Should we be RINOs?

No! And it cannot be repeated enough.

The "smart money" says that the way for the Republicans to win elections is to appeal to a wider range of voters, including minorities, by abandoning the Ronald Reagan kinds of positions and supporting more of the kinds of positions that Democrats use to get elected. This sounds good on the surface, which is as far as many people go, when it comes to politics.
A corollary to this is that Republicans have to come up with alternatives to the Democrats' many "solutions," rather than simply be nay-sayers.
However plausible all this may seem, it goes directly counter to what has actually happened in politics in this generation. For example, Democrats studiously avoided presenting alternatives to what the Republican-controlled Congress and the Bush administration were doing, and just lambasted them at every turn. That is how the Democrats replaced Republicans at both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue.
Ronald Reagan won two elections in a landslide by being Ronald Reagan-- and, most important of all-- explaining to a broad electorate how what he advocated would be best for them and for the country. Newt Gingrich likewise led a Republican takeover of the House of Representatives by explaining how the Republican agenda would benefit a wide range of people.
Neither of them won by pretending to be Democrats. It is the mushy "moderates"-- the "kinder and gentler" Bush 41, Bob Dole and John McCain-- who lost disastrously, even in two cases to Democrats who were initially very little known, but who knew how to talk.

Republicans will win if their policies, including not putting the federal government in charge of every damned thing in sight, make more sense than Democrats' policies.

Given the problems the Democrats are creating, like huge deficits, we should resist Democrats wherever they plan to expand federal power and explain why those expansions are bad ideas.

And we should tell the McCains and the Lyndsey fucking Grahams of the world to STFU and STFD.

Doing "Good" Things

Liberals are never afraid of doing something. They're constantly in a huff to solve some problem that can't be solved without the fierce moral urgency of change -- or some such blather.

Has anybody ever stopped to ask a Liberal which of their previous somethings they would wish to go and undo? Of all the "good things" Liberals have done through the years isn't it amazing that none of those "good things" were mistakes? Are Liberals the only people in the world incapable of making mistakes or admitting them?

Read the rest of Sowell's article for more good things.

Competence

Shannon Love (who btw is a dude) notes a trend in Instapundit's links. In each of the situations Insty considers government has failed to do what it would demand of private enterprise. But the apologists for Liberal policies always argue that government will get the very next thing correct (while ignoring the previous failures):

Leftists like to argue that, by some magical mechanism, real-world politicians make better decisions, especially better economic decisions, than do private actors in the free market. They usually make this argument after either the free market corrects itself naturally or the government interferes. They then simply assert, without any possibility of empirical verification, that the magic government unicorns could have prevented the problem if only they had been given enough power to do as they wished.

An investor who demands more (and perhaps the impossible) out of a company is well within her rights to do so. She can withdraw her financial interest in the company and move along. Doing so rewards companies that do the right thing (typically this means just the bottom line) and punishes those that do not. Leftists have used the tactic of non-investment to pressures countries (e.g. South Africa) and companies (e.g. Nike) to change practices.

But government can revert to coercion to prevent one form of bad action. In doing so, government is almost always fighting the previous war. But notice what else government does. It prevents private citizens the option of influencing behavior through private action.

Query this: Shouldn't Liberal activists oppose government action in favor of private action because their own power is diminished by government action?

Tax Day

I very much like the suggestion of moving Tax Day closer to Election Day. However, I can see that incentives for politicians would blunt the effectiveness of such a move.

It was no secret that candidate Obama was dissembling madly when he claimed 95% of Americans would get a tax break. The need for the lie is the lack of appetite for higher taxes. Thus Congress has made no moves to actively increase taxes. Instead, they plan to allow taxes to increase when Bush's tax cuts expire.

Democrats were clever enough to pass tax cuts only if they expired after a national election. Thus, they will be given three years to obfuscate their role in increased taxes. And Republicans were idiotic enough to allow such obvious ploys.

Second, Democrats are disguising more and more of their taxes. The proposed increases in taxes on soda, beer, cell phones and all sorts of other things will be felt widely. But because the amount of each tax will be relatively insignificant tax payers are much less likely to vote their anger about increased taxes. This means that Democrats are more likely to get away continually increasing taxes and assuming more authority to themselves.

So, taxes are likely to increase. But not income taxes -- aside from allowing Bush's tax cuts to expire. So moving tax day wouldn't make as much difference as it should.

Matt Cooper Spinning

I'll publish the text of my comment to this risible conjecture here for posterity's sake:

The problem Mr. Cooper alleges for President Obama's economic policies is the problem President Bush encountered vis-a-vis terrorism. Because there were no large-scale terrorist attacks on American soil month after month the threat slipped further from people's minds. Somehow the MSM never credited Mr. Bush on that account.
However, the reasoning w/rt Obama's poll declines cannot hold. First, there has not been a month after month series of good economic news to encourage the notion that Obama's policies are working. The projections of several months ago have only gotten worse on unemployment and capacity utilization. That has happened in spite of the promises the Obama Administration made regarding the efficacy of their plans.
Additionally, the fiscal stimulus set upon by the Democrats has barely taken hold. There are no "shovel-ready" projects of import available due to bureaucratic holdups.
Therefore, the lack of even more negative news (e.g. systemic failure) has been generated by the monetary policies that the politically independent Fed has taken. Since Obama cannot claim those were his policies without admitting the politicization of the Fed, it seems highly dubious to credit Obama with their successes, such as they are.
What is interesting is that the JournoList would test this trial balloon for explaining Obama's dip in the polls when Occam's Razor suggests otherwise. But keep up the good fight. Pravda and Izvestia would be proud.

Betraying Israel

In February the Obama Administration pledged $900 million in aid for rebuilding the Hamas-controlled Gaza Strip. WND reported a Hamas spokesperson saying

"We are very happy with this decision," said.. Fawzi Barhoum, speaking by cell phone from Gaza. "In the first place, this money will go toward reconstructing efforts."

As if. Money is fungible. Any dollar Hamas doesn't have to spend placating their own people through give-aways is a dollar that will be diverted to weapons smuggling. And support of terrorist organizations like Hamas is illegal.

Well, it would be illegal if the Justice Department wasn't busy staffing a booth at a Muslim Brotherhood and Hamas front's convention. Are you kidding me? Do they not know that the Islamic Society of North America

was named an unindicted co-conspirator in the Hamas-support prosecution of the Holy Land Foundation for Relief and Development (HLF), which ended in the conviction of five former HLF officials on 108 counts.

in a previous Justice Department action? And are they not aware that Hamas and Hez b'Allah are funded by the mullocracy in Iran? And that the mullocracy is currently embroiled in a potential revolution? Hamas and Hez b'Allah have never been weaker than when their patron state is otherwise occupied. Why then would the United States government invite the Iranians for a 4th of July celebration?

President Barack Obama's administration said earlier this month it would invite Iran to US embassy barbecues for the national holiday for the first time since the two nations severed relations following the 1979 Islamic revolution.
"There's no thought to rescinding the invitations to Iranian diplomats," State Department spokesman Ian Kelly told reporters.
"We have made a strategic decision to engage on a number of fronts with Iran," Kelly said. "We tried many years of isolation, and we're pursuing a different path now."

Hell, the Iranian protesters think Obama will come to their side in a fight against oppression? Fat chance. He won't even defend our avowed allies. It is my strong belief that the multi-culti crowd -- including Obama -- is going to betray Israel.

Associated Press

The following quote from this article is untrue.

The grim assessment was the latest unwelcome surprise for the market since last month and further eroded hopes that the economy was starting to emerge from recession. Investors began driving stocks sharply higher in early March, encouraged by modest improvements in housing, manufacturing and even unemployment.

In fact, the unemployment numbers have gotten worse every month that Obama has been president. Here's the chart that the AP story's writer apparently couldn't find. Funny, but I found it with only one google search.

Let me be completely clear: The AP article is a lie. And the author of the article is a lying liar. And anybody who republishes the article is furthering that lie.

And just to take away the last refuge of the lying liar, there has not been a slowdown in the change in the unemployment rate either. The unemployment numbers got worse by 5, 4, 4 and 5 tenths of one point on a month to month basis. There is no "second derivative of unemployment" that can save the lying liar.

The numbers for housing and capacity utilization tell the same story.

More Economics

Robert Samuelson has another interesting and prescient column up today. In it, he compares the welfare state that is General Motors with the welfare state that is the United States. It is widely known that GM pays retirement benefits that are entirely unsustainable because

1) There are more GM retirees than current employees,
2) The unions were able to extract ever-increasing benefits because of bottlenecks in the manufacturing process,
3) The political interests of Democrats aligned with those of unions to bolster their untenable position, and
4) The MSM has long been a sop to unions and Leftist causes generally.

Those are my reasons. Samuelson offers some history that is, he posits, likely prologue to the welfare benefits promised by government.

In contracts with the United Auto Workers, GM promised high wages, lifetime employment, generous pensions and comprehensive health insurance. All this is ancient history: New workers get skimpier benefits.
As metaphor, GM's bankruptcy marks the passage of this model. Companies still provide welfare benefits to attract and retain skilled workers. But these shelters against insecurity are growing flimsier. Career jobs remain, but lifetime job guarantees -- whether formal or informal -- are gone.

To anybody who hasn't entered dementia or has learned to read, the connection is obvious. America will someday soon not be able to pay the benefits it has promised to its workers. Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, SCHIP, WIC and a whole raft of other benefits are unsustainable. Eventually those benefits will have to be cut, probably in some ad hoc way that spreads the political pain across the spectrum, or collapse will be upon us. Young people everywhere are aware that this pain is coming. We know that we'll be asked to pay the freight for our parents without the promise of future benefits.

But unlike the GM example in which younger workers do not get the benefits promised the oldsters -- but for which they suffer no immediate detriment -- the federal example depends on the votes of all voting blocs. Eventually the younger workers will vote to cut the benefits of retirees because that will mean short-term benefits in the form of lower taxes or greater future benefits. The idea that middle aged workers looking toward their own retirement while funding current retirees and their own children's lifestyles will continue to passively accept what may come from their political betters is absurd. It will not stand. So unlike GM, which had the option of bankruptcy, America will not (I think.) allow oldsters to keep their benefits while youngsters agree to less.

Exit Questions:
Democrats and the MSM have perpetrated the fraud of the current system upon us. Will they be able to blame Republicans for the disaster that is coming? And will Republicans be stupid enough to let them?

This is Getting Ridiculous

I just went to weather.com to check the local forecast. Due to some website design issues a pull down menu popped open when my mouse scrolled over to the "Enter zip code" box. And it wouldn't go away. So I hit return and up popped a page with the name "Obama" on it.

The fucking weather is now infused with politics. That really pisses me off.

When did political office become so intensely commercial? If we can ban Joe the Camel from TV because it's bad for children can we ban politicians from advertising when there isn't an election campaign (in that pols future) for another 3 years? It would be good for my blood pressure.

More on Health Care

I don't want this to be a health care blog. Instead I want it to focus on economics and the law. Unfortunately those clamoring for national health insurance are economically illiterate so I must take many of them to task.

Robert J. Samuelson is not one of those economic illiterates. He makes the case quite nicely in his Washington Post column today.

The central cause of runaway health spending is clear. ... The... system encourages doctors and hospitals to provide more services -- and patients to expect them.

That sums the problem nicely. But I had to use ellipses to drive the point home. And what was written in between makes a mockery of the central point.

You see, the problem is that patients are disconnected to the cost of medical care. That is not true with other forms of insurance. If you drive your car recklessly, you will find your premiums increase until the cost of driving poorly is outweighed by the price. The costs are internalized. The same argument is true for medical malpractice insurance. Doctors who are sued a lot pay a ton in med/mal insurance and this induces those doctors either

1) not to get sued or
2) to quit medicine

Either option is economically driven and both benefit society.

But that's where Samuelson gets off the rails, seemingly. Look at this next little bit:

Unfortunately, what pleases providers and patients individually hurts the nation as a whole.

This assumes the answer is that one person must accept the costs of another person's medical treatment. If the costs were not socialized "the nation as a whole" wouldn't give a wet fart about the cost of medical care. If the costs were internalized by the individual (as they are by those without medical insurance, btw) then patients would be more circumspect in the care they received.

To sum, if there is socialized medical insurance everybody will fall prey to the tragedy of the commons. And there is no escaping that truth. Samuelson gets it correct but it takes him until the third-to-last paragraph to state the case plainly.

The one certain consequence of expanding insurance coverage is that it would raise spending. When people have insurance, they use more health services. That's one reason Obama's campaign proposal was estimated to cost $1.2 trillion over a decade (the other reason is that the federal government would pick up some costs now paid by others). Indeed, the higher demand for health care might raise costs across the board, increasing both government spending and private premiums.

The costs of medicine have increased dramatically. This is because of the disconnect between the cost of care and the cost at the point of delivery to the individual of receiving that care. Any solution will realign the incentives of the individual. And any attempt at socialization will fail as it must. Always. And in every case.

Health Care "Utilization"

The new euphemism for rationing is utilization. If you ever read or hear utilization in a story about health care, be sure to substitute the word the pundit meant to use: rationing.

For example, on CNBC they just talked about the need to tax "Cadillac" insurance packages because they encourage recipients to "over-utilize" their health care. In other words, people are incented to go to the doctor more often when they receive packages of health care benefits that create a disconnect between the payor for the coverage and the recipient of the coverage. Well no shit, Shirley!

Here's another area where there is and must be over-utilization: single payer health care plans. Because the person paying the bill has no direct cost they are more likely to over-consume the resource. This in turn creates the need for rationing via long wait times. You see, in that way the government can limit health care to those who most need it and are willing to sacrifice their time to seek care. IOW, it's the government's way of increasing the cost of health care while keeping the price low.

More on this later.

Health Care Rationing

There has been a lot of talk about health care rationing recently. And make no mistake, any government takeover of health care provision will mean rationing based on bureaucratic methods.

But it is important to note that rationing is happening now. Any honest witness to the current situation will observe that we currently ration by dollars. Those who can afford health care insurance get better and more care because they have earned that privilege.

Note too that there is rationing based on poorness and age. The very young are covered by WIC and the very poor are covered by Medicare.

One may argue that one type of rationing is more effective over the long-term than the other types. In point of fact I would argue exactly that. For example, it is true that the benefits that are only initially available to the very rich become accessible to the poor as well. MRIs were once without the reach of average citizens. The early funding for the expensive procedure allowed doctors to experiment with various methods of delivering the images. And through some trial and error (and economies of scale) the prices were brought down to reasonable levels so that nearly anybody can benefit from the procedure.

Another example is tits. (That's right, I said tits in my first substantive post on this blog.) The price of boob jobs has gone down substantially -- and the quality of results has improved significantly too -- because it is a competitive market. If new tits had stayed incredibly expensive the marketplace that discriminates (or rations) based on price would be very small. Indeed the number of 20-something tits on 40-something women would be vanishingly small to the detriment of people everywhere. But the marketplace delivered low price, high quality tits to everyone with a few grand available. Yeah, the marketplace. Yeah, tits!

But let's be clear. Price is the dominant mechanism for rationing right now. Youth, old age and poorness are also used but to lesser extents.

When the bureaucracy gets to make decisions about rationing the results will be worse for all, no doubt. But let's be clear on the language.

Welcome All

Like so many of the Ace of Spades morons, I've decided to start my own blog. I hope at least a few of the morons decided to give this a read. In the AoSHQ comments section I'm a bit more combative than I'll be here. But there are no promises toward that end.

I hope to publish medium length, sometimes topical daily posts on the issues that struck my fancy that day. You'll probably find that I take several days to formulate my thoughts and that I use ideas from those around me (internet-wise). Perhaps I can get a smallish following if I'm lucky.