Out of Town

In Jamaica for some much needed R&R. To anyone who reads this site regularly, I'd like first to say thank you, and I'll return to regular posting next week.

Lies About the Debt Ceiling

This may come as a shock, but media outlets are assisting the White House in lying to the American public. Once you pick yourself off of the floor, take a look at the opening paragraph from this Reuters story posted on the Yahoo! front page this morning:

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Top lawmakers rolled out dueling debt plans on Monday that offered little prospect for compromise, increasing the threat of a ratings downgrade and national default, as President Barack Obama prepared to address Americans on the impasse.

There are two lies contained in this single sentence: the failure to reach a debt deal will result in a default on national debt, and a credit rating downgrade will be the result of a failure to reach a debt deal. Let's look at each of these issues in turn.

First, the term default means exactly what it does in personal finance - the failure to make payments on a debt obligation. Currently, the U.S. government takes in around $230 billion in revenues every month. Our current debt service payments are $30 billion per month. It's a hell of a credit card payment, but it is significantly lower than our national income. What this means is that we will only default if we choose to do so. We have the option to make our debt service payments first, and spend the rest on expenses as they are prioritized. Once the money runs out, everything else has to be cut, which can easily be done. Maybe we could quit killing foreigners for a few months, or paying for welfare recipients to have abortions, or (gasp!) even both! We could even consider getting rid of subsidies for ethanol that makes our gas less efficient and drives up food prices and windmills that no one wants. Equating maxing out the national credit card with default is a scare tactic, and a dishonest one. Don't believe the lie.

Second, as I wrote last week, a credit rating downgrade will be the result of either a default or a failure to cut spending, not of reaching the debt ceiling. Once again, the author is trying to tie hitting the debt ceiling to a credit downgrade, which is not the case. The credit downgrade will occur if we decide not to pay the debt service in lieu of spending on other programs, or if we continue to accrue debt.

Media outlets that cover for this administration by lying to the public should be ashamed. Since they have no shame, the American public needs to learn to spot the lies.

Gang-Raped

There is a lot of buzz over the last few days over the debt ceiling deal being proposed by the Senate's so-called 'Gang of Six.' The gang is a group of six Senators, three Democrat and three Republican:

Kent Conrad (D-ND)
Dick Durbin (D-IL)
Mark Warner (D-VA)
Saxby Chambliss (R-GA)
Mike Crapo (R-ID)
Tom Coburn (R-OK)

Their deal, which ties a debt limit increase to a series of budget cuts and tax increases, "is probably the only plan that is going to ever pass--or some combination of it," according to Senator Coburn. Apparently, this is supposed to be seen as a positive. Here are a few reasons why I disagree:

First, the cuts are laughable. They amount to a little less than $4 trillion over the course of the next ten years. This means that we plan on cutting 10% of federal spending. The current deficit is approximately $1.5 trillion/year, or $15 trillion over the next 10 years, or 40% of the federal budget. Are we really supposed to thank these clowns for making sure we 'only' borrow another $11 trillion over the next decade? This deal doesn't even get us deficit-neutral over the course of an entire decade.

Second, they lied. The cuts are really a little less than three trillion, not four. The other trillion in 'cuts' are what Obama calls "cuts to spending in the tax code" which is politician-speak for eliminating tax deductions. When the government keeps more of what it steals from your paycheck, this is a tax increase, not a 'cut in spending.' To say otherwise is a lie, which is probably why Obama says it.

Third, this plan requires future Congresses to play along in order to get all of the spending cuts. This does not happen, ever. Presidents Reagan and Bush were both conned into signing tax increases when spending cuts were promised. The taxes went up, but the spending was never cut. This may be the biggest point, because it applies to any budget deal. History has shown us time and time again that politicians are unable to keep from spending other people's money. In the words of Adam Smith:

It is the highest impertinence and presumption… in kings and ministers, to pretend to watch over the economy of private people, and to restrain their expense... They are themselves always, and without any exception, the greatest spendthrifts in the society. Let them look well after their own expense, and they may safely trust private people with theirs. If their own extravagance does not ruin the state, that of their subjects never will."

Fourth, tax increases, even on those corporate fat cats that Obama loves to demonize, will result in further damage to our economy. In case you are as economically illiterate as our ruling class, here's a little tip: taking money from the productive sector in the form of taxes results in less productive activity. Productive activity is where jobs are created and wealth is generated.

Finally, if no deal is reached, we get exactly what this nation needs: an end to the borrowing. We do not need a compromise, we need to take the credit card away. Failure to reach a deal will result in exactly that.

In related news, U.S. credit is now being downgraded:

The firm made it clear that its decision wasn't prompted primarily by the immediate fear of a default caused by a failure to raise the debt limit. Rather, Egan-Jones officials explained the downgrade arose out of the related concern that Washington won't reduce the long-term deficit. "The major factor driving credit quality is the relatively high level of debt and the difficulty in significantly cutting spending," the firm said in a report released Saturday. (emphasis mine)

Did you hear that, Washington? Credit agencies aren't worried about a failure to raise the debt ceiling, they are concerned about the fact that you spend far more than you take in. In other words, it is the abuse of credit, not lack thereof, that has people worried.

Federal Court Rules That TSA ‘Naked Scans’ Are Constitutional

The text of the Fourth Amendment, as ratified by the states:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

This amendment means that government authorities require either a warrant issued by a judge or 'probable cause' that a crime is underway or will immanently occur in order to search an individual or their private property. Unfortunately, the Constitution is dead, so we get shit like this:

This morning, the federal court ruled that the “naked scans” of air travelers do not violate Americans’ constitutional rights. Privacy rights group EPIC had sued the Department of Homeland Security, alleging violations of innocent passengers’ Fourth Amendment right to be free of unreasonable searches. The court says that argument doesn’t fly.

In the opinion [pdf] from the D.C. Circuit Court (the Volokh Conspiracy), Judge Douglas Ginsburg writes that the advance imaging technology is not unreasonable given the security concerns on airplanes, and that people have the option to opt out for a pleasurable patdown. 

Basically, we have a founding document that requires there be suspicion that a crime is or will occur in order to compel a search, and courts that say the government can take a picture of your junk (or cop a feel, if you don't care to be a porn star), in order to board a privately-owned and operated vessel.

Judge Douglas is of course drawing a false distinction here. There is no real distinction between the scanner and the pat-down. Both are a violation of your fourth amendment rights, because they are both a search performed on your person by a federal authority without a warrant or probable cause that you are in the process of committing a crime.

It's time for the TSA to be relegated to the dustbin of history, and let the privately-owned airline industry decide what security measures are appropriate for their business.

How to Save a Trillion Dollars Without Starving Old People

Any time fiscal sanity on the part of the federal government is demanded, big-government types drag out the old 'they just want to starve old people' shtick. This week it was President Obama who said he 'could not guarantee' that Social Security payments would go out on schedule in August if the debt ceiling were not raised. This of course is nothing more than a bluff; while entitlements are a huge part of the federal budget and will have to be reformed soon, I figured it would be pretty easy to cut at least a trillion out of our current expenditures without stopping Social Security payments. Here is what I came up with over the course of an hour:

Step 1: Eliminate executive departments with no Constitutional mandate. All of these executive departments conduct extra-constitutional operations (accompanying savings are in billions):

1. Department of Agriculture - $132.3
2. Department of Energy - $24.1 + $38 in supplemental budget for loans
3. Department of Labor - $104.5
4. Department of Education - $71
5. Department of Housing and Urban Development - $43.7
6. Department of Health and Human Services - $78.4
7. Department of Homeland Security - $55.1
8. Department of Transportation - $79
9. Environmental Protection Agency - $10.5
10. Department of Commerce - $9.3

Step 2: Eliminate agencies within Constitutional executive departments that are outdated or have no Constitutional mandate:

1. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms - $1.12
2. Drug Enforcement Agency - $2.4
3. Bureau of Indian Affairs - $2.4
4. Bureau of Land Management - $1
5. National Park Service - $2.9
6. U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service - $2.32
7. National Infrastructure Bank - $4

Step 3: End the Empire:

1. Eliminate 'Overseas Contingency Operations' (Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya) - $130
2. Close the approximately 1,000 U.S. bases on foreign soil - $30
3. Cut the remaining 'base' DoD budget by 10% - $60
4. Eliminate all foreign aid payments (economic & military): $47.7

Step 4: Eliminate Medicare Part D. As the most recent entitlement expansion, it is the least 'entrenched' - $80.8

Total Savings: $1.01 trillion

This proposal would effectively undo nearly two centuries of Federalist and Progressive mistakes, without starving old people. It would also have the added benefit of creating a freer society, which would produce enough extra wealth and productivity to easily make up the remainder of the budget deficit. 

It may seem extreme (which it is), but it puts us more in line with the country as founded, and certainly on a more sound financial footing. It certainly would be a lot less oppressive.

Liberty Results in Inequality

In an earlier post, I made the point that many people do not really want true liberty, because there is a large measure of responsibility involved in living in a society where the government doesn't steal from the productive to give to the unproductive. My argument was that true liberty is worth the accompanying responsibility.

Today, while listening to last Sunday's STR podcast (free registration required), Greg Kokul made the point that a political system focused on liberty results in inequality. This comes from the fact that people have different levels of skill, intelligence, and drive. Therefore, some will work harder than others, some will innovate more than others, and some will produce a product that is superior to others. In a free market, we would expect that the 'best and brightest' will end up at the top of the financial hierarchy, while those with less skill, drive, or intellect will end up at the bottom. The fact is that not everyone can win in a free market, despite what some free-market proponents say. To argue that this is not true in a free society is silly. Instead, what I would like to argue is that this is actually the best possible system, even given the fact that it produces winners and losers.

First, let's take a look at the fundamental assertion that a society with winners and losers is a bad thing. This pervasive idea has its roots in the second industrial revolution, when families like the Vanderbilts and Rockefellers made gigantic fortunes over the course of a few decades. Progressive politicians like Teddy Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson used these families in order to foment class warfare and gain political power, and the ideas that they put in the heads of the American electorate persist to this day. However, what we should realize is that the same conditions that made these families unbelievably wealthy also allowed the average American family to achieve a standard of living unheard of only a few years earlier. In this situation, the old adage that 'a rising tide lifts all boats' certainly holds true. In a free-market society, even the losers enjoy the advantages of a wealthy society, which leads into the second point:

Second, there is no pie. Politicians who use class warfare to gain power have convinced a large segment of the public that if someone wins, it is at everyone else's expense. This is, of course, false. While there are corrupt people (in both politics and business) who will take advantage of others in order to gain for themselves, this is not the only way, or even the most common way, that people become wealthy. Typically, the wealthy get where they are through a combination of hard work, intellect, skill, and luck. And while there are some poor souls out there who have ended up at the bottom due to the unethical actions of others or bad luck, the vast majority are there because of bad decisions, lack of drive, skill, intelligence, or some combination thereof. The important thing to note here is that wealth is not a zero-sum game; just because someone becomes a millionaire, it does not condemn another to a life in the poor house.

Third, it is important to understand that liberty and equality are mutually exclusive, if what we mean by equality is actually 'equality of outcome.' In order to guarantee equality of outcome, which is the goal of socialist societies, it is necessary to take from one and give to another. This is embodied in the central doctrine of Marxism, "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need." When the fruits of one man's labor are subject to the enjoyment of another, this is the definition of servitude, which is the antithesis of liberty. This cannot be stressed enough: liberty and forced equality (socialism) cannot coexist, as they are by definition opposites. Therefore, you have to choose between liberty and equality of outcome.

Fourth, history shows us that all political systems have winners and losers. If you believe that authoritarian socialist systems produce equality, you are mistaken. Historically, these systems have produced two classes of people: the political elite and everyone else. These systems rely on nepotism and political connections, rather than intellect, drive, and skill in order to choose their winners and losers, which actually makes them less fair than libertarian systems.

Americans have, by and large, bought into a Progressive lie that "all men are created equal" means that "all men are guaranteed an equal outcome." They have also bought into the lie that true liberty and false 'equality' can coexist. We need to recognize that these are lies, and decide if we want to be a society that embraces liberty, or one that robs from the rich to give to the poor.

I know which side I'm on. Do you?

Drop the Carrot, Criminal Scum!

Julie Bass, homeowner and resident of Oak Park, Michigan, is facing 93 days in jail. Her crime? A vegetable garden in her front yard:

"That's not what we want to see in a front yard," said Oak Park City Planner Kevin Rulkowski.

Why? The city is pointing to a code that says a front yard has to have suitable, live, plant material. The big question is what's "suitable?"

We asked Bass whether she thinks she has suitable, live, plant material in her front yard.

"It's definitely live. It's definitely plant. It's definitely material. We think it's suitable," she said. 

Of course, Kevin Rulkowski, petty tyrant code enforcer for the City of Oak Park, disagrees:

"If you look at the definition of what suitable is in Webster's dictionary, it will say common. So, if you look around and you look in any other community, what's common to a front yard is a nice, grass yard with beautiful trees and bushes and flowers," he said.

This kind of issue shows exactly how dead private property rights are in America. When government officials can tell you what kind of plants are acceptable and what kinds aren't, it's clear that there are far too many government officials with far too much time on their hands taking far too much money from those of us who actually produce something for a living. And it's all the more insulting when those officials are like Mr. Rulkowski, who is either illiterate or didn't actually bother to look up the definition of suitable before opening his mouth. From Merriam-Webster, the very dictionary Mr. Rulkowski references:

1. Adapted to a use or purpose
2. Satisfying propriety
3. Able, qualified

Gee, I dont see 'common' anywhere in there, do you?

What we are looking at is the criminal prosecution and potential jailing of a woman who has done nothing other than attempt to avoid the high costs of organic produce in her local supermarket. She has created neat, organized landscaping which, instead of being aesthetic, actually serves a purpose. And by inviting the children in the neighborhood to help her, she has taught them something about productivity and self reliance.

Given that she is a resident of the People's Republic of Michigan, just minutes from the hellhole of leftist social engineering that is Detroit, those things are probably what really pisses the local government off.

 

July 4, 1776

Presented without comment:

"The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America,

When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.--Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.

He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.

He has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his Assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.

He has refused to pass other Laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of Representation in the Legislature, a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only. 

He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their public Records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures. 

He has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people.

He has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause others to be elected; whereby the Legislative powers, incapable of Annihilation, have returned to the People at large for their exercise; the State remaining in the mean time exposed to all the dangers of invasion from without, and convulsions within.

He has endeavoured to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither, and raising the conditions of new Appropriations of Lands.

He has obstructed the Administration of Justice, by refusing his Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary powers.

He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone, for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.

He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harrass our people, and eat out their substance.

He has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the Consent of our legislatures.

He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil power.

He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation:

For Quartering large bodies of armed troops among us:

For protecting them, by a mock Trial, from punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States:

For cutting off our Trade with all parts of the world:

For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent: 

For depriving us in many cases, of the benefits of Trial by Jury:

For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences

For abolishing the free System of English Laws in a neighbouring Province, establishing therein an Arbitrary government, and enlarging its Boundaries so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule into these Colonies:

For taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws, and altering fundamentally the Forms of our Governments:

For suspending our own Legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever.

He has abdicated Government here, by declaring us out of his Protection and waging War against us.

He has plundered our seas, ravaged our Coasts, burnt our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people. 

He is at this time transporting large Armies of foreign Mercenaries to compleat the works of death, desolation and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of Cruelty & perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the Head of a civilized nation.

He has constrained our fellow Citizens taken Captive on the high Seas to bear Arms against their Country, to become the executioners of their friends and Brethren, or to fall themselves by their Hands. 

He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages, whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.

In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A Prince whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.

Nor have We been wanting in attentions to our Brittish brethren. We have warned them from time to time of attempts by their legislature to extend an unwarrantable jurisdiction over us. We have reminded them of the circumstances of our emigration and settlement here. We have appealed to their native justice and magnanimity, and we have conjured them by the ties of our common kindred to disavow these usurpations, which, would inevitably interrupt our connections and correspondence. They too have been deaf to the voice of justice and of consanguinity. We must, therefore, acquiesce in the necessity, which denounces our Separation, and hold them, as we hold the rest of mankind, Enemies in War, in Peace Friends.

We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States; that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do. And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor."

ACORN Still Receiving Your Tax Dollars (Illegally)

Back in 2009, Congress passed H.R. 3571 (the 'Defund ACORN Act') following revelations about the organization's shady and illegal activities. This act prohibits federal funds from going to ACORN or any of its subsidiaries. Oh, but guess what?

"A Judicial Watch investigation has found that the Obama Administration recently violated the ban on federal funding for the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (ACORN) by giving the famously corrupt group tens of thousands of dollars in grants to 'combat housing and lending discrimination.'

...This week a JW probe uncovered that Obama’s Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) recently awarded a $79,819 grant to an ACORN reincarnation called Affordable Housing Centers of America (AHCOA). Incredibly, the government’s federal expenditure website openly describes the recipient as ACORN Housing Corporation Inc. and lists the group’s New Orleans address at 1024 Elysian Fields."

Obama has ignored the law so many times at this point that it's getting tough to keep up with it all. His complete contempt for the rule of law is staggering, and demonstrates that he sees himself as a king, not the chief executive of anything resembling a republic. If we had a legitimate government, instead of a gigantic crime syndicate running this country, he would have been thrown out of office for this, or any number of other offenses.

Given the caliber of man (and woman) we have chosen as 'leaders,' I won't hold my breath.

(Via the American Spectator)

Equal Protection Does Not Mean Unequal Protection

A federal court ruled today that Michigan's Proposal 2, which bans racial preferences in hiring and college admissions, is unconstitutional. The decision states that banning racial preferences is a violation of the 'equal protection' clause of the fourteenth amendment. Here is the full text of Amendment 14, Section 1, with the 'equal protection' clause in bold:

"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

The historical context of the fourteenth amendment is pretty simple: following the abolition of slavery, there were situations where states would refuse to offer former slaves legal status and protection, and by enforcing the law unequally, they could maintain a climate of quasi-slavery. This amendment was intended to enforce the equality of all American citizens.

Today's court ruling states that a law which specifically bans the use of race as a motivating factor in hiring or college admissions decisions is unconstitutional because of a clause which was intended to ban the use of race as a motivating factor in legal protection. This effectively means that it is the court's opinion that a law enforcing equal protection violates a law which guarantees equal protection, and that the only way to follow a law with the intent of eliminating race from being a legal factor is to have policies which specifically make race a legal factor.

When you have tortured language and intent to the point where you can argue that something means the exact opposite of what it clearly means, you have succeeded in creating a truly lawless society.