Thursday, 15 July 2010

Bunning Is Now Getting Long Overdue Props

I think it is hilarious to find a story on Bunning as a fiscal visionary.
The press lambasted Bunning and members of his own party begged him to back off as he jeopardized benefits for thousands of people.

Since then, almost the entire Republican party has taken up the retiring senator's argument that deficit reduction is more important than jobless aid, and extended benefits have been in limbo since the beginning of June, affecting 2.1 million people. The press has shed some its previous sympathy for the unemployed and now wonders, as many members of Congress do, if the extended benefits don't actually make them lazy.

For the GOP and Nebraska Democrat Ben Nelson, it turns out, Jim Bunning wasn't a pariah after all -- he was a fiscal visionary.
Duh? But I wouldn't call Bunning a visionary. He just understands fundamental principles of economics. Anyone could have made the predictions that Bunning made with a rudimentary knowledge on the subject. Exit Question: Have we descended so far into economic illiteracy that an application of basic economic concepts is considered visionary?


Posted by brians at 11:18 AM in Political Issues
Responses (3)

Wednesday, 14 July 2010

Republican Wave Will Be Their Doom? Really?

Every now and then you get stories about the doom of the Republican party. This time we get a prediction of doom before the re-emergence of the Republican majority.

At least Gerson starts by admitting their is a coming Republican wave.
There is little doubt about Republican ascendance. In June 2008,  Democrats enjoyed a nearly 20-point lead in the generic congressional  ballot; today they are behind. Approval for President Obama among  independents has fallen below 40 percent for the first time in his presidency.

Of course then he goes about telling us how the extremisim of the wave will doom the party.
But mainstream conservatives have been strangely disoriented by tea party excess, unable to distinguish the injudicious from the outrageous. Some rose to Angle's defense or attacked her critics. Just to be clear: A Republican Senate candidate has identified the United States Congress with tyranny and contemplated the recourse to
political violence. This is disqualifying for public office. It lacks, of course, the seriousness of genuine sedition. It is the conservative equivalent of the Ché Guevara T-shirt -- a fashion, a gesture, a toying with ideas the wearer only dimly comprehends.
This is not only hysteria, but historical illiteracy. Let's take a quote and see if you can guess who said it?
And what country can preserve its liberties, if its rulers are not warned from time to time, that this people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as to the facts, pardon and pacify them. What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time, with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is its natural manure."
I bet you are wondering which wacky tea party member said this? None other than Thomas Jefferson. Yeah one of the founders of our country. But if a modern politician echos the brilliant comments of our founding fathers they are "unfit to hold office". Are you serious? Only in the mind of a liberal is a quote reminicent of a founding father "scandolous" today. But he isn't done there. His next target is libertarianism.
In America, the ideology of libertarianism is itself a scandal. It involves not only a retreat from Obamaism but a retreat from the most basic social commitments to the weak, elderly and disadvantaged, along with a withdrawal from American global commitments. Libertarianism has a rigorous ideological coldness at its core. Voters are alienated when that core is exposed.
What the hell is he talking about? When is liberty and freedom "coldness".  It is core principle upon which this country was founded. But according to liberal dogma it is something that can no longer be tolerated. Voters don't really want freedom. See we liberals know what is best for them.

Next he turns his guns on Arizona's new immigration law.
In addition, the Republican wave carries along a group more interested in stigmatizing immigrants than winning their support. Some conservatives have found Arizona's anti-immigration law a cause worth fighting for -- a law that is poorly written, ineffective, symbolically toxic and likely to be overturned.
It is such a bad law that a similar law has been previously passed in California and Rhode Island. He offers no rationale for his take on the law except liberal talking points. Not to mention the fact that a large majority of Americans support the law. Of course last but not least we need to finish with how all of this will doom the Republican party.
With a major Republican victory in November, those who hold these views may well be elevated in profile and influence. And this could create durable, destructive perceptions of the Republican Party that take decades to change. A party that is intimidated and silent in the face of its extremes is eventually defined by them.
This is hillarious. I wonder if he wrote a similar article four years ago when the most radical liberals gained control of the Democratic party in congress? The big difference between 1994 and today is that this time the people elected might actually do something to roll back big government. Not pay lip service to it. That is the real reason why people are flocking to these tea party members. If they can begin to deliver on their promises they may just find themselves in the majority for a long time. Much to the chagrin of Gerson.

Posted by brians at 9:12 PM in Political Issues
Responses (0)

Sunday, 4 July 2010

Calvin Coolidge on July 4th

I was surfing around today and came across a reference to a Calvin Coolidge's speech on July 4th in 1926. Calvin Coolidge, one of our better presidents,  in his speech laid bare the reasoning, meaning, and principles behind the Declaration of Independence.  The entire speech is a fantastic read for July 4th.

Here is my favorite part from the speech.

We are too prone to overlook another conclusion. Governments do not make ideals, but ideals make governments. This is both historically and logically true. Of course the government can help to sustain ideals and can create institutions through which they can be the better observed, but their source by their very nature is in the people. The people have to bear their own responsibilities. There is no method by which that burden can be shifted to the government. It is not the enactment, but the observance of laws, that creates the character of a nation.

About the Declaration there is a finality that is exceedingly restful. It is often asserted that the world has made a great deal of progress since 1776, that we have had new thoughts and new experiences which have given us a great advance over the people of that day, and that we may therefore very well discard their conclusions for something more modern. But that reasoning can not be applied to this great charter. If all men are created equal, that is final. If they are endowed with inalienable rights, that is final. If governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed, that is final. No advance, no progress can be made beyond these propositions. If anyone wishes to deny their truth or their soundness, the only direction in which he can proceed historically is not forward, but backward toward the time when there was no equality, no rights of the individual, no rule of the people. Those who wish to proceed in that direction can not lay claim to progress. They are reactionary. Their ideas are not more modern, but more ancient, than those of the Revolutionary fathers.

Wow! It gives me chills that these truths stated so plainly back in 1926 still ring true today.

Posted by brians at 2:13 PM in Political Issues
Responses (0)

Independence Day

234 years ago today, 56 men gathered in Philadelphia to sign a declaration of independence from the oppressive tyranny of England. On that July 4th, those men sparked the flame of liberty. One that has grown over the past 200 plus years into a beacon of freedom for the entire world. A shining city on the hill. For we are not a great country because of our geography. We are a great country because we are free men.

Today we gather together not only to celebrate the bold signers of the declaration and the men and women who have struggled since to ensure our continued freedom. But to reaffirm our own commitment to the principals laid out that day.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.
While life, liberty, and the pursuit of our dreams are unalienable rights, they are not guaranteed. And we must today declare our support to defend these rights from those who wish to oppress. Only then can we guarantee our continued freedom,  our continued greatness, and our continued leadership in the world. It is our duty.

Happy Independence Day!

Posted by brians at 1:34 PM in Political Issues
Responses (0)

Sunday, 2 May 2010

Do Political Endorsements Work?

We have seen a number of political endorsements this primary season in both the Democrat and Republican primaries for U.S. Senate. The question I have is are these endorsements effective? I think to answer the question, we have to break the voting electorate into two groups. Ones that are politically aware and follow politics and those voters who are politically unaware.

Let's start with the easier case, those that follow politics. Would these people be affected by endorsements? I doubt it for a simple reason. People who follow politics will take the time to understand the issues and the candidates. Thus they are more likely to know the positions of the candidates running for office and will make their own decisions based upon this knowledge. Not some endorsement by a political group.

When looking at the reality of a campaign, candidates are not fighting over this small percentage of the electorate. They are after the less knowledgeable candidates. Those who can be swayed by direct targeting from the campaigns. The question is are these people swayed by political endorsements?

I imagine it might sway a hand full of people. Those who are big fans of the politician or political group endorsing a candidate. I can see where they could be swayed by an endorsement. Although it is easy to end up with competing endorsements. Let's say I was a fan of Dick Cheney and Sarah Palin. These two endorsed competing candidates here in Kentucky. Which endorsement would I hold in higher regard? Right to Life could endorse one candidate while the NRA endorses another. Again who would I side with?

At the same time, people who don't pay attention to the news probably wouldn't even know about the endorsements. If they do, it would probably only be from glancing at a news headline. Besides the people who are oblivious to the news probably don't care enough about any politician or political group to consider their opinion as worthwhile anyway.

The bottom line is I doubt political endorsements are all that effective at turning voters. The question remaining is why do candidates seek out the endorsements then? While endorsements are unlikely to sway a voter, I think they do lend credibility to the candidate. It shows that the candidate is real and not some pretender. One who is worthy of a voters consideration. It creates a foundation that can be built upon by direct communication (television, radio, and mailers). That is what I believe is the real value of endorsements in a political race.

Posted by brians at 6:36 PM in Political Issues
Responses (1)

Thursday, 22 April 2010

Earth Day / Lenin's Birthday

I always thought it appropriate that Earth Day shared Lenin's birthday. Both Lenin and environmentalism are hallmarks of the socialist movement. Lenin because he brought socialist oppression to the people of Russia destroying any shreds of a private economy. Earth Day because it is the propaganda center piece for modern socialism and its attempt to destroy capitalism.

I want to celebrate Earth Day by discussing the cost of gasoline. While I was out today, I noticed that the price of gasoline has risen to nearly $3 a gallon. It was November of 2008 that I warned that as soon as the economy started to recover the price of gasoline would shoot up and be another drag upon the economy. Guess what is happening. The economy is struggling to recover and the price of gas is sky rocketing upward.

It was just two years ago during the presidential campaign that the price of gas was an issue. The Republicans wanted to drill but the Democrats said we should turn to alternative energy.
Besides the Democrats said, "it would take two years before new drilling would produce any new oil". Well you know what? It is two years later and we are no closer to new drilling with Democrats solidly opposed to it while a new financial crisis looms.

Since we have forsaken a proven technology for the new hotness of green energy, where is all of this green energy they promised? It still doesn't exist and won't in the near future. Just like I predicted two years ago. 

If we had acted two years ago and started drilling we would be seeing real relief from the coming gas price spike. Instead we are left with talk about green projects that are nothing but vaporware. Unfortunately my words from November 13, 2008 are coming back to haunt us.
Mark my words. This decision will come back to haunt the Obama administration and will do significant damage to U.S. economic viability. In a couple years we will face the same shortages we faced this time, and the Obama team will throw up thier hands and say "we will have alternative fuels in 10 years!". Meanwhile Rome will be burning.
I want everyone to spend Earth Day thinking about the stupidity of not drilling for more oil two years ago when we had our opportunity to avoid the coming price explosion. Remember the financial burden we all are going to share because of listening to socialist babble exuding from our president and his fellow Democrats. They want capitalism to fail and they are trying their damnedest to make sure it happens.

Happy Earth Day!

Posted by brians at 8:56 PM in Political Issues
Responses (1)

Tuesday, 13 April 2010

Speaking Of Spending Money We Don't Have

For the second year running the United State is going to run over a trillion dollar deficit. A TRILLION dollar deficit. That is an astronomical amount of money to spend that we don't have. The question one has to ask is how did this happen? The answer is simple. The Pork Meisters in congress keep spending money on stuff that has nothing to do with the federal government. Exhibit A - Porker John Yarmuth!
U.S. Rep. John Yarmuth, D-3rd District, presented a $95,000 check to representatives of the Muhammad Ali Center on Thursday to help develop educational outreach efforts and support the center’s Council of Students and service learning programs.

The money, secured by Yarmuth in in the Labor-Health and Human Services-Education Appropriations Act, will support the Council of Students programs.
Why the hell is the FEDERAL government spending nearly $100,000 for an education outreach to a museum? I mean seriously. Why is federal taxpayer money being used to help support what is essentially a local museum? Why are people from Georgia, Washington, Hawaii, Arizona, and every other state in the union being forced to subsidize a museum in Kentucky? Really, if the museum is so important shouldn't the people within the community be the ones supporting it? They are the ones who are most likely to profit from said organization.

It is this type of reckless stupid spending multiplied by 535 people representing us in D.C. that is the cause for our prolific deficits. We need to say no to pork. We need to say no to spending on items that are outside the purvey of the federal government. For if we don't, we are doomed to live a life of serfdom that Hayek so eloquently warned us about.

Posted by brians at 10:16 PM in Political Issues
Responses (2)

Monday, 1 March 2010

Prisoner's Dilemma and Bunning's Stuborn Stance

When I took introduction to political science, I was introduced to the concept of the "prisoner's dilemma". The problem is outlined as such.
Two suspects are arrested by the police. The police have insufficient evidence for a conviction, and, having separated both prisoners, visit each of them to offer the same deal. If one testifies (defects from the other) for the prosecution against the other and the other remains silent (cooperates with the other), the betrayer goes free and the silent accomplice receives the full 10-year sentence. If both remain silent, both prisoners are sentenced to only six months in jail for a minor charge. If each betrays the other, each receives a five-year sentence. Each prisoner must choose to betray the other or to remain silent. Each one is assured that the other would not know about the betrayal before the end of the investigation. How should the prisoners act?
The whole point of the exercise is to introduce game theory. Here is a matrix of the possible decisions.

  Prisoner B Stays Silent Prisoner B Betrays
Prisoner A Stays Silent Each serves 6 months Prisoner A: 10 years
Prisoner B: goes free
Prisoner A Betrays Prisoner A: goes free
Prisoner B: 10 years		 Each serves 5 years

The interesting aspect of the game is that each individual would be best served to stay silent. In that scenario they serve a combine 1 year in jail. The other three scenarios have them going to jail for a combined 10 years. The only problem is that the rational choice for each prisoner is to betray. Why? Because they are guaranteed to end up in better shape or equal to the other prisoner if they betray. In the other case they may end up much worse off than the other prisoner.

Ok, I see it is an interesting thought problem, but what does it have to do with Sen Bunning's latest antics?
Kentucky Sen. Jim Bunning on Monday again held up legislation that extends unemployment and health insurance benefits....

Bunning said he supports extending unemployment benefits and he tried unsuccessfully last week to negotiate an agreement with the Senate Democratic leadership.

“We cannot keep adding to the debt,” Bunning said in remarks on the Senate floor. The legislation is not paid for, contrary to a recent pay-as-you-go law that Congress passed and President Barack Obama signed into law.

Basically, Bunning is saying that he is not going to allow Congress to keep spending taxpayer money without first paying for it. The Democrats immediately jumped on him as being against the working class of America.

The Republican senator’s objection to the funding bill has temporarily shut down multi-million dollar construction projects in several states and canceled highway reimbursements to states worth hundreds of millions of dollars, said Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood.

“As American families are struggling in tough economic times, I am keenly disappointed that political games are putting a stop to important construction projects around the country,” LaHood said in a statement. “This means that construction workers will be sent home from job sites because federal inspectors must be furloughed.”

Sen Reid said Republicans were standing in the way of providing emergency help to people in need.

“They said ‘No’ to the families of their own states and all our states who count on us when they need action,” Reid said.

"Because of one senator's irresponsible actions, over 61,000 Michigan workers will begin losing their unemployment benefits on Monday," said Sen. Debbie Stabenow, D-Mich. "These workers and their families cannot afford to wait for help."
The evil Republicans just want the common man to suffer! Again, what does this have to do with the prisoner's dilemma? Because it is the same problem that the Democrats are exploiting to trash Bunning. Let's rework the problem to reflect the current situation. On one side we have person unemployed and on the other side we have the rest of society. We have the choice of responsible spending and irresponsible spending. Let's revisit the matrix. The X axis is society and the Y axis is the unemployed individual. The first result inside the matrix is the individuals results and the second is society's result in the game.

  Responsible Spending
 Irresponsible Spending
Responsible Spending
 40, 40
 0, 50
Irresponsible Spending
 50, 0
 1, 1

If the government spends irresponsibly for the people out of work then those people are better off, but the society as a whole loses. Why? Because money spent on them is taken from the rest of society. The rest of society is poorer for the transfer of wealth. The Democrats argue that if we don't help the little guy then all we care about is the rich. The rich will get everything and the poor will be stuck with nothing. For Democrats the only two options are the lower left and upper right quadrants.

The only problem with the Democrat's argument is that they offer the same deal to every group in society. If everyone takes their deal we end up in the bottom right quadrant were everyone loses. For that is where the leviathan of government overwhelms the economy and shreds it into tatters.

The problem Republicans face in convincing people that they are better off with responsible spendingt. They are asking people to give up their bit of government pork for the greater good knowing in the long run they will be better off for it. In the example of the unemployed gentleman. While he may suffer initially from the lack of federal money. In the long term he will be better off without it. The economy will recover quicker without government intrusion and new jobs will be created. Allowing the unemployed gentleman to find gainful employment.

What makes it such a difficult sell is that the individual's rational best interest is to take the irresponsible spending. In affect getting a piece of the pie while it is still there. It is difficult to get past this rational with voters when Democrats continually play one group against another. The Democrats have been feasting off this dilemma for years to drive their agenda.

It has worked until recently. People are awakening to see the government nearing the cliffs and are beginning to resist. They are beginning to understand the risks of irresponsible spending and are forming Tea Parties across the country. The move to responsible spending has to start some where and Bunning is leading that charge in the senate. The only question is will people stick together for the common good or resort to their base rationales. We will find out by the general publics reaction to Bunning's stand in the senate.

Posted by brians at 9:29 PM in Political Issues
Responses (0)

Monday, 15 February 2010

Man Made Global Warming Theory Crumbles

The biggest story this year is the climategate exposure at the University Of East Anglia's Climate Research Unit. Exposure of the center's "record keeping" has exploded much of the theory around global warming. Today Professor Phil Jones, disgraced directory of East Anglia's CRU admitted as much over the weekend.

Professor Jones told the BBC yesterday there was truth in the observations of colleagues that he lacked organisational skills, that his office was swamped with piles of paper and that his record keeping is ‘not as good as it should be’.

The data is crucial to the famous ‘hockey stick graph’ used by climate change advocates to support the theory.

Professor Jones also conceded the possibility that the world was warmer in medieval times than now – suggesting global warming may not be a man-made phenomenon.

And he said that for the past 15 years there has been no ‘statistically significant’ warming.

In an unbelievable reversal, Prof Jones admits that we have had not had significant warming in the last 15 years. How can we have run-a-way warming if we have had very little warming in the last 15 years?

Secondly, he admits that temperatures in medieval times were warmer than today. Again a question I have long wanted answered by global warming fear mongers, how do we know it is man made when we have had warmer periods in the last 2000 years? Why is this any different than any other warming trend in our history?

The best part is they have lost the data for the infamous hockey graph. Nothing like losing the data that "proves" man made global warming! How do you lose data that is so vital to the theory?

I think the time has come to say that all of the "modeling" and theories of man made global warming are just wrong. Maybe we can get back to doing real science in climatology and not political fear mongering like the bogus IPCC in order to push a socialistic agenda.

Posted by brians at 8:24 PM in Political Issues
Responses (0)

Thursday, 21 January 2010

Brown Win The Start Of A Tidal Wave

Brown's incredible upset in Massachusetts is just the first of the tidal conservative tidal wave that is sweeping across America this year. A wave that we haven't seen since Ron Lewis won the 2nd congressional district in Kentucky. Democratic over reach has created a backlash that is only now begining to be seen and felt.

In Missouri, the Republican has moved into a lead in the polls. In California, Boxer only has a small lead with approval ratings hovering around 50%. In Nevada, Reid trails by double digits to all of his challengers. Closer to home, Sodrel has surged to an 8 point lead over Democrat Hill in the Southern Indiana congressional race.

On top of that top tier candidates are starting to pop up to challenge what looked to be "safe" Democrats. Even Bayh is beginning to look vulnerable in Indiana. Here in Kentucky, the most vulnerable candidate is Ben Chandler in the 6th district. Chandler's one advantage is his seat on the Appropriations committee. Such a plum position will allow him to rake in money from special interests. He already has $1.6 million dollars in his war chest. Even so, he is vulnerable to a viable candidate.

Republican Andy Barr appears to be such a candidate. He has raised over $300,000 in the first 2 quarters. Even though he trails Chandler in money, Barr doesn't need to spend as much as Chandler. He only has to have enough money to advertise on television. The ads tying Chandler to Pelosi and Obama write themselves. Barr has a solid start, but he needs more. Fortunately, he still has seven or eight months to raise the money he needs.

Personally, I can't wait to start seeing the polls on all of these races.

Posted by brians at 9:56 PM in Political Issues
Responses (0)