Archive for the ‘Ayn Rand Spins’ Category

Protest Fail

Wednesday, May 6th, 2009

One ringleader babbling away about “command hierarchy” and “consensus”…but it doesn’t seem to me anyone else believes in such things. And that includes the people on his side of the conflict. He’s herdin’ cats.

Just like the “real leaders” with such strangely simplistic notions of consensus-building. In many ways. Like, end results, how well it’s thought-out, how well it’s coordinated…how funny it looks (when there’s nothing really important at stake).

Well — I’m off to get myself a glass of Corporate Water and get ready for bed. Night, all.

Uncomfortable Revelations About Cap and Trade

Sunday, May 3rd, 2009

Woe be unto us, when we call skepticism gullibility, and gullibility skepticism

Sen. Jeff Bingaman (D-N.M.), chairman of the Energy and Natural Resources Committee, told CNSNews.com that to attain that reduction, it is “likely true” that energy costs for Americans will go up.

“I think the system is designed to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and I think that it is likely true that, in order to put in place an effective reduction in greenhouse gas emissions, you’re going to see higher costs for energy going forward,” Bingaman told CNSNews.com.

“That’s not because of the design of the system, that’s just the reality that utilities [utility companies] will be making decisions which will require additional investment – and we’re trying to encourage them to make those decisions,” he said.

:
Bingaman, however, said it is not yet “clear” what the government is going to do with the revenue made from auctioning carbon permits.

“Well, I don’t think it’s clear what – I think that’s one of the parts of the debate that we need to have – is what happens to any revenue that is generated from the auctioning off of allowances – and I think there are various proposals that call for different ways to distribute that wealth,” he said.

When asked if he had an idea about how the revenue should be distributed, Bingaman said, “Well, I think there’s a general consensus we ought to return as much of it as possible to rate payers, but beyond that I don’t think there’s any specifics agreed upon.”

We pay an artificially high price for something that doesn’t really need to cost that much.

The surplus money we pay disappears into the rat-hole we call the federal government.

The feds then “give it back” by plying it upon whoever they please, a fortunate constituency group some shyster has decided to caption with the wonderful euphemism of “the poor.”

When there aren’t “any specifics agreed upon,” one would hope the few details thus far agreed-upon would be the core functions, those which would yield the most obvious benefit. But those functions are limited to: Energy costs more just because someone wants it to cost more, more money goes to the feds to distribute as they see fit, and…that’s it.

Hmmm.

Update: If I was a real mover-and-shaker in the Republican party, my “alternative plan” would be a donation barrel. I’d be out there sayin’ “The proceeds from my fund go to exactly the same place as Chairman Bingaman’s cap-and-trade fund…just as soon as he figures out where that is, anyway. The difference is, my fund is strictly opt-in. You send a check to the Treasury, if you think you can afford to, and designate that it’s going to go into my fund because you think climate change is an important issue. My fund operates on your good judgment. His operates on coercion and force.”

Just take every single issue that comes up, that way. Define the split that way, all the way down the line. Make the democrat-party come out and say: Our defining premise is that we have to force people to do things, and they can’t decide them for themselves.

Update: Forgive my current state of scatterbrainedness, but the risibility of Bingaman’s comments has left me shell-shocked. It’s as if a hand reached out of the laptop screen and smacked me straight across the face.

Two further thoughts…

…first, this is where a true moderate would cry foul. He’d say “Well, being a moderate, naturally I’m very concerned about the environment & globular-wormening & all that stuff…but…by your own admission, Chairman Bingaman, you don’t really have any ideas about this yet, you just want to take our money away through our power bills and other everyday energy-related expenses. So — why don’t you come back when you’ve decided on some useful things, other than how to relieve us of our money. I’ll be here, ready to hear out your ideas. When you have them.”

Secondly: In the last four or five years, I’ve seen two movie characters Bingaman and his cronies have managed to replicate in reality, perfectly. Frito is a rather ordinary fellow who lives in the futureworld in Idiocracy — which means Frito is abysmally stupid. Idiocracy, which should be required viewing for high school graduation and voting, postulates that now that all of man’s natural predators have been eliminated, the human genome is in an evolutionary condition that makes it stupider as time goes on. The protagonist is then placed in suspended animation for five centuries and wakes up surrounded by people like Frito. It is amazing, all the things they can’t do.

Frito’s favorite line, which he delivers as if he’s trying to start a dialogue about really deep philosophical concepts, is “I like money.” But he isn’t being deep, of course. He just likes money.

The other character was Mr. Krabs from The Spongebob Squarepants Movie. Slightly different story…same tagline. He’s Spongebob’s boss, and, you know, he likes money. Says so a lot. Cluelessly, as if people are supposed to point at him and say “Oh my goodness, how unique! That sea creature over there likes money!”

I don’t understand how people put up with this but I do know what it reveals: Bingaman’s party is the Frito-Krabs party. It wants all this back-patting and congratulations for saving the planet…when all it’s really figured out about anything, is that it just plain likes money.

Meanwhile, the rest of us are “greedy” simply because we want to hang on to ours.

Republicans are facing a stiff challenge in the years ahead? Really? Competing with these guys?

Cross-posted at Right Wing News.

His Most Spectacular Achievement

Monday, April 27th, 2009

…in His first one hundred days.

Sales of this book have been going through the roof. It’s a little bit of an old and moldy story — seven weeks — but an accomplishment is an accomplishment.

Reviled in some circles and mocked in others, Rand’s 1957 novel of embattled capitalism is a favourite of libertarians and college students. Lately, though, its appeal has been growing. According to data from TitleZ, a firm that tracks bestseller rankings on Amazon, an online retailer, the book’s 30-day average Amazon rank was 127 on February 21st, well above its average over the past two years of 542. On January 13th the book’s ranking was 33, briefly besting President Barack Obama’s popular tome, “The Audacity of Hope.”

He is our very first hip President.

That, and seventy-three cents, might get you a glazed doughnut.

Should President Palin Bring the Obama Administration Up on Charges?

Friday, April 24th, 2009

AOL News editor is having some fun…or not.

OBAMA ADMINISTRATION OFFICIALS TO FACE PROSECUTION
:
At the White House, Press Secretary Adam Brickley said that President Sarah Palin stands firmly behind the decision. “It’s not as if we relish the thought of prosecuting members of the previous administration,” Brickley said, “but, at this point, there is a clearly established precedent – set in place by the Obama Administration themselves – which says that government officials must be held accountable if they contributed in any way to major breaches of the law. In this case, the individuals under investigation do appear to have purposefully allowed these terrorists to continue their actions – prioritizing international public opinion over the lives of the American people. So, while this may be a politically charged issue, there is a real need to prosecute.”

Best of the Web, yesterday, spelled this out as nothing less than a constitutional crisis — and, toward that end, made an unexpectedly strong case:

If officials pay for policy mistakes not only by losing elections but by losing their freedom, that would amount to a fundamental change in America’s form of government. As The Wall Street Journal notes in an editorial:

At least until now, the U.S. political system has avoided the spectacle of a new Administration prosecuting its predecessor for policy disagreements. This is what happens in Argentina, Malaysia or Peru, countries where the law is treated merely as an extension of political power.

What Obama is offhandedly contemplating, then, amounts to a step toward authoritarian government. The impulse behind the push to prosecute is an authoritarian one as well. Matthew Yglesias of the left-liberal Center for American Progress writes that “large-scale punishment for the perpetrators of Bush-era war crimes is less important than establishing some form of political consensus that torture is wrong for the future.”

Yglesias blames this lack of “consensus” on “the existence of a large and powerful conservative media apparatus,” including the editorial page of The Wall Street Journal, and he quotes approvingly from a blogger called Neil Sinhababu:

I don’t think that we’re going to be able to establish any such consensus anytime soon. It used to be that we were worried about Fox News defeating us in elections, or beating the drums for another Bush Administration war. Winning by big margins is nice, because we don’t have to worry about those particular horrors for at least a little while. But now we have to worry about how Fox and the rest of the right-wing noise machine are going to continually sustain a substantial minority of crazy people, preventing the formation of an anti-torture consensus, an anti-war-of-aggression consensus, and anti-warrantless-spying consensus. Even if there’s majority support for these views, anybody scrapping for power within the Republican Party will find reason to oppose them, just to get a majority of Republicans.

I think the impossibility of consensus on these issues is part of why nobody thinks about consensus and there’s so much left-wing attention to judicial punishments for the perpetrators.

What troubles Yglesias and Sinhababu, then, is the existence of disagreement and debate–the essence of democracy. They seem to imply that prosecution is a method by which to force the consensus they would like to see. But a forced consensus is no consensus at all. If those now in power yield to the temptation to use authoritarian means–however well-intentioned their ends may be–they will set a precedent that their opponents, perhaps equally well-intentioned, may one day use against them.

To be sure, most of what we have written is speculative. Perhaps we will make it through the Obama years without being attacked, so that the dire consequences we imagine will never materialize. Perhaps, too, the current frenzy will blow over and will prove to have been only a distraction. But the president’s noncommittal words have fueled the Angry Left’s demands for recriminations.

It may be that the president can put out this fire only through bold and irreversible action–to wit, by issuing a blanket pardon of former officials and intelligence agents for their actions in the war on terror.

Obama, on this issue, is the perfect illustration of the hazards involved in confusing mediocrity with excellence, especially when investing power in candidates who are ideologically strangers to us. He looks — or at least, looked last year — like a walking triumph of order and reason over weirdness and chaos. But the theory that Obama is the triumph of order over chaos, is based entirely on the premise that a sensible Captain’s hand is upon the tiller of the ship-of-state. Whatever decision He makes about this issue, or that one, is bound to be sensible. This has to be the case. The dude talks kinda like Walter Cronkite, how can it not be true?

But nobody really knows what He’s going to decide. We don’t even know if, behind closed doors, the decision really belongs to Attorney General Eric Holder, as President Obama has said out in the open.

Our walking triumph of over-over-chaos, on this issue if on none other, is a loose cannon. We’re literally waiting to see if we still live in a representative democracy, or a banana republic. And it comes down to the itches one or two guys have between their ears.

The Forgotten Man

Tuesday, April 14th, 2009

Read it one more time…just because. You know what tomorrow is, right? And I’m not talking about the Titanic sinking.

The type and formula of most schemes of philanthropy or humanitarianism is this: A and B put their heads together to decide what C shall be made to do for D.

“9. Inject a Snidely Whiplash into the situation, even if it doesn’t really have one;
10. Most important of all, inject a victim into it as well. Who-rightfully-owns-what decision, is the first thing people forget when there’s a victim.”
How To Motivate Large Numbers of People To Do a Dumb Thing, Without Anyone Associating the Dumb Thing With Your Name Later On.

Man Detained at Airport For Carrying Cash

Monday, April 6th, 2009

This…

…was enough to make blogger friend Duffy ashamed of our country.

Rich White A-Holes Going Galt

Friday, April 3rd, 2009

I had to highlight it even though it’s nothing more than just another racist pinhead spewing bile.

It’s part of a big social phenomenon, and a powerful one. Even though it’s wrong.

Our “friend” gets going, on the news of an Atlas Shrugged movie that is increasingly likely to begin filming next year.

I can’t wait for all these rich white assholes to go “Galt.” ‘Galt’ is my word for “go fark yourselves.” Please do it, oh please. Give up tens of thousands in income because you’re too farking stupid to understand progressive taxation. I love it. Let me grab my popcorn.

I hope this movie gets tremendous distribution and does bonkers box office. Everyone should know how utterly shallow, greedy and morally bankrupt this bullshiat is. Then we can bury the skeevy, skanky corpse of that wretched bulldyke Rand for once and for all.

Well, the “rich” part is a relative thing, but I’m a white asshole, and I’m too farking stupid to understand progressive taxation. Someone please explain it to me. But seriously. Nobody gives a rat’s ass if I go Galt. Nevertheless…here’s a news flash…going Galt? It can easily be a passive thing, you know. It doesn’t begin and end with some chatty guy climbing on a soapbox, jabbing his finger in the air, speaking truth to power…et cetera. None of that.

Going Galt is simply a process of deciding something is too much of a pain in the ass and not doing it anymore. Like starting your Saturday morning a little different because Starbucks is a thousand yards away instead of five hundred…and the weather sucks. None of this makes too much sense to the salaried, middle-class wage slave. It’s the folks on the high end and on the low end. The ones thinking about investing in something that would create jobs for others, or simply getting a job. Naw…why bother. Too much of a pain in the ass.

It isn’t an all-or-nothing thing, either. It can be…and is…an incremental thing.

Wake up, folks. The rich white assholes aren’t thinking about going Galt, or contemplating it, or cogitating on it, or hemming-and-hawing about it. We’re there right farking now.

So toss that popcorn baggie in the microwave. Right now. It’s time.

It All Begins With an Investment…

Thursday, April 2nd, 2009

…and from there things spiral down.

Two Wheels on my Wagoner
[Mark Steyn]

Incidentally, the government “overhaul” of GM is a useful shorthand for where we’re heading:

The first quid pro quo for the government giving you money (or “investing”, as President Obama and David Brooks say) is that it gets to regulate your behavior. Not just who sits on your board or (see Sarkozy last week) where your factory has to be. When the government “pays” for your health care, it reserves the right to deny (as in parts of Britain) heart disease treatment for smokers or hip replacement for the obese. Why be surprised? When the state’s “paying” for your health, your lifestyle directly impacts its “investment.”

The next stage is that, having gotten you used to having your behavior regulated, the state advances to approving not just what you do but what you’re allowed to read, see, hear, think: See the “Canadian Content” regulations up north, and the enforcers of the “human rights” commissions. Or Britain’s recent criminalization of “homophobic jokes.”

You’d be surprised how painlessly and smoothly once-free peoples slip from government “investing” to government control.

Blogger friend Buck found, I think, the perfect cartoon about this, and the best article I’ve yet seen to go along with it…

You're Fired, I'll DrivePresident Obama said Monday, “my team will be working closely with GM to produce a better business plan.”

To that confident assertion he added these stern sentiments:

“They must ask themselves: Have they consolidated enough unprofitable brands? Have they cleaned up their balance sheets, or are they still saddled with so much debt that they can’t make future investments? Above all, have they created a credible model for how not only to survive, but to succeed in this competitive global market?”

Who is in a better position to know the answers to these questions? Rick Wagoner, the GM CEO for nine years and former GM chief financial officer who has been with the automaker since the late 1970s, even running one of its foreign affiliates in Brazil, and who holds a Harvard Business School MBA?

Or President Obama, a former community activist from the south side of Chicago with a great rhetorical gift?

The president answered that question this week by ordering Wagoner’s firing.
:
It should now be clear: Federal bailout funds are a corporate narcotic. Once a company starts taking them, a chemicallike dependence develops. The addict does whatever will bring in more of the drug. Ultimately, like heroin, the short-term euphoria gives way to decreased function for the recipient, even destruction.

Being a wild-eyed right-wing blogger in his underwear, and therefore an extremist, I see two distinctly separate issues here. (God willing, the typical “moderate” voter and taxpayer sees at least one.) There is the issue, first of all, of federalism and traditional restraint. How long do we have before GM employees are somehow forbidden from taking their personal salaries, which after all were made possible with taxpayer funded bailout money, and using them to send their precious curtain-critters to parochial schools? Or signing ’em up with that “hate group” known as the Boy Scouts? This is the issue Steyn brings to our attention from across the pond in jolly ol’ Great Britain.

And then, secondarily, there is the issue of effectiveness. IBD contrasts the experiences and talents of ex-chief Wagoner, against our Messiah in the White House. I perceive it to be more like Wagoner against Congressman Barney Frank, and it’s a scenario straight out of Atlas Shrugged — tough, ambitious, dedicated and experienced men are isolated from the decisions that matter, and the baton is passed to slick, glib shysters whose rolodexes are packed full of just the right names. Men who’ve built the careers not on building things, but destroying things. Not on coming up with a formula for a better brand of steel, or on saving a company from insolvency, or on marketing, or on finding a revolutionary new way to extract oil from shale rock…but on walking away from disasters without absorbing any of the blame.

How is this new class of decision-maker, whose occasional episodes of honesty can happen only by the purest type of accident, to supply the judgment and talent needed?

If you think that has a good shot at happening, with the private-sector specialists such as Wagoner gracelessly tossed over the side, you’ll probably gain a new sense of perspective after you get done watching this.

And Rendell Belongs to Which Party?

Wednesday, April 1st, 2009

No more mopin’ around!

Gov. Ed Rendell is trying to do his part to aid the citizens of the commonwealth.

His latest plan is to use about $15 million from the federal stimulus funds pouring into the state to try and change the mood of Pennsylvanians.

The Patriot-News has learned that the money will be spent to hire clowns, mimes, magicians, street performers and comedians (nothing blue) who will be dispatched to malls, fairs and festivals across the state to boost morale.

I’m awfully glad the federal and state governments are spending this money so wisely. Who knows where it would’ve gone had the lowly citizens been allowed to keep it in the first place. They probably would’ve poured it in ditches and set it on fire.

Atlas Shrugged Trailer

Wednesday, April 1st, 2009

It’s old. It’s only new in the sense that I just stumbled across it.

A is A.

Update: Related: And too good to let go.

Ayn Rand’s message to the Republican candidates, 1961.

If Earth Hour is a Slippery Slope…

Monday, March 30th, 2009

…then what lies at the bottom of the slope?

Hat tip to Harvey at IMAO.

Screwtape’s Wisdom

Saturday, March 28th, 2009

John Hawkins has finally gotten around to reading the Screwtape Letters by C.S. Lewis. And he’s doing what I wish more people would do, which is to put his favorite bits of “advice” up on a web page.

This is healthy. Who’s up for a “Screwtape Day” when everyone sharing similar concerns does the same thing?

I’ve always liked this one…it’s the whole crabs-in-a-bucket thing all over again.

You remember how one of the Greek Dictators sent an envoy to another Dictator to ask his advice about the principles of government. The second Dictator led the envoy to a field of grain, and then snicked off with his cane the top of every stalk that rose an inch or so above the general level. The moral was plain. Allow no preeminence among your subjects. Let no man live who is wiser or better or more famous or even handsomer than the mass. Cut them all down to a level: all slaves, all ciphers, all nobodies. All equals. Thus Tyrants could practise, in a sense, ‘democracy.’ But now ‘democracy’ can do the same work without any tyranny other than her own. No one need now go through the field with a cane. The little stalks will now of themselves bite the tops off the big ones.

Wouldn’t fall for it, would you. You think?

AIG executives? Remember that? Wasn’t so long ago.

White People Caused the Credit Crunch

Saturday, March 28th, 2009

Here’s some hatred that can get Lynda Carter a little bit worried…assuming she’s interested.

Brazil’s President, while meeting Gordon Brown, has said the global financial crisis was caused by “white people with blue eyes”.

Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva made the comments after talks with the Prime Minister to try to forge a global consensus on how to save the worldwide economy.

Sky News’ Joey Jones said it was an “uncomfortable” moment for Mr Brown.

“The President does not mind using fairly flamboyant language. He likes to give extensive answers to journalists.

“But some of it was rather awkward for the Prime Minister, who was standing there listening to the President.

“A few eyebrows will have gone up at what he said.”

Downing Street says the remarks were meant for “domestic consumption”.

Yup. Keep using that word “hate” to describe whoever doesn’t drop to their knees and start licking President Obama’s shoes…and nobody else. We wouldn’t want that word to lose its descriptive power and specificity, would we?

This is a serious problem, really — the crisis within a crisis. People who regularly find an audience of millions, are looking for class-targets to blame for the economic disappointments. Presidents, representatives, newscasters, dignitaries…blaming…somebody, like it’s their job to blame things on other things. I guess, in some perverse way, it is. And the rest of us, like Wonder Woman back there, fail to see the hate when it’s right in front of us. To far too many of us, hate is nothing more than a failure to climb on a bandwagon. I like something, you don’t, so that makes you a “hater.” Meanwhile thanks to the meltdown, we have some real hate in the style of Mr. da Silva. There’s very little unique about what he said. He’s cutting edge as far as blaming an actual race of people…but how new is that. We’ve already blamed AIG executives who earned their bonuses, Republicans, “Wall Street,” Ronald Reagan, deregulation, et cetera.

They’re all just trying to throw the hounds off the trail. And public figures will throw anybody under the bus, that they have to. Any red herring will do.

I think that’s as good a definition of “hate” as any other.

“Cool Paints”

Thursday, March 26th, 2009

You can’t write this stuff.

If California regulators get their way, auto makers may soon be forced to rewrite a cliché from the Ford Model T era and start telling customers they can have any color they want as long as it isn’t black.

Some darker hues will be available in place of black, but right now they are indentified internally at paint suppliers with names such as “mud-puddle brown” and are truly ugly substitutes for today’s rich ebony hues.
:
The measure is aimed at reducing carbon-dioxide emissions and improving fuel economy by keeping vehicles cooler on sunny days and decreasing the amount of time drivers use their air conditioners.

The rationale goes like this: Vehicle AC units sap engine power and hurt fuel economy. If vehicle paint and glass reflect more heat, car interiors will be cooler. That means drivers will use their AC units less, the compressors won’t have to work as hard and auto makers will be able to use smaller AC units in the future.

Reflective coatings and glazing (glass) already have proven to save energy when used on buildings, and this legislation is based on architectural standards.

On the surface, it’s not a bad idea, but fundamental issues reveal profoundly flawed legislation: Buildings and vehicles are manufactured and recycled differently, and no one buys a building based on its color.

Another troublesome fact: Heat-reflecting paints for black and other dark colors on vehicles have not been invented yet.

Paint suppliers also say heat-reflecting pigments that could be used in automotive applications contain toxic heavy metals that cause environmental damage and create health and safety issues during manufacturing and recycling.

Mike Rowe Wonders If It’s Really About The Bonuses

Thursday, March 26th, 2009

That’s your Dirty Jobs guy, there. This is one of my favorite shows. And his words are wise; you know this, for they echo my own.

Because these “bonuses” are not guaranteed, they are a reflection of an individual’s willingness to assume a certain level of risk that most salaried workers would go out of their way to avoid. Likewise, “bonuses” are the only way for highly competitive corporations to attract and compensate “top talent.” Arguing over whether the money in question is gross or exorbitant is beside the point and after the fact, in my opinion. So too, is the exact manner in which it’s earned. That’s between the employer and the employee, and governed by the terms of the deal. What really matters, is the workers conscious willingness to forgo a big guarantee, in favor of a potentially larger payout based on his or her performance. It’s an entirely different form of risk, that is the opposite of a weekly or monthly paycheck.
:
This “bonus rage” would not be happening in a world that respected consequences, because in that world, those companies who can not afford to pay their bills would simply fail, the way they’re supposed to. Likewise, all citizens would live the lifestyle they can afford, the way they’re supposed to. Of course, that is not the world we live in. In fact, companies like AIG have prospered exactly because so many people now live beyond their means. The hard truth is, those big bonuses were earned because AIG got rich saying “yes” to millions of people who should have been told “no.” And because we’re all connected, we all get hurt.

Isn’t this a profound irony? What we now, today, call “liberal” — in terms of ideas, I mean — is supposed to spring forward from a conviction that we are all connected. And yet, what we now, today, call “liberal” either a) presumes we’re not all sharing, at least to some extent, the same fate; b) is seemingly determined to make sure that where our interests may be united or simply overlapping, they are violently separated along class lines; or c) shows a childish, peevish hostility to anyone or anything suggesting maybe, just maybe, we are indeed all in this together. What helps whites has to hurt blacks, what’s good for management has to be bad for labor, and there’s no way you can do anything that’s good for both homosexuals and heteros.

Everything liberalism suggests ought to be done, seems to have to do with identifying some DRCJ (dirty rotten creepy jerk) and showing him what-for. Today it’s the AIG bonus execs. Tomorrow, who knows. But it’ll be someone. The target changes; the meme stays the same.

Hat tip to Gerard, via Anchoress, via Rick.

Now for the AIG exec’s viewpoint. If you can stand to read it…which, if you’re a pinhead liberal, you probably can’t…get ready for one hell of a paradigm shift. In fact I’ll not even excerpt it, but quote it in full. It’s that good.

You will see Mr. Rowe has an admirably healthy and enviable attachment to reality.

The following is a letter sent on Tuesday by Jake DeSantis, an executive vice president of the American International Group’s financial products unit, to Edward M. Liddy, the chief executive of A.I.G.

DEAR Mr. Liddy,

It is with deep regret that I submit my notice of resignation from A.I.G. Financial Products. I hope you take the time to read this entire letter. Before describing the details of my decision, I want to offer some context:

I am proud of everything I have done for the commodity and equity divisions of A.I.G.-F.P. I was in no way involved in — or responsible for — the credit default swap transactions that have hamstrung A.I.G. Nor were more than a handful of the 400 current employees of A.I.G.-F.P. Most of those responsible have left the company and have conspicuously escaped the public outrage.

After 12 months of hard work dismantling the company — during which A.I.G. reassured us many times we would be rewarded in March 2009 — we in the financial products unit have been betrayed by A.I.G. and are being unfairly persecuted by elected officials. In response to this, I will now leave the company and donate my entire post-tax retention payment to those suffering from the global economic downturn. My intent is to keep none of the money myself.

I take this action after 11 years of dedicated, honorable service to A.I.G. I can no longer effectively perform my duties in this dysfunctional environment, nor am I being paid to do so. Like you, I was asked to work for an annual salary of $1, and I agreed out of a sense of duty to the company and to the public officials who have come to its aid. Having now been let down by both, I can no longer justify spending 10, 12, 14 hours a day away from my family for the benefit of those who have let me down.

You and I have never met or spoken to each other, so I’d like to tell you about myself. I was raised by schoolteachers working multiple jobs in a world of closing steel mills. My hard work earned me acceptance to M.I.T., and the institute’s generous financial aid enabled me to attend. I had fulfilled my American dream.

I started at this company in 1998 as an equity trader, became the head of equity and commodity trading and, a couple of years before A.I.G.’s meltdown last September, was named the head of business development for commodities. Over this period the equity and commodity units were consistently profitable — in most years generating net profits of well over $100 million. Most recently, during the dismantling of A.I.G.-F.P., I was an integral player in the pending sale of its well-regarded commodity index business to UBS. As you know, business unit sales like this are crucial to A.I.G.’s effort to repay the American taxpayer.

The profitability of the businesses with which I was associated clearly supported my compensation. I never received any pay resulting from the credit default swaps that are now losing so much money. I did, however, like many others here, lose a significant portion of my life savings in the form of deferred compensation invested in the capital of A.I.G.-F.P. because of those losses. In this way I have personally suffered from this controversial activity — directly as well as indirectly with the rest of the taxpayers.

I have the utmost respect for the civic duty that you are now performing at A.I.G. You are as blameless for these credit default swap losses as I am. You answered your country’s call and you are taking a tremendous beating for it.

But you also are aware that most of the employees of your financial products unit had nothing to do with the large losses. And I am disappointed and frustrated over your lack of support for us. I and many others in the unit feel betrayed that you failed to stand up for us in the face of untrue and unfair accusations from certain members of Congress last Wednesday and from the press over our retention payments, and that you didn’t defend us against the baseless and reckless comments made by the attorneys general of New York and Connecticut.

My guess is that in October, when you learned of these retention contracts, you realized that the employees of the financial products unit needed some incentive to stay and that the contracts, being both ethical and useful, should be left to stand. That’s probably why A.I.G. management assured us on three occasions during that month that the company would “live up to its commitment” to honor the contract guarantees.

That may be why you decided to accelerate by three months more than a quarter of the amounts due under the contracts. That action signified to us your support, and was hardly something that one would do if he truly found the contracts “distasteful.”

That may also be why you authorized the balance of the payments on March 13.

At no time during the past six months that you have been leading A.I.G. did you ask us to revise, renegotiate or break these contracts — until several hours before your appearance last week before Congress.

I think your initial decision to honor the contracts was both ethical and financially astute, but it seems to have been politically unwise. It’s now apparent that you either misunderstood the agreements that you had made — tacit or otherwise — with the Federal Reserve, the Treasury, various members of Congress and Attorney General Andrew Cuomo of New York, or were not strong enough to withstand the shifting political winds.

You’ve now asked the current employees of A.I.G.-F.P. to repay these earnings. As you can imagine, there has been a tremendous amount of serious thought and heated discussion about how we should respond to this breach of trust.

As most of us have done nothing wrong, guilt is not a motivation to surrender our earnings. We have worked 12 long months under these contracts and now deserve to be paid as promised. None of us should be cheated of our payments any more than a plumber should be cheated after he has fixed the pipes but a careless electrician causes a fire that burns down the house.

Many of the employees have, in the past six months, turned down job offers from more stable employers, based on A.I.G.’s assurances that the contracts would be honored. They are now angry about having been misled by A.I.G.’s promises and are not inclined to return the money as a favor to you.

The only real motivation that anyone at A.I.G.-F.P. now has is fear. Mr. Cuomo has threatened to “name and shame,” and his counterpart in Connecticut, Richard Blumenthal, has made similar threats — even though attorneys general are supposed to stand for due process, to conduct trials in courts and not the press.

So what am I to do? There’s no easy answer. I know that because of hard work I have benefited more than most during the economic boom and have saved enough that my family is unlikely to suffer devastating losses during the current bust. Some might argue that members of my profession have been overpaid, and I wouldn’t disagree.

That is why I have decided to donate 100 percent of the effective after-tax proceeds of my retention payment directly to organizations that are helping people who are suffering from the global downturn. This is not a tax-deduction gimmick; I simply believe that I at least deserve to dictate how my earnings are spent, and do not want to see them disappear back into the obscurity of A.I.G.’s or the federal government’s budget. Our earnings have caused such a distraction for so many from the more pressing issues our country faces, and I would like to see my share of it benefit those truly in need.

On March 16 I received a payment from A.I.G. amounting to $742,006.40, after taxes. In light of the uncertainty over the ultimate taxation and legal status of this payment, the actual amount I donate may be less — in fact, it may end up being far less if the recent House bill raising the tax on the retention payments to 90 percent stands. Once all the money is donated, you will immediately receive a list of all recipients.

This choice is right for me. I wish others at A.I.G.-F.P. luck finding peace with their difficult decision, and only hope their judgment is not clouded by fear.

Mr. Liddy, I wish you success in your commitment to return the money extended by the American government, and luck with the continued unwinding of the company’s diverse businesses — especially those remaining credit default swaps. I’ll continue over the short term to help make sure no balls are dropped, but after what’s happened this past week I can’t remain much longer — there is too much bad blood. I’m not sure how you will greet my resignation, but at least Attorney General Blumenthal should be relieved that I’ll leave under my own power and will not need to be “shoved out the door.”

Sincerely,

Jake DeSantis

That’d be your AIG exec “who was responsible for this whole mess.” Now that you’re giving it another think-er-three, it’s been awhile since anyone presented you with some firm, or even mildly persuasive, evidence of that…right?

The Toxic Assets We Elected

Wednesday, March 25th, 2009

George Will sees something amiss:

With the braying of 328 yahoos — members of the House of Representatives who voted for retroactive and punitive use of the tax code to confiscate the legal earnings of a small, unpopular group — still reverberating, the Obama administration yesterday invited private-sector investors to become business partners with the capricious and increasingly anti-constitutional government. This latest plan to unfreeze the financial system came almost half a year after Congress shoveled $700 billion into the Troubled Assets Relief Program, $325 billion of which has been spent without purchasing any toxic assets.

Hat tip to The View From 1776, which (as I’ve already indicated) speaks for me on this whole phony bonus flap:

Whatever you may think about the propriety of large bonuses paid to AIG employees, whether you like it or not, the bonuses were paid in accordance with legal contracts executed before AIG received bailout money. Those individuals had a legal right to the money. If the company or the Federal government wished to abrogate the contracts, the spirit infusing the Bill of Rights required them to adjudicate the matter in the courts of law.

This is, I would argue, where the center of gravity swings out over the side of the cliff. Mob rule says you’ve got money you don’t deserve to have and you have to give it back. Yes I’m using the word “you” to describe those AIG execs. It applies. The differential is simply a matter of time, nothing more.

You’re just not that wonderful a person. Not if the distinction depends on a total stranger seeing you that way. The rights of the AIG executive, are the rights of all his countrymen. It’s just a fact.

And it sounds like the shredding of the Constitution, because that’s precisely what it is.

Senate to be Undecided About Whether Money is Evil

Tuesday, March 24th, 2009

The last several posts have been about The Holy One at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave. It looks like I have an obsession, until you stop to ponder all the driftwood I’ve been allowing to float on by…and there’s been a lot. Can’t pronounce Orion. Thinks Chiraq is still President of France. That’s today’s bumper crop, there was another one yesterday, another one the day before…

To the other end of the boulevard. The Senate is delaying action on this magical wonderful House bill, the one that taxes away those evil awful bonuses…

Jarred by a cool reception from the White House and fears of unintended consequences across the financial world, Senate leaders are likely to delay until late next month legislation to punitively tax bonuses at banks and investment firms that receive federal aid.

Senate Majority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.) announced last week that the Senate would move ahead with the legislation as soon as possible, and he attempted to bring the bill to the floor Thursday night. But he revised that timetable yesterday, saying that the chamber will spend this week debating a national-service bill before turning to a long-scheduled showdown over the budget for fiscal 2010. With just two weeks to go until Congress departs for a spring recess, action on the tax measure would be unlikely before late April.

For those who still think this is the right way to go…let’s just cut out all the delays and other crap, okay? Let’s see what message we have left.

The economy’s in the dumper because of FaPoBuAd (Failed Policies of the Bush Administration!)…and we’ve elected this hopey-changey-guy with a friendly Congress to fix it for us. We all desperately hope He succeeds at this, except for Rush Limbaugh who’s just a big fat stinker.

The economy is stopped and we all want it to go.

If anyone makes money doing that, we’re going to take it away from them because that’s just wrong. Oh sure, today it’s about AIG execs and AIG is receiving bailout money, so we’re just acting today as guardians of the taxpayer’s purse. B-u-u-t…that’s today. In fact, we’re already getting some plans together to do the same thing to non-bailout-subsidized corporations. Add to that the fact that, in AIG’s case, the bonuses amount to less than a tenth of a percent of this bailout money…so the idea that we’re trying to recoup “our” taxpayer money from those greedy executives looks a little silly.

So no. We’re not looking out for the taxpayer. We’re trying to make sure nobody makes a personal profit from this noble, noble effort of getting an economy revived.

We want the economy revived.

Nobody’s supposed to make any money. No quantity of it that “everyone” is going to find obscene, anyway…and that can only mean…nobody can make any more than anybody else. Just ordinary amounts. Nobody’s supposed to work to improve their personal livelihood too much.

What in the (expletive deleted) do you think an economy is, exactly?

Seriously.

The Senate is right to delay. It needs time for the rest of us to get our thoughts together on this one.

While we’re trying to figure out what we’re all about, may I submit a humble suggestion of what’s going on here? We want to get together and make this thing work. Each of us wants our personal standard of living to improve as much as possible. Our individual standard of living.

The other guy isn’t allowed to improve his.

Folks…my world is different from yours. You pretend to have a definition for “greed” but, as I’ve pointed out before, you don’t really have one. Planet Morgan has a definition of greed; and that is it right there. You are allowed to realize the benefits of a free market, and the guy to the left of you, and to the right of you, and all around you, are not. They’re just supposed to clock in, clock out, grab a paycheck and spend it, saving nothing, achieving nothing long-term. He buys a house you can’t buy, you’ve got a beef with it. So yeah, “greed caused all our problems,” but not quite in the way people think they mean when they toss this phrase around.

How Do Stimulus Plans Work, in History?

Monday, March 23rd, 2009

Stimulating Ourselves To Death.

Hint: History and hope aren’t seeing eye-to-eye on this one.

Money for the Needy, Not for the Greedy

Monday, March 23rd, 2009

So, we’re to allow the pitchfork-and-torch-bearing mob to make decisions we’d never allow our legislators, judges and executives to make? Like how much money each man, woman and child is supposed to have in the bank?

No no, that’s not it; silly me. We just want to have some “common sense” going on with these “bonuses.” Well tell me please, where’s the line drawn? AIG execs can’t just earn money, or receive money pursuant to a contract signed a whole year ago…which means they earned it. Can’t have that. We have to see if the hoi polloi smiles upon the contractually obligated payment, and if they don’t, it’s gotta be yanked back. While that’s going on — the mob takes to the streets.

This is different from the obscene bonuses I’ve earned…how?

A busload of activists representing working- and middle-class families paid visits Saturday to the lavish homes of American International Group executives to protest the tens of millions of dollars in bonuses awarded by the struggling insurance company after it received a massive federal bailout.

About 40 protesters sought to urge AIG executives who received a portion of the $165 million in bonuses to do more to help families.

“We think $165 million could be used in a more appropriate way to keep people in their homes, create more jobs and health care,” said Emeline Bravo-Blackport, a gardener.

She marveled at AIG executive James Haas’ colonial house, which has stunning views of a golf course and the Long Island Sound. The Fairfield house is “another part of the world” from her life in nearby Bridgeport, which flirted with bankruptcy in the 1990s and still struggles with foreclosures and unemployment.”

“Lord, I wonder what it’s like to live in a house that size,” she said.

Another protester, Claire Jeffery, of Bloomfield, said she’s on the verge of foreclosure. She works as a housekeeper; her husband, a truck driver, can’t find work.

“I love my home,” she said. “I really want people to help us.”

I love a Bugatti Veyron, Ms. Jeffery. Help me get one. And if you can’t, or won’t, spare the time or trouble to help me in that effort, then screw you. I mean it. I have things she doesn’t have, you say? Well, she has things I don’t have…like a home. And I’m not bothering anybody about it. I’m just a humble blogger. You don’t see me arriving in a bus as part of bug-eyed mob spoiling for a fight, gazing wistfully at her things and mumbling a bunch of stuff & nonsense to the effect that it oughta be mine. That’s because I understand when you point a finger at something, three other fingers curl around and point back at you. I can figure this out, why can’t she?

Greedy (adj.):
An undefined word. If it does have a meaning at all, the closest one we’ve been able to extrapolate from the pattern of the word’s actual usage, is: Someone who manifests a desire to keep his property when someone else comes along wanting to take it away. A wealthy person who wants to stay that way.

Commandment X: (Exodus 20:17)
You shall not covet your neighbor’s house. You shall not covet your neighbor’s wife, or his manservant or maidservant, his ox or donkey, or anything that belongs to your neighbor.

More Obama Poor-Man’s Photoshop Bumper Stickers

Sunday, March 22nd, 2009

This one is for Gerard

…and this one is for me, based on a thought I got in my li’l ol’ head when I read a comment from Larry:

Background on that one, for those who desire or require it, here.

Obama to Provide More Oversight on Executive Compensation

Sunday, March 22nd, 2009

New York Times:

The Obama administration will call for increased oversight of executive pay at all banks, Wall Street firms and possibly other companies as part of a sweeping plan to overhaul financial regulation, government officials said.

The outlines of the plan are expected to be unveiled this week in preparation for President Obama’s first foreign summit meeting in early April.

Increasing oversight of executive pay has been under consideration for some time, but the decision was made in recent days as public fury over bonuses has spilled into the regulatory effort.

The officials said that the administration was still debating the details of its plan, including how broadly it should be applied and how far it could range beyond simple reporting requirements. Depending on the outcome of the discussions, the administration could seek to put the changes into effect through regulations rather than through legislation.

We are victims of that ancient Chinese curse about living in interesting times. We are living in whiplash times.

Remember, just last week? Just a tiny handful of days ago? What was the defense to accusations that the administration was attacking capitalism by removing the profit motive? What was it? How did it go? “Oh, you need to remember, these are taxpayer dollars…AIG has received bailout money…this is only about firms that received bailout money…”

Here we are in the middle of a weekend. The very next weekend. Woopsie, it’s no longer about firms that received bailout money.

These people are on crack. Their solution to the government being out of money, is that it should spend a whole lot more of it, and their solution to the economy’s anemic state, is to remove the incentive some of us might have to possibly earn a profit.

They seem to live out their entire lives, personally and professionally, in defiance of Will Rogers’ famous advice that when you find yourself in a hole the thing to do is stop digging.

Their personal fortunes are rather disconnected from the consequences of such a worldview, so for them, it certainly seems to be working out okay. And it will continue to.

Best Sentence LVII

Sunday, March 15th, 2009

This afternoon’s Best Sentence I’ve Heard Or Read Lately (BSIHORL) award is for Frank at IMAO, who I think came up with this awhile ago…March 11, yes, that’s it.

When you’re done snickering, keep in mind it’s a pretty freakin’ important message.

Using socialism to help revive a failing economy is like putting angry weasels down your pants because you need some rest.

Maybe the message can be spread to those who need to hear it, with some nice sixties hippie-music. “How intertwined must a government be…before people figure out it’s just f@**king everything up? And how any trillions of dollars should it spend, before it’s seen as a bad idea?”

Exhausted the Use of Rush Limbaugh as an Attention Getter

Sunday, March 15th, 2009

You know what they say about sausage and the law — never watch either one being made.

On ABC’s “This Week,” White House economic adviser Larry Summers said the president had proposed a “strategic budget” that “will let us have a sound economic expansion” through a combination of “substantial cuts” and new spending on education, health, energy and environment.

The president himself plans to carry that message in the coming week, “engaging directly with Congress more, and speaking more forcefully on behalf of his budget,” a top adviser said.

And officials throughout the party plan to hammer the idea that Republicans are just saying “no” to the president’s budget plans without offering their own alternative.

Vice President Cheney, speaking on CNN’s “State of the Union” articulated the harshest conservative case against the president’s plans, accused the Obama administration of “using the current set of economic difficulties to try to justify a massive expansion in the government, and much more authority for the government over the private sector.”

“I think the programs that he has recommended and pursuing in health care, in energy, and so forth, constitute probably the biggest or one of the biggest expansions of federal authority over the private economy in the history of the republic,” Cheney said.

The Democrats’ new plan follows the private complaints of some Democrats that Obama let the GOP get the better of him during the debate over pork in the budget bill he just signed, and growing concerns among some Democrats that charges of big spending could stick to the president.

A participant in the planning meetings described the push as a successor to Democrats’ message that Rush Limbaugh is the Republican Party leader. “We have exhausted the use of Rush as an attention-getter,” the official said.

David Plouffe, manager of Obama’s presidential race, helped design the strategy, which includes the most extensive activation since November of the campaign’s grassroots network. The database—which includes information for at least 10 million donors, supporters and volunteers—will now be used as a unique tool for governing, with former canvassers now being enlisted to mobilize support for the president’s legislative agenda.
:
Democratic strategists explain that the message is designed to accomplish three things:

—First, it could deflect attention from the size of Obama’s budget and blunt attacks on the ambition of his agenda.

“It helps change the conversation from their criticism of the president’s plan,” a top Democratic official said. “If they want to say he’s going to raise taxes in the middle of a recession or he’s got socialist tendencies—none of which we agree with—one of the easy things for us to come back with is: We have tough choices to make right now, and you have nothing to offer.”

—Second, by painting Republicans as politically motivated, the conservative House Democrats known as Blue Dogs may be less likely to side with the GOP.

“As long as they’re seen as reflexively political—saying ‘no’ to everything—the Blue Dog Democrats can say, ‘I don’t agree with everything the president proposes, but at least he has a plan, an outline of what we should be working on,’” the official said.

—Third, Republicans could look like they’re playing politics in a time of crisis, rather than disagreeing based on substance.

The DNC on Saturday issued a “Party of ‘No’ Update” accusing House Republican leaders of “obstructionist rhetoric.”

Left-wing bloggers are already following suit. It isn’t an ideology, it’s a way of life.

Oh me oh my, how in the world are Republicans going to reply to such a devastating assault?

Republican public-relations dudes and dudettes: Do you really need me to do all your work for you? Really? C’mon…come on. The democrat party wants to be the party of ideas, huh. They wanna be idea-people. They’re the only ones who have any ideas — oh, let me guess the next three words — “on the table.” They’re going to jack up our public debt to $23 trillion in the next ten years and they want to defend this with “well look, it’s not like anybody else has an idea about what to do.”

By 2019, that will have made eighty-seven years of the democrat party coming up with one idea after another after another…all of which have to do with spending loot. That’s the only idea they’ve had for better part of a century by now. “Which party has the ideas”…I do not think this is a discussion they want to get going. Especially not when the question is “we’re all out of money and our economy is grinding to a halt, what are we to do?” You want to be the guy that says — Spend Faster?

One of the reasons the democrat party is not fit for leadership, although there are many, is that they have incorporated into their party philosophy one of the tell-tale signs that a complete stranger is probably a clueless turd. It’s Number Seven on my list of such indicators

Speaking of a tax cut as something that “costs” money.

I think I’ve found a compromise that will make everybody happy. The strange fools on Planet Liberal think that tax cuts costs money…okay. And, they won the election, we have to let them run everything now — besides of which, they’re the only ones with any ideas. And for eighty years or so all their ideas have had to do with spending money. They think tax cuts are a part of that. They are committed to the idea that tax cuts constitute a form of money-spending.

See where I’m going with this?

No, I won’t complete the thought. Let some young upstart up-and-coming guy in the Republican spin machine, think it was his idea. Take it and run with it. Better yet, let the democrat party take it and run with it. They like to spend money, they’ve got this bizarre idea of what that is, and like Rahm Emmanuel said, you never want to let a good crisis go to waste.

Is Rand Relevant?

Sunday, March 15th, 2009

Dr. Helen:

Yaron Brook, executive director of the Ayn Rand Institute asks and answers this question in an op-ed in the WSJ:

Ayn Rand died more than a quarter of a century ago, yet her name appears regularly in discussions of our current economic turmoil. Pundits including Rush Limbaugh and Rick Santelli urge listeners to read her books, and her magnum opus, “Atlas Shrugged,” is selling at a faster rate today than at any time during its 51-year history.

There’s a reason. In “Atlas,” Rand tells the story of the U.S. economy crumbling under the weight of crushing government interventions and regulations. Meanwhile, blaming greed and the free market, Washington responds with more controls that only deepen the crisis. Sound familiar?

The irony is that the Government can’t “make” money. It can only appropriate money from one place and then provide it in another. It takes it from taxpayers, or the taxpayers’ kids, depending on whether it uses cash or credit.

The net effect is to short out some business that would be conducted according to the way people would want it to be conducted, so that business somewhere else will be conducted according to the way people don’t want. It is a triumph of coercion over freedom. Coercion, for people to do less of what helps them, and more of what doesn’t help them.

Government Cannot Eliminate Sadness

Wednesday, March 11th, 2009

“Since the average American never took out a mortgage loan as big as seven hundred grand — for the very good reason that he could not afford it — why should he be forced as a taxpayer to subsidize someone else who apparently couldn’t afford it either but who got in over his head anyway?”

So Dr. Sowell has become the champion of forty-something apartment rats. Good. I’ll take him. He goes on to point out the obvious…

Even in an era of much-ballyhooed “change,” the government cannot eliminate sadness. What it can do is transfer that sadness from those who made risky and unwise decisions to the taxpayers who had nothing to do with their decisions.

I hear an awful lot lately about people wanting to “start national dialogues on” things. This is a national dialogue that would be most productive right about now: What is the worst thing you can possibly say about a government that, after fairly computing a tax liability necessary to raise needed revnues, which is the purpose of taxes in the first place…leaves personal assets and liabilities exactly as it finds them? Really, what’s wrong with that? Just skip past the meaningless bromides socialists usually use, like “In Times Like These” and “Middle Class” and “Workers” — just stick to that “Rich Not Paying Their Fair Share” and tell me why that is, with hard, established and verified facts & numbers.

One cannot help but wonder where we’d be right now, if there was some rule in place, enforced to the hilt, against redistribution. No subsidies, no taxes imposed to “get” dirty-rotten-scoundrels, no “If We Don’t Do Something To Help XXXXX, Disaster Will Follow.” I’m not the first to wonder such a thing and I won’t be the last.

Rance!

Thursday, March 5th, 2009

I’m going to have to make this a regular feature…which is going to make it as boring as hell, to everyone, myself included. But it’s gotta be done. Might as well spice things up by spelling it wrong.

Daphne:

We pay our mortgage and debts, live within our means and try to save responsibly for our future needs. We provide health coverage, food, housing and clothes for our children without assistance. We pay our taxes and fees in full and on time, never dreaming to ask any agency we fund for a handout or exception. My husband keeps tens of people fully employed, at high pay, by his hard efforts. We volunteer our time and money to worthy causes. Our bill to the city, state and feds well exceeds the poverty line for a family of four. Why are we suffering the price for everyone else’s mistakes? We haven’t made any.

I am unapologetically conservative. I don’t believe another man has any right to the fruits of my labor. I do not believe that I am beholden, on any terms, to provide for another man’s housing, food, children, medical care, education or the thousand other items on the endless list of needs demanded of my money in the name of social responsibility. I have an obligation to abide by the law and be a productive citizen who honors his own responsibilities, the state does not have the right to mandate that I bailout its negligent mistakes or support its unproductive members. I don’t owe your destitute grandma or ill conceived child a damn dime. My children certainly shouldn’t be expected to pay for current lawmakers ignorant legislative blunders or Joe Blow’s lackadaisical take on mortgage payments or unaffordable procreation.

Save me the arguments that my money funds the betterment of society. It obviously doesn’t when 1 in 30 of our citizens are in the criminal justice system, as much as forty percent of our high schoolers drop out before graduation, a scandalous number of non-performing public schools, warehousing ignorant children, are still in existence and we have up to 70% out of wedlock birth rates standing alongside the total disintegration of normal family units in significant segments of society. My money hasn’t done diddley shit for the generations of shiftless idiots unable to carry their own water, except exacerbate the growth of disgustingly useless government programs that induced these ills to epidemic heights.

The ranting turns toward the Republicans, with a rant found at Right Coast by Tom Smith, against Chairman Michael Steele. Like Daphne above, Mr. Smith speaks for me…

The left wing of the Democratic Party is in power now and it looks like they will pass their budget and their agenda for the next year or two or four. There’s every reason to think it will be a disaster for the country. It’s not looking so great so far and the disaster may arrive ahead of schedule. I’d say there’s a nontrivial chance the country will be irreparably harmed by our American mid-life crisis. It’s going to suck, big time. All Republicans can do is be the party that says, this is a bad idea and we should return to what we really believe in. We should wear the label the Party of No as a badge of honor. No to higher taxes. No to soaking the rich. No to nationalizing health care. No to abadoning Israel (just wait — that’s coming). There will be a lot to say no to. No to tyranny. This whole country is founded on a No.

I love that last line. It’s true. We say “yes” when we imagine what we can do. We do not have a tradition of saying “yes” when others tell us what to do. There are enough other countries that can carry on that tradition.

The best for last: Melissa lets the moderates have it with both barrels. These are the folks who were not fainting at Obama rallies, holding Him aloft like some kind of rock star or movie actor, wanting “to be a part of this thing”…they had nothing to say, nothing at all. They just didn’t want to take a stand, and by standing in the middle of the road hoped to be thought-of as super-duper smart. They figured voting for The Holy One was just the thing everyone was doing last fall, so they want-along to get along.

May your chains rest lightly on you and may posterity forget you were our countrymen…

Moderates, as usual, are stupid. They play along with the administration’s games. They’re useful dupes. Rather than help shape an alternative argument, they trash the people who pay attention. Independents and moderates don’t pay attention–they hope for a middle, gentle, “nice” way. That way lead to the Obama administration to begin with.

Have you written your postcard to let Congress and the administration know your feelings? You don’t even need to leave the house…or the computer you’re using right this very second. One click away. Do it, do it, do it.

I just did…

People working hard to succeed, are being made to fail through taxes and government-sponsored debt.

People who bought more house than they can afford, are being given a perverse “guarantee” from that government that they can stay where they are.

So people who don’t try, are set up to succeed, and people who do try, are set up to fail.

Our President, who’s supposed to be the best ever, is blowing unprecedented amounts of money while telling us we must not burden our children with “a debt they cannot pay.” He’s telling us, when you’re out of money and neck-deep in debt from spending money you do not have, the thing to do is to spend it a whole lot faster. Congress seems to be in agreement.

The Dow is tumbling down like a lawn dart. It can’t be reasonably expected to do anything else.

Our President sees this and comments on how good he is at his job. I suppose, if you define that job just “right,” it must be true.

This is the delivery of what, half a year ago, I was told was “hope.”

It truly is an upside-down world.

Where the Present Crisis Began

Sunday, February 8th, 2009

Baron’s, via Hot Air, via Newsbusters, via Gateway Pundit:

We are in this mess largely because critical thought and moral judgment have been subordinated to the politicization of our economy, resulting in regulatory gaps and excessive controls of the wrong kind. Government regulations should be limited to those that increase and protect transparency and competition, protect public and private property, promote individual responsibility and enforce equal opportunity under the law. Even if the right laws and regulations could be found, they would prove insufficient to protect freedom and prosperity.
:
Today’s problems have their roots in programs and financial instruments that shifted the locus of moral responsibility away from private individuals and institutions to wider circles that were understood to end with a government guarantee. Heads of the top banks and financial institutions could approve substandard home-mortgage underwriting — prone to increased default — because those loans could be securitized by Wall Street and sold off to investors or to government-sponsored enterprises (GSEs), with no likely recourse to the financial institution of origin.

Our present crisis began in the 1970s, during the Carter administration, with passage of the Community Reinvestment Act to stem bank redlining and liberalize lending in order to extend home ownership in lower-income communities. Then in the 1990s, the Department of Housing and Urban Development took a fateful step by getting the GSEs to accept subprime mortgages. With Fannie and Freddie easing credit requirements on loans they would purchase from lenders, banks could greatly increase lending to borrowers unqualified for conventional loans. In the name of extending affordable housing, this broadened the acceptability of risky loans throughout the financial system.
:
There is plenty of blame to go around on both sides of the political aisle. But the lesson should be clear that socializing failed businesses — whether in housing, health care or in Detroit — is not a long-term solution. Expanding government’s intrusion into the private sector doesn’t come without great risk. The renewing and self-correcting nature of the private sector is largely lost in the public sector, where accountability is impaired by obfuscation of responsibility, and where special interests benefit even when the public good is ill-served.

It’s not Bush-apologia, it’s just plain truth…and it’s important truth. This conundrum was not caused by a dearth of government meddling, but rather by an abundance of it.

With Peeling Removed, How Long Does an Orange Last?

Friday, January 30th, 2009

I agree with Fat in Indiana. It’s like the folks writing this nonsense, don’t want the country to succeed — difficult to see how anyone could deny or question it, and remain intellectually diligent and honest about the matter.

You wanted change. Looks like you’re getting it. Suckers.

Here’s some more change you said you wanted…

Well … at least the Republicans stood fast yesterday in the House. They were joined by several Democrats in opposing this $825 billion government growth bill. Now it’s off to the Senate…I love what House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer said yesterday in response to criticism of the government growth plan. “Americans voted for change.” There you go. The Democrat’s answer for every objection to a Democrat atrocity? Does Obama’s focus group created slogan give Democrats a clear field to destroy our free market economy and burden your children and grandchildren with a bill they may never be able to repay? Oh yeah…we did all of this because Americans voted for change. What a jerk. What an asinine and arrogant response to the valid concerns of many Americans.

Just think about this stuff for a minute or two. We imagine this as a discourse between the weak and the strong, who in turn are positioned oppositionally…what benefits one side automatically injures the other side. We imagine it that way not because reality counsels us to, but because the democrat party counsels us to.

Even those who say they are championing the cause of the weak…the voiceless (hah!) weak…acknowledge the weak are dependent on the strong. Hell, they’re the ones making it that way.

Now, how would you destroy a civilized country? I really can’t think of a better way. Make the degenerates dependent on the functional, pump up the ranks of the degenerates to the point where they outnumber the functional, then use those votes to see to it the functional can no longer function.

You couldn’t do this kind of damage to a country in an entire century — overthrowing Saddam Hussein over and over again, every five years.

Time for a Third Party?

Wednesday, January 28th, 2009

I still remember how it stung when I found out Ross Perot was crazy, and how this disuaded me from supporting the very idea of third parties for years afterward. Actually, right up until this week. But I also remember how Arnie was elected Governor of California. Gray Davis won the 2002 election, and we were scolded, tut-tutted, knuckle-rapped, that “The People Had Spoken” and Gov. Davis was the representation of that will, don’t we dare question it. The recall petition, therefore, was pre-destined to fail. Well, now. That isn’t how history unfolded, is it.

I’m looking at President Obama and I’m seeing another Gray Davis. The representation of vox populi…”mandate” and everything…we shall not question it…but what does one say, when we do so question, and this popularly-elected official is popped like a soap bubble Gray-Davis style?

I don’t understand Obama’s base at all, and I understand very little of what’s popular. But I do understand there is a common theme to the dissatisfaction simmering nationwide lately, and Obama’s policies, to the extent they can be defined, don’t seem to address this theme much.

Maybe it’s time.

If I wrote the platform, I notice I wouldn’t have to choose between “What I Know Is Right Come Hell Or High Water” and “What The People Want”. Those two appear to have merged. And they merge here…

Don’t Pass On More Debt to Our Children.

How would a party like that work out? It seems to me, if the Obama voters are being honest, a large chunk of their crowd would swarm over to my new party. How many times have we heard it…”spending under George W. Bush at an all time high, public debt swelled to ten trillion, expen$ive War in Iraq costing umpthyfratz billion a day, blah blah blah.” Would it not be fair to say this is part of Obama’s “mandate,” even though The Chosen One doesn’t seem to be acting on it?

I’d say, let’s take baby steps. Let’s start with passing on a public debt to our children, equal to or lesser than what it is now — adjusted for inflation. Let’s define a generation as twenty years.

Yes I know how the public debt swelled over the last eight years. The George Bush compromise was, support the military operations in Afghanistan and Iraq, mister democrat congressman, and I’ll put my signature under any feel-good social program you care to name. Maybe that’s just the way people behave once they get real power. Maybe it was even the responsible thing to do. I gotta admit, if you make me choose between a President who’s willing to bribe a congressman to protect the country, and a congressman who’s going to bitch and piss and moan about “war crimes” until he gets his bribe and then suddenly shuts up…I know which one I’d trust more, and it isn’t the congressman.

But I simply can’t get behind this. President Freeberg would have said, this is the right thing to do, and if you don’t support it I’ll do everything I can to make sure you pay a cost for failing to protect the country at the voting booth. And you won’t get one nickel of spending past my veto pen over this.

But then again, President Freeberg probably wouldn’t have achieved that compromise, or any other. It’s very likely President Freeberg would have been stuck in a shouting match with Congress, with no troops mobilized anywhere.

Still and all, I can’t accept that we need to nearly double our public debt anytime some asshole like Saddam Hussein starts making trouble for the sake of making trouble.

From what I’m gathering, the democrats are getting elected by faking this “responsible stewardship of nation’s purse strings” thing. Their support comes from the idea that Former President Bush, all by his lonesome, stuck a valve in the public debt innertube and started pump pump pumping away. I think the electorate voted for whoever would pay the debt down, or at least quit racking it up. This other stuff democrats want…tax cuts are evil, we need Europe to like us moar better, you’re not a citizen you’re a serf, every little thing different about you makes you part of a complaining advocacy group, all men are rapists, guns iz bad, ten commandments are offensive, black people can’t make it without help, seventy languages are better than one, and my all-time favorite, all elections were stolen unless the democrat won ’em — the public is not, repeat not, on board.

I think the public wants fiscal conservatism.

I think they’re sold on the notion that tax hikes aren’t the answer. I think if you pass a true-false test around, with one question: “If you raise a tax rate 20%, you collect 20% more revenue” — the vast majority will, rightfully, choose FALSE. Furthermore, I think the public understands it is not only possible, but probable, that the public policy can raise more money by cutting tax rates.

But I think they further understand that raising the revenue is not the problem. Spending the revenue is the problem. Congress is entrusted with a responsibility of which, by design, it can never be worthy. My guys are doing a great job, your guys are demanding all these stupid line items in the budget we don’t really need. The system is not hospitable to the process of trying to bring a budget under control. We know this for a fact, because we have pretty much the same governmental structure in the states and they’re having exactly the same problem.

This is the source of the public’s discontent. They desperately want to send the message to Washington that spending should be brought under control — we don’t want all these feel-good programs, we don’t see ourselves as that weak, and we don’t need some burgeoning, bloated, tricked-out nanny state to tell us when our kids need to be wearing seat belts, or to put miniature trampolines under the trees for when those poor squirrels fall out of ’em.

And they don’t want a huge mess o’bailouts.

That’s why it’s so rare for the politicians to really come out and support the bailouts. It’s always the other guy supporting them. The guy you’re talking to, he hasn’t got a word to say about it, he just votes for the bailout.

That’s wrong, and the electorate knows it. They want it fixed. This time, neither one of the major parties is up to the task…or if either one really is, it isn’t really inspiring confidence in that department.

New Deal Wasn’t Big Enough?

Saturday, January 17th, 2009

Victor Davis Hanson takes a look at some more sudden hairpin-turning liberal looney logic that subtely deluges us lately:

Traditional conservative custodians of the budget can’t say much. They are largely discredited on matters of finance. During the last eight years of Republican prominence in Congress and the White House, the government borrowed as never before.

Liberals in turn have suddenly rewritten their own economic history. They used to claim the great surge in government under President Franklin Delano Roosevelt got us out of the Great Depression with deficit spending and federal jobs programs.

But many historians have argued instead that unemployment and slow growth remained high throughout Roosevelt’s first two terms — until the Second World War scared us all into a fit of national mobilization that alone ended the ongoing 13-year depression between 1929 and 1941.

Now here’s the irony: Liberals suddenly agree that only the Second World War stopped the Depression, after all! So they now argue that we need a new New Deal far greater than the old New Deal. In other words, they want to re-create the urgency of World War II to get government to grow and spend big-time.

Their argument is that if FDR failed to stop the Depression, it wasn’t, as conservatives insist, because he turned to unworkable government solutions, but rather because he didn’t try big enough ones.