Quick Hitters

I was looking around for news items today that demonstrate the idiocy of the current administration and found a target rich environment. (Apparently, so have the North Koreans.)

1. Health Care Costs Already Underestimated

HotAir breaks down the impact of the removal of a subsidy to corporations that was used to keep retirees on the corporate prescription drug plan. The Congress counted as savings towards the cost the elimination of this subsidy; but businesses are going to eliminate the subsidy and push their retirees on Plan D medicare drug plan, increasing those costs, voila, increasing deficits.

2. Obama Makes Mortgage Mess Worse

H/T again to HotAir. The administration demonstrates its economic illiteracy by demanding that banks allow unemployed borrowers to not have to pay their full mortgage payment. This will encourage lending to help the recovery how? With lenders losing money on existing loans, and the chance that any particular borrower will get reduced payments because they lose a job, new lending will be harmed. This will not stop the problem of underwater borrowers, who fall into about three equal categories: Those for who will eventually default, no matter what help they receive; those who will work their way out of the mess on their own; and those who might be helped.

3. Humiliating the Prime Minister of our only really ally in the Middle East.

Netanyahu was in Washington this week for talks with Obama; but was treated shabbily by a President willing to bow to Saudi royals and high five Chavez. Not only was there no photography allowed of the Israeli PM, but apparently, the Israelis were left to cool their heels for an hour while Obama had dinner, put his kids to bed, who knows?

4. The President doubles down on the lies he told to sell health care. (From the New American, this one just writes itself.)

If Republicans want to run on a platform of repealing the health care reform Barack Obama signed into law on Tuesday, the President is encouraging them to "go for it!" "They're actually going to run on a platform of repeal in November," Obama told a gathering of about 3,000 yesterday at the University of Iowa field house in Iowa City (left). "And my attitude is, go for it! If these congressmen in Washington want to come here in Iowa and tell small-business owners that they plan to take away their tax credits and essentially raise their taxes, be my guest,"

Go for it? I think we will. The Tea Party will be working hard to do just that. Mr. President what's your estimate of the number of seats your party loses in November?

People Are Angry

In what is surely an overplayed headline, Drudge is linking to a Politico.com story that Democrat house members are at risk for violence. Stenny Hoyer is playing this up, and hinting darkly about Republican... well something:

“I would hope that we would join together jointly and make it very clear that none of us condone this kind of activity,” Hoyer told reporters. “And when we see it, we speak out strongly in opposition to it. And I would hope that we would do that going forward.”

However, John Boehner had already been quoted:

“I know many Americans are angry over this health care bill, and that Washington Democrats just aren’t listening,” Boehner said. “But, as I’ve said, violence and threats are unacceptable. That’s not the American way. We need to take that anger and channel it into positive change. Call your congressman, go out and register people to vote, go volunteer on a political campaign, make your voice heard — but let's do it the right way."

Exactly. Threats of violence and violence itself are the refuge of the impotent, such as al-Qaeda, who don't really believe in their ability to persuade. That anger is palpable, but must condense to a steely resolve to undo the damage this does to the constitutional form of our Republic. We will make a difference this November, there is and will not ever be a need for violence in our form of government.

By the way, the only thing I watched on Sunday from the news was Boehner's speech, it was magnificent and captured my feelings, so here he is:



Note the bureaucratic way in which the acting Speaker turns away Boehner's request for a call of the roll.

Insurance Mandates - Weak Link?

I see the mandates in the health care bill as the weak link for two reasons. First, most immediately, I believe that compelling an individual, through the use of fines, and potentially jail time, to purchase health insurance should be found unconstitutional. A 9th amendment argument could be made, and that seems most fruitful to me. Regardless of the success of such a lawsuit, it would also provide a vehicle to ridicule the administration's position and continue to erode public support for this bill. We might reasonably ask what limit does the constitution place on the Congress if the mandate is allowed to stand. This might hopefully change the terms of debate about the commerce clause. Also from the Volokh Conspiracy on the merits of this approach:

We should also remember that litigation is likely to center on the bill’s mandate requiring individuals to purchase health insurance even if they prefer not to. This is one of the least popular elements of the bill, a fact that would give the courts further political cover. Eliminating the individual mandate might eventually destabilize other parts of the bill. Without the mandate, insurance companies might start lobbying for repeal of other elements of the plan (since the bill would no longer be a huge bonanza that gives them many additional customers). If the ban on excluding coverage of preexisting conditions is maintained, the elimination of the mandate would incentivize citizens to wait until they get sick to purchase insurance. It’s unlikely that such a system could persist for long.

As a symbolic matter, I think someone is going to end up in jail for not paying the fines involved with the insurance mandates. This will also rally support for repeal, as the true Stalinist nature of this bill is clearly brought home by images of someone behind bars.

Dang, now I need a loan for bail AND the money to buy health insurance.

Professor Perry and others have pointed out the other weakness of the mandates; the fines are too small to prevent the bad behavior of individuals opting out of health insurance until they are sick. Then their pre-existing condition won't prevent them from opting back in just in time to be covered.

Consider: 27 million people are covered by health insurance purchased directly, i.e. outside employer-based plans. The average cost of an insurance policy with family coverage in 2009 is $13,375. A married couple with a median family income of $75,000 who choose not to insure would be subject to a fine of 2.5 percent of that $75,000, or $1,875. So the family would save a net $11,500 by not insuring. If a serious illness occurs--a chronic condition or a condition that requires surgery--they could then buy insurance. Since fewer than one family in four has annual health-care costs that exceed $10,000, the decision to drop coverage looks like a good bet. For a lower-income family, the fine is smaller, and the incentive to be uninsured is even greater.

Interestingly enough, this might have the opposite effect than intended. Specifically, if millions of Americans drop their health care insurance as well as employers, who only face a $2000 per year fine, then a new market place for cash only medical services might develop. This could conceivably start a process to wean the public from third party payer, once they began to see how convenient and inexpensive it could actually be. See Carpe Diem for a post on Retail Health Clinics.

I note that the subsidies don't kick in until 2014, so we should keep brainstorming the strategy for roll back. Incremental roll back is probably more feasible, but I am no expert.

Health Care - The Morning After

I have some preliminary suggestions for igniting a movement to repeal the health care monstrosity as the first step in reigning in our out of control government to within its constitutional purview.

It seems appropriate that we should expropriate some of the tactics of our foes to wage a war to restore constitutional government. So here are some suggestions to get us started.

Some industries and even particular companies within industries were instrumental in both getting the ball rolling and in ultimately passing the legislation. They should be called out through boycotts and shareholder protests. Where they are manufacturers, we can picket retail to stores to remove their products from the shelves, even if this fails, it generates publicity that such corporations loathe. We should call out some of those same corporations to start spending money on adds against the health care bill. These ads don't even have to support any particular candidate, but a constant drum beat on this issue in November is necessary for electoral success.

Even though some of the "fixes" in the legislation that will be sent to the Senate would ameliorate the disgusting nature of this bill; we should press the Senate Republicans to defeat it, because it may not pass muster for "reconciliation." This will cause the House Democrats to feel betrayed and leaving them hanging.

We need to file suit over the mandate to purchase insurance and anything else we find to be egregiously unconstitutional. I guarantee that there is more lawless shenanigans embedded in this bill that has not yet been found and publicized.

Part of our plan to repeal could start with removing funding and taxes from spending bills as early as 2011. The President has no power, except that of veto to prevent the Congress from reducing spending. When Clinton used this against Gingrich in the 90s, threatening a government shutdown, the Speaker responded idiotically. Congress has the authority to slice their spending bills as narrowly as they desire, so the offending provisions that the President threatens veto over could be reduced to small areas where a shutdown wouldn't bother the public. We should start by making the IRS funding a target. Pass a funding bill for the IRS that specifically excludes funding for health care choice enforcement and dare Obama to veto it.

We have to get the Republicans to vow not a single bit of cooperation with the Dems on another piece of Obama backed legislation for the remainder of his single term. The next target will be immigration "reform" which will be to immigration what this bill was to health care. Adding the current illegals to the rolls of is the ostensible goal, to provide the Dems with big majorities. As an aside, I favor immigration reform myself, but I demand that there be no path to citizenship for those who have come here illegally, ever. I might see my way clear to letting them live here if I know they will never be allowed to vote.

That took me a half hour to dream up. I look forward to your suggestions.

Where do we establish a national clearing house for ideas like these? Looking for the SarahB, Leslie and Dawn to comment.

The Meaning of Today's Health Care Vote

Our Inspiration, the Founding Fathers.

I started writing before the vote on health care "reform" today. I once again invoke Churchill:

Never give in--never, never, never, never, in nothing great or small, large or petty, never give in except to convictions of honour and good sense. Never yield to force; never yield to the apparently overwhelming might of the enemy.

The importance of a victory today is massive, and so are the consequences of losing. But even if we win today, the war to keep our government within the contours outlined by our constitution role will continue. I know this because I have wrestled with understanding the gap between government in practice versus the theory of limited government since I fell in love with the genius of our constitution as a boy of 12. I conclude that the demand that government ameliorate suffering and seeming injustice is responsible for an ever expanding federal register and budget. Defeat or victory today will not change this. Further, a certain portion of the intellectual class lusting for a power they cannot attain in a free society, will always invent clever arguments for the expansion of government. It is simultaneously our curse and our opportunity to live in a time when the price to be paid this piper is coming due. It affords us the chance to expose the hypocrisy and lies of a century and a half of "progressive" lies that began with Marx and his ilk. The coming recession or inflation will make obvious the costs of ignorance of the fundamental notions of liberty and economy.

Because the the free market is utopia neither theory nor in practice, we need solutions that limit government involvement as our free markets continue their inexorable change. Libertarian and conservative think tanks like Heritage and Cato that propose such solutions are necessary but not sufficient. In the mean time the public has, rightly or wrongly, entrusted the federal government with certain duties. The intellectually lazy approach that seemed to have been taken by the Bush administration, where regulation or action that wasn't supported by the administration was neglected, must cease in any new Tea Party endorsed administration. Even if the administration was actually carrying out its regulatory duties properly, it must win the propaganda war to ensure that it is doing so, even as it searches for better and less intrusive means to secure the regulatory outcomes desired, because the failure will be perceived to be a market failure or the result of "laissez-faire" ideology.

And if the House passes this bill today, that also is not the end of the war. First, the "benefits" do not kick in right away, but subsidies and taxes do. This provides a small window of opportunity for repeal, probably in 2013. Second, the financial pressures on the federal budget will only be exacerbated by this bill as new taxes further distort and depress the economy and new spending sucks credit, the fertilizer of entrepreneurs, out of the economy. This will make clear the wisdom of the Tea Party's emphasis on limited and constitutional government and free markets. We must recruit candidates that believe in these principles and dedicated to rolling back this legislation.

However, Dana Millbank has compared the passage of health care to social security's passage in the 30's. He specifically, points to the impossibility of repeal because it will become just like social security, sacrosanct to the public. At first, I agreed and this is why I have placed defeating Obamacare at the top of my personal political agenda. However, this bill will be so filled with unpopular measures, that it can be dismantled, perhaps, not all at once, but certainly piece by piece. It is unlike Social Security in this way, it is not a singular piece of legislation that guarantees a certain income to the elderly. It is a hydra-headed beast certain to be unpopular for a long time to come. Tarring everyone associated with its passage, given the time available before many of its provisions kick in can be a winning strategy for a party of limited government.

I heard the voting is starting, so I will end this post. I wanted to be on the record before the final outcome is known.

God bless the Congress and the United States of America.

Operation Code Red

A regular overseas reader in Lithuania, CZ, left this comment, that I wanted to liberate:

Just spent the last couple of hours sending emails to as many representatives as would let me. I thanked them for voting NO on this horrible health care legislation. I picked up this link from Carpe Diem blog. CodeRed is fighting the Obama/Pelosi Government Health Care Takeover. Representatives and contact info is here, how they voted in November and their current status. 29 are still undecided; we only need 11 more NO votes for this bill to die!!! See the Code Red site.

The site says it is down to 16 undecided with the "No's" having a one vote lead.

I might add that CZ and her husband are doing the Lord's work in Lithuania, helping the many orphans there when they make the transition to adulthood.

Weekend Music Chill

Because it's been a long week and because I know that Skippy-san, with whom I only occasionally agree, would probably like this, here is this weekend's music:

Inflation Nightmare?

Michael Kinsley, of all people, has a very interesting article on the possibility and danger of inflation. I say surprisingly because, in the years I have followed him, he has gone from being somewhat liberal to a solid lefty. Further, he himself states that every leading economist (whatever that means) is convinced that there is no danger of inflation. That by itself worries me, because economists, in general, were unable to predict our present predicament.

Kinsley makes sense too. Basically he is saying that since Volcker squeezed out inflation in the late 70s and early 80s, we have been living on credit ever since, and the government's response, Republican and Democrat has been to spend more borrowed money. How this cannot end in inflation is beyond me. The best paragraph:

My specific concern is nothing original: it’s just the national debt. Yawn and turn the page here if you’d like. We talk now of trillions, not yesterday’s hundreds of billions. It’s not Obama’s fault. He did what he had to do. However, Obama is president, and Democrats do control Congress. So it’s their responsibility, even if it’s not their fault. And no one in a position to act has proposed a realistic way out of this debt, not even in theory. The Republicans haven’t. The Obama administration hasn’t. Come to think of it, even Paul Krugman hasn’t. Presidential adviser David Axelrod, writing in The Washington Post, says that Obama has instructed his agency heads to go through the budget “page by page, line by line, to eliminate what we don’t need to help pay for what we do.” So they’ve had more than a year and haven’t yet discovered the line in the budget reading “Stuff We Don’t Need, $3.2 trillion.”

Here is where the Tea Party comes in. It is a central tenet of all of the various Tea Party movements to reign in government spending, to stop new spending and cut existing spending, even if the cuts are to popular programs. There is no other way out, except inflation.

Compared with raising taxes or cutting spending, just letting inflation do the dirty work sounds easy. It will be a terrible temptation, and Obama’s historic reputation (not to mention the welfare of the nation) will depend on whether he succumbs. Or so I fear. So who are you going to believe? Me? Or virtually every leading economist across the political spectrum? Even I know the sensible answer to that.

And yet …

But inflation will wreck the country more surely than Obamacare, this is why we must continue to beat the drum for less spending now.

Quote of the Week

From The Hill:

Subcommittee on Oversight ranking member Charles Boustany (R-La.) said the IRS provision in the bill "dangerously expands, in an ominous way the tentacles of the IRS and it's reach into every American family," he said today during a press conference.

Could you think of a more popular institution to enforce the provisions of Obamacare? But I have to wonder why this news, as I posted a similar story last September.

More from the story:

Assuming it becomes law, the Congressional Budget Office expects the IRS will need roughly $10 billion over the next 10 years and nearly 17,000 new employees to meet its new responsibilities under health reform.

This makes clear the relationship between loss of liberty and this bill, in case you needed convincing.

IRS Agents:
Enforcing Health Care Choice.

Meanwhile, I keep getting whipped back and forth and whether we can "KILL THIS BILL." Keep the pressure on. We are being forced to play defense, never a good position to be in, but we have the lead and can run out the clock to achieve victory.

Marxist Critique of Obamacare and Palin Derangement Syndrome

The Economist reports that Google is well on its way to developing the world's best translator.

For over four decades the boffins tried to program computers to “understand” the structure and phonetics of language. This meant defining rules such as where nouns and verbs go in a sentence, which are the correct tenses and so on. All the exceptions to the rules needed to be programmed in too. Google, by contrast, saw it as a big maths problem that could be solved with a lot of data and processing power—and came up with something very useful.
. . .
Its book-scanning project has thousands of titles that have been translated into many languages. All these translations are very good, done by experts to exacting standards. So instead of trying to teach its computers the rules of a language, Google turned them loose on the texts to make statistical inferences. Google Translate now covers more than 50 languages, according to Franz Och, one of the company’s engineers.
. . .
The design of the feedback loop is critical. Google asks users for their opinions, but not much else. [to tune the performance of the translation.]

What's that got to do with the title? This Obamacare is an example of the ruling class believing that because it is smarter than its subjects, it can dictate to them the outlines of the "best" system. But as Google's experience shows the feedback of billions of people will help build the best translation engine, even if it's baseline is designed by experts. In the same way, if the experience of hundreds of millions of patients can be brought to bear on the delivery of medical care it can be improved.

But the problem is larger than Obamacare, it goes to the world view of those who think they know best for us, when in fact, their prescriptions are largely self serving. They seek to form a perpetual ruling class through the imposition of state control that only the experts in the bureaucracy can understand and to which the commoners lack access.

For a fuller treatment and how this leads to Palin derangement syndrome, see B-Daddy's Other Blog.

It's a Trap!

Every time I see positive or negative proclamations on health care this week, I think of Admiral Ackbar's famous warning. There have been so many pronouncements on both sides of the debate on whether or not there are the votes to pass the Obamanation of health care bill, that I believe it's all for show to maneuver politically. Drudge headlines have kept me whipsawed of late.

Meanwhile, expect more shenanigans from Pelosi, who is more desperate than a 50 year old virgin to consummate the matrimony (unholy or otherwise) of the Senate bill and some hitherto undefined package of "fixes." She has floated the constitutionally questionable idea of "deem and pass" to pass the fixes while not actually voting on the Senate bill. Demon pass would be more like it.

All I can say is that Tea Party patriots need to burn up the phone lines, in their own districts, to keep the pressure on their Congresscritter. If we can push this to the Easter recess, they can here how constituents are still angry over this monstrous crippling sucking beast of new spending.

UPDATE

In the comments, Sarah takes issue with my injunction to call only one's own congressman/women/beast. I had heard that on Glen Beck, but Sarah is closer to the issue:

But I disagree on one point. Folks often wonder if it does any good to call outside their district, and what we are hearing from staffers across the county is that it depends on where the caller is from. Since California is considered a liberal state, our calls mean more. If WE don't like the bill, it must really suck. And we are a huge fundraising state. So, I vote for call your district AND all those wishy washy lawmakers on the fence.

Obamacare and Cost Estimates

I'm going all in this week to defeat Obamacare. As I posted some time ago, this is the one program of this administration that must be defeated, everything else can be undone. Reason number.... well, who's counting, is that these programs ALWAYS COST MORE than advertised, (sorry for the shouting). And the reaction of the politicians is always, "well, it's too important, so cost overruns be damned." Exhibit A is in the YouTube video below. First, a little background from The Heritage Foundation.

Yesterday, the U.S. House of Representatives Ways and Means Subcommittee on Income Security and Family Support held a hearing on the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) program and its role in providing assistance to struggling families.

The Obama Administration’s witness, Assistant Secretary for the Administration for Children and Families, Carmen Nazario, included in her testimony a request to extend for a year the TANF Emergency Fund at a cost of $2.5 billion. This would extend a $5 billion program created in the Stimulus package last year that severely undermines the success of welfare reform. It essentially pays states for every new TANF case added to the caseload creating a perverse incentive to grow the size of the welfare state.

Robert Rector, Senior Research Fellow at The Heritage Foundation, testified at the same hearing that federal and state welfare spending under the Obama Administration is already on a trajectory to spend $953 billion in 2011 on means-tested programs for the poor.

Bureaucratic stupidity follows when Ms. Nazario is queried on these facts:

One More Reason to Hate Obamacare

As if we really needed one. Dean at BwD has an excellent post about the politicization of health treatment regimes under New Zealand's system of socialized medicine. Virginia Postrel (on the right, via Instapundit) talks about her personal experience in donating a kidney and getting breast cancer in the embedded video.

She also has a thoughtful article on the perils of Obamacare to the progress of medicine itself in The Atlantic. (What does the term progressive mean?) She leads with the provocative quote, "If I lived in New Zealand, I'd be dead" which she later qualifies. But for me the key issue is this:

The American health-care system may be a crazy mess, but it is the prime mover in the global ecology of medical treatment, creating the world’s biggest market for new drugs and devices. Even as we argue about whether or how our health-care system should change, most Americans take for granted our access to the best available cancer treatments—including the one that arguably saved my life.

As one might expect, the readers of The Atlantic are not amused and her article generated considerable comment. Postrel answers them in a follow on article and talks specifically to the myth of cost cutting.

Wiping out administrative costs, often cited as an advantage of centralized health-care systems, might reduce the cost of care to a lower level, but those costs would continue to rise. The growth of medical expenditures in the U.S. is not caused by administrative costs but by increases in the technical intensity of care over time—a.k.a. medical progress. The technocratic magic of “scrutiniz[ing] new treatments for effectiveness,” as described in a January New Republic article, could limit cost increases only by denying patients some of the care they want and by blocking the adoption of newer and more expensive treatments. We know that Americans hate such limits.

Exactly. Americans hate such limits for good reason, we want to be able to save our lives and pay for it if need be. With health care insurers among the least profitable industries in the land and the government's experience of administering Medicare ripe with fraud, we know that we won't even save money on this God-forsaken plan; but we do know it will kill innovation. Now there's a bargain I don't want to make.

SD Coffee Party Additional Thoughts

A couple of more thoughts on yesterday's coffee party event. I really liked their dedication to civility in talking to our neighbors. There were some people at the coffee party whose views were not left of center, (libertarian or other) and others who clearly had an agenda (like the guy who wouldn't give up talking about his petition for majority rule); all were treated respectfully, kudos to the organizers. However, I think that our neighbors on the left think we have been shouting at them; we are not. The Tea Party Patriots have indeed been shouting, not at our neighbors, but at our elected officials, because they have refused to listen. Interestingly, many of those at yesterday's coffee party also complain that elected politicians don't listen to them either.

I was also heartened by the reading of the preamble to the Constitution. Even if we don't fully agree on interpretation, it forms a basis for discussion and even dialog on matters politic. Further, it gives us the chance to ask this question of our neighbors on the left, "What limits does the Constitution place on the federal government?" It would be unreasonable for the answer to be none.

San Diego Coffee Party - UPDATE Video; UPDATE clarification

I attended a Coffee Party meeting at noon today at Lestat’s West on Adams Ave. The location was the first clue as to the orientation of the majority of the group and it didn’t disappoint. To be fair, there were some outliers. After some preliminary remarks the facilitator had everyone in the room, eventually 78 people, say why they had come. This round of introductions was interrupted when the KFMB camera and reporter showed up and the facilitator repeated some ground, including this telling welcome: “Welcome to the first meeting of the San Diego Tea Party.” By his own admission, the Tea Party was clearly on his and everyone else’s minds.

The attendees were mostly of the left of center, progressive type. I took notes as each attendee introduced themselves, but rather than put you in a stupor with all 70+, here are some common themes that emerged. Most people had some anti-corporation animus, often fueled by the recent Supreme Court decision. In my own remarks, I played off that by pointing out how the government subsidizes corporations and used ethanol helping ADM and health care bill forcing Americans to buy from health insurers as examples. There were at least six references to “government is not the enemy” which was seen as a counter-theme to the Tea Party movement. A number alluded to air time given the movement by CNN, MSNBC and Rachel Maddow in particular. A number of people had worked on other campaigns in the past 3 for Ross Perot, 1 for John Anderson and 1 for Donna Frye. There were a couple of outliers, one self identified libertarian and a Navy guy who said national security was his main concern (don’t think he’ll be back).

Enough about the folks. The leadership of the meeting had a very tight focus and stuck to the agenda see documents below. The leader, er facilitator, wore a black T shirt that said OBRAG.org (a self styled Ocean Beach “progressive” group) in green letters and a little peace sign for the O. I was struck by how often he kept saying how “national” wants us to do this or that. He started sounding like Michael Scott on The Office, talking about how “corporate” says this or that. Because they never really got around to articulating any positions, nor could they get any agreement about a common position, it had the feel of a front organization from the 30’s or 50’s.

The final outcome? They all agreed on making a sign. It said “San Diego Civility.” I agree, I’m for civility, having seen nothing but that at the Tea Party rallies; the mighty Waynok, my independent observer, agrees. They also agreed to separate into three subgroups: "Mid-City", "West of I-5", and "East County" and meet again in two weeks. South Bay didn’t quite get enough attendees for its own group.

Honestly, I can’t see where this is going, but it has clear national direction. But it has this whole hierarchical feel to it, unlike the Tea Party which is very decentralized. No one seemed to mind either. Having been to a number of libertarian confabs, this was quite the shock to me. Libertarians can't even agree on a dinner menu. Also, there seemed to be only one ironclad rule that the facilitator enforced, the next meeting of the sub-group had to be in a coffee shop. No kidding. I think this might be a long term weakness.

There were also some good things about the whole event. If people really start getting involved and holding politicians accountable to the people, even if different segments don’t agree, that will still be good for this country. The public at large does agree on a few things, that deficits are hurting the economy and that giveaways to special interests and pork barreling are harming the average citizen.

I was also struck by how many people were upset by the polarization of the country, where they felt that friendships were damaged by political differences. I agree. Objective polling shows the country is getting more polarized. Finding some ground that is truly common will help the nation. Stopping special interest pork might be one place to start.

Handouts for the Day (We Are Very ORGANIZED): (Click to enlarge)

Agenda:


Da Rules:


Vision:


UPDATE: One of the attendees posted video on YouTube. Yours truly is featured at about the 45 second mark; I will make no editorial comment about my own demeanor.



UPDATE: Clarification

In the comments, OB Rag takes my comment about a "top down" approach as criticism that the movement was somehow not authentic, and indeed some readers appear to have taken it that way. I meant to merely contrast the difference between the Tea Party and the Coffee Party. Those in the Coffee Party approach their movement with a hierarchical view of organization. Even if the the national headquarters is someone's garage, it doesn't change the fact that the outlook is hierarchical. Many of us in the Tea Party are deliberately viewing our movement through the lens provided by The Starfish and the Spider, and using the techniques and mental models provided by that book to build a networked, leaderless organization. Hierarchical and networked organizations are neither good nor evil per se, examples of networked organizations included the American revolutionaries, al-Qaeda and the current Tea Party movement. Hierarchies surround us daily and include our own federal government, most corporations, and the Communist Party cells of the last century.

Weekend Music Chill

I spent a good portion of my adult life working an environment in which there were no women present, that's right, none, aucun, keine, nada. See my post on how my former life might be changing here. Now I find myself in the San Diego Tea Party, with three very capable ladies in leadership roles, (No, I'm the Tea Party Leader) and it all seems to be working swimmingly. So I thought I would post some inappropriate music to go with these non-germane gender generalizations. Here are two versions of the same 80s tune, let me know which one you like best. Enjoy.





Couldn't find the video of the original version but you can listen to Elvis here.

Maybe They're Listening

But not this guy, pictured at right, James Inhofe (R-OK).

House Democrats thought they would be clever and ban earmarks going to "for profit" companies. The House Republicans went them one better and voted to eschew ALL earmarks. Amazing what a few protests over wasteful spending can do. This is more than symbolic. According to the Las Vegas Review Journal editorial, 10,000 earmarks a year are worth $16 billion in added spending. Further, Sen Tom Coburn, Inhofe's saner counterpart from Oklahoma had this to say,

"I've long said that earmarks are the gateway drug to spending addiction in Washington," said Sen. Tom Coburn, the Oklahoma Republican who has crusaded against the practice. "Banning earmarks is a long overdue, common sense step that will help Congress win back the trust of the public and tackle our mounting fiscal challenges."

Exactly. Meanwhile tone deaf establishment Republican Inhofe had this to say in rebuttal.

"By refusing to have projects in Oklahoma, you don't save the taxpayers one cent,'' Inhofe said, adding the money will be steered to projects in other states, either by Democrats in Congress or the administration.

Apparently $16 billion is indistinguishable from one cent; somebody's been in Congress way too long. Time for a primary challenge? Too bad, he isn't up for re-election until 2014. This kind of thing drives me nuts, because Inhofe has been a leading voice in the fight against cap and trade and has almost single-handedly ridiculed it to death and put the warmists on notice about their sleazy methods. Hypothetically, if he was up in 2010, would Tea Partyers support a challenge in the primary? My answer is yes, because it might get him to see the light on this issue.

But the mere fact that Dems think they have to cover their back sides on irresponsible spending, when they used to just ignore the issue, is a sure sign the Tea Parties are having an impact.

A Post-Racial Census

WC Varones encourages us to list our race as American on the next census, linking to a an article on HotAir encouraging the same. I wholeheartedly agree, and likewise agree its wrong to simply lie about it. It's time to expunge racial differences from our vocabularies and thought processes. Racial politics is the poison in the well of civil discourse in this nation; crying "racism" has supplanted patriotism as the last refuge of scoundrels.

Women on Submarines

I posted an article on my other blog about women on submarines, having been called out publicly by Dean and privately by 'Dawg. A little off topic for this forum.

Bad Ideas That Won't Die - National ID Card

The next way station on the road to amnesty for illegal immigrants is a proposal by Lindsey Graham and Chuck Schumer for a national ID card, no strike that, national workers card. The fact that Graham and Schumer are working together means that it will have all the bipartisan fabulousness of, of, of ... "No Child Left Behind."

From the WSJ article:

The biggest objections to the biometric cards may come from privacy advocates, who fear they would become de facto national ID cards that enable the government to track citizens.

Ya think?

We can't secure our borders, we can't come up with a reasonable guest worker program, so the cum laudes in Congress are going to deprive the citizenry of any remaining right to privacy; so they can say, voila, we have solved the illegal immigration problem, now let's do some serious amnesty, which almost rhymes with sodomy for a good reason.

Sorry for the run-on, but coherence fails me.

Image for this post courtesy of Dr. Bulldog and Ronin, a seriously deranged conservative blog I suggest you check out.

Final Push on Healthcare? Yes and No

No, it will never be over. But we are in the final stages of the current battle. If you are like me, the election of Scott Brown may have lulled you into a false sense of complacency over Obamacare. That was obviously a mistake. Whatever the travails of former Rep Massa (D-ranged), the incident shows the full and fierce engagement of the White House is to get something past. The WSJ even believes that a double cross for House Dems might be in the works, and listening to Massa, you might agree. How's this for an evil plan. Get the House to pass the Senate bill, along with another "reconciliation" bill to fix the perceived problems in the Senate bill. The first bill goes to the White House for signature in the Rose Garden, the "reconciliation" bill dies in the Senate in a horrid, grotesque and disgusting manner. House Dems are screwed, even Senate Dems are screwed, because they also look played. Obama gets health care, but only the taxes kick in initially. Eight months from now? Who knows, maybe everyone has forgotten, the American people have curiously short attention spans.

That makes the current battle an important one to win. The Tea Party enthusiasm is needed now more than ever.

In the longer war, the left will continue to try to push health care in a socialist direction because it is the area of the economy that is already the most socialized. The only way to win this war permanently is to start reforming health care in ways that reduce government involvement. The place to start is medicare. Medicare advantage, where insurers are rewarded for keeping people alive, might be a place to start. I welcome other suggestions to reduce government intervention under medicare while not cutting current coverage.

California and the B Word

And no I don't mean one of those cuss words, recently outlawed in the Golden state, I mean bankruptcy. I have heard the idea of bankruptcy as a way to get our dysfunctional legislature to deal with the gaping deficit the state faces. As best I can tell, a state, unlike a municipality, cannot declare bankruptcy. It can certainly fail to pay its obligations, but it can't seek court protection from creditors and work out a settlement. This is because each of the states have sovereignty under our federalist constitution. I just want to make sure that we don't believe that bankruptcy is an option that will force the state to cut spending, the way it has worked in some municipalities.

The inability to declare bankruptcy doesn't mean the state can't be bankrupt in the popular sense that it has no means to pay its obligations. Steven Greenhut has an invaluable article on the current state of the state's finances that points out that we are probably already there. He points out that the current union dominated legislature is not going to solve this mess on its own.

As I pointed out earlier, maybe some reasonable solutions could be put into place. Best to have them at the ready if fate offers us a chance to push them forward.

I agree with Greenhut that the state is headed for a financial melt down, the debt ratios are unsustainable, and the eventual tightening of monetary policy will have a downward spiral effect. As interest rates rise, the state deficit will increase, then the bond raters will downgrade the state's credit rating. This will lead to increased costs for short term borrowing, eventually to prohibitive rates. The end result will be an obvious de facto bankruptcy. Workers will be furloughed, and state bonds will go unpaid. Beyond that, I can't really predict the future, but I pray to God it happens near November, so we have a chance to dislodge all those legislators who believe they represent the SEIU and not the voters of the state.

Keeping Tabs on the Nutroots Nation

Three quick items. I saw an article on HufPo, which I will not dignify with a link, that basically says the Tea Party is racist. The logic? Tea Party's are against the bank bailouts but also against banking reform, so we don't have any valid position. (That the allege reform might make matters worse, doesn't occur to this political Einstein.) Therefore only racism is left. Obviosusly. Plus Tea Party types didn't protest Bush doing the same things that Obama is now doing, therefore the only possible explanation is racism. The fact that there are many African-Americans in the movement overlooked. The fact that maybe we just hit the limit, the fact that Obama's deficits are multiples of Bush, with no end in sight? None of this occurs to the wingnuts.

There will be a Coffee Party right here in San Diego, at Lestat's Coffee House in the heart of North Park. Noon, Sat. March 13. You can sign up here. Note that the Coffee Party is supposedly all about the love and cooperation to solve our nation's problems (read pass Obamacare.) So I'm thinking, what if I sign up and show up with my Viva la Reagan Revolucion T? How much love do you thing I would get? What if lots of Tea Party types signed up? If I went, I would absolutely be on my best behavior, because I like the fact that people are caring about the political process. But I just predict intolerance from this movement. (BTW, there might be common ground for discussion, on the Coffee Party facebook page they linked to an article about how the Senate health care bill provides all sorts of loopholes for insurers to game the system. An opening discussion point might with a lefty type might go like this. "Hey I noticed how forcing more Americans to purchase health care is a big windfall for the insurance industry. We must oppose such a calamity.")

And in the category of "I should have known better," the Daily Kossacks have dropped any pretense that they are against Obamacare because it doesn't contain a public option and are in full throated cheerleading mode. I think this means we can't count on any principles from House Democrat lefties who might vote against a bill that in fact violates many of their stated principles.

P.S. While writing this post, I signed up for that coffee party. Don't know if I'll go, any advice?

Quick Hitters

San Fran Chronicle headline:

Government should defend climate science

Bdaddy responds in the comments: I disagree with this article and the Constitution is on my side:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion.


Ever notice how Democrat favored policies have a racist outcome, even if Dems aren't racist? Welfare trapped minorities into a life of dependency. Racial quotas breed resentment of minorities. Public school monopolies primarily put inner city minorities at a disadvantage. Abortion impacts blacks disproportionately more than whites. The latest? Minimum wage increases enacted in 2007 are strongly correlated with increasing black teen unemployment. The WSJ has the story, but here is the picture worth a thousand words.


Speaking of harm to the black community, Obama's lies about abortion and health care continue unabated. Despite promising to keep the balance of the Hyde amendment, here is what he is really up to.

The president's plan goes further than the Senate bill on abortion by calling for spending $11 billion over five years on "community health centers," which include Planned Parenthood clinics that provide abortions.

Finally, when will the Republicans do something to deserve our vote? They tossed Jim Bunning over the side because he had this CRAZY notion that any spending should be accompanied by a means of paying for it and he held up a bill extending unemployment benefits because of it. Instead of making him a poster boy for Democrat ridicule, and he plays the part well, the GOP should have gotten behind the idea. The public is anxious and fed up with the debt and deficits. The Tea Parties got started in opposition to porkulus, TARP and bailouts and a dread over the debt. WHEN WILL YOU GET IT, GOP?

Weekend Music Chill

This song always reminds me of California, despite this band's origins in Florida. They also made the best version of Ghost Riders, which I will post on B-Daddy's Other Blog if I can find it. When I was a teen, I always they these guys were country, but the wiki says they are "southern rock." Go figure.

Don't Give Up On California

At San Diego's Tea Party rally last Saturday, Dawn really jolted me when she said not to give up on California, adding "Remember, this is the Golden State." It made me realize that I had. I figured the state needed to "hit bottom" like a drunk, before it collectively came to its senses. The spread of a vibrant Tea Party movement within the state attests to the truth of what she said.

But how to fix it? Right now the state legislature is unable to cope with a $21 billion budget deficit. It is dominated by Democrats who would rather outlaw cussing or pass a veto-ready universal health insurance scheme, rather than deal with the reality of this crisis. This deficit is 1% of the state's GDP, making it sound small, but the state is already known for having both a high sales tax and a high income tax, so where the hell is the money going?

California Tax Revenue by type, Source Red County, California

My research has shown that overall spending as a percent of personal income has fluctuated up and down for the last decade. Unfortunately, in the good years the legislature spends every nickle of it, saving nothing for a rainy day.

Looking at this graph, things don't LOOK so bad. But notice that spending ramped up from 1997 to 2007 and that despite a recent downturn, we are still way up. Also, these figures are adjusted for inflation. There is no reason to believe that per capita spending, adjusted for inflation should vary from year to year. Here is the scarier unadjusted picture:



But it still doesn't answer where all that swag is going.

But here is a clue:

Approximately 85% of the state's 235,000 employees (not including higher education employees) are unionized. As the governor noted during his $83 billion budget roll-out, over the past decade pension costs for public employees increased 2,000%. State revenues increased only 24% over the same period. A Schwarzenegger adviser wrote in the San Jose Mercury News in the past few days that, "This year alone, $3 billion was diverted to pension costs from other programs." There are now more than 15,000 government retirees statewide who receive pensions that exceed $100,000 a year, according to the California Foundation for Fiscal Responsibility.

Amazingly, even Willie Brown, seems to agree there is a problem. From the same article:

My hope is that these and other reforms find support in unlikely places. Former Assembly Speaker Willie Brown, a well-known liberal voice, recently wrote this in the San Francisco Chronicle: "The deal used to be that civil servants were paid less than private sector workers in exchange for an understanding that they had job security for life. But we politicians—pushed by our friends in labor—gradually expanded pay and benefits . . . while keeping the job protections and layering on incredibly generous retirement packages. . . . [A]t some point, someone is going to have to get honest about the fact."

So what's to be done? Amazingly I found this Deloitte Research Study that had some good ideas. (I usually have a low opinion of consultants.) Here are a few that I like:

• Curtail abuses of policy primarily in pay raises and sick leave that allow inflation of benefits.
• Raise employee contribution requirements. After all these are generous pensions, state employees should contribute, the way I do for my federal pension.
  
• Develop a plan and stick to it. Stop shifting the burden to future generations.
• Put newly hired workers into lower cost programs.
• Limit cost of living raises to actual inflation.
• Scale back generous early retirement programs.

But the one thing they don't say that would give short term relief is: REDUCE THE NUMBER OF STATE EMPLOYEES. (Sorry for shouting).

By shifting work to contractors, who usually have a defined contribution plan and away from the defined benefits plan the state provides, it will immediately start reducing the burden of future pensions on the state. Further, there are many areas where the state could contract for services and save money, because, as Willie Brown points out, state workers are paid above the private sector average.

These are things that could be done without cutting state "services." Cutting actual programs is a blog for another day. But I just want to point out one quick win. About 25% of the state budget is for "health and human services," much of which is for welfare. From the Fox & Hounds blog:

In 1996, Congress took much-needed action to reform the federal welfare program. The reforms tore down the old federal entitlement program and empowered states to implement genuine welfare-to-work programs. Caseloads across the country, including California’s, began to decline.

But we didn’t go far enough. While other states tightened their time limits and sanctions, California’s program remained lax, with extended time limits and weak sanction policies. The direct consequence of the state’s failure to clean up the system is the disproportionately high welfare rate we face today.

And we’ve tolerated these bloated welfare rolls despite the fact that most CalWORKs recipients aren’t following the rules. The law requires welfare recipients to meet a minimum level of work participation, but only 22 percent of work-eligible welfare recipients in California actually do so. Incredibly, of California recipients required to work in 2007, 64 percent didn’t work at all—not a single hour. This must change.

My link to that article is not an endorsement of Steve Poizner for Governor. I am still sorting out my options.

Summary of my overly long blog post. Fix spending by reforming pensions, reducing the number of state workers and running our welfare system like the rest of the country.

More Lies from Obama on Health Care Insurance Alleged Reform

As expected, Obama called for abusing Senate rules and passing Health Care through reconciliation even though he earlier said that was a bad idea. Reconciliation is intended for purely budgetary matters, a point now conveniently ignored both by Obama and in the WaPo article quoted below. Just one more promise broken by The One. Time for Senate Republicans to go all out to stop this travesty. Others will dissect his speech elsewhere, I wanted to focus on some obvious lies from the WaPo article:

Declaring that "it's time to give the American people more control over their own health insurance," he said his proposal represents "an approach that has been debated and changed and, I believe, improved over the last year." He said it "incorporates the best ideas from Democrats and Republicans," including some that GOP participants offered during last week's "health-care summit," such as funding state grants on medical malpractice reform and curbing waste, fraud and abuse in the health-care system.

Of course, the proposal does exactly the opposite of give people more control over their health insurance, by imposing new regulations, requiring people to buy specified coverage and coercing a one-size fits all approach, his proposals do the exact opposite.

The best ideas from Democrats and Republicans? This bill incorporates only the suckiest ideas of Dems and pays lip service to a couple Republican ideas and fully ignores the bulk of their ideas. And what's this crap about ending waste, fraud and abuse? You have the full legal tools at your disposal to do that NOW, Mr. President. Get your AG off the stupidity of civilian trials for terrorists and get moving on something that will save us all some coin.

From CATO's Facebook page: (H/T WC Varones)

Dropping a few Republican ideas into a government takeover of health care is like sterilizing the needle before a lethal injection: a nice thought, but the ultimate outcome is the same.

Reconciliation is often called the nuclear option. Republicans need to credibly retaliate. MAD worked to tame the Commies in a bygone era, maybe it will work again.

TARP Losses ONLY $117 Billion

According to the Treasury Department spokesman, Andrew Williams, projected losses for the Trouble Asset Relief Program (TARP) are only going to be $117 billion not the $341 billion earlier projected. What a relief. When this program was first debated, and tea party types objected, we were told this isn't government spending, it's just a loan; it won't add to the national debt; it will all get paid back. Right. It galls me that the so called elites don't think the average person can understand the workings of finance and financial regulation. (Meanwhile Fannie and Freddie unlimited bailout cash doesn't even make the TARP books, so even this figure is an underestimated lie.) Screw ups like TARP are predictable by everyone except these elites. And to remind every Republican running for office, this donkey of a program was initiated with Republican votes under a Republican administration. If you jackasses want any Tea Party votes, you better start doing some serious work in cutting spending.

Not supporting Jim Bunning isn't such a good start either. Get with the program, I know you can't shut down everything, but one Senator showed some principle in demanding some offsets to deficit expanding extension of unemployment benefits. No matter how popular the programs being halted, unless the Republicans can show some fortitude on deficit reduction, they aren't really catching the mood of the country. Bravo to Scott Brown for applauding Bunning's stand. I know Bunning has issues, but the leadership in the Senate should have gotten their caucus together and made a principled stand on the long avoided promise that all programs will be offset to ensure they don't increase the deficit.

Freedom Coalition Agenda 2010

I am revising the Freedom Coalition Agenda for 2010. Most of the positions haven't changed, but I am changing the order to reflect the concerns of the Tea Party Movement. One of the reasons I started this blog was to advance an agenda that would further the cause of freedom. In my experience, being right on the issues isn't enough, one's coalition must pick issues that are winners and that capture the public imagination.

The Republican party was founded as the party of freedom, but by 2006 they were identified as the party of big government. I therefor propose this Freedom Coalition agenda to get the party back on track. I hope the Republicans adopt a true freedom agenda, if they don't, they won't get my vote. As with any agenda, this will change with circumstances and I will update it periodically.

FREEDOM COALITION AGENDA 2010

• Defeat Government Take Over of Health Care. This is our signature issue today. We must defeat the current Democrat/Socialist plan, but we also have a plan of our own. We have shamelessly taken much of John Mackey's program and adopted it as our own. (Paul Ryan (R-WI) has also adopted elements of this plan.)
  

1. "Remove the legal obstacles that slow the creation of high-deductible health insurance plans and health savings accounts." Patients who have skin in the game and market knowledge will reduce costs faster than any government program.
   
2. "Equalize the tax laws so that employer-provided health insurance and individually owned health insurance have the same tax benefits."
   
3. Allow competition across state lines.
   
4. "Repeal government mandates regarding what insurance companies must cover."
   
5. "Enact tort reform."
6. "Make costs transparent."
   
7. "Enact medicare reform." Medicare policies that are mimicked by the private sector are strangling the medical profession.
   
8. Revise tax law to make it easier to donate to those without insurance.

• Smaller Government and Reform. These issues go hand in glove. The public loathes the sight of big business getting handout in the form of bailouts, subsidies and tax code preferences. They see the Congress get loads of campaign contributions and rightly conclude that the money is buying access that tilts the playing field, at best; or is buying Congressman at worst. Smaller government means less goodies to hand out. A reform agenda to end earmarks, end subsidies (even for ethanol) and simplify the tax code removes the incentives for business to try to buy the votes of the Congress. I can't find the original quote, but I remember Steve Forbes saying, "If you have a vermin problem in your kitchen, you can set traps and board up holes, but sooner or later your going to have to remove the cake from under the sink."

• Stop Spending to Reduce the Deficit. This is simple economics, with government sucking up all of the present and future resources of the country, it is a beast that sucks the life blood of credit, resources and talent from the businesses, large and small, that are the economic engine of this country. Interest on the national debt in fiscal year 2009 was $383 billion, 2010 is on track to hit $492 billion. If interest rates go up even slightly, interest payments on the debt will be in the trillions per year. Alternatively, we will get inflation that will make the 70's look mild.
  

• Reform Financial Regulation. The last recession wasn't caused by free market excess, but by too much government. Banks and insurers concluded they were too big to fail (TBTF) and called government's bluff. Many of them should have been allowed to fail. Further, as the big banks increase their market share, we demand that they carry higher percentage reserves, so that they won' fail. We call for an end to taxpayer subsidized speculation in the financial sector. We demand transparency in all things financial, including the pricing of assets. We call for an end to political interference that turned Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac into political vehicles to turn loans into votes. We call for an end to speculation with taxpayer insured deposits. We call on the Federal Reserve to open its books for inspection by the Congress that created it as well as the American people.

• Champion Freedom of Speech. We oppose campaign finance reform that protects incumbents and vested interests. Ultimately, these laws abridge free speech. There are so many examples of small groups harassed by monied opponents when they seek to organize to protect their rights. In Colorado, some neighbors who didn't want to be annexed by another city held some bakes sales to raise money for signs and ended being fined thousands of dollars. See Sampson v. Coffman. We also oppose campus speech codes that are intended to silence any point of view except the prevailing leftist orthodoxy. See FIRE article. This issue is a winner because Americans have long rejected the claim that others can tell us how to think and what we can say, especially when it comes to politics. Although they aren't happy about money in politics, it is easy to demonstrate that opposition to free speech isn't the answer. More on the right answer below.

• Oppose Eminent Domain abuse. Originally, the concept of eminent domain was meant to prevent individual property owners from holding the government hostage when building a road or other public good. Over time, this right of government morphed into the power to seize your land at the behest of the powerful for any reason, however flimsy. This view was challenged in Kelo vs. New London, but our side lost on a 5-4 decision, one of the most unjust outcomes since Dred Scott vs. Sandford. Fortunately, the appalling sight of the powerful and well connected preying on small business owners and individuals is fueling a backlash. But eminent domain abuse continues and this remains a powerful issue for our side. Here is an example of a hard fought victory n Long Branch, NJ, where officials want to replace middle class households with upper class ones. Frequently, the victims of this abuse are poor minorities. In this case a victorious homeowner was also presented an award from the NAACP. This is real outreach on issues that affect minorities that would benefit the GOP.

• Support School Choice. We could continue this outreach by taking on the school choice issue at full tilt. I previously blogged where the Arizona school teachers union wants to take away the ability of special needs kids to get much needed educational help through a voucher program. I think the Democrats are VERY vulnerable on this issue. School choice is the real civil rights issue of our day. Bad schools are wrecking the chances of poor and predominately minority students of being successful in college. Even the liberal University of California agrees with me that minorities are educationally disadvantaged. Interestingly, even though the academic literature on the benefits of choice are somewhat mixed, it seems to be that the greatest beneficiaries of school choice seem to be the urban poor. Further, as we experiment with choice we will find the combination of programs and incentives that really work.

• Support Freedom Abroad. Newly liberated peoples the world over have shown a propensity to embrace freedom and markets when the yoke of tyranny has been lifted. The policy of America should be to actively work against dictatorship in all its forms (Islamic, Socialist, Fascist and Communist). We should seek to advance the cause of freedom, not through force of arms, but through steady pressure. Every piece of foreign policy should be weighed against this end. Further, we are also ready to use force of arms in this cause when defense of our national interest requires it. Americans resonate with the concepts of helping to liberate peoples from tyranny, this is a winner. We especially decry the pathetic kow-towing to dictatorship in our own hemisphere in the shameful treatment of Honduras by the Obama administration.
  

• Oppose Partial-Birth Abortions. Because the practice is as odious and repugnant as the name suggests. Americans can viscerally understand this issue. How can it be legal to kill a baby 8 months into a pregnancy when that same child if delivered, would be afforded full protection of the law? It is illogical, and even though I am a Christian and hold all human life sacred, I don't have to rest my case on theological arguments. One need only talk to an abortion survivor to understand the horror of this procedure. I blogged about the politics of this issue here.

So that's my proposal. Short, but I hope substantive. I welcome your comments, disagreements, additions and satire.

B-Daddy