It's Come to This

Chinese communist chief banking regulator, Liu Mingkang, warned that U.S. monetary policy was inflating asset bubbles around the world. You think? It's pretty bad when the U.S. is getting lectured by the communists on how to run capitalist monetary and fiscal policy. Even worse, Liu is correct. From the WSJ:

Liu Mingkang, chairman of the China Banking Regulatory Commission, said that a weak U.S. dollar and low U.S. interest rates had led to "massive speculation" that was inflating asset bubbles around the world. It has created "unavoidable risks for the recovery of the global economy, especially emerging economies," Mr. Liu said. The situation is "seriously impacting global asset prices and encouraging speculation in stock and property markets."

Meanwhile the jobless rate is at 10.2%, supposedly psychologically significant, but no matter, there are a lot of unemployed and underemployed people out there. But shouldn't things be looking up? After all the stock market is up. Maybe things aren't so rosy, to recycle a quote:

"A jobless recovery is nothing more than a euphemism for a monetary asset bubble..." Jesse of Jesse's Café Américain. H/T W.C. Varone's blog.

The real conundrum for U.S. policy is the need to get the ballooning deficit under control. This will require spending cuts, which Obama and the Dems are in no mood for. So look for the return of stagflation and hopefully another one term Democrat President.

Embarassed

Obama was in Asia this week. Here is a picture of him with the Emperor of Japan:



Later, he was asked about Hiroshima and Nagasaki and whether he thought those bombings were the right decision. View his answer here.



I have read a lot of commentary, but have little to add, this stuff just speaks for itself. I note however, that the TOTUS isn't available during press conferences.

Weekend Music Chill

Dean declared Freedom Week over at BwD, so I thought I'd close out the week with this music video:



I would also like to express our gratitude to the veteran's of World War II, who defeated perhaps the greatest political threat to freedom in the history of the world, the ideology of Nazism. People forget how attractive that ideology seemed in the 1930s during a world wide depression. Hitler and Mussolini were seen as men who got their countries "moving again." But their dictatorial aspirations were met head on by the aspirations of free peoples and the rest as they say, is history.

Update on Political Correctness Killing 13 Americans

H/T Hotair. I feel vindicated in my assessment about political correctness being at least partially responsible for the 13 dead at Fort Hood. Army Major Shawn Keller writes in today's RealClearPolitics:

But as angry as I am at what happened, I'm even angrier that it was allowed to happen. Apparently, there was no shortage of warning signs that Hasan identified more with Islamic Jihadists than he did with the US Army. From speeches, writings, conversations, affiliations and postings on Jihadist websites, there were more than enough dots to connect that should have exposed Hasan as someone inclined to attack innocent people in the furtherance of a political, religious and ideological agenda. There were more than enough red flags raised that, at a minimum, should have gotten Hasan kicked out of the Army.

My point exactly. The good major confirms my other suspicion:

The Army as an institution has been neutered by decades of political correctness and the leaders in Hasan's chain-of-command failed to act accordingly out of fear of being labeled anti-Muslim and receiving a negative evaluation report.

I feel bad for the major, because he can probably bend over and kiss his career good bye. We'll see how the Army responds to this kind of truth telling.

P.S. I have to quote the major's closing remarks:

Hasan's radical ideology grew to the point that he committed mass murder because too many leaders were too afraid to lead out of fear of harming their career or the image of the Army. If those leaders don't have the intestinal fortitude, moral conviction or personal courage to stand up, speak up and protect soldiers, then retire, resign or get out of the way and let somebody else do it for you.

Freedom Blogging - What Are We Fighting For?

On Veteran's Day, I thought it would be worthwhile to remember not only the veterans but what the veterans have prepared and fought for. Early in the formation of the nation, our founding fathers had the wisdom to insist that the oath taken by our armed forces be a pledge of allegiance not to a man or even the nation, but to the constitution of the United States. Commissioned Officer's oath:

I, (state your name), having been appointed a (rank) in the United States (branch of service), do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foriegn and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the office upon which I am about to enter. So help me God.

Enlisted member's oath:

I, (state your name), do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God.

These are very political oaths, but not in the sense that we think of politics today. The oath to the constitution is to a very specific form of government, that of a republic, whose powers are limited to those enumerated and further constrained by a bill of rights. Further, the members of the military have forsworn any attempt at a coup or other subversion of democratic principles. Finally, the members of the military are swearing that they will obey the lawful order of the President, the elected leader of the nation. We sometimes take all of this for granted.

In the great sweep of history over the last 230 plus years we have seen our form of government become the accepted standard against which all others are judged. By force of arms our veterans have defeated:

• Monarchism - Defeating the British in the Revolutionary War and then preventing any reconquest of the Americas through the Monroe doctrine. Again in World War I we fought and prevailed against countries ruled by monarchs.
• Slavery - In the civil war.
• Fascism and Nazism - In World War II.
• Communism - By fighting in Korea and Vietnam (even if a loss) and by the great persevering struggle of the Cold War.

Today, we are faced with another threat, not nearly as great as previous threats, in the ideology of islamic theocracy (islamofascism). We are fighting right now in Afghanistan and Iraq, but like many ideologies we have faced in the past, victory may take a while and come in fits and starts.

To those veterans who paid with their lives we offer our gratitude and we honor their memory by remembering the cause for which they gave their lives, the cause of freedom.

After we win this conflict, let us remember the words of Abraham Lincoln from his second inaugural address:

With malice toward none, with charity for all, with firmness in the right as God gives us to see the right, let us strive on to finish the work we are in, to bind up the nation's wounds, to care for him who shall have borne the battle and for his widow and his orphan, to do all which may achieve and cherish a just and lasting peace among ourselves and with all nations.

American soldiers in the Battle of the Bulge defeat the Nazi counterattack.

Happy 234th Birthday to the USMC

A one day late happy birthday to the United States Marine Corps. Fighting on the land and on the sea since 1775. They are truly America's 911 force, which I know from personal experience. So how about a little mid-week music to honor the Corps?



And a more contemporary version for the youngsters:


The Marines Hymn (as You've Never Heard It Before) - Click here for the funniest movie of the week

Political Correctness Runs Amok - 13 Dead

I have held back on commenting on the Fort Hood massacre until I could ascertain a few facts, but I had my suspicions as soon as I heard the news. Political correctness is running amok in the United States military and now 13 people are dead. And if anyone wants to argue about how we should be sensitive, take that up with the families of the dead.

From ABC News via HotAir:

A fellow Army doctor who studied with Hasan, Val Finell, told ABC News, “We would frequently say he was a Muslim first and an American second. And that came out in just about everything he did at the University.

Finell said he and other Army doctors complained to superiors about Hasan’s statements.

“And we questioned how somebody could take an oath of office…be an officer in the military and swear allegiance to the constitution and to defend America against all enemies, foreign and domestic and have that type of conflict,” Finell told ABC News.

From my experience as a veteran officer of 22 years, I know that problems like this are frequently tougher for commander's to deal with than the life or death decisions of war fighting. That is because making the wrong move can wreck your career in a case like this. Tough. Everyday you come to work, your career could be wrecked, it comes with the territory, do the right thing.

Think this is an isolated case? Consider what has happened at the Naval Academy, where we are training future officers like the one's who ignored Hasan's indefensible positions.

From CDR Salamander's blog:

On 29 OCT, the USNA Color Guard made an appearance at the World Series. The day prior to their appearance, two Midshipmen were removed from the Color Guard by senior Commissioned Officers in leadership positions at Annapolis for one simple reason; they were white males. That isn't a guess on their part - that is what they were told.

Before I go further, I want to detail a couple of things. I didn't think about running this story after the first notification I received. However, I soon started to receive multiple tips from multiple contacts associated with Annapolis, alumni, and parents.

Over the last few days, working with over a half-dozen very reliable sources, the following story started to flesh itself out.

The day before their appearance, the two MIDN were notified that USNA senior leadership did not like the fact that the Color Guard was not diverse enough. As a result, they were to be removed and replaced with someone with a higher melanin content in their skin, and a female. Boom - there you go.

The good commander follows up on Monday, November 9, with even more damning evidence, including evidence as to why the media won't follow up. (Can't get the permalink to work for the second story, you have to scroll down to "The Mask Slips at Annapolis.")

The tragedy is that the Hasan case didn't have to be viewed through such PC lenses. The man stated that he didn't believe his oath of office, a simple interview asking him about his beliefs followed by a discharge for the good of the service would have sufficed to save lives.

By the way, I refuse to post a picture of the terrorist shooter. I hope that justice is done, as I understand he lived. Here is a picture of the brave officer who brought the shooter down, despite being wounded herself.

Kimberly Munley pictured with country music singer Dierks Bentley.

Small Favors

H/T to Legal Insurrection via KT. Leftist rage over the exclusion of funding of abortions from the House health care bill is a sight to behold. Recommend you follow the links. I can't help my schadenfreude, because they kill the likes of those pictured at left. Also, for you RINO's who think being pro-life is a loser, ask yourself why 64 Democrats would vote for the Stupak Amendment that would limit abortion funding but not a single Republican voted against. The trend line in public opinion is definitely moving against abortion as more and more people realize what a crime against humanity this procedure really is.

Free Market Health Care Reform

In the spirit of reaching out to the left, I thought I would explain how free markets and minimal government intervention can achieve the same results as the overly complex and costly health care legislation passed by the House.

From his own web site, the President's stated goals for health care reform can be summarized as follows.

• Reduce the cost of health care.
• Increase the number of insured.
• Ensure those with pre-existing conditions are covered.
• Protect Medicare.
• Create a more competition through and insurance exchange and "public option."
• Do not increase the deficit.

With respect to reducing the costs of health care, I hope we can all agree that such reduction is only desirable if the value of the health care delivered is not increasing. There are actually two costs that get conflated in this argument. One is the cost of care, the other the cost of insurance. To reduce the cost of insurance, we need more competition, less regulation. The Congress, acting under the interstate commerce clause, could pass legislation that allows any insurance company licensed by any state to be allowed to sell insurance in all the fifty states.

Reducing costs of care is more problematic, but again, information and competition are key. In Pennsylvania, the government publishes statistics about hospital outcomes and has found that the most effective hospitals are the least expensive, because the cost of re-admission skew total costs of care. Is this government intervention? Yes, but the least obtrusive kind, providing needed information. I foresee a time when such fact finding could be done privately for insurance companies under a consortium.

Increasing the number of insured is also amenable to free market reform. The health insurance industry is subject to heavy regulation as to what should be covered, what co-pays are allowable and what caps are in place. As with any regulation, this has stymied the innovation that is the cornerstone of increasing efficiency and reducing cost. Further, the current system doesn't give consumers enough incentive to shop around for best value in health care providers. Lifting regulations on what must be covered would be a boon to many. A single male shouldn't have to pay for pregnancy coverage for example. A young married woman shouldn't have to pay for viagra coverage, we hope. Further, high co-pays, with catastrophic caps to prevent disaster for the insured, would go a long way to reducing the cost of insurance. I'm not saying that no regulation is required. Certainly, a legal framework that requires insurers to honor their commitments is needed, even libertarians agree in the basic issue of contract enforcement. But the current amount of regulation hurts the ability of insurers to provide lower cost products.

Pre-existing conditions that prevent some people from getting insurance certainly tug at our heart strings. Our heart goes out to someone who loses their insurance and because of an existing and potentially debilitating illness, would go bankrupt getting treatment. However, this can be solved in a two pronged approach. First, we need to make insurance even more portable than it already is. Individuals should have the right to purchase a level term guarantee, just like they can with life insurance, so that they can take their coverage with them if they lose employment. Secondly, we should change the tax code so that we start to encourage employers to get out of the health insurance business, and have individuals purchase their own plans. If the plan is my own, it doesn't matter who my employer is, I can keep my plan for life.

As far as protecting medicare, I am not sure it can be saved, but certainly cutting payments to Doctors accepting medicare will only hasten it's demise. Doing nothing will do more for medicare than anything produced by this administration.

Increasing competition? See previous paragraphs on reducing regulation and allowing health insurance to be sold nationally.

This is easy under free market reform, no new programs = no new spending.

There, we have the start of a free market plan, time for the Republicans to put it forward.

Health Care Update and Summary of Suckiness

How did the Democrats in Congress manage to come up with so many ideas that suck in the bill they just passed? Because the Republicans thought they could distribute pork forever and hold on to their majority without addressing real problems. A little summary of what we get with the Dems in charge of health care legislation, much of this courtesy of Betsy McCaughey in the WSJ.

• Over $1 trillion in new spending, during exploding deficits.
• Requirement to enroll in a "Qualified Plan" even though that plan is not defined.
• One size fits all plan, once it does get defined. Whatever happened to pro-choice Democrats. This will raise the cost of private insurance.
  
• Use of the IRS to enforce health care choice. (I like the Orwellian ring to that.)
  
• Cuts payments to popular Medicare Advantage plans.
• Subsidizes abortion.
• Massive new bureaucracy.
  

A quick summary of Freedom Coalition ideas to reform health care.

• Allow insurance companies to sell across state lines to increase competition.
• Treat privately purchased insurance and employer provided insurance the same in the tax code. That way people will have a better chance to keep their insurance when they change jobs and not be denied for existing conditions.
• Allow and encourage high deductible policies with catastrophic caps so that consumers have more skin in the game.
• Tort reform (notice this isn't first, it would help, but is not a panacea.)
• Require individuals who use emergency rooms to pay for their care, to encourage those who can afford insurance to get some. (See Reason.tv)
• Remove government mandates about what must be covered, so that consumers can choose their best options.
• Expand Pennsylvania's program that rates hospital quality.

Lying bastards on the left say that the Tea Partyers have no plan, but we do, it just doesn't increase the size of government and still goes a long to solving health care problems.

Time to see what can be done to stop this abomination in the Senate. The relative closeness of the vote in the House (220-215) was the only encouragement I could take from the day's events (other than Navy's defeat of Notre Dame.)

And could someone please mount a primary challenge to Louisiana RINO Anh Cao, the only Republican to vote for the bill?

Weekend Music Chill

I haven't commented on this week's election results, because I didn't think I had anything particularly insightful to add. I'll let this weekend's music summarize my take on the deeper meaning of it all.

Sonny and Cher - The Beat Goes On
by scootaway

Health Care Reform and Medicare

Dean was visited by someone to the left of us, Joe Markowitz, after Dean posted an article opining that "everyone in and nobody out" was the one of the worst political slogans of all time. Mr. Markowitz also commented on some TLT articles; hooray for readers and commenters. He called us out on an issue to which Republican politicians can't respond well, but to which I can. Here's what he said:

Either you should support the abolition of Medicare AND Medicaid AND the VA, which I do not hear any politicians suggesting, or you should be working constructively with supporters of reform to help fix those programs and put them on a better financial footing. But you can't be against government health care and then at the same time try to scare seniors by saying that reformers want to try to find some cost savings in the program.

As a principled libertarian/conservative I agree. I support the abolition of medicare, medicaid and the VA in their present form. The reason the Republicans can't say this is that Medicare, at least, is a popular program. It is popular with seniors, because they get more from the program than they ever put in to it. And seniors vote in greater percentages than youngsters. But Medicare is not sustainable, and this is well known. Better not to have embarked on an unsustainable program than make promises that will eventually be broken. Further, why do we encourage generational wealth transfer from the relatively poor and young to the relatively richer and older?

With respect to the VA, that system does not work well for the veterans. I am a veteran, and abhor the lengthy waits and red tape to obtain service. I do not use the VA as a result. It would be better if the government gave veterans an opportunity to get treatment in the private sector for their service related injuries through a private insurance plan, and cheaper too.

I work for the Federal government and I know from first hand experience the difficulties of performing one's duties within the spirit and the letter of the law. Not a day goes by that I have to bend rules or not be in full compliance to be able to actually execute the mission I am given. A health care bureaucracy would be run by people like me, dedicated to their mission, but given an impossible task of obeying byzantine rules. But the consequences will be that the costs for such a system will spiral out of control, because all of the rule making is intended to control costs. Because of my first hand knowledge, I dread any increased growth in the scope of government because I know that the competing political pressures of law, mission and leadership always results in less than optimum solutions. Do I think the private sector is perfect? No, but the pressures to bring efficiency and effectiveness are much greater, because politics does not intrude.

The Real Californication

The real Schwarzenegger porn awaits his election as governor.

The guvenator, not content to take some hapless saps clothing, is reaching deep into your wallet as well. From the LA Times:

Starting Sunday, cash-strapped California will dig deeper into the pocketbooks of wage earners -- holding back 10% more than it already does in state income taxes just as the biggest shopping season of the year kicks into gear.

Technically, it's not a tax increase, even though it may feel like one when your next paycheck arrives. As part of a bundle of budget patches adopted in the summer, the state is taking more money now in withholding, even though workers' annual tax bills won't change.

Think of it as a forced, interest-free loan: You'll be repaid any extra withholding in April. Those who would receive a refund anyway will receive a larger one, and those who owe taxes will owe less.

Except, of course, if the state is technically bankrupt again next year when all us poor saps go to file our taxes. Also, when Jimmy the Nose collects a forced interest free loan from us, we usually call that extortion. Look at what happened last February when the state was broke.

However, you can fight back. In another case of BDaddy taking his own financial advice, I went on my employer's pay website and increased my number of claimed deductions to offset the increased deductions the state is taking. If you want to protect yourself against another bankruptcy in California next year, then you want to owe taxes, not waiting to be stiffed, in all senses of the term. If you're worried about owing too much, pay extra to the feds, so you can file early with them and use the refund check to pay the state.

Fight back California, force these fornicators to reduce spending.

New York 23 Update - Scozzafava endorses Dem

In what amounts to an I told you so moment, Dede Scozzafava, after dropping out of the race has endorsed her Democrat opponent rather than the Conservative who forced her out of the race.

Wall Street Journal commentary on the events hits the mark:

GOP state chairman Joe Mondello, now thankfully retired, and Beltway bigs misjudged public dismay against the Democratic agenda in Washington. Nominating a candidate who "can win" in the Northeast does not have to mean someone whose voting record is more liberal on taxes and unions than that of most Blue Dog Democrats.

Biden Spills Beans

From the Fox News article:

Vice President Joe Biden, during a visit Tuesday to a Delaware automotive assembly plant, unwittingly revealed startup manufacturer Fisker Automotive's undisclosed plans to produce a full line of plug-in hybrid vehicles at the facility.

I think the operative word here is unwittingly; and couldn't we just characterize all of Biden's comments with that adverb?

$89,000 Hybrid sports car funded by your tax dollars.

Update on New York 23 - Scozzafava Quits

H/T Hotair. The liberal Republican nominee in the New York 23rd congressional district has quit the race after sinking to a distant third in the polls. This is good news, because it makes it easier for the Conservative Party nominee, Doug Hoffman, to capture the seat. However, Hotair reports that Hoffman has high negatives among Scozzafava supporters, so it is not obvious that he will win. Regardless, this is a clear warning that Republican nominees need to be supporters of small government and can't be radically leftist on abortion.

Siena College poll here.

Weekend Music Chill

Happy Halloween folks. Here's a little ditty from one of our favorite movies in the B-Daddy household.



But is this version scarier?

New York - 23 Update

DailyKos polling shows the 23rd Congressional district race to be a statistical dead heat, with Democrat Bill Owens clinging to a one point lead over Conservative Party insurgent Doug Hoffman. The Republican nominee, Dede Scozzafava, is fading fast, down to 23% and falling.

Recent results from Research 2000 for Kos:

Scozzafava (R) 21 (30)
Owens (D) 33 (35)
Hoffman (C) 32 (23)

I find this polling to be credible, and it confirms recent trends. As I opined earlier, this is a great opportunity to let the Republican leadership know they need to listen to the Tea Party calls for smaller government and less debt and I have donated to the Hoffman campaign. As Kos points out, if Republicans keep breaking for Hoffman, no way does Owens win this race.

Doug Hoffman, not much to look at, but better than the alternative.

Boo Who?

And I don't even like Broadway shows.

So the President was annoyed that his date night with Michelle was criticized and turned political. Boo hoo. What did he expect? I'd be annoyed, too, but I'd shut up about it. Now your critics know they can get under your skin. Grow up and take it like the Commander-in-Chief, for cryin' out loud. Second, Mr. President, you deserve this kind of crap sandwich after all the uncalled for swipes at your predecessor, who has been nothing but gracious towards you. Again I say, grow up, you just look like a small man who can't handle the gravity of your office. You can stop picking on people, like white police officers and Fox News, while your at it.

As for me, I never mention this stuff in my blog until I see this kind of petty response. Of course the President should go out on a date once in a while, just let the criticism roll off your back.

Finally, why do the Obama's never seem to look happy when they aren't politicking? What do they have to look so dour about?

Tea Partying the Republican Party

As many of you may know, I am not a big fan of the Republican Party, I just loathe the Democrat party with much greater intensity. In fact until 2008, I was a registered Libertarian. So it gives me great pleasure to stick it in the eye of the GOP when they abandon any pretense of being the party of small government, even though that platform brought them huge victories in 1994. Such an opportunity exists in New York's 23rd Congressional District special election.

The Republicans have nominated Dede Scozzafava, a recipient of the Margaret Sanger award from Planned Parenthood for her work supporting abortion rights. HotAir has been all over this. Fortunately for Conservatives, New York has a strong third party movement. In this case, the Conservative Party of New York (of James Bucklry fame) is running a far superior candidate. First a little more on Scozzafava from Michelle Malkin as re-posted in Hot Air.

Scozzafava is an abortion rights advocate who favors gay marriage.
It would be one thing if Scozzafava balanced that social liberalism with fiscal conservatism. But as a state assemblywoman, she voted for massive tax increases, Democratic budgets and a $180 million state bank bailout. She also supported the trillion-dollar federal stimulus package — which every House Republican voted against.

More troubling, Scozzafava in past elections has embraced the ballot line of the Working Families Party — a socialist outfit whose political DNA is intertwined with scandal-ridden ACORN. ACORN and the WFP have shared office space in New York City, Arkansas and Illinois. ACORN head Bertha Lewis, a close Scozzafava friend and political supporter, wears a second hat as vice chairman of the WFP. The WFP has been listed in ACORN documents dating back to 2000 as an “affiliate.”…

This is a chance for those of us in the Tea Party movement to show the Republicans not to pull this kind of crap. Scozzafava was nominated by party officials, so they can't claim any voter mandate for her.

Here is a little of what Hoffman says in a NY Post Op-Ed piece:

It’s just as bad in Washington. The Obama administration suffers from the illusion that the way you solve problems, both social and economic, is to throw money at them.In the meantime, Congress fiddles while our economy burns. They lack common sense.

They don’t seem to get it that increased spending leads to higher taxes and fuels a projected $9 trillion deficit. That earmarks and pork-barrel spending might be beneficial to their political careers, but are devastating to the taxpayers who foot the bill. They are oblivious to the fact that tort reform, cutting of waste, and the introduction of free-market solutions are the ways to lower the cost of health care. That Obama-care will only lead us down the slippery slope to socialized medicine.

I have visited Hoffman's web site and donated to his cause, because it's time this country had at least one party that supports the concept of limited government. I encourage you to do the same.

Creating a Crisis - Swine Flu

The President declared the swine flu a national emergency on Sunday. Forgive me if I'm cynical enough to believe that he thought it would buy some support for more government run health care. I really loathe to second guess the President on an issue this important, so let me offer some evidence.

1. Only 1,000 people have died to date from the H1N1 virus. According to the only information I could find, in 2004, the CDC predicted the regular old flu would kill 36,000 Americans.

2. The administration themselves did not really say this was an emergency.

Administration officials said the declaration was a pre-emptive move designed to make decisions easier when they need to be made.

3. The President's children have not received the vaccine. By the way, I would not criticize the President if he and his family were near the front of the line for the vaccine. He is our elected leader and he deserves full protection, including the best medical treatment the country can provide.

4. It is the administration's proven tactic to use crises for political ends. Rahm Emmanuel has famously said that we should never let a crisis go to waste. See video link. When you think about the health care situation, there is no crisis to drive the passage of whatever bill comes out of the Senate, because most people are happy with their insurance plan. Even if there is grousing about cost, that doesn't really constitute a crisis.

5. And this:

The national emergency declaration was the second of two steps needed to give Sebelius [HHS Secretary] extraordinary powers during a crisis.

I invite comment from readers who disagree.

UPDATED Looming Inflation: A Public Service Announcement

The nation is struggling with recovering from the current recession, which recovery does not seem assured. However, thinking longer term, I see looming inflation on the horizon. Both The Economist and the Wall Street Journal devoted significant column inches to the tricky subject of how the deficits and rising debt of the United States federal government will result in crisis. Allan Meltzer in the WSJ pins the problem on the Federal Reserve monetizing the debt, printing money to buy Treasury bonds. Both he and the Economist agree that inflation may take a while to take off, but on current trends it is unavoidable. If that happens, prior to the 2012 elections, then Obama will go the way of Jimmy Carter. Although both articles end optimistically, I don't think our politicians have the will nor the insight to do much about the problems. Look at the dilemma they face and ask yourself if you believe they have the stomach for the tough options.

Japan’s experience illustrates the excruciating dilemma facing American policymakers. The White House acknowledges the deficits it projects are too high. But slashing spending or raising taxes too soon could snuff out recovery and leave America with even bigger deficits. Asked on October 15th when the administration would tackle the deficit, Tim Geithner, the treasury secretary, said: “First, growth.”

And from the Journal:

The Obama administration chooses to blame outsize deficits on its predecessor. That's a mistake, because it hides a structural flaw: We no longer have any way of imposing fiscal restraint and financial prudence. Federal, state and local governments understate future spending and run budget deficits in good times and bad. Budgets do not report these future obligations.

I think we are in for some pain that will only be solved through high interest rates and deficit reduction. I also don't think that will happen under a Democrat controlled government.

More pressing for my readers might be what to do about this situation. Fortunately, we have lived through this movie before. First, mortgage holders should take advantage of the current low interest rates to get into a fixed mortgage. I know this will cause most home owners to increase their monthly payments, but Mrs. Daddy and I have gone this route to reduce future uncertainty.

Second, if you have an investment portfolio, you should own precious metals (gold, silver) as part of that either outright through coins, my preference, or through mining stocks. These hedge inflation well. I don't overloading on precious metals is a good idea, we strongly believe in a balanced portfolio.

Finally, there are Treasury Inflation Protected Securities, or TIPS, are Treasury bonds that provide another inflation hedge.

TIPS pay a fixed coupon plus a rate that rises with inflation and falls during deflation. The portion that adjusts for inflation gives investors protection against erosion in the purchasing power of the greenback. TIPS are indexed to the Consumer Price Index, or CPI, which is released monthly and tracks prices paid by consumers for a representative basket of goods and services.

Ultimately, inflation is a tax that ravages everyone, but not equally, and it is hard to avoid all of its ill effects. The last thing we can do is continue the fight against all of the ridiculous budget busters this administration has proposed, and start voting in real conservatives in 2010.

Graph of public debt forecast The Economist.

UPDATE

KT has an excellent comment that I liberated as an update:

I'm with you up to a point. I don't like gold or other precious metals. When you buy them, you buy rocks. Instead, I'd buy mutual funds from well-run countries, such as Australia. In fact, if you want to invest in commodities, Aussie mutual funds would be a good way to do it - the Aussie economy is, to a great extent, a commodities economy. Plus, they're the supplier of choice for China for lots of minerals. Lastly, the Australians have nothing like the kind of debt problems we have.

I agree that this strategy will also hedge inflation, but I admit I still like owning a small amount of actual metal. Finally, I am partial to Aussies, as Mrs. Daddy's mum hails from down under.

Weekend Music Chill

Mrs. Daddy pointed out another Lincoln commercial featuring fabulous music:



The music is by a singer who goes by Sia, here is a full version:



But I like the original by The Church better:

Pay Go? Pay Gone!

Today's Drudge Headline:

WHITE HOUSE MASTER TO SLASH EXEC PAY

For the second time this week, I find myself agreeing with the Obama administration, but I will impugn their motives anyway. First, why do I agree? This headline reminds me of what the very prescient George Will said in an April 2008 commentary about what was going on at the Fed, which was bailing out Bear Sterns at the time:

Congress could pass a law saying: No company benefiting from a substantial federal subvention (which would now include Morgan) may pay any executive more than the highest pay of a federal civil servant ($124,010). That would dampen Wall Street's enthusiasm for measures that socialize losses while keeping profits private.

Amen, brother. (Small error, the top pay is more like $196,700 but that's still chump change to these bankers.) These guys loaded up on risk like there was no tomorrow and expected the Fed and the Congress to bail them out, which institutions promptly obliged. Where are the consequences that will change future behavior? Further, I hope this accelerates the pay back of the TARP/porkulus money, and stops further bleeding from the Treasury on this front. This is predatory government, when big special interests capture the government institutions that supposedly regulate them. This is the kind of thing that animates the left, and you can understand why. (I am thinking about a post to help you lib/cons understand the left.)

On to impugning motives. The administration's action comes not out of any sense of preventing future calamity, but out of the leftist emotion of rage at those making more money than themselves. It's all just populism to compete with Glenn Beck, who has been kicking their tails of late. Fortunately, for the American tax paying public, Team Barry has not thought this through and will probably be outraged when these firms find ways to return the filthy lucre that got their execs pay cut in the first place.

Kenneth Feinberg, Treasury Official in charge of Executive Compensation:
"We're cutting your pay, even if it increases the deficit."

Creeping Totalitarianism

No, I'm not going overboard. Dean and KT have posted on the folly of the White House attack on Fox News in declaring them not a news organization. This is more serious than just not talking to a particular network, the White House blatantly attempted to orchestrate a freeze out of Fox by other media outlets. Hugo would approve.

Jake Tapper of ABC sees the big flick and called out all around buffoon and Obama press secretary Robert Gibbs on the issue.

It’s escaped none of our notice that the White House has decided in the last few weeks to declare one of our sister organizations “not a news organization” and to tell the rest of us not to treat them like a news organization. Can you explain why it’s appropriate for the White House to decide that a news organization is not one –

Gibbs weak reply is that it's their opinion. What? Give me a break and think about the high office you represent and act like it. In the comments at Tapper's blog, the usual morons snipe about the unfairness and stupidity, etc. of Fox. I commented as follows:

The folks criticizing Fox News are missing Tapper's point. In a democracy governed by a Bill of Rights, how is it appropriate for the Executive Branch to brand an organization as illegitimate and to organize ostracism? What if the next Republican Administration takes similar action against MSNBC, which appears equally partisan? For most of the history of this Republic, news organizations have been political, that doesn't make them less legitimate or less worthy of the protections of the Constitution. The White House should respect the spirit of the First Amendment, not just the letter of the law.

Medical Obamawana and Obamacare

Don't get me wrong, I support the recent announcement by the U.S. Department of Justice that they will no longer seek criminal charges against users and suppliers of medical marijuana. If you are a federalist like me, you can appreciate that the federal government has no right to interfere with state law in this regard, as it has nothing to do with interstate commerce. Further, it seems absurd to waste federal resources on what is a local law enforcement issue.

But the hypocrisy of the move astounds me. First, Obama recently signed into law a ban on flavored cigarettes. The FDA now has regulatory powers over tobacco but no marijuana? How does this make sense in a rational world. Of course, the more amazing hypocrisy is the how this squares with the whole federal take over of all health care. The federal government is poised to take regulate every health decision that are now the purview of doctors, patients and insurance companies, but medical marijuana has been set free.

Weekend Music Chill

Somehow this goof ball video matches my mood, I occasionally go for this euro-techno-trash style of music.




Light blogging this week due to demands of church and helping the youngsters work the whole college application deal.

If You Are at the Table But Still on the Menu....

Anonymous Senate Finance Committee Staffer

... You must be dining with cannibals. The Wall Street Journal has a great editorial on how all the groups that were cooperating with the Democrats are coming to realize they will be totally screwed by the Baucus bill, and that is even before Harry Reid casts his magic incantation over the whole witches' brew. Why do people think selling out one's principles will ever buy anything worthwhile? There is something for everyone:

Insurers:

In a deal cut earlier this year, the insurance industry acquiesced to rules requiring them to take all comers, regardless of health status or history, and also charge them more or less the same premiums. In return, Congress would subsidize individuals to buy their products and provide new customers by requiring everyone to buy insurance or pay a tax penalty...
...But without this brute tax force, healthier people will opt out of expensive insurance pools and only buy coverage when they need it. It doesn't take a consulting firm to prove that this is an adverse-selection disaster waiting to happen.

Doctors:

The doctors lobby had endorsed the House health bill because it eliminated the "sustainable growth rate," or SGR, a formula that automatically reduces Medicare payments to doctors when costs run too high....
...Yet eliminating the SGR will cost some $245 billion, and Mr. Baucus wanted to preserve the fiction that his new entitlement will reduce the deficit. So to game the 10-year budget math, he patches the problem only for a single year.

Hospitals.

Speaking of providers, the hospitals agreed to $155 billion in Medicare and Medicaid cutbacks, on the theory that they, like the insurers, would also make the revenue up on volume. But since the coverage mandate has become swiss cheese, both the Federation of American Hospitals and the American Hospital Association are also growing more combative behind the scenes.

Of course you, as taxpayer and patient, were always on the menu, that goes without saying because you don't have big bucks to lobby the administration.

Crunch Time for Obamacare

With a vote due on Health Care tomorrow in the Senate Finance committee, we are getting closer to the end game on health care legislation. None of the supposed compromises nor any pronouncements from the White House about the pending legislation mean anything because NO ONE HAS READ ANY BILL. Sorry for shouting. The Congressional Budget Office has only read the "conceptual language" which is not the bill itself. From Michael Barone in today's Washington Examiner:

Some of the headlines in recent days are not worthy of belief. No, I'm not referring to the headlines that Barack Obama won the Nobel Peace Prize, however odd that many seem to many (including, it seems, Obama himself). I'm referring to the headlines earlier in the week to the effect that the health care bill sponsored by Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus will cut the federal deficit by $81 billion over the next ten years.

Yes, that is what the Congressional Budget Office estimated. But, as the CBO noted, there's no actual Baucus bill, just some "conceptual language." Actual language, the CBO noted, might result in "significant changes" in its estimates. No wonder Democratic congressional leaders killed requirements that the actual language be posted on the Internet for 72 hours before Congress votes.

Even the Washington Post is admitting that no one knows what a final bill will look like and that IT WILL BE COOKED UP IN SECRET:

In the Senate, negotiations are shifting from the public forum of the Finance Committee to a more cloistered setting: the seating area in front of the marble fireplace in the office of Majority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.). After Tuesday's vote, Baucus will retreat to Reid's office, along with Sen. Christopher J. Dodd (D-Conn.) and a handful of top White House officials, to meld the finance panel's package with an alternative bill that Dodd shepherded through the Senate health committee in July.

I have read other reports that Dingy Harry himself will reconcile all bills and so we don't really know what will emerge. Rumors swirl. Those of us in the Tea Party movement must recognize this is crunch time. All the work over the summer will go to waste if we don't force the Congress to realize that we are watching their shenanigans and won't put up with a bill that contains any of these deal killers:

1. New taxes on the middle class, including taxes on existing health care plans.
2. Fines for individuals to coerce purchasing insurance.
3. Coverage of illegal immigrants.
4. Coverage of abortion.
5. Public option, even by stealth through the states.

Time to write your Congressman or Senator, something handwritten is best. Comment on news articles, write letters to the editor. Keep the blog posts coming.

Saturday's Buycott at Whole Foods in La Jolla

Wayne and I met up with Dean, Paul and Deb, on Saturday to join in the Whole Foods buycott (link to W.C. Varones blog). Temple of Mut has a nice recap here. I hope W.C. won't mind, I am lifting the picture he took of me.


It gave us a chance to meet like minded folks and an excuse to buy some new chocolate. Prior to going in to Whole Foods, we had a chance to engage with Margie (sp?) who was demonstrating for single payer health care at the corner of Nobel and the entrance to the shopping center. I asked Margie about her positions. Her most compelling argument has to do with those who can not obtain reasonably priced health insurance. Even if we discount illegal aliens and those who choose to go without coverage, we still have about a hard core of 10-15 million in this category. In a street corner discussion, it is hard to craft an easy answer to dealing with that issue. My response was to say that I wondered why we had to change everyone else's plans for the sake of those who don't have insurance; surely it would be better to just provide them a subsidy to buy insurance. A more nuanced answer that I did not make is that the current system is driven by so much government mandate that it is not affordable.

I want to add that Margie was a delight to talk to, she is the lady with curly gray hair in the linked photo. She made her points respectfully and listened respectfully and I feel as though I understand where she is coming from. A long-haired, bearded fellow protester was not so pleasant. He challenged my most banal assertion, that the bill of rights regulates government not private parties and because he was such a buttinsky, I left to go inside and do some shopping.

The point I made that seemed to resonate with Margie is as follows. I started talking about how in Roe vs Wade, the Supreme Court had found a right of privacy between the doctor and woman seeking an abortion. The court said that the government has no business interfering with that private discussion. So I ask, under single payer, the government, if I got prostate cancer, there are numerous treatment options, correct? But the President has said that he wants to limit treatment options to save money. So now, the government is interfering in that private health discussion between me and my doctor. Margie seemed to agree that even under single payer, the government shouldn't dictate treatment.

I recommend this line of argument when dealing with the left on this issue, because it puts their cherished principles embodied in Roe v Wade on the line against government control of health care decisions.

Anyway, the shopping was great. Wayne like his meal of seafood salad, sushi and banana nectar.



It was good to meet Sarah Bond and all the other bloggers and Tea Party supporters. I hope we do something like that again.

The chocolate? Chocolats Valrhona large milk chocolate bar.

Here is a snippet of video of the protesters as we drove in. Mr. Buttinsky is not pictured, in case you were wondering. Video courtesy of Wayne, official TLT videographer and artiste.

The Political Liability of Winning the Nobel Peace Prize

I have only my gut instinct to tell me that the Nobel prize will cost Obama credibility with the public; no data yet to back this up. My reasoning is that it brings all of the hero worship into sharp relief. It's as if the parody of the Miss America answering the question about her goals, "I want to win the Nobel Peace Prize," has become reality. But the sad fact is that we are embarrassed not for some poor young girl out of her league, but for the President of the United States.

That the Nobel committee felt the need to be Obama's chief booster actually makes him look weak, because everyone they too were voting for hope not substance. This will have unintended consequences for both the President and the Committee.

Coming on the heals of this SNL skit, it is either sad or hilarious, take your pick.

oval office message
by postertube

Obama Turning to Celebrities to Sell Healthcare

...As if his own celebrity weren't enough to dissuade the American people. Read the full story here. (By the way, who the h*** is Rosario Dawson and Will.I.Am?)

H/T to Dean who alerted me to further shilling and gyrating by celebrities for Obama. Fortunately we already have an anti-celebrity ad about health care to serve as counterpoint. I think you will enjoy this.

Define Insanity

Dems Plot New Stimulus

So says the Drudge headline. However, only about one-fourth of the money from this year's $787-billion stimulus package has been spent and that was the second stimulus package. Remember Bush passed one too. (Yet another way in which Obama has imitated Bush, certainly an indictment of both.) See the LA Times article for more discussion. And yet unemployment remains stubbornly high, so certainly the third time is the charm, n'est-ce pas?

It is claimed that Einstein said that insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. So how does the stimulus differ? If this proposal doesn't scare America, what will?

Meanwhile, our super secret Liberator camera crew captures Nancy Pelosi's reaction after her aids tell her that fellow Democrats are hankering for another porkulus package.



Now that's insane.

Quote of the Week

Over at American Thinker, Publius Varius, writes about the Tea Party movement and its relationship to the Republican party thus:

It cannot be comforting for Republicans to look out at 100,000 plus people on the Washington mall, who should all be part of their natural constituency, booing any mention of their last presidential candidate and cheering speeches that proclaim their movement is not "Republican". This begs the question: "Why isn't it?

Because the Republicans under Bush became the party of big government and the Tea Partyers know one big thing, Big Government is the cause, not the cure, for our ills. When Republicans get that being the party of less government will allow them to build a winning coalition, then they will start winning.

More Carbon Thugocracy

The WSJ editorial pages alerted me to something widely predicted in my blog and the conservative blogosphere. Obama's EPA is threatening to regulate carbon dioxide as a pollutant. This is a blatant attempt to split the business community into those who will lobby for cap and trade against those who won't. As Dean keeps reminding us, If you're not at the table, you are on the menu. I dare the EPA to regulate CO2 for two reasons. First, there will be an inevitable court challenge and we could have the open debate on global warming 'Dawg wants. Second, the manner in which the EPA is proposing the regulation is patently unconstitutional.

Yet one not-so-minor legal problem is that the Clean Air Act's statutory language states unequivocally that the EPA must regulate any "major source" that emits more than 250 tons of a pollutant annually, not 25,000. The EPA's Ms. Jackson made up the higher number out of whole cloth because the lower legal threshold—which was intended to cover traditional pollutants, not ubiquitous carbon—would sweep up farms, restaurants, hospitals, schools, churches and other businesses. Sources that would be required to install pricey "best available control technology" would increase to 41,000 per year, up from 300 today, while those subject to the EPA's construction permitting would jump to 6.1 million from 14,000.

...

Usually it takes an act of Congress to change an act of Congress, but Team Obama isn't about to let democratic—or even Democratic—consent interfere with its carbon extortion racket. To avoid the political firestorm of regulating the neighborhood coffee shop, the EPA is justifying its invented rule on the basis of what it calls the "absurd results" doctrine. That's not a bad moniker for this whole exercise.

Net Neutrality

OK class, repeat after me, what is the free market antidote to evil businesses doing harm to consumers? Competition, competition, competition! Our latest exhibit is "net neutrality" regulations coming out of the FCC. For some reason this issue really lights up the Daily Kooks. A quick primer, net neutrality says that your internet provider has to treat all traffic equally. Sounds great right? What about SPAM vs web browsing? What if some new application like Skype is hogging all the bandwidth and other users suffer? Under net neutrality, tough beans. It's sort of like socialism for the private sector, (answering previous question.) (Also the Kooks always think they know best what shape the economy should take.)

Google wants net neutrality because they can deliver all sorts of new services and don't risk building out any infrastructure. (As an IT professional, I know the big expenses come with putting boots on the ground, which your cable company or DSL provider must do.) Interestingly, though Google Voice doesn't obey the rules they want the carriers to live by. Google Voice allows you to have all of your phones ring simultaneously. EXCEPT... if your phone is in a rural area or it is a conference line or if they just charge Google too darn much for the service.

So what if evil carrier Time-Warner let's you watch Warner Bros movies but blocks offerings from Universal, what's a poor consumer to do? If you were paying attention you know that Captain Competition is on the way to save you. Go with AT&T U-verse or DSL or satellite or ... you get the picture.

I wonder if any of this logic applies to health insurance.

Blogging About Blogging...

...is usually the topic I like least. I just wanted to share that I've managed to turn blogging into a chore by bringing my Type A personality to the effort. I put a lot of pressure on myself to blog daily to try and increase site visits and generate comments, the "metrics" of blogging. But I am not a professional writer and only sporadically insightful, so this quickly turns into a big chore. Then I just give up for a while because I honestly have more important things to do, like watch college football. I am going to try to remember that this is supposed to be fun and just take the pressure off myself. My thanks to Dean and KT who throw me a lot of undeserved link love, so I will just count on their kindness to keep up my readership and hopefully post less frequently but with more quality.

Weekend Music Chill

Our condolences go out to Chicago for losing out on getting the Olympics in 2016. Dean has a great post on that, but I couldn't resist lifting this:

And for all that political risk? Booted in the very first round. Ouch. (Word around the campfire is that the IOC, an adjunct arm of the Star Wars cantina scene, felt they were being upstaged by the Obamas).

I was also looking forward to increased media scrutiny of the Windy City which might shed some light on Obama's unsavory associations. No such luck now.

Too pay a little tribute and also put up some music that Memom would actually like, here is Frankie, singing about the Windy City.



I know that video isn't everyone's cup of tea, but I'm staying with the Chicago theme this weekend. I really enjoyed the next band in my youth and thought they gave their namesake city a good name, so here is Chicago with 25 or 6 to 4. (I still don't know what they meant, and no longer care.)

All You Need to Know About Health Care Legislation

H/T Weaselzippers.



CNSNews.com

Sen. Thomas Carper (D.-Del.), a member of the Senate Finance Committee, told CNSNews.com that he does not “expect” to read the actual legislative language of the committee’s health care bill because it is “confusing” and that anyone who claims they are going to read it and understand it is fooling people.