Tag: Government

Moving Toward A Resolution

Congress has passed a budget for the rest of the year that keeps the sequestration in place. Now all we need is a rise in the debt ceiling and FY2013’s budget is finished.

Obviously, I’d like some entitlement reform. But moving toward an actual budget process is a first step toward sane fiscal policy. Flat spending trends will bring the deficit at least under $1 trillion for the first time since Obama and possibly much lower, depending on how the economy does and exactly how much the sequester bring down spending. That’s progress, albiet slow and painful one. But entitlement and tax reform are the next steps that need to be taken. Because the long term is where we’re screwed.

Security Letters In The Lurch

So this happened:

They’re called national security letters and the FBI issues thousands of them a year to banks, phone companies and other businesses demanding customer information. They’re sent without judicial review and recipients are barred from disclosing them.

On Friday, a federal judge in San Francisco declared the letters unconstitutional, saying the secretive demands for customer data violate the First Amendment.

The government has failed to show that the letters and the blanket non-disclosure policy “serve the compelling need of national security,” and the gag order creates “too large a danger that speech is being unnecessarily restricted,” U.S. District Judge Susan Illston wrote.

She ordered the FBI to stop issuing the letters, but put that order on hold for 90 days so the U.S. Department of Justice can pursue an appeal to the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.

The NSL’s do not allow agents to examine the content of communications, but look for patterns. But there is zero judicial oversight and, as mentioned, the gag order prevents recipients of NSL’s from even telling people what they’re doing, placing them under enormous stress.

I suspect — or maybe hope is the right word — that the Ninth Circus will also have issues with the security letters on both First and Fourth Amendment grounds (they recently put limits on the governments ability to search your computer at the airport). The FBI issues tens of thousands of these a year and a 2007 investigation found that they were very lax in following the few rules that applied to them (Surprise! A federal agency was abusing the rules in the absence of oversight!). The Second Circuit demanded the FBI notify recipients that they can challenge the gag order in Court but EFF is of the opinion that it’s not enough and it’s not being done consistently.

The secretive NSL’s create another issue beyond First and Fourth Amendment concerns. One of the problems with challenging the Surveillance State is that people being surveilled often don’t know it. This makes it very difficult to challenge surveillance powers in Court because, in the Clapper decision last week, SCOTUS ruled that challengers lack standing unless they personally have been subject to a problematic search. This puts civil libertarians in a catch-22. You can’t know if you’re being surveilled but you can’t challenge the law unless you know you’re being surveilled.

In the end, a lot of this is going to end up in the lap of the Supreme Court. I have little faith that they will rein in the government now that Stephens is gone. But it’s possible, given Scalia’s occasional sympathies toward civil liberties, that the facade of unilateral unlimited government surveillance power could be cracked.

Starving the Budget

With the fiscal cliff looming, Republicans are indicating some flexibility on taxes, at least for the higher income brackets. Naturally, this is generating some opposition:

To start with, Kristol misunderstands the opponents of the tax increases on the rich, whose main goal is not to ensure that the rich get to keep more of their money. Their main goal is to prevent the federal government from obtaining a new source of revenue. Why might that be?

Tax increases can be immediate, but spending cuts must be spread over many years. That provides politicians with plenty of opportunities for change their minds on spending (i.e.: vote for me and I will increase funding for your program). Contemporary Western Europe provides a perfect example of this phenomenon. In the wake of the 2008 crisis, Western European countries have introduced substantial tax increases that, in my humble opinion, are the primary reason for Europe’s double-dip recession.

There is a reasonable point in this, which is that promised spending cuts often don’t happen. But that’s not a fundamental law of the universe. After the tax hikes of the late 80’s and early 90’s, we did get spending restraint. And we got it from the same people who control the purse strings right now … a Republican House of Representatives. If the GOP wants spending cuts to happen, they can make those spending cuts happen, as they did in the 90’s.

Moreover, the Grand Bargain that has to happen is on entitlement spending with Medicare and Social Security. That will involve statutory changes, not budget changes and those are extremely hard to undo. If Congress raises the retirement age or changes the COLA formula or institutes Medicare vouchers, that will be almost impossible to undo (as we’re now seeing with Obamacare).

To be frank, the argument that we should not give the government new revenue cross me as a rehash of one the most fiscally destructive ideas in the last thirty years: the so-called “Starve the Beast” theory.

Starve the Beast was the theory that if we cut taxes, it would force the government to cut spending because the resulting deficit would be unsustainable (this was before people decided that the Laffer Curve was, in fact, the Laffer Line and that all tax cuts paid for themselves). Starve the Beast sounded tempting, especially to faux conservatives who were big on tax cuts and not so big on cutting spending. But it ran aground on several rocks:

First, spending cuts don’t just fall from the sky. You have to actually cut spending at some point. And the people who had to cut spending were the same people trying to force themselves to cut spending. It was like trying to lose weight by eating a box of doughnuts hoping that will force you to go the gym.

Second, the lesson Congress learned from Starve the Beast wasn’t that they couldn’t tolerate big deficits. The lesson they learned was that they could. As a result, we’re now enjoying our fourth straight year of trillion dollar deficits.

Third, and this is a point I keep harping on, Starve the Beast made spending painless for the taxpayer. This was especially true in the Bush years when we started two wars and put in a prescription drug program while removing millions from the tax rolls. The impression given to the taxpayers was that wars and drug programs were free, or at least were paid for by somebody else (somebody rich). It has continued in the Obama years, with spending and taxes being manipulated so that Obamacare appears to decrease the deficit when it, in fact, does not and tax hikes only acceptable if they hit the dreaded rich.

I keep saying this and I am going to keep saying it: the most important aspect of any government budget is that spending should hurt. Spending should hurt either in cutting other services or in raising taxes. If you aren’t doing either of those things, you are giving people government on the cheap. And they will have no incentive, none whatsover, to support spending cuts.

Would you turn down services that are discounted 40-100%?

One of the problems we face in balancing the budget is that spending cuts are popular in general and unpopular in detail. When you ask people what spending they support cutting, the only thing that even gets 50% is foreign aide. But a big reason for that is that, for most Americans, government spending doesn’t hurt them. They can support all these wonderful things confident that the money for it will come out of somebody else’s pocket.

And that leads in to my real point: if we’re going to raise taxes to close the budget deficit, we have to raise them on everyone, not just the evil rich. The obsession the Democrats have with only raising taxes on the rich is a product of class warfare, not fiscal sanity. To balance the budget with taxes — hell, to balance them with any sensible mix of taxes and spending cuts — is going to mean raising taxes on everyone. Alex’s post made this point very well. Look at the breakdown of where the fiscal cliff taxes are coming from: over 80% are from people who are not rich.

If we just raises taxes on the rich that will, once again, give the American people the impression that the budget deficit is something other richer people will cover. It will make it almost impossible to cut spending in the future because, really, how is all that spending hurting 98% of the voters? But if we raise taxes now, raise them on everyone, then the popular support for spending restraint will come roaring back.

That’s not just ivory tower theorizing. We have a historical precedent. From the early 80’s to the early 90’s, Reagan, Bush and Clinton raised taxes eight times. The resultant backlash brought the Republicans into power in 1994 on a platform of fiscal discipline. And they delivered. And as much as the press tried to whine and cry and tell sob stories about how the budget cuts were destroying our country, the Republicans (and Clinton) got re-elected. Because people didn’t want more spending and they saw that, in many cases, the country was better off without it.

The only way to make spending cuts happen and make them stick is to make sure the American public feel it when we spend too much. And they’re not going to feel it because we eliminated a tax break on corporate jets.

There’s another reason to stop kicking the can down the road. Bruce Bartlett:

At the time the tax cuts were enacted, I recall arguing with my longtime friend Grover Norquist that temporary tax cuts were a really bad idea. Supply-side theory has always held that permanent tax changes are vastly more powerful than temporary changes, I told him. He didn’t disagree, but said the Bush tax cuts were de facto permanent because Democrats would never have the guts to permit them to expire; they would be renewed forever. People and businesses will know that, Mr. Norquist said.

That was a foolish position for political and economic reasons. People and businesses don’t make the sorts of changes in their behavior that would give the economy a supply-side boost unless they have confidence that today’s tax regime will be in place when the payoff from increased work, saving or investment is realized.

You know all that stuff we’ve been saying about regulatory uncertainty and how businesses are afraid to invest because they don’t know what the future will bring? Well, these temporary tax cuts, renewed every couple of years, are part of that. Bartlett specifically gets into the R&D tax credit and how its temporary status has created wonderful lobbying opportunities but little economic benefit. He argues that higher but more certain taxes would be better for our economy than lower but more uncertain taxes. And given that Bartlett basically invented supply-side economics, I’m inclined to agree with him.

Obviously, the best scenario would be to burn the entire tax code down and rebuild it, a la Simpson-Bowles. But that would take months, if it happens at all. If you want to create certainty, putting together a long-term budget deal with higher taxes is the way to go. And then, if we do get a tax overhaul, that will be an unexpected shot in the economy’s arm.

Yeah, I know. This is the dreaded compromise. But the idea that we’re going to cut spending 40% is ridiculous, not just in terms of the politics of the possible but in real terms. Cutting spending 40% means we can pay for Medicare, Social Security, the military and veterans. Everything else — from Medicaid for poor seniors to law enforcement to disaster relief would go. Oh, and every state would suddenly find a 30-50% hole blown in their budget.

Moreover, I’ve been thinking of something Ed Morrissey said the other day, in the context of a compromise on immigration:

The insistence on demanding nothing but the hard-line approach creates big problems for the nation and the GOP itself. First, the issue of border security has been left in limbo for more than 11 years after 9/11, and more than seven years after the 9/11 Commission rightly demanded better security on both borders, and the broken visa program that offers no follow-up on expired entries. If we continue to punt rather than compromise, we will be left waiting for at least four more years to get any kind of solution.

In two years, there will be another election. In four years, we will have a new President. If the Republicans have exercised some serious budget restraint by then and our deficit is falling, then we can reopen the issue of returning to Bush tax rates. Until then, however, we have to deal with the situation we have in front of us. And the situation we have is a big deficit that can not be closed by spending cuts alone and Democratic control of the White House and the Senate.

Keep in mind something else: taxes are already programmed to go up. The price of doing nothing is a gigantic half-trillion dollar tax increase on January 1. If we insist on taxes not going up, the result will inevitably be that they will.

Look, I hate taxation. I’m one of those who will get hit pretty hard if we return to Clinton-era rates or something approaching them. But there is something I hate more than taxes and that is debt. And I don’t see any practical way, outside of Fever Swamp La-la Land, to balance the budget without raising taxes.

Yes, the GOP needs to drive a hard bargain. Tom Coburn has identified tens of billions in wasteful defense spending that we should cut. Agriculture subsidies and ethanol subsidies should be on the table. The Ex-Im Bank should have been killed last year. Hell, maybe we could even taken Obama up on his “Department of Business” idea if it means we kill off Commerce, SBA, Ex-Im and some other budget functions. The hardest bargain, of course, has to be driven on entitlements.

But we can not stick to anti-tax orthodoxy. It’s not realistic. It’s not responsible. And, in my opinion, it’s not conservative.

Let me elaborate on that last point: low taxes are not a conservative value; small government is. Low taxes do not create small government, they are the result of keeping government small. Raise taxes to cover the bloated government we have now, hack at it like hell for four years and then we can talk about cutting taxes back.

Update: If you think you balance the budget without raising taxes, there are various budget simulators that can get you there.

Bluster from the Filibuster Buster

It seems that Senator Harry Reid (D-Mordor) is out to finally change the Senate rules to limit the circumstances under which a filibuster (or threat of one) can be done.

My response? Good.

For too long, the filibuster has been abused by the minority party (both parties at one time or another) to choke the business of the Senate. Worse, Reid has been hiding behind it as an excuse for not allowing anything to get done.

If he wants to change the rules and start taking more accountability for the poor performance of his chamber, fantastic. Yes, it will suck as long as the Democrats are running the Senate, but I wanted this to happen when the GOP ran the show too.

This should happen. Let’s start seeing some voting out of there and quit letting them all take political cover behind arcane, non-Constitutional rules.

Split Decision

There has been a lot of discussion recently about a potential split between the popular vote and the electoral college this year. Obama is leading in the polls in several critical swing states while Romney has been holding a lead in the national polls (caveat: Nate Silver points out that the math doesn’t work out. If the state polls are accurate, Obama should have a national lead (and indeed, the RCP average is now tied or has Obama with a very slightly 0.1% lead). One set of polls is likely off. Come Tuesday, we’ll find out which ones).

I’d kind of like to see a split this year since it would weaken the President and create the glorious spectacle of every pundit arguing the precise reverse of what he said in 2000. While it does now appear unlikely, it remains possible. And given that we’ve had two such splits in our history, a third will likely happen at some point.

(There is a very tiny chance of an electoral tie as well, which would throw things to Congress, assuming we don’t have any faithless electors. That would, given the composition, result in a Romney-Biden administration; almost like the worst of both worlds.)

I’ve made it clear that I oppose switching to a national popular vote, but we’ve never really had a discussion. So I want to throw this open before Tuesday’s vote. Should we abolish the electoral college? Should we go to a popular vote?

One of the things that make me hesitate is this: to the best of my knowledge, we have never had a national vote. On anything. All three high offices — the House, Senate and the President — are elected at the state level. Amendements are passed by Congress and state legislatures. In fact, reading the Constitution, you can’t help but be struck by how the Founders went to great lengths to avoid anything approaching a plebiscite.

This wasn’t just because a national election would have been difficult in such a large nation in the 18th century. And it wasn’t just federalism speaking, either. They cleared regarded direct democracy as dangerous (as do I). The beauty of a Constitutional Republic is that the people do not always get what they want. Elections do not give us what we want; elections create accountability.

Because we have never had a national vote, creating one is a lot more complicated that just adding the tallies from the states. Different states have different voting laws and that will create some power disparities. States with stricter voting requirement will lose votes relative to more liberal ones. States that don’t worry too much about counting every single Presidential vote because of the huge margin (e.g., Utah) will have to be more strict. And how do you reconcile the widely varying laws on early voting, absentee voting and electronic voting? What happens if online voting becomes a thing?

No, we’re not just talking about having a popular vote. We are talking, in the end, about federalizing the vote. We are talking about creating uniform voting standards, uniform early voting and absentee policies and, most likely, a national voter registry and ID card. In fact, I can not see that national vote would possible be compliant with Bush v. Gore unless it created uniform standards.

Maybe that’s preferable to the 50-state patchwork we have now. But if so, make the case. Why should we abolish the electoral college? Why should we nationalize the vote?

Would they need to do this if they where not trying to hide bad stuff?

As is to be expected, the usual propagandists in the LSM have chosen to ignore yet another devastating revelation of how corrupt the Obama Administration’s totally partisan DOJ has become. To those of us that suspected that the DOJ’s attempts to pretend that their scandalous and clearly politically motivated actions were anything but, these revelations are not news. From how the DOJ dismissed the blatant voter intimidation cases such as the one involving the Black Panthers, to the massive spinning about Fast & Furious, it was obvious that these were political.

The way the Black Panther case was dismissed, with a cavalier attitude and an attitude that pretended the people pointing out this was blatant voter discrimination were the racists, was an absolute shame. The message by the DOJ’s summary dismissal, frightening: racism can only come from honkeys, and voter intimidation only matters when the democrats can gain from it.

The way the DOJ tried to pretend that they had done the same as evil Boosh-Chimpy-McHitler’s administration, so nothing could possibly be remiss with the despicable Fast & Furious operation, didn’t fool anyone but the people that wanted to be fooled, and was even more shameful. Apply Occam’s razor to the Fast & Furious fiasco, and you quickly find out that the string of “mistakes” and “bad decisions” could not have been anything but a blatant series of moves intended to violate Mexican sovereignty with the objective to give the anti gun lobby some ammunition to undermine support for the second amendment they so despise, in order to counteract the losses handed to the tyrants that need a disarmed public by the courts. There is no other logical reason, not even pure ineptness, that would explain an operation that all but guaranteed weapons from the US would land in the hands of criminal gangs that would use them to kill people.

The left told us that crazy people where the ones that saw conspiracies, because nothing was remiss. Now we know better:

Abuse Of Power: The Justice Department has been caught colluding with left-wing media “watchdog” Media Matters to suppress critics who’ve embarrassed the Obama administration. What is this, Hugo Chavez’s Venezuela?

Based on a cache of internal Justice Department e-mails obtained by the Daily Caller, Attorney Gen. Eric Holder’s press staff has been collaborating all along with left-wing media “watchdog” Media Matters to smear any reporter asking uncomfortable questions, to discourage whistle-blowers, to discredit political watchdogs and to suppress damaging news about what’s going on in the Obama administration.

The Daily Caller found dozens of pages of e-mails between DOJ Public Affairs Director Tracy Schnakler and Media Matters staffers planning and discussing how to attack reporters who covered scandals such as the Black Panther voter suppression case, and the Fast and Furious scandal where DOJ sold thousands of guns to Mexico’s notorious crime cartels — the truth of which DOJ didn’t want to get out.

These weren’t just instances of over-sharing between political allies or a quest for access, such as the New York Times was caught doing when one of its reporters submitted an unpublished story to a CIA flack.

This was the Obama administration planning and directing operations from on high in a grotesque example of the state with all its powers using an off-the-books nuisance organization to harass its critics.

Look, if Team Obama’s blatantly biased DOJ are willing to go to this length to do damage control, it is for a reason: they need to control the narrative or people might find out they are up to no good. And they need to control the people that can undermine the narrative because the narrative is key in making sure the sheep don’t get the facts. Funny how the very same people that accused the Bush Administration’s DOJ of being political are now exposed as have taken actions that the Bush Administration’s DOJ could never have dreamed of getting away with. And yet, the LSM feels the only stories of worth these days are more of the same kind of narrative that tells the sheep Obama –good, Romney- bad. The facts be damned.

The top organization in charge of law enforcement in the US not only flaunts the law for political gain, but colludes with the most radical elements amongst the left’s propaganda machine to then cover up these despicable acts, but the big story in the DNC controlled LSM is evil Romney’s dislike of poor people! Yeah, no bias or fact and news manipulation there for sure, either. No wonder they have to skew polls participation so far to the left: they need to account for the big bounce the LSM gives the left. In the mean time our legal system only protects and serves those from the right party while that fact remains not news worthy…

The more we find out about Holder’s reign at the DOJ, the more it is obvious that these people think they are above the law and that the law is their personal weapon to deal with their opposition.

Count this as a blessing

What “this” am, I referring to in the title? Well, the revelation that the 112th Senate, run by Harry Reid, has been a do-nothing chamber for the last year or so:

For those who need proof that the Senate was a do-nothing chamber in 2011 beyond the constant partisan bickering and failure to pass a federal budget, there is now hard evidence that it was among the laziest in 20 years.

In her latest report, Secretary of the Senate Nancy Erickson revealed a slew of data that put the first session of the 112th Senate at the bottom of Senates since 1992 in legislative productivity, an especially damning finding considering that it wasn’t an election year when congressional action is usually lower.

For example, while the Democratically-controlled Senate was in session for 170 days, it spent an average of just 6.5 hours in session on those days, the second lowest since 1992. Only 2008 logged a lower average of 5.4 hours a day, and that’s when action was put off because several senators were running for president, among them Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama and John McCain.

On the passage of public laws, arguably its most important job, the Senate notched just 90, the second lowest in 20 years, and it passed a total of 402 measures, also the second lowest. And as the president has been complaining about, the chamber confirmed a 20-year low of 19,815 judicial and other nominations.

The Secretary of the Senate’s office didn’t comment on the statistics, but it did provide a comparison to action in 2009, the first term of the 111th Senate, when many of President Obama’s initiatives were considered by the Democratically-controlled House and Senate. By comparison the number of Senate bills offered last year was down 30 percent, the number of amendments offered sank 55 percent, and the number of roll call votes dropped 40 percent.

I say count your blessings indeed. Yeah, Reid and his gang of thieves have made sure we haven’t had a real budget for 3 years and going now – so the American people wouldn’t have an accounting sheet of the massive overspending and waste that the left has engaged in during the last 3 years with much, much worse to come – or had another stimulus patronage bill that funneled a trillion dollar of tax payer’s money to democrat & democrat friendly operatives, lobbyists, friends, organizations, and campaign coffers. But other than that sort of travesty, which we had a ton off for the first 2 years of Team blue’s rein of terror, these bastards have not stuck is with other damaging lefty policies that will destroy our country and economy, like Obamacare does for example, in order to fool idiots that want free shit paid by others, to vote for them.

Seriously, having congress do less is good for the country. Having democrats do less, or nothing at all, is doubly so. Count your blessings that these lazy bastards do nothing. Of course, when Obama speaks of the do-nothing congress and pretends it is the House, which is controlled by the other party, make sure to point out the hypocritical bullshit and how the LSM will just parrot that nonsense in a manner that would have made the old order that ran the USSR proud of that propaganda arm back in the day.

The best reward for these bastards? Send as many of them as possible back home. Let them go screw over the bastards that stuck us with them directly and not while screewing us too.

The Two Americas

Maggie McNeill has a post up today about Judge Jack Camp.

One year ago today I reported the story of Jack T. Camp, a federal judge in Atlanta, Georgia who made a career of throwing the book at people for consensual crimes; he fell for a stripper whom the F.B.I. then bribed into betraying her client by promising to drop other consensual crime charges against her. So she led him into a fake drug deal and the FBI arrested him and charged him with an assortment of drug and weapon charges for which any normal person would’ve faced decades in prison. But since he is a member of the ruling class (albeit a disgraced one), what he actually got was far less time in jail than a Georgia woman who was accused of agreeing to have sex with someone for the “wrong” reasons (like, you know, to pay the bills and feed her kids) might have been sentenced to.

The story actually dates from March, when he was sentenced. The judge in the case — um, the one who didn’t deal drugs with a stripper — made huge pronouncements about Camp betraying his office, dissing the rules of law and then sentenced him to … 30 days in prison, a $1000 fine, 400 hours of community service and reimbursing the government for their costs. Needless to say, anyone in this situation who had not ““disgraced his office” or “denigrated the federal judiciary” or “encouraged disrespect for the law.” would have been with a far harsher punishment and likely be in prison for years.

So why do I bring up this 6-month old story? Because I was thinking today that a big part of the reason our government is so disconnected from reality is because almost all the people in it are. Our political class can not sympathize with our anger when we are groped and harassed by TSA because it doesn’t happen to them when they’re on chartered flights. They ramp up the War on Drugs because their kids aren’t going to prison if they’re busted, their friends aren’t being busted on New York streets. Hell, they can talk about their drug use in a book and be praised for their “candor”. While bodies are hitting the floor in warrantless no-knock drug raids, they’re screaming blue murder when a warrant is executed on William Jefferson’s Rayburn office. They support the Patriot Act but how often are they subject to sneak-and-peeks? How often do their phones get tapped? And when it comes to the War on Whores, was Elliot Spitzer prosecuted for anything? Would any of them be?

It’s not just that people in power are held to the different standards than we are; it’s that they live in a different country. They live in a country that treats them with utter deference. Even when they egregiously break the law — especially sin laws on drugs and sex — they are coddled and swaddled, punished less severely than we are for, say, biking the wrong way down a street. And I have seen zero evidence that they have earned such special treatment.

We need to push them on this. Any politician who defends TSA needs to be ignored until he submits to a groping. Drug Warriors should be laughed at until they agree to some no-knock raids and sneak-and-peeks. And just like politicians who thunder on about gays should be assumed to be closet cases until proven otherwise, politicians who scream about prostitution should be assumed to be Client 9’s.

Funny how the left wants “less democracy” when they are in power, huh?

Peter Orszag, one of those evil Wall Street types – he is Vice Chairman of Citigroup, one of the left’s biggest money bag operations -that once was the 37th director of the Office of Management and Budget, under President Barack Obama, has an article out in the New Republic where he is lamenting the evils of democracy, and all out pining for the bureaucratic aristocracy class to simply ignore the process and do what they feel is best. Here are his words:

So what to do? To solve the serious problems facing our country, we need to minimize the harm from legislative inertia by relying more on automatic policies and depoliticized commissions for certain policy decisions. In other words, radical as it sounds, we need to counter the gridlock of our political institutions by making them a bit less democratic.

Frankly, one of the things I like the most is gridlock. Whenever DC can’t agree on anything “We the people” are spared all sorts of horribly stupid, disastrously costly, massively freedom robbing, and oft time outright evil legislation – always cloaked with the mantle of that shafting being “well meaning”, “socially just”, or to protect some victimized group – from them. It is absolutely a rare occasion when these fools pass anything of real value for us the people.

I frankly wish we had had a lot more gridlock when these crooks rammed Obamacare down our throats, in a purely and partisan vote that had necessitated hundreds of billions in graft money, paid for by the US tax payer, to buy the necessary votes from members in their own party preceding it, followed by massive favoritism in the form of special exclusions for the big donors that then tried to avoid the disastrous government takeover of healthcare this bill was designed to bring forth. And let’s not forget the blatantly obvious bullshit that the OMB did when Orszag was there to pretend Obamacare would somehow actually reduce the cost of this massive entitlement. American tax payers are in dire straights already, but wait until this fisting rolls us over. I bet even democrats will wish they had failed to pass this shit sandwich.

And I remind you that it was gridlock that prevented the democrat controlled congress from doubling down on the stupid with “Cap & Tax”. Of course, people that feel like Orszag that democracy for the stupid little serfs is such a problem in getting things done and that our aristocratic political class should simply “do by committee what they feel is in the best interest of the country” – that’s in quotes to point out it is as a snark, because what they are really doing is what is in their best interests, first, second, third, anything in between, and even last – are now implementing what they found to politically unsound and costly to do in the legislature, to avoid the wrath of the US voter, by just such a committee at the EPA. And we all know how destructive it will be to our economy.

More important however is the way the left feels about this idea when the other side has power. If they really believed this whole “rule by committee instead of democracy” pap Orszag is now selling us, wouldn’t they be for it when the other side was in power too? History kind of shows us that’s absolutely and undoubtedly not the case. Remember the gyrations Bush went through to get anything? Yeah, I know the left now pretends these things never happened, but those of us that paid attention or do not suffer from the self induced amnesia the left suffers from when it comes to facts & truth, know better.

Beware these crooks. In the name of doing more for us they are yet again trying to fool us into giving up another set of freedoms and a key vehicle to prevent them from doing far greater harm than they have already inflicted on us, in a much faster timeframe, so they can rake us over the coals even harder. Do not worry much about Wall Street: fear the fucking government that tells you it wants to just steamroll its agenda even when it holds the majority of the engines of power but can not get its will done because the fucking peasants won’t shut up and let their betters do what will save the political class’ collective hide at the expense of the serfs. Fuck em all.

Why The Debt Ceiling Deal Was A Total Cave By Boehner et al

Because it didn’t limit the debt ceiling at all, that’s why. It simply put in place a nearly automatic raising of the ceiling as long as Republicans couldn’t overcome an Obama veto. Come Monday, 9/12/11, another $500 BILLION will be added to the ceiling, and all Boehner et al did was provide themselves political cover for that predetermined increase on that predetermined date. If there’s still any Boehner and Super Committee apologists out there, explain how this is a victory for either Republicans or the country:

Here We Go Again: US To Breach “Transitory” Debt Ceiling On Monday

It is hard to believe that the last time the US had breached its debt ceiling was a whopping one month ago. Courtesy of much toil, tears and televized theater (not to mention fake compromises), the Obama administration managed to get an accordion-feature extension of the debt-ceiling-cum-target, whereby it is currently at $14.694 trillion, and can be extended in $500 billion increments, for a total of $1.5 trillion provided congress and senate do not vote down such an expansion. The reason we bring this up is because as the data below demonstrates, the US Treasury will breach its brand new debt ceiling… on Monday.

That’s right: as of yesterday, total US debt was $14.717 trillion (obviously an all time record, and every day closer to parity with US GDP), while debt subject to the ceiling was $16.772 trillion, or just $22 billion below the total before someone has to go ahead and commence the whole debt ceiling fiasco from scratch. And since as the Treasury is auctioning off another $32 billion in 3 Year bonds on Monday, that process better scramble or else all that rhetoric about Social Security being nothing but a plundered ponzi scheme will be proven true yet again. And while we see flashing headlines that Obama’s proposal is now set to be a bullshit $450 billion (bullshit because republican will absolutely not go ahead with it), we are positive that not one word will be uttered to inform the public that as of this moment Harry Reed has already started the process of the next $500 billion debt ceiling expansion, one which will bring total US debt-to-GDP to over 100% for the first time since the post-WW2 period.

Most recent total debt breakdown:

And next week’s full debt auction schedule:

And the issue in question that will tip us over:

 

And the Super Committee hasn’t even gotten started putting the screws to us yet. Isn’t it great that we have Republicans to SAVE our country? Wiemar, here we come…..

Oh, and surprise!

Senate Attempt To Block Debt Ceiling Increase Fails: Debt Target Is Now $15.2 Trillion, Or Over 100% Of GDP

Got it? Debt target is now OVER 100% of GDP. Us Tea Party terrorists, racists and wannabe lynchers were just alarmists calling for Boehner to hold his ground, right? This country is doomed.

CC

 

 

View Mobile Site