Gay Patriot Header Image

Federal Bureaucrat – Cushiest Job in the World

Posted by V the K at 5:45 am - May 27, 2014.
Filed under: Big Government Follies

The Consumer Protection Financial Bureau (CBFP) — a regulatory office created by that Abomination known as Dodd-Frank — has decided it will no longer have employee evaluations and will simply rate all of their employees as awesome.

The CFPB, which oversees transactions in the financial sector for the federal government, decided to no longer conduct employee reviews because there were just too many apparent “significant disparities” between the races, ages, and locations of its employees.

According to American Banker, this new policy is set to cost over $5 million dollars, as it will now pay employees as if they received the highest evaluation score. The previous system ranked staff on their performance from a scale ranging from one to five, with five being the best score a CFPB staffer could receive after a review of their work on the job.

Because the only possible explanation for disparities in employee performance is Racism.

A Fool and His Money

What happens when a billionaire gives $100 Million to a corrupt, self-serving bureaucracy? Answer: Bureaucrats and their buddies in the consulting business got to buy vacation homes.

Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg made a splash by announcing his plan to give $100million to help turn around Newark, New Jersey’s public schools in an appearance on Oprah in 2010. 

But nearly four years later, Zuckerberg’s money has run out, having been spent mostly on labor contracts and consulting fees with no noticeable improvement in student performance, a report in the New Yorker reveals.

Zuckerberg’s money has mostly gone into the early stages of overhaul, paying consultants upwards of $1,000 a day to find solutions to Newark public schools’ problems.

According to the report, between 2010 and 2012 ‘more than twenty million dollars of Zuckerberg’s gift and matching donations went to consulting firms and various specialities: public relations, human resources, communications, data analysis, [and] teacher evaluations.’

The bureaucrats and consultants got richer; and the kids got nada.

My utter lack of faith in Government, vindicated once again.

The VA is what happens when government works

Posted by ColoradoPatriot at 6:34 pm - May 20, 2014.
Filed under: Big Government Follies

Rather than completely plagiarize Jonah’s recent post at NRO, I’ll simply post his best quote, and leave it to you to read the rest. The VA is:

the one institution and/or constituency that enjoys huge bipartisan support. The VA, rhetorically and politically, is more sacrosanct and less controversial than Medicare, Social Security, road building, the NIH, or public schools. We are constantly told that we could get so many wonderful, super-fantastic things done if only both sides would lay down their ideological blah blah blah blah and work together for yada yada yada. Well, welcome to the VA. How’s that working out for you?

here.

-Nick (ColoradoPatriot, from The Ranch)

Demilitarizing the Federal Bureaucracy

Why is the US Postal Service stockpiling ammunition? Also, why is the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration stockpiling ammunition? And why is the Social Security Administration stockpiling ammunition?

Why does the EPA have SWAT Teams? And why does the Department of Education have SWAT Teams? And why do the Railroad Retirement Board, the Tennessee Valley Authority, the Office of Personnel Management, the Consumer Product Safety Commission, and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service all have SWAT Teams?

None of these bureaucracies are law enforcement agencies. It makes no sense for them to have armed, much less paramilitary, units.

A Republican (of course) Congressman from Utah is contemplating a bill to defund the paramilitary operations of regulatory bureaucracies. He will no doubt be attacked as a radical, extremist, Whackobird… because that’s what happens to anyone who proposes common sense reform measures these days.

When the Only Tool You Know Is a Hammer…

Posted by V the K at 2:45 pm - April 30, 2014.
Filed under: Big Government Follies,Economy

The Obama Administration… embarrassed by the most recent 0.1% economic growth rate and the abject failure of five years of tax-and-spend economic policy… is proposing more tax-and-spend economic policy.

The Obama administration sent to Congress legislation that would provide $302 billion for road and transit projects over four years, a measure needed to keep the U.S. Highway Trust Fund from running dry.

A transportation proposal sent to Congress by the Obama administration on Tuesday would remove a prohibition on tolls for existing Interstate highways, clearing the way for states to raise revenue on roads that drivers currently use at no cost.

Democrats are literally incapable of conceiving of any other approach to any economic (or other) challenges other than raising taxes and expanding Government.

The travails of Government Motors

This is a long-term story; time for a review.

In 2009, General Motors made itself the fourth-largest Chapter 11 re-org in U.S. history. The U.S. Treasury was heavily involved with bailout money. President Obama made speeches and saw to it that the terms were harsh for people who had supported GM by loaning or investing their money, and not-so-harsh for labor unions and GM retirees (who can vote).

The new GM repaid government loans ahead of schedule – after shuffling around some bailout monies. But it all still cost the taxpayer at least $10 billion in the end (Treasury direct losses on GM stock as they re-privatized the company).

I would argue that the intangible costs go beyond $10 billion. GM bailout advocates like to emphasize the many jobs “saved”. But if the government had stayed out (doing nothing), the jobs would exist – at more efficient companies. GM’s productive assets would have been re-organized in bankruptcy anyway; probably taken over by startup companies or other competitors who are more efficient.

So, cars would still be manufactured in America – on better terms for the consumer. It’s a general principle that doing it the government-backed way is cronyism and always rewards incompetence on some level (at the expense of consumers, investors & taxpayers). There is no reason to consider GM an exception.

Which brings us to GM’s scandal with faulty ignition switches, which have caused at least 13 deaths.

The problem goes back for years. GM, which became a famously bureaucratic company under decades of Big Government backing, has been slow to react:

GM first learned of a problem with its ignition switches on Chevrolet Cobalts, Saturn Ions and other models in 2001, documents have shown, but took no steps to recall any cars until this past February.

Lawmakers are investigating why GM and regulators missed or ignored numerous red flags that faulty ignition switches could unexpectedly turn off engines during operation and leave airbags, power steering and power brakes inoperable.

The unflappable [GM CEO] Barra…announced that GM had retained Kenneth Feinberg, who recently oversaw the BP oil spill fund, as a consultant…

The drama inside the packed hearing room – named the “John D. Dingell” room after the Michigan Democrat with a long history of advocating for GM – was heightened by photos of victims, which were displayed against one of the walls.

Your crony capitalism/ Venture Socialism at work, folks.

By the way:

  • Did those famous Government Regulators help the problem? No, although they have plenty of excuses. (Prediction: the Left will surely claim that the solution is…more regulators.)
  • Did CEO Barra just tell Congress the truth, when she claimed to have only learned about the ignition switch problem recently (Jan 31)? No again.
  • Did GM commit fraud, when it didn’t reveal the problem *during its bankruptcy* proceedings? Was escaping liability one of the motives for doing the 2009 bankruptcy? Perhaps, yes.

Which is why the new, refreshed, taxpayer-revived GM now faces multiple criminal probes.

Is government dependency like slavery?

Clearly, a life of dependency on the government is not literal slavery – but is the metaphor / comparison valid? I’ll state my view (which is basically “no”), and people can disagree (or whatever) in the comments.

The essence of slavery is lack of self-ownership. You’re someone else’s property in a direct way, where they tell you what to do, seize all the products of your labor, and violate your body (or worse) at their option.

Excepting criminals (people deprived of rights under due process and for heinous acts), I think that if the government can either conscript your labor, or seize more than half of the product (the wealth/income) of your labor – and jail you or worse, if you don’t comply to the government’s satisfaction – then metaphors/comparisons of slavery begin to apply. Because the conditions for slavery have been met in part, even if the government gives you “freeman” status and a lot of lifestyle choices.

One of the lifestyle choices that you face, as a non-slave, is the extent to which you live off of government-provided benefits – in other words, the extent & duration of your being a government dependent. I don’t think that government dependents can be compared to slaves. Because, while the dependent may indeed be lulled into a lifestyle which is passive, limited and degraded, they still keep the right/option to change and become less dependent.

Thus, comparisons to slavery may be valid when speaking of government mandates on people, oppressive levels of taxation, and denials of rights (e.g., right of free speech). That is why we speak of Communist nations as “slave nations” and so forth.

But it’s not valid to compare voluntary government dependency to being a slave. If anything, the person who lives a lifetime of voluntary dependency on the government is closer to being a slave-master; someone who (partly, or metaphorically) uses other people as slaves.

And that would be another reason that I find fault with Cliven Bundy’s recent remarks. (While defending, of course, his right to make them – and the pro-liberty movement in general.)

To suggest that government dependents are like slaves is to suggest that their dependency isn’t voluntary. In other words, it’s to suggest that government dependents somehow didn’t choose their situation. And if you really believe that, then you deny their natural human power of choice; you believe implicitly that they are sub-human, or the moral equivalent of children. And I don’t believe that.

The people who are partly like slaves are not the government dependents, but rather, the productive working people whom the government forces to pay for its dependents.

Thought for the day

We live in a world where the central bank (Fed) *rigs interest rates low, in order to rig debt levels and asset prices high* as they can possibly go.

I know it’s abstract and I comment on it ad nauseum, but I’m not sure it can be over-stressed. It has lots of bad effects.

  • You think homes are unaffordable, compared to (say) 20-40 years ago? Guess why home prices aren’t a good deal lower. (There are many reasons – but try guessing the biggest.)
  • Feel hopeless about your ever retiring? Take a guess why retirement income is hard to come by.
  • Feel like you struggle to make ends meet every month, while wealthy people (having lots of financial assets) keep doing better and better? One more guess why.
  • Feel like new, good jobs are impossible to come by? The Obama administration (including Obamacare) is a big drag, there. But the Fed doesn’t exactly help.
  • Feel like the stock market is a crazy bubble again? Feel like we learned nothing from the 2008 crisis, and our economy is still much too ‘financialized’ and debt-ridden? Again, many causes – but one guess as to the top cause…

Interest rates are the most important price in the economy. They should be set by the People in free markets. I see no reason to have a Politburo which plans them – and plans them badly, in ways that injure society.

This Is What Desperation Looks Like

Ezra Klein — who is at least a Level Six Operating Thetan in the Cult of Obamatology — desperately spins the hopeless disaster of Kathleen Sebelius Reign as Commissar of the Department of Hell and Inhuman Servitude.

Obamacare has won. And that’s why Secretary of Health and Human Services Kathleen Sebelius can resign.

Sebelius is such a colossal FAIL she couldn’t even make it through her own resignation speech without a glitch, but Ezra Klein and the rest of the glassy-eyed cultists refuse to see the failure.

Ezra Klein and the rest of them were so convinced that Obama really was the Lightbringer, the Socialist Ronald Reagan who was so brilliant, and so deft that Big Government would finally work. Socialism would finally work because finally “the right people” were in charge of it.  But it hasn’t. Massive Government in the economy has brought nothing but stagnation, cronyism, and death. The Obama Foreign Policy is a complete shambles. Michelle Obama’s school lunch program has resulted in school lunches even more vile and unpalatable than they were before. And Obamacare has turned out to be nothing but another bloated, inefficient Government program noted for spending tons of money and making lives worse for its victims.

But the True Believers can’t bring themselves to admit this. Admitting that Obama’s Policies have failed means admitting that Progressive Socialism has failed. Worse, it would mean admitting that Obama’s critics (blasphemers!) were right all along. And that is too devastating a blow for the leftist ego to contemplate. (Caribou Barbie was right and the Clean Articulate Unprecdented Black Man from Harvard was wrong? Inconceivable!)

The Progressive Mind cannot process the possibility that their Religion (Progressive Socialism) and their Prophet (Barack Obama) have failed. They must convince themselves that the prophecy must have been… misread, somehow. The flaw cannot be in Progressive Socialism, but in the failure of the people to live up to its tenets.

Update: I found this quote in an Ed Driscoll post about David Letterman:

“The laments of the small-town leftists get voiced with such intemperance and desperation. As if those who voice them are fighting off the nagging thought: If the Republicans aren’t particularly evil, then maybe I’m not particularly special.”

Today’s sadly-ironic headline

Posted by Jeff (ILoveCapitalism) at 5:10 pm - April 9, 2014.
Filed under: Big Government Follies,Crony Capitalism Consequences

HP pays $108 million to settle foreign bribery probes:

WARSAW/WASHINGTON (Reuters) – Hewlett-Packard agreed to pay $108 million to resolve wide-ranging U.S. government investigations into whether some of its foreign units bribed government officials to obtain lucrative contracts, U.S. officials said on Wednesday.

HP’s Russia subsidiary pleaded guilty…Polish and Mexican units of the computing giant also resolved U.S. criminal charges related to contracts they had won in those countries…

Get it?

  1. Foreign companies (owned by HP) paid fees that foreign officials demanded of them. Everyone called these fees “bribes” in order to displace the guilt, that is, to hide the extortion aspect.
  2. U.S. officials were jealous so they, in turn, demanded and got $108 million from HP. Everyone called these fees “settling criminal charges under the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act”, again in order to displace the guilt, that is, to hide the bottom-line extortion aspect.

Pro-business or pro-market?

Jonah Goldberg makes a great distinction:

…the difference between being pro-business and pro-market is categorical. A politician who is a “friend of business” is exactly that, a guy who does favors for his friends. A politician who is pro-market is a referee who will refuse to help protect his friends (or anyone else) from competition unless the competitors have broken the rules. The friend of business supports industry-specific or even business-specific loans, grants, tariffs, or tax breaks. The pro-market referee opposes special treatment for anyone.

Goldberg’s point is that the GOP must make up its mind about which one it is. Pro-business is crony capitalism, venture socialism and Big Government as we know it today. Pro-market is more the Tea Party putting real checks on Washington. Goldberg describes the GOP’s dilemma in more detail; RTWT.

To make my view clear: I am not pro-business, I am absolutely pro-market. The mentality that the economy would boom (and America would be great again) if only we could vote in smart people to tinker with the economy in good ways – if only the Republicans had power to do better Washington-y things than the Democrats do – that mentality is part of what has gotten America into a hole.

The truth is, nothing that government does to rig interfere with markets and business outcomes is ever much good. It never turns out anything as well as the politicians said it would, and never as well as what markets – that is, free people – could do, if left to their own devices.

Recovery for the One Percent

To continue my series on this, I’ve been accumulating chart links. There are so many, especially on Zero Hedge which has great coverage. I’ll make some introductory remarks, then show the charts.

As a capitalist, I have no objection to the good inequality that investors, employers and consumers award by their actions in the marketplace. The problem is inequality awarded by force or fraud. That includes crime of course; but the systemic problems in our economy today arise, sooner or later, from *government force* and fraud. Under President Obama – and our nut-job economic planners at the Federal Reserve – we have more government intervention than ever. We also have more inequality. It can’t be a coincidence.

I believe that Obama likes it on some level, because the more inequality there is, the more he can offer (still more) government intervention as the alleged “solution”. While our problems did not start with Obama, he has exploited and worsened them because inequality of power – taking ever-greater amounts of power away from the People, giving ever-more power to the Party/bureaucrats/government – is the deep tendency of the State, and as well, the deep goal of the Left.

I could talk about the explosion of welfare dependency under Obama, which rapes the “working poor” (among others) for the sake of the “lazy poor”. But my focus today is on the rape of the middle class for the so-called “One Percent”, the wealthier people who gain from our government-planned economy and government-rigged markets.

The charts show that under Obama, U.S. income inequality has increased and may be the biggest it’s ever been.

Under Obama, U.S. income inequality is the greatest it's ever been

More charts: (more…)

And This Is Why I Call Them Dramacrats

Failed VP Candidate and Emphatic Amnesty Supporter Congressman Paul Ryan released a budget blueprint today that contains some very modest entitlement reforms and mild reductions in the rate of spending growth. Not nearly enough to deal with the unsustainable spending and expansion of the Federal behemoth. Seriously, it’s like decreasing the speed of the Titanic by half a knot, or a couple with massive credit card debt and an underwater mortgage deciding to buy a Lexus instead of a Bentley.

The Democrats responded to this budget proposal the way Lindsay Lohan responds to the phrase, “Ma’am, you’ve had enough, and I think someone should take you home.”

“This reckless Republican budget casts a dark shadow over the American Dream. By gutting vital investments in our future, it is a direct attack on job creation and a recipe for our nation’s economic decline.”

Earthquakes, volcanoes, the dead rising from the grave! Human sacrifice, dogs and cats living together… mass hysteria! The Senate Majority Leader rambled incoherently about the budget creating something called a “Kochtopia.”

And, everyone knows how this Kabuki play ends. Both sides agree to spend more, and both walk away pretending they aren’t totally satisfied with the outcome.

Speaking of Drama Queens, the Diva-in-Chief of the Dramacrat Party accused people opposed to the Obamacare debacle of being “mad about the idea of folks having health insurance?

It is beyond sad that 51% of the electorate is stupid enough to believe this garbage.

Update: Oh, and a Democrat Representative in Missouri called a Republican a Nazi for introducing a bill that would let employees opt out of Union dues.

And suddenly, HFT

I never knew that Casey Kasem was the voice of Shaggy. But I digress.

CBS recently did a good piece on High Frequency Trading (HFT), a means by which well-connected computers churn the stock markets and skim the cream. 15 minutes, here it is:

But a few things are odd about HFT as a story, or at least noteworthy.

First: the curious absence of government involvement. HFT has been going on for years (Zero Hedge started blogging it in 2009). Where have the vaunted government regulators been, all this time? Answer: Nowhere (until right now, as we’ll discuss in a minute).

The CBS piece praises Brad Katsuyama, a trader who figured out years ago how HFT works and founded a new exchange, IEX, to try to defeat HFT. That’s a great example of private enterprise being ahead of the regulators.

In fact, private enterprise has run circles around the regulators; first by creating HFT, then by being years ahead of government in working to defeat HFT. Could it be that government regulation isn’t effective? (cough)

The mainstream media’s absence from the HFT story until now (2014) is also striking. And that brings us to the second oddity: the timing of the CBS story. As if by magic, within days of its airing, we have also had announcements that the FBI will finally probe HFT. And that Goldman-Sachs will back IEX, the new HFT-free exchange. (Update: And the pr0n-watching SEC finally, also, investigating.)

I’m old enough to recognize a co-ordinated campaign. Granting that HFT is a real story, I still must speculate that the reason why HFT is suddenly on our collective lips, under investigation, etc., is because somebody powerful finds it convenient, at this time. (Where in the previous five years, they didn’t find it convenient.)

Who is that somebody? I don’t know. I did just note that Goldman-Sachs is rolling with the punches, at least. Over at Zero Hedge, they speculate that HFT is now being set up as the scapegoat for a coming stock market bubble-crash. The Federal Reserve is (by its QE, ZIRP and many other policies) the biggest market-rigger of all. The Fed has engineered the stock market bubble of the last five years. And, when that bubble bursts eventually, the Fed will want us all to blame something or someone else.

UPDATE: On CNBC, Katsuyama and a (truly obnoxious) pro-HFT guy get down-n-dirty. Good times.

It’s hard to blog about Obamacare

It’s hard because there are so many items to choose from, weekly. And they’re mostly both technical and depressing (not fun to read). Obamacare is a mess of unbelievable proportions. Even now, I have 40+ related items open in browser tabs, that I had meant to get to sometime.

But here goes; I’ll try to hit a few highlights. First, President Obama’s top three Obamacare promises in 74 seconds, all lies:



The House GOP want to bless Obama’s delay of his “individual mandate” (that immorally forces people to buy insurance). Yet Obama means to resist them.

Last month, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) found that Obamacare will weaken the economy. Along with other Obama policies, it effectively raises marginal tax rates, giving people less incentive to work. “…the CBO…reported that by 2024 the equivalent of 2.5 million Americans who were otherwise willing and able to work before ObamaCare will work less or not at all as a result of ObamaCare.” Labor unions agree that Obamacare will slam wages and work hours.

Even Dana Milbank (liberal at the Washington Post) agrees that young people are rejecting both Obamacare, and Obama. “The administration announced last week that only 1.08 million people ages 18 to 34 had signed up for Obamacare by the end of February…If the proportion doesn’t improve significantly, the result likely will be fatal for the Affordable Care Act.”

Robert Tracinski asks, What was the point of Obamacare? Because it’s not insuring the uninsured; many of them are finding Obamacare unaffordable (!) and not signing up. The Washington Post agrees.

Along those lines, Catherine Austin Fitts observes, “I don’t see Obamacare as something designed to offer healthcare…It was designed to create a framework that would allow three things. One…to use digital technology to radically reduce labor costs…Second…you wanted, as the baby boomers were aging, to…dramatically reduce the healthcare services available to them…Third…to use healthcare to really control the population…an effort to centralize power.” – Austin Fitts sees government bureaucrats as profoundly competent, once you know their real plan. What they achieve in practice (which may be bad) was very likely their real plan, as opposed to what they told the public.

Bonus article: The Greeks are finding that socialized medicine doesn’t work, once you get older and need more of it.

UPDATE: Obamacare raises family insurance costs MORE than the previous eight years, combined. Just like Obama adding more to the national debt than the previous 8 Presidents combined, I guess.

HHS Bureaucracy Completely Dysfunctional Says Former HHS Bureaucrat

Posted by V the K at 12:09 pm - March 14, 2014.
Filed under: Big Government Follies

Progressive leftists tell us that letting the Government run things optimizes efficiency because Government doesn’t have to worry about profits, and can therefore focus on providing the most efficient and effective services to people.

A former bureaucrat at the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) tells us that this is total [link to accurate visual metaphor]. From the (popup-riddled) Daily Caller:

In a resignation letter obtained by ScienceInsider, David Wright, director of the Office of Research Integrity (ORI) — which oversees and monitors possible research misconduct — offers a scathing rebuke of the unwieldy and inefficient bureaucracy that he dealt with for the two years he served in the position.

According to Wright, activities that in his capacity as an academic administrator that took a day or two, took weeks and months in the federal government.

He recalled an instance in which he could not get approval for a $35 cost to have cassette tapes converted into CDs. He eventually was able to get them converted in 20 minutes for free by a university. And another instance in which he “urgently needed to fill a vacancy,” but was told there was secret priority list. Sixteen months later, he wrote, the position was still unfilled.

He also recounts an occasion on which the HHS bureaucracy once evaluated the efficiency of its practices; and the results were so bad they decided to do what any business would do; retool its processes to make them more efficient and get rid of the dead weight.

No, just kidding, they buried the report and vowed never to do it again.

“On another occasion I asked your deputy why you didn’t conduct an evaluation by the Op-Divs of the immediate office administrative services to try to improve them,” he wrote. ”She responded that that had been tried a few years ago and the results were so negative that no further evaluations have been conducted.”

HHS is the agency progressive leftists think should be responsible for everybody’s health care.

No wonder they think Obamacare is a rousing success.

Obama’s daily lawlessness

On Wednesday, V noted how President Obama set aside his own Obamacare law and decreed a delay to the “individual mandate”. (The mandate that he previously told the Supreme Court was an absolutely essential part of Obamacare.)

Thursday’s example was Obama’s plan to decree overtime pay for some 10 million who had willingly been working without it, because they are salaried employees.

It’s not a good thing. First of all, anytime the government mandates pay increases, it costs real people their jobs. While some people might get more pay, others’ pay goes to part-time, or to zero. When Obama proposed his minimum wage hike last month, even the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) agreed that it would cost 500,000 jobs.

But the deeper problem is that, in Barack H. Obama, we have a President who increasingly abandons constitutional, legislative and democratic processes. Throughout his administration, in issue after issue, he has declared that the rules are now different because he says so. Whether it’s ripping off honest GM bondholders, Fast and Furious, hiding information about corrupt federal prosecutors, Obamacare or countless other issues, you never can tell when this President will suddenly decide on different rules.

With this overtime change, there is serious debate about whether the President has the legal authority to do it. Some say he doesn’t; some say he does. But that means his move is dubious. And however that might be – and I say, even worse – Obama’s move makes the government interfere, once again, in arrangements that freely consenting adults had agreed on. (Liberals may want government out of the bedroom, but boy, do they want government in everything, everyone and everywhere else.)

This is one more, little thread in the tapestry of America’s decline: we have become a nation ruled by “men, not laws.” And if you think that arbitrary government doesn’t make for an atmosphere of fear and uncertainty that stifles the economy, think again.

UPDATE: Allahpundit has video, as he puts it, of Obama “in 2008 promising to roll back Bush’s executive overreach because he was a law professor and knew the Constitution ‘n stuff.”.

Rep. Trey Gowdy gives an appropriate response.

Obama, not fixing his Debt Bomb

Last week, President Obama released his new budget proposal, which in February he said would be the end of austerity. First let’s ask, what is meant by “austerity”? As a policy, was it ever tried?

As discussed by myself and others, “austerity” means tax hikes (not spending cuts) in practice. Lefties hurl the word “austerity” to demonize the idea of spending cuts. But few of the countries which left-liberals accused of cruel austerity in the last few years cut their overall government spending levels; the majority continued to increase spending. So spending cuts can’t explain those countries’ poor economic results. What can? Well, most of them raised taxes.

Clearly, we should end (or reverse) the tax hikes. That would be a great “end of austerity”. But Obama’s meaning is that we should undertake spending increases; which, for reasons touched on below, probably mean deficit increases.

Before going into Obama’s proposal, let’s review the current state of the U.S. budget. (more…)

Why Do We Need Politicians to Oppose Bigotry?

Posted by V the K at 9:34 am - March 3, 2014.
Filed under: Big Government Follies

A legitimate question:

So why do many people assume that the only remedy for anything bad—including bads that involve no physical force—is state action, which always entails the threat of violence? Are we really so powerless to deal with repulsive but nonviolent conduct unless politicians act on our behalf?

Why should we give up our power and freedom to the State in order to deal with a few isolated cases of “people doing things we don’t agree with?”

I’ll give you an answer: Because leftists get off on using state power to punish people they don’t like.

Sochi-lism

They had years to plan, and billions of dollars to spend. They knew when the project had to be finished and how many prople were counting on everything being ready for them. Instead, they delivered a typical effed up socialist debacle. Nothing works properly, and Twitter is filled with stories of the nightmarish ordeals people are going through. Yet, the regime keeps insisting that everything is great, and instead of addressing the problems, attacks critics as anti-patriotic malcontents. They claimed they had embraced capitalism, but this botched project just shows that they are still socialists, and produce typical socialist results.

But enough about Obamacare, how about those Sochi hotel accommodations?

Also, Mr. Vice President Biden was off complaining about how NYC’s LaGuardia looks all shabby and third worldy. You mean it smells bad, the government is hopelessly corrupt, and there’s an appalling gap between the wealthy elite and the poor masses? Have you never been to New York City, Mr Biden? Anyway, didn’t you guys spend very close to a Trillion dollars on “Stimulus” spending your first term? Why the heck didn’t you fix the airport then instead of shelling out half a bil to Solyndra to build defective solar panels with whistling robots?