“We believe in a light touch when it comes to regulations.” Barack Obama, June 7, 2013.

Bullshirt.

The Food and Drug Administration issued its final guidance for an Obamacare regulation mandating calorie labeling in restaurants, which includes a 171-word definition of “menu,” and will apply to coupons and advertisements.

The final guidance includes a 96-word definition of “combination meal” and a 163-word definition of “restaurant-type food.” The government also goes into when “Aunt Cora’s French toast breakfast” must have its calories listed and tells restaurants not to use plus or minus signs on their menus because they are too “confusing” to Americans. [Emphasis added.]

The government considers a menu to be the “primary writing of the covered establishment from which a customer makes an order selection, including, but not limited to, breakfast, lunch and dinner menus; dessert menus; beverage menus, children’s menus, other specialty menus (such as catering), electronic menus, and menus on the Internet.” The full definition is 171 words. Merriam-Webster has a 12-word definition for menu.

The phrase “from which a customer makes an order selection” opened the door for coupons and advertisements to be included in the mandate.

The FDA said calories must be listed on coupons if they have the restaurant’s phone number, and advertisements can be “considered a menu.”

Americans are too stupid to understand plus and minus signs? Really?

I think by “Americans” they mean “Democrat voters.”

idio-city

 

No Trust for the Government

Posted by V the K at 12:37 pm - February 17, 2016.
Filed under: Big Government Follies

The Obama Government wants to force Apple to decrypt a dead terrorist’s iPhone so they can see who he was in contact with and what they were up to. Apple says no.

If people really trusted the Government that the information on the phone would only be used to protect them against terrorism, they’d be more willing to go along with it. But in recent years, we’ve seen this Government abuse access IRS records, abuse access to medical records, selectively prosecute people and companies who oppose Obama’s policies while letting friends of the Regime get off scot-free for far worse. We have seen them send armed SWAT Teams against ranchers who stand in the way of Federal Land Confiscation policies while giving sanctuary to non-citizen lawbreakers.

If people could trust the Government not to abuse or misuse information it found on the phone, or to not use the knowledge gained from breaking it to break into other phones, we might say, “Sure, go ahead.” But only a tiny minority of people still believe the Government can be trusted.

So, no.

It is interesting that Apple’s move is being cheered by the very same people who want the Government entrusted completely to control their medical records, their access to health care, their educations, and indeed every part of their lives.