The Things Liberals “Know” That Aren’t Necessarily So

The Blue Assumptions

Among those blue-state voters who do put some effort into their politics, I find there are four mistaken assumptions about government that guide their thinking. Government is an exercise of authority, so it’s wise to have a clear understanding of the nature of authority before voting to expand government.The first, and perhaps most dangerous, assumption is that authority confers virtue. This seems to have become rooted in the American psyche after the exhilaration of victory in World War II, and the perceived success of the New Deal. Many people automatically assume liberal politicians are selfless servants of the people, who only want what is best for everyone. The media actively cultivates this mindset through its worship of bold Big Government initiatives, and the heroic statesmen who make them possible. If solving the problems of society is a noble endeavor, and the only solutions are titanic government programs, then the proponents of such programs must be noble!

And remember tow other things as well. Just because something is desirable doesn’t meant it is possible; and because things are possible doesn’t mean they are desirable.

“Progress” may take you places you don’t want to go.

It Must Be the Air.

When David Brooks started writing in the NYT I thought he was, not a conservative, but someone slightly right of center. After reading his latest I am starting to think that there is some time of mind altering substance in the atmosphere at the newspaper.

His latest on Barack Obama;

Op-Ed Columnist – The Pragmatic Leviathan – NYTimes.com

A year ago, the country rallied behind a new president who promised to end the pendulumlike swings, who seemed likely to restore equilibrium with his moderate temper and pragmatic mind.

In many ways, Barack Obama has lived up to his promise. He has created a thoughtful, pragmatic administration marked by a culture of honest and vigorous debate. When Obama makes a decision, you can be sure that he has heard and accounted for every opposing argument.

But just a paragraph later;

Americans, with their deep, vestigial sense of proportion, have reacted. The crucial movement came between April and June, when the president’s approval rating among independents fell by 15 percentage points and the percentage of independents who regarded him as liberal or very liberal rose by 18 points. Since then, the public has rejected any effort to centralize authority or increase the role of government.

Trust in government has fallen. The share of Americans who say the country is on the wrong track has risen. The share who call themselves conservative has risen. The share who believe government is “doing too many things better left to business” has risen.

The country is now split on Obama, because he is temperate, thoughtful and pragmatic, but his policies are almost all unpopular. If you aggregate the last seven polls on health care reform, 41 percent support it and 51 percent oppose.

So, Americans are rejecting his policies because he is “temperate, thoughtful and pragmatic”? The actions of his Cabinet members and his surrogates are marked by a culture of honest and vigorous debate?

Is that why all the Republican amendments to the Healthcare bill are voted down on Party line votes if they get any vote at all? Are the backroom deals and blatant payoffs of supporters considered honest? Is his idea that “bipartisanship” means allowing your opponents to slavishly support your legislation, otherwise they are “obstructing”?

I think that Brooks would be wise to skip the luncheons with the editorial staff and other columnists. They have slipped something in his salad.

Oh, Gimme a Break – This Has To Be The Lamest Excuse To Date.

Budget director blames old computers for ineffective government – The Hill’s Hillicon Valley

A big reason why the government is inefficient and ineffective is because Washington has outdated technology, with federal workers having better computers at home than in the office.This startling admission came Thursday from Peter Orszag, who manages the federal bureaucracy for President Barack Obama.

The public is getting a bad return on its tax dollars because government workers are operating with outdated technologies, Orszag said in a statement that kicked off a summit between Obama and dozens of corporate CEOs.

The CEOs would have burst out laughing but for the danger that Obama would decide that they are enemies of the state.

Outdated computers? Every time the government tries to update their computers it turns into a free-for-all of corruption and moving goalposts. It was true at the IRS, true at the FBI and it will be true of any new attempt.

First of all millions of dollars will be spent by lobbyists trying to get the contract. The choice will depend on who has the best connections, not technical expertise. Secondly the bureaucrats won’t be able to make up their minds about what they want it to do. And if they do decide one week, they will change their minds the next.

Sounds like not only a pathetic excuse, but laying to groundwork for another wasteful porker of a bill.

The Perfect Is The Enemy Of The Good

Justice Dept. Scuttles ‘Kindles on Campus’ Test Because Blind Students Can’t Use Them

Washington (AP) – Three universities testing Amazon’s Kindle in the classroom have agreed to shelve the electronic book readers until they are fully functional for blind students, under a deal struck Wednesday with the Justice Department.

In other news, the Obama Administration. requested that Congress send him a bill requiring citizens not to exhale to prevent CO2 from leading to more Global Warming. He requested exemptions for critical personnel including Union members, Democrat Party donors and members as well as government officials and workers. The bill is expected to create a new agency to be charged with enforcing the ban.

You Knew This Was Coming. Didn’t You?

CNSNews.com – Charges Against Gitmo Terror Suspect Should Be Thrown Out, Lawyer Argues

New York (AP) – A lawyer asked a judge Monday to toss out charges against the first Guantanamo Bay detainee to be brought to civilian courts, saying he was tortured for 14 hours over five days and denied trial for nearly five years.

Attorney Peter Enrique Quijano told U.S. District Judge Lewis Kaplan that Ahmed Khalfan Ghailani’s right to a speedy trial was violated when he was sent after his July 2004 arrest to a secret CIA-run interrogation camp abroad rather than to the U.S. for a civilian trial.

Dem Adopt Saddam’s Strategy In Massachusetts Race.

Desperate Dems try to Palinize Massachusetts Senate race | Washington Examiner

Early Monday afternoon, Sevugan sent out an email to reporters featuring a link to a story on the lefty website TPM. The headline: “Is Sarah Palin Avoiding Mass Senate Race?” The story quoted a Democratic strategist saying that “it’s interesting” that Palin is “nowhere to be found in this race.” TPM conceded that GOP sources say there has been “no talk” about Palin visiting Massachusetts. But that didn’t stop Sevugan, who is quoted declaring that Palin’s supporters “are anxious for her to weigh in.” At the top of his email to journalists, Sevugan wrote, “Come on, Sarah, why are you being so shy?”

During the 1999 Gulf War, Saddam Hussein shot Scud missiles into Israel hoping to draw them into the war and break the Coalition.

It appears that Democrats in race for the Senate seat in Massachusetts, or at least the muscle that was sent from Party Headquarters, is. Hari Sevugan, was sent from the DNC to keep the seat formerly occupied by Ted Kennedy in the family and the voters on the plantation.

His first act is to send out e-mails trying to draw Sarah Palin into the race between Democrat Martha Coakley and Republican Scott Brown.

The theory is that if they can get Palin to take part in the campaigning that they can tie Brown into the negative campaign they have been running against Palin and bring out the Democrat vote.

If Palin and the Mass Republicans aren’t the idiots that the DNC takes them for, it could backfire. A comparison with Saddam’s “Scud Strategy” might not sit well with Independent voters, who are the majority in the state..

The Only Surprise Here Is That The AP Analyzed And Reported It.

STIMULUS WATCH: Unemployment unchanged by projects – Yahoo! News

WASHINGTON – A federal spending surge of more than $20 billion for roads and bridges in President Barack Obama’s first stimulus has had no effect on local unemployment rates, raising questions about his argument for billions more to address an “urgent need to accelerate job growth.”

“Clueless” Describes Our Entire Intelligence Apparatus.

RealClearPolitics – Video – Napolitano Most Surprised By “Determination Of al-Qaeda”

Question: What was the most shocking, stunning thing that you found out of the review? And, Secretary, to you, as well.SECRETARY NAPOLITANO: I think, following up on that, not just the determination of al Qaeda and al Qaeda Arabian Peninsula, but the tactic of using an individual to foment an attack, as opposed to a large conspiracy or a multi-person conspiracy such as we saw in 9/11, that is something that affects intelligence.

You mean that the tactic of the “suicide bomber” surprised them?

I guess that’s not too surpising when you consider that our inteeligence agencies were taken by surprise by the the Iranian Revolution, the collapse of the Soviet Union, the rise of Hugo Chavez, pretty much anything the North Koreans do, the first WTC bombing, the embassy bombings, the USS Cole, Khobar Towers, 9/11, the lack of WMD in Iraq, the Iraqi resistance,…..pretty much any important development in the world in the past 50 years.

So, they didn’t see this coming? It probably would have been more surprising if they had.

Glad To See That Some Economists Agree With Me.

Why Government Spending Does Not Stimulate Economic Growth: Answering the Critics

Why Government Spending Does Not End Recessions

Moving forward, the important question is why government spending fails to end recessions. Spending-stimulus advocates claim that Congress can “inject” new money into the economy, increasing demand and therefore production. This raises the obvious question: From where does the government acquire the money it pumps into the economy? Congress does not have a vault of money waiting to be distributed. Every dollar Congress injects into the economy must first be taxed or borrowed out of the economy. No new spending power is created. It is merely redistributed from one group of people to another.[7]

Congress cannot create new purchasing power out of thin air. If it funds new spending with taxes, it is simply redistributing existing purchasing power (while decreasing incentives to produce income and output). If Congress instead borrows the money from domestic investors, those investors will have that much less to invest or to spend in the private economy. If they borrow the money from foreigners, the balance of payments will adjust by equally raising net imports, leaving total demand and output unchanged. Every dollar Congress spends must first come from somewhere else.

For example, many lawmakers claim that every $1 billion in highway stimulus can create 47,576 new construction jobs. But Congress must first borrow that $1 billion from the private economy, which will then lose at least as many jobs.[8] Highway spending simply transfers jobs and income from one part of the economy to another. As Heritage Foundation economist Ronald Utt has explained, “The only way that $1 billion of new highway spending can create 47,576 new jobs is if the $1 billion appears out of nowhere as if it were manna from heaven.”[9] This statement has been confirmed by the Department of Transportation[10] and the General Accounting Office (since renamed the Government Accountability Office),[11] yet lawmakers continue to base policy on this economic fallacy.

Removing water from one end of a swimming pool and pouring it in the other end will not raise the overall water level. Similarly, taking dollars from one part of the economy and distributing it to another part of the economy will not expand the economy.

This is basically what I have been harping on since the recession began.

I initially agreed with the first bailout, the one that was supposed to be used to buy “toxic assets” and keep the financial system running. I was OK with some corporations folding, but thought that while the economy can recover from the bankruptcy of normal companies it would be much harder for it to recover with the collapse of the financial system.

Unfortunately the Fed and Treasury changed their minds as soon as they got the funding, and the Congress was so panicked that they were ready to rubber-stamp anything that was put in front of them. It was basically the Tonkin Gulf Resolution all over again. Congress, whichever party controls it, is basically stupid and easily frightened. They’re first instinct is to “do something” and their second is to find a way to blame it all on the opposite party.

This Cannot Continue.

Hot Air » Chart of the Day



bi-mfgvsgovt.jpg




If you read my posting about the relationship between the Public and Private sector you should be able to see right away why this cannot continue.In fact, if you have any Common Sense you should be able to see why this is unsustainable even if you have not read my posting.

You cannot pick a bucket up by the handle if you are standing in it, and you cannot sustain a government where there are more bureaucrats than there are producers.

We can’t keep borrowing or printing money, and with the Public sector being larger than the Private sector we cannot generate enough tax revenue to support the bureaucracy, especially if you throw in all the people who are getting subsidies from the government.

You would think this would be obvious, but I guess it’s not.