At the beginning of the week, I was sure I had heard the best joke that I was going to hear all week. The joke goes like this.
Question: How much coke did Charlie Sheen do?
Answer: Enough to kill Two and a Half Men.
Turns out I was wrong. Though I find this joke to be pretty funny, there was an even bigger joke waiting to be told: Congresses' budget cut proposals. What were the proposals?
Well, House Republicans sent a proposal to cut $61 billion from the budget which the Democrat-led Senate promptly rejected. Senate Majority leader, Harry Reid (D-NV), bemoaned the mean-spirited and draconian cuts that would defund such things as National Public Radio (NPR), the Corporation for Public Broadcasting (PBS) and the National Endowment for the Arts. Senator Reid went on to cited the annual Cowboy Poetry Festival in northern Nevada as, what I can only assume, he believes to be the best example of the kinds of critical programs that would be lost due to the cuts. But wait, that wasn't the joke. The joke is that $61 billion is less than 2% of the $3.7 trillion budget. Now that my friends is a real joke. It gets better though. Then, the Senate Democrats sent their own proposal of "prudent and reasonable" cuts to the House where the Republican majority defeated it. The total amount of cuts the Democrats were able to identify - $4.5 billion which ("Are you sitting down?") is just a little over 1/10th of a percent of the budget. What both of these proposals amount to are essentially "rounding errors" when compared to the total size of the budget.
So, one week - two big jokes. The only problem is that, while the Charlie Sheen joke was at least witty, the big budget joke is nothing to laugh at. Our politicians better get serious!
Thursday, March 10, 2011
Friday, March 4, 2011
Time for a New kind of BRAC - Let's Call It PRAC!
What is BRAC? For those not acquainted with the term, BRAC stands for Base Realignment and Closure and is a government commission that is charged with determining what military facilities can either be closed or realigned in order to save money. The first round took place in 1988 and there have been 5 rounds to date with another planned for 2015. The idea for a commission was to have independent commissioners who would be able to render their decisions without political concerns.
So what do I mean by PRAC? Well we learned last week that the Government Accounting Office (GAO) identified between $100-$200 billion in overlapping, wasteful, or duplicate federal programs. According to the Wall Street Journal which reviewed the report, the GAO found that there are:
So by PRAC I mean Program Realignment and Cancellation which would be an independent commission to to identify duplication, determine program effectiveness, and ultimately determine which programs should be eliminated, consolidated or left alone.
Although the goals of many of these programs appear to be noble, it seems very unlikely that the duplication is justified. Even if all that is accomplished by "PRAC" is consolidation, the savings realized from eliminating the administrative costs of so many separate programs would be, without a doubt, substantial and perhaps this could be accomplished while preserving the portion of their budgets that is actually spent helping citizens and improving our society.
We've got to start somewhere because if we don't, our annual budget deficits and national debt will destroy the country and threaten the future of our children and grandchildren. Isn't "PRAC" a proposal that both conservative and liberals would agree is the right thing to do?
So what do I mean by PRAC? Well we learned last week that the Government Accounting Office (GAO) identified between $100-$200 billion in overlapping, wasteful, or duplicate federal programs. According to the Wall Street Journal which reviewed the report, the GAO found that there are:
- 15 different agencies overseeing food-safety laws
- more than 20 separate programs to help the homeless
- 80 programs for economic development
- 82 federal programs to improve teacher quality
- 80 to help disadvantaged people with transportation
- 47 for job training and employment; and
- 56 to help people understand finances.
So by PRAC I mean Program Realignment and Cancellation which would be an independent commission to to identify duplication, determine program effectiveness, and ultimately determine which programs should be eliminated, consolidated or left alone.
Although the goals of many of these programs appear to be noble, it seems very unlikely that the duplication is justified. Even if all that is accomplished by "PRAC" is consolidation, the savings realized from eliminating the administrative costs of so many separate programs would be, without a doubt, substantial and perhaps this could be accomplished while preserving the portion of their budgets that is actually spent helping citizens and improving our society.
We've got to start somewhere because if we don't, our annual budget deficits and national debt will destroy the country and threaten the future of our children and grandchildren. Isn't "PRAC" a proposal that both conservative and liberals would agree is the right thing to do?
Friday, February 18, 2011
Fiscal Conservatism Is Enough
A conservative can be a fiscal conservative, social conservative or both. As I reflect on the future of conservatism in America, especially in the run up to the 2012 elections, it occurs to me that the focus of conservatism needs to be on the fiscal aspect of the movement. Our current economic situation demands greater fiscal responsibility so, out of absolute necessity, this is where the emphasis must be. Only through smaller government and more responsible spending will our nation return to a path toward a strong economy and as an intended consequence, bring back a more traditional, socially conservative America.
While working on this entry, I heard Rush Limbaugh during his commentary last Monday criticize those at last week's CPAC convention who were advocating that the conservative movement give up on social conservatism. Though I am not one of those conservatives, I also disagree with Rush. I strongly feel that we need those of all conservative stripes in the movement but we must chose our strategy carefully. In the arena of ideas, the path toward conservative victory, both fiscal and social conservatism, is via fiscal means. It is the power of the purse strings that will ultimately guide the country back to its conservative roots.
Liberals depend on taxes and government spending to further their agenda and government largess is the lifeblood of their ideology. Without it, their social engineering policies will be starved of the "oxygen" they need to survive. If conservative candidates for office in 2012 focus on limited government and controlling government spending but do so without alienating social conservatives, they will stand a much better chance of being elected. They can do this by campaigning on a platform that calls for limiting the role of government to those functions enumerated in the Constitution which is a far less emotionally charged approach and will make conservative candidates more appealing to a broader swath of American voters.
Running on a platform of fiscal responsibility, conservatives will be able to retake control of the Senate and White House in 2012 and along with their counterparts in the House, will begin passing responsible legislation that will restore America's economic health and by doing so, realign the nation's moral compass - a win-win for both fiscal and social conservatives.
While working on this entry, I heard Rush Limbaugh during his commentary last Monday criticize those at last week's CPAC convention who were advocating that the conservative movement give up on social conservatism. Though I am not one of those conservatives, I also disagree with Rush. I strongly feel that we need those of all conservative stripes in the movement but we must chose our strategy carefully. In the arena of ideas, the path toward conservative victory, both fiscal and social conservatism, is via fiscal means. It is the power of the purse strings that will ultimately guide the country back to its conservative roots.
Liberals depend on taxes and government spending to further their agenda and government largess is the lifeblood of their ideology. Without it, their social engineering policies will be starved of the "oxygen" they need to survive. If conservative candidates for office in 2012 focus on limited government and controlling government spending but do so without alienating social conservatives, they will stand a much better chance of being elected. They can do this by campaigning on a platform that calls for limiting the role of government to those functions enumerated in the Constitution which is a far less emotionally charged approach and will make conservative candidates more appealing to a broader swath of American voters.
Running on a platform of fiscal responsibility, conservatives will be able to retake control of the Senate and White House in 2012 and along with their counterparts in the House, will begin passing responsible legislation that will restore America's economic health and by doing so, realign the nation's moral compass - a win-win for both fiscal and social conservatives.
Thursday, February 3, 2011
Chris Matthews' Knowledge of US History is PowerPoint Thin
MSNBC's Chris Matthews used Rep. Michelle Bachmann's (R-MN) address to an Iowa Tea Party group as an opportunity to, not only bash her personally, but to provide the perfect capstone to the Left's several week long campaign mocking the new Republican House majority for their show of reverence for the US Constitution. Matthews called Bachmann a "balloon head" for her assertions that the Founders worked to end slavery and the Constitution gave the nation the ability to eventually do away with its "original great sin." In typical "enlightened" liberal fashion, he pointed to the clause in the Constitution counting Negro slaves as 3/5th of a person as evidence of the racist nature of America and the Civil War as proof of how inadequate the document was for dealing with the problem of slavery. In doing so however, Matthews demonstrated more than just his contempt for Bachmann, the country and its history: he showed his inability to analyze anything beyond the simple facts.
When I was still in the military, we had a phrase we used to describe people like Matthews - those who had limited depth to their knowledge. A typical example was the briefer who could not elaborate beyond his slide presentation. We used to say, "His knowledge of the subject is PowerPoint thin." PowerPoint is the Microsoft program for creating slide show presentations. Of this, Matthews is a perfect example - someone who knows facts but cannot translate them into understanding.
While the examples Matthews cites are in fact true, one cannot overlook the intricate political chess game that was required in order to get our Constitution ratified. Had the Constitution called for the outright abolition of slavery, the southern States, especially South Carolina and Georgia, would never have joined the Union. Furthermore, without the 3/5th apportionment clause, the South would have enjoyed an advantage in representation, that would have made it difficult to prevent the spread of slavery into any new territories. Last and most importantly, had the indirect approach to ending slavery not been taken in our Constitution, the United States as we know it would never have come into being. The more likely outcome would have been another loose and dysfunctional confederation as under the Articles of Confederation or perhaps one country comprised of the northern States and one or more nations formed from the southern States. In either case, it seems highly unlikely that a United States formed solely from the northern States would have ever gone to war against its hypothetical southern neighbor or neighbors to end slavery in their territories and the practice would have undoubtedly continued for much longer.
To be sure, the Civil War was, on the one hand a great national tragedy and on the other, a noble sacrifice to end an even greater one. Far from being flawed for not abolishing slavery, our Constitution is remarkable for providing the mechanism, albeit a costly one, for stamping out slavery throughout the land once and for all and resulted in the most just, prosperous and successful nation in history. It's about time Mr. Matthews and his ilk added some depth to their PowerPoint view of America.
When I was still in the military, we had a phrase we used to describe people like Matthews - those who had limited depth to their knowledge. A typical example was the briefer who could not elaborate beyond his slide presentation. We used to say, "His knowledge of the subject is PowerPoint thin." PowerPoint is the Microsoft program for creating slide show presentations. Of this, Matthews is a perfect example - someone who knows facts but cannot translate them into understanding.
While the examples Matthews cites are in fact true, one cannot overlook the intricate political chess game that was required in order to get our Constitution ratified. Had the Constitution called for the outright abolition of slavery, the southern States, especially South Carolina and Georgia, would never have joined the Union. Furthermore, without the 3/5th apportionment clause, the South would have enjoyed an advantage in representation, that would have made it difficult to prevent the spread of slavery into any new territories. Last and most importantly, had the indirect approach to ending slavery not been taken in our Constitution, the United States as we know it would never have come into being. The more likely outcome would have been another loose and dysfunctional confederation as under the Articles of Confederation or perhaps one country comprised of the northern States and one or more nations formed from the southern States. In either case, it seems highly unlikely that a United States formed solely from the northern States would have ever gone to war against its hypothetical southern neighbor or neighbors to end slavery in their territories and the practice would have undoubtedly continued for much longer.
To be sure, the Civil War was, on the one hand a great national tragedy and on the other, a noble sacrifice to end an even greater one. Far from being flawed for not abolishing slavery, our Constitution is remarkable for providing the mechanism, albeit a costly one, for stamping out slavery throughout the land once and for all and resulted in the most just, prosperous and successful nation in history. It's about time Mr. Matthews and his ilk added some depth to their PowerPoint view of America.
Wednesday, January 26, 2011
The Return of the Dodo
In the late 16th century, European sailors visiting the island of Mauritius encountered a flightless bird called the dodo. It was said that the dodo was so stupid and so lacking in the instinct for self-preservation that it would waddle up to the sailors who easily killed them for food. By the middle of the 17th century, the dodo was extinct. Over the years, the word "dodo" has become synonymous with being dim-witted and it has only been recently that scientists and historians, examining the accounts of the bird, have determine that, contrary to popular belief, the dodo was actually a swift runner that fled into the jungle to escape their foreign human predators. In reality, it was what came along with the humans - dogs, cats, rats, and pigs - that preyed upon the birds and especially their eggs and young in their ground nests which ultimately led to the demise of the dodo.
Today there is an animal that deserves the reputation unjustly given to the dodo - the modern American liberal. The American left is constantly on the lookout for any group bent on the destruction of the United States and our way of life. Beginning with the Communist Revolution in Russia, American liberals have embraced ideologies that are antithetical to the ideals of their own country and this continued with the rise of Nazi Germany when many prominent Americans such as Joseph Kennedy Sr and Charles Lindbergh seemed to sympathize with the Nazis. The liberal fondness for all things anti-American was sustained throughout most of the late 20th century by the Cold War until the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991.
Overlapping the last ten years or so of Soviet communism, anti-American radical Islam began a rapid ascent which came to the forefront of the American psyche with the horrific events of September 11th. America was blissfully unaware that we were at war with an ideology that is wholly incompatible with our society and way of life. In hindsight, we were terribly naive as there were plenty of indicators and in fact, the radicals made their intentions known to those paying attention.
Unfortunately, American liberals, out of a sense of misplaced fairness, inexplicable national self-loathing or blind political correctness, refuse to acknowledge radical Islam for the deadly serious threat to our way of life that it is. They insist that the political right or "radical Christianity" pose the same threat to the country as radical Islam. In their minds, it makes sense to expend scarce resources to give the same level of scrutiny to an eighty-five year old woman from Iowa when she boards an airplane as it does a twenty-five year old, male, Yemeni exchange student.
These tendencies have resulted in a serious defect in the instinct for self-preservation in liberals and one that, if not corrected will lead them, if not our entire nation, down the same path to extinction as the dodo. This time around however the word "dodo" would be aptly applied.
Today there is an animal that deserves the reputation unjustly given to the dodo - the modern American liberal. The American left is constantly on the lookout for any group bent on the destruction of the United States and our way of life. Beginning with the Communist Revolution in Russia, American liberals have embraced ideologies that are antithetical to the ideals of their own country and this continued with the rise of Nazi Germany when many prominent Americans such as Joseph Kennedy Sr and Charles Lindbergh seemed to sympathize with the Nazis. The liberal fondness for all things anti-American was sustained throughout most of the late 20th century by the Cold War until the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991.
Overlapping the last ten years or so of Soviet communism, anti-American radical Islam began a rapid ascent which came to the forefront of the American psyche with the horrific events of September 11th. America was blissfully unaware that we were at war with an ideology that is wholly incompatible with our society and way of life. In hindsight, we were terribly naive as there were plenty of indicators and in fact, the radicals made their intentions known to those paying attention.
Unfortunately, American liberals, out of a sense of misplaced fairness, inexplicable national self-loathing or blind political correctness, refuse to acknowledge radical Islam for the deadly serious threat to our way of life that it is. They insist that the political right or "radical Christianity" pose the same threat to the country as radical Islam. In their minds, it makes sense to expend scarce resources to give the same level of scrutiny to an eighty-five year old woman from Iowa when she boards an airplane as it does a twenty-five year old, male, Yemeni exchange student.
These tendencies have resulted in a serious defect in the instinct for self-preservation in liberals and one that, if not corrected will lead them, if not our entire nation, down the same path to extinction as the dodo. This time around however the word "dodo" would be aptly applied.
Thursday, January 6, 2011
Amazing Coincidence?
Yesterday I began listening to the audio book, "Founding Brothers" by Joseph J. Ellis which is about the subset of America's Founding Fathers - Adams (John and Abigail), Aaron Burr, Alexander Hamilton, Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, and George Washington during my morning commute. Just as I inserted the first CD in my car stereo, I looked up and saw a bald eagle fly over the road leading into my neighborhood. An amazing coincidence? I'd like to think of it as a sign.
Saturday, January 1, 2011
Gas Prices on the Rise! Surprised? You Shouldn't Be!
According to the AAA, the national average price for a gallon of regular unleaded gasoline has risen from $2.86 less than two months ago to $3.06 today. What is going on? Traditionally, gasoline prices fall after the summer driving season and bottom out in mid-winter. Why then have prices been going up? The answer is QE II. No, not Her Majesty the Queen of England but the second round of quantitative easing undertaken by the Federal Reserve.
On November 3rd, the chairman of the Federal Reserve, Ben Bernanke, announced that the Fed would begin buying long-term Treasury bonds from the government in an operation called quantitative easing in order to increase the money supply and thus spur the lagging economy. Since this was the second time the Fed was trying this, it was dubbed QE II. But where does the money to buy the bonds come from? The answer is nowhere or in other words right out of thin air! The news media sometimes refers to this as "printing money" but in reality, the Fed doesn't actually print the money it just changes the balance in its checkbook and ... poof, like magic, more money. Don't we all wish we could do that!
Wait! What does this have to do with the price of gasoline? Glad you asked! Gasoline is one of the most price sensitive commodities so the price of gasoline gives us the first signs of inflation. But how does the increase in the money supply cause inflation? Another excellent question! A rise in the general price of goods and services is what most of us understand as inflation. However, this doesn't tell the whole story because it doesn't give us the how or why. Inflation occurs when more money chases the same amount of goods and services. Therefore, the value of money decreases and consumers have to pay more for the same items.
In June of 1980, under Jimmy Carter, the misery index (unemployment rate + the rate of inflation) peaked at nearly 22 and it is currently hovering around 11. (http://www.miseryindex.us/) Will one of the legacies of this flailing presidency end up being a return to a Carter-era misery index level? With the help of this Fed and its chairman, it just might!
On November 3rd, the chairman of the Federal Reserve, Ben Bernanke, announced that the Fed would begin buying long-term Treasury bonds from the government in an operation called quantitative easing in order to increase the money supply and thus spur the lagging economy. Since this was the second time the Fed was trying this, it was dubbed QE II. But where does the money to buy the bonds come from? The answer is nowhere or in other words right out of thin air! The news media sometimes refers to this as "printing money" but in reality, the Fed doesn't actually print the money it just changes the balance in its checkbook and ... poof, like magic, more money. Don't we all wish we could do that!
Wait! What does this have to do with the price of gasoline? Glad you asked! Gasoline is one of the most price sensitive commodities so the price of gasoline gives us the first signs of inflation. But how does the increase in the money supply cause inflation? Another excellent question! A rise in the general price of goods and services is what most of us understand as inflation. However, this doesn't tell the whole story because it doesn't give us the how or why. Inflation occurs when more money chases the same amount of goods and services. Therefore, the value of money decreases and consumers have to pay more for the same items.
In June of 1980, under Jimmy Carter, the misery index (unemployment rate + the rate of inflation) peaked at nearly 22 and it is currently hovering around 11. (http://www.miseryindex.us/) Will one of the legacies of this flailing presidency end up being a return to a Carter-era misery index level? With the help of this Fed and its chairman, it just might!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)