A few days ago, somebody emailed me a link to web footage of some political speaker. A black man, with the air of a preacher to him (pardon the stereotype), railing against Obama. It was pretty funny. He was calling the President 'Mr. Long-Legged-Mac-Daddy,' and was yelling "You pushing these white people too far! They ain't gonna take it! They gonna rise up, and if you think it was ugly and violent when black people riot, you ain't seen nothin' yet! And I hope they let me join them!"
That's just me paraphrasing. Most of it was pretty over the top, even when you don't factor in him talking about Obama's documented history of homosexuality. But the general point he was making was that, no matter of political correctness, middle-class white people pay a lot of taxes, are being expected to pay a lot more taxes, and are not going to be getting any additional benefit to their lives for having paid those taxes. The average American taxpayer is a middle-class working stiff with a full-time job. Since he has a full-time job, he almost certainly has healthcare already. He will not be pleased at working until July each year before a cent he earns is his own. Not mentioned - but thoroughly implied in the tirade - was that these middle-class white people also tend to own a lot of guns.
All in all, it was pretty funny shit.
But it got me to thinking, and I have to say that I honestly like the way that things are going in this country. I think it's a travesty the way Obama is running the show, but the practical result has been a whole hell of a lot of Americans becoming involved in the political process. Take a look at those town hall meetings; the vast majority of the questions faced where on-point, not accusatory, and should have been anticipated by any rational politician about to present themselves in the public forum. On at least a few occasions, the politicians in question have been completely incapable of rational response, and have ended up looking like jackasses.
I think this is because a lot of those politicians are relics from an era that has now passed. When America was fat and healthy, nobody really cared what their congressmen did. Those congressmen certainly didn't have to face public criticism and questioning of the positions they adopted. All they ever had to do was smile and kiss babies in election years. And look at their responses to these new challenges: usually something along the lines of "How dare you question me! I'm a CONGRESSMAN!!!" Publicly elected officials are getting indignant at the people who put them into power.
I expect a great many of them will be retiring before they run for re-election. Seriously, whoever is gonna run against Barney Frank ("Talking to you is like talking to a dining room table!") has got to be fucking drooling. The man is on film, voicing his contempt for the very people who elected him! I'm taking bets now: he will retire from congress rather than run for re-election. If he does run next year, he will be defeated. Regardless of his seat, next year's mid-term voter turnout is probably going to dwarf any mid-term turn-out in history, and I frankly expect a massive shift towards conservatism and Republican politics.
Barack is simply handling the situation so amazingly badly that most incumbent Democrats who do run will need to distance themselves from him. Look at his antics. His staged "town hall" meeting, with scripted slow-pitch questions. His thumbing his nose at his own party. Acorn employees being caught as the persons behind the "Obama is Hitler" thing. Even professional douchbags like Chris Matthews are having a harder and harder time making excuses for him, and the White House's response to any and all criticism - keeping in recent Democratic mold - has been roughly along the lines of "How dare you question me! I'm PRESIDENT!!!"
The response warms my heart. People are going to come out and vote. Obama is absolutely going to usher in a new era of change, because whatever Republican gets the nomination in 2012 is going to win by a fucking landslide. Congressional elections that year will swing Red as well. All in all, Barack is going to be this generations Jimmy Carter: someone who, for all his intelligence and good intentions, handled the country so amazingly BADLY that whoever follows him will have the full support of a majority that has become quite vocal.
Tuesday, August 25, 2009
Thursday, August 20, 2009
You Can't Eat Your Cake And Have It Too
The fight continues over nationalized healthcare, this time with the far left in an uproar, because Obama is no longer considering the "public option" as critical to his program. Nobody should be surprised with this: both Congress and the American public as a whole has expressed that they do not endorse that end. The President NEEDED to back off, or else get his throat cut politically. But other than softening his expressed goal, his main efforts right now are defusing assertions that this plan would largely cut down Medicare's services for the elderly because of cost constraints, and so forth. Also lots of discussion about "death panels," etc. For the most part, he's blowing smoke, and responding to every question and challenge with a sincere promise that they are addressing all points, and that details are being worked out.
But he's not giving us details. It might be because he doesn't have them, but it's more likely because, if people knew the details, they would be even more outraged than they are now.
Even putting aside pesky points like the 9th and 10th Amendments, I really don't know why this is getting so much consideration. Is it really that difficult for people to grasp that the American healthcare system simply cannot effectively cover the entire populace?
Lets spell it out. Healthcare a COMMODITY, and it is expensive. And it's not expensive just because of the evil insurance industry and the Plaintiff's attorneys. Healthcare is a highly skilled field that plays for high stakes (literally life and death), and is EXTREMELY technologically oriented. All efforts that are successful are nothing more than a holding-action anyway; we're all going to die, so even the greatest healthcare victories are ultimately moot. But there are unquestionably lots of highly intelligent, highly trained people who need to get paid (and paid well) for the services they provide.
Rest assured that healthcare providers and professionals have NO SHORTAGE WHATSOEVER of work. Have you been to a doctor's office lately? Or - even worse - an ER? The fact that doctors are consistently behind in their appointments - I waited until almost 5 for my 3 pm appointment - and that the average ER wait is several hours really speaks for itself: even in its current form and with its current load of patients, our healthcare system has severe problems coming through. But it does come through. Look at the statistics: American healthcare is generally excellent, with substantially better cancer survival rates, for example, than even the best numbers among socialized-healthcare nations.
The expressed intention of the Obama agenda is universal healthcare. We have been promised that care will remain excellent. But that is, in a word, IMPOSSIBLE.
The legislation being considered does not substantially address things like training more doctors, building more hospitals, or streamlining the referral process (which is a massive part of healthcare these days). It does not increase the amount of patients that our doctors are capable of treating in a day, and does not mandate the acquisition of more doctors. The plan, apparently, is to try to use Federal law and the BILLING structure of the industry to try to extend our current healthcare TREATMENT structure over an additional 40 million people.
How does this make sense to ANYONE?
There are only so many doctors, and only so many hours in a day. If you require those same doctors to see more patients, they are not going to be able to do the kind of job we expect them to do. Further, if there is more healthcare being demanded by more people from the same number of doctors and hospitals, the cost of healthcare is NOT going to go down, it's going to go UP. That is fucking freshman economics. Add in that, with doctors so rushed, mistakes are going to be made, and medical malpractice cases are going to rise as well, and rightly so. Our government is on the verge of Ordering doctors to do more, without providing them the means to do more.
I hope I don't need to remind anyone what happens when the government decides that it knows business better than the businesses do, but - for quick reference - recall Enron, Grey Davis and the California energy meltdown, and our current foreclosure market. Governments are not all-powerful, and while they can legislate, the act of legislating does not CREATE anything. Ordering the current healthcare system to provide coverage for 40 million additional people - without a drop in quality of care - is like trying to feed an army with one man's lunch. A few loaves of bread and some of fish, for example. No matter what the liberals believe about Obama (and no matter what he might believe about himself), he's not qualified to make that happen.
Besides being beyond the powers of the Federal Legislature, quality national healthcare is beyond the capability of the healthcare system itself. There is only so much water in the well. More people drinking means less water for each. There is no way around this.
So Barack's plan is, frankly, bullshit. It's designed to get a bunch of his cronies into positions where they can make a bunch of money, control peoples' lives (by controlling their healthcare), and perpetuating a welfare state. It ABSOLUTELY will not result in a general reduction of the cost of healthcare; that part at least is simple supply and demand. It ABSOLUTELY will result in a sharp across-the-board decline in the quality of care, as doctors are now expected to see five patients in the time previously allotted for three or four. Do you believe in nationalized healthcare enough to accept a 20 or 25% reduction in the quality of your care? That's what's going to happen. If you are willing, do you really expect others to feel the same?
If the government was serious about reducing the cost of healthcare, how about this: for every year of service provided in a public clinic, hospital, or care institution, the Federal government will forgive 20% of the student loans of any doctor, nurse, or other skilled healthcare practitioner. Put in five years public service, and - in addition to your regular salary over that period - your student loans are totally forgiven. You know: solve the problem though the taxing and spending power, rather than by institutionalizing an entire industry. Give people economic incentive to become doctors and nurses, and give them incentive to use their skills for the benefit of the public. Solve the healthcare shortage by generating more healthcare, rather than by trying voodoo to stretch too little healthcare too far.
But I guess we don't have time for a rational solution. Obama only has a few years to carve his legacy, and so he needs to make a dramatic splash, rather than making an effective change.
But he's not giving us details. It might be because he doesn't have them, but it's more likely because, if people knew the details, they would be even more outraged than they are now.
Even putting aside pesky points like the 9th and 10th Amendments, I really don't know why this is getting so much consideration. Is it really that difficult for people to grasp that the American healthcare system simply cannot effectively cover the entire populace?
Lets spell it out. Healthcare a COMMODITY, and it is expensive. And it's not expensive just because of the evil insurance industry and the Plaintiff's attorneys. Healthcare is a highly skilled field that plays for high stakes (literally life and death), and is EXTREMELY technologically oriented. All efforts that are successful are nothing more than a holding-action anyway; we're all going to die, so even the greatest healthcare victories are ultimately moot. But there are unquestionably lots of highly intelligent, highly trained people who need to get paid (and paid well) for the services they provide.
Rest assured that healthcare providers and professionals have NO SHORTAGE WHATSOEVER of work. Have you been to a doctor's office lately? Or - even worse - an ER? The fact that doctors are consistently behind in their appointments - I waited until almost 5 for my 3 pm appointment - and that the average ER wait is several hours really speaks for itself: even in its current form and with its current load of patients, our healthcare system has severe problems coming through. But it does come through. Look at the statistics: American healthcare is generally excellent, with substantially better cancer survival rates, for example, than even the best numbers among socialized-healthcare nations.
The expressed intention of the Obama agenda is universal healthcare. We have been promised that care will remain excellent. But that is, in a word, IMPOSSIBLE.
The legislation being considered does not substantially address things like training more doctors, building more hospitals, or streamlining the referral process (which is a massive part of healthcare these days). It does not increase the amount of patients that our doctors are capable of treating in a day, and does not mandate the acquisition of more doctors. The plan, apparently, is to try to use Federal law and the BILLING structure of the industry to try to extend our current healthcare TREATMENT structure over an additional 40 million people.
How does this make sense to ANYONE?
There are only so many doctors, and only so many hours in a day. If you require those same doctors to see more patients, they are not going to be able to do the kind of job we expect them to do. Further, if there is more healthcare being demanded by more people from the same number of doctors and hospitals, the cost of healthcare is NOT going to go down, it's going to go UP. That is fucking freshman economics. Add in that, with doctors so rushed, mistakes are going to be made, and medical malpractice cases are going to rise as well, and rightly so. Our government is on the verge of Ordering doctors to do more, without providing them the means to do more.
I hope I don't need to remind anyone what happens when the government decides that it knows business better than the businesses do, but - for quick reference - recall Enron, Grey Davis and the California energy meltdown, and our current foreclosure market. Governments are not all-powerful, and while they can legislate, the act of legislating does not CREATE anything. Ordering the current healthcare system to provide coverage for 40 million additional people - without a drop in quality of care - is like trying to feed an army with one man's lunch. A few loaves of bread and some of fish, for example. No matter what the liberals believe about Obama (and no matter what he might believe about himself), he's not qualified to make that happen.
Besides being beyond the powers of the Federal Legislature, quality national healthcare is beyond the capability of the healthcare system itself. There is only so much water in the well. More people drinking means less water for each. There is no way around this.
So Barack's plan is, frankly, bullshit. It's designed to get a bunch of his cronies into positions where they can make a bunch of money, control peoples' lives (by controlling their healthcare), and perpetuating a welfare state. It ABSOLUTELY will not result in a general reduction of the cost of healthcare; that part at least is simple supply and demand. It ABSOLUTELY will result in a sharp across-the-board decline in the quality of care, as doctors are now expected to see five patients in the time previously allotted for three or four. Do you believe in nationalized healthcare enough to accept a 20 or 25% reduction in the quality of your care? That's what's going to happen. If you are willing, do you really expect others to feel the same?
If the government was serious about reducing the cost of healthcare, how about this: for every year of service provided in a public clinic, hospital, or care institution, the Federal government will forgive 20% of the student loans of any doctor, nurse, or other skilled healthcare practitioner. Put in five years public service, and - in addition to your regular salary over that period - your student loans are totally forgiven. You know: solve the problem though the taxing and spending power, rather than by institutionalizing an entire industry. Give people economic incentive to become doctors and nurses, and give them incentive to use their skills for the benefit of the public. Solve the healthcare shortage by generating more healthcare, rather than by trying voodoo to stretch too little healthcare too far.
But I guess we don't have time for a rational solution. Obama only has a few years to carve his legacy, and so he needs to make a dramatic splash, rather than making an effective change.
Friday, August 14, 2009
Another Animal For The Zoo
As fall creeps inexorably upon us, I must, alas, speak of football, lest I explode. I know most of my readers don't give a rats-ass about ANYTHING football-related. Except Lisa, and even her attention is largely limited to the Griz (which is understandable) and the Cowboys (which in unforgivable). But although I love you guys, I don't always write for you guys, and I'm in one of those states of mind where I REALLY need to write about SOMETHING.
So. Football. The big news this off-season is the Michael Vick thing, who signed this week with the Eagles. This surprised me only a little. Having a through-and-through class guy like Tony Dungy in his corner gets him a lot of respect, and provides at least the reasonable confidence that Vick is not going to GET CAUGHT doing anything else illegal and/or idiotic. To be honest, Philly (and probably a few other teams, to lesser degree) didn't need any more assurance than that.
Of course, having Tony as his babysitter doesn't change the fact that Michael Vick, whether or not he's still doing it, is a man who - for years - bred, participated in fights between, and even personally killed household animals (in creative and brutal fashion, no less) because HE LIKED IT AND THOUGHT IT WAS GOOD FUN. But we're all about second chances aren't we? Especially when that second chance might give the home team another angle in the rushing attack. So make no mistake, Philly and its fans are going to embrace Vick. If for no other reason than that Philly fans are absolutely incapable of rational thought when it comes to their sports teams, they will continue their rabid support, games will continue to sell out, and any PETA protesters that might be in attendance should at least be aware of the possibility of getting shivved by a hard-core fan who's had a bit too much Yuengling.
Makes you proud to be an American, eh?
For my part, and setting aside that I'm a dog kind of guy, this signing pisses me off because it astronomically increases the Eagles chances of winning the Super Bowl, and I'm not a fan. Philly is gonna be strong this year. And not because of anything Vick might contribute on the field, mind you. Guy is three years older, hasn't played a snap, and was over-rated at his best. The Eagles' on-field product was looking pretty good to start with anyway; whatever raw talent he might bring, Vick will be a drop in the bucket, especially since the #1 guy on that team wears #5, not #7.
His contribution to the game will probably be minimal. But Vick's contribution to the DRAMA is already remarkable.
Seriously, think about Philly and the Eagles. Do you think there is any possible way that they might carry away a Lombardi Trophy with class and dignity? NO. FUCKING. WAY. If they win it all, there needs to be strife, contentions, angles for recriminations, and "Yeah, but look at what you had to stoop to to win." Hell, their best finish in the last 20 years came with Terrel Owens and his associated side-show in their locker room. Think that was a coincidence? With all this drama, all this contentiousness, and all this off-the-field bullshit, the team, the fans, and the city will be foaming at the mouth and running through walls all season. Even if Vick never takes that field, and barring serious injury to Mike Westbrook, the Eagles are gonna be tough.
Think about it. If they win a championship with him on the roster, then football history, for all eternity, will recall that the Eagles where finally able to climb the mountain after they signed the most notorious and publicized ex-con in the history of the game. Since this is the Philadelphia Eagles we're talking about, do you imagine a championship could happen any other way?
So. Football. The big news this off-season is the Michael Vick thing, who signed this week with the Eagles. This surprised me only a little. Having a through-and-through class guy like Tony Dungy in his corner gets him a lot of respect, and provides at least the reasonable confidence that Vick is not going to GET CAUGHT doing anything else illegal and/or idiotic. To be honest, Philly (and probably a few other teams, to lesser degree) didn't need any more assurance than that.
Of course, having Tony as his babysitter doesn't change the fact that Michael Vick, whether or not he's still doing it, is a man who - for years - bred, participated in fights between, and even personally killed household animals (in creative and brutal fashion, no less) because HE LIKED IT AND THOUGHT IT WAS GOOD FUN. But we're all about second chances aren't we? Especially when that second chance might give the home team another angle in the rushing attack. So make no mistake, Philly and its fans are going to embrace Vick. If for no other reason than that Philly fans are absolutely incapable of rational thought when it comes to their sports teams, they will continue their rabid support, games will continue to sell out, and any PETA protesters that might be in attendance should at least be aware of the possibility of getting shivved by a hard-core fan who's had a bit too much Yuengling.
Makes you proud to be an American, eh?
For my part, and setting aside that I'm a dog kind of guy, this signing pisses me off because it astronomically increases the Eagles chances of winning the Super Bowl, and I'm not a fan. Philly is gonna be strong this year. And not because of anything Vick might contribute on the field, mind you. Guy is three years older, hasn't played a snap, and was over-rated at his best. The Eagles' on-field product was looking pretty good to start with anyway; whatever raw talent he might bring, Vick will be a drop in the bucket, especially since the #1 guy on that team wears #5, not #7.
His contribution to the game will probably be minimal. But Vick's contribution to the DRAMA is already remarkable.
Seriously, think about Philly and the Eagles. Do you think there is any possible way that they might carry away a Lombardi Trophy with class and dignity? NO. FUCKING. WAY. If they win it all, there needs to be strife, contentions, angles for recriminations, and "Yeah, but look at what you had to stoop to to win." Hell, their best finish in the last 20 years came with Terrel Owens and his associated side-show in their locker room. Think that was a coincidence? With all this drama, all this contentiousness, and all this off-the-field bullshit, the team, the fans, and the city will be foaming at the mouth and running through walls all season. Even if Vick never takes that field, and barring serious injury to Mike Westbrook, the Eagles are gonna be tough.
Think about it. If they win a championship with him on the roster, then football history, for all eternity, will recall that the Eagles where finally able to climb the mountain after they signed the most notorious and publicized ex-con in the history of the game. Since this is the Philadelphia Eagles we're talking about, do you imagine a championship could happen any other way?
Tuesday, July 28, 2009
Guns. Lots of Guns.
I freely admit that I'm pretty opinionated, and that I have something to say on pretty much any topic. I prefer great taste over less filling. I like classic Chevys more than Fords, and Toyotas more than both put together. I like ARs more than AKs, and would take an M1A over either. I generally support the Republican party, but I don't really consider myself a Republican. I could go on and on, right up to my position on pointless shit like Cake vs. Pie (pie) and Pirates vs. Ninjas (ninjas).
But while I really do have an opinion on pretty much everything, and am not shy when it comes to telling you all about it, I like to think that most of my positions are based on rational analysis, rather than any ingrained programming or the toeing of any party line. Bad beer is not really made better by being able to drink a lot of it. It's a lot easier to replace an HEI chip than to fuck around with ignition points, and better still to have a car that doesn't break. Living in the desert, I like the ability to shoot accurately beyond 200 yards, preferably with a slug heavy enough to retain energy. I like Republican economic conservatism, but cannot support any party that opposes brilliant emerging technologies (notably stem cell research) based on esoteric religious dogma. A well made cake is never bad, but pie has SO many more options, and ninjas are highly trained professional assassins, whereas Pirates are almost always just waterborne thugs. On most subjects, there are reasons why I feel the way I do.
As a corollary to this rational approach, I like to think that I can see the other side of most arguments, even if I don't agree. If you have bad beer, good to be able to drink a lot of it. Fords are good cars, AKs are good guns, and Democrats sometimes have the right idea (in small doses). Both cake and pirates have their undeniable moments of greatness. (Black Forrest and Jack Sparrow, respectively.) For the most part, I can at least understand the other side of the debate on pretty much any issue you'd care to choose.
Except one.
No matter how hard I try, and no matter how loudly the other side yells, I cannot find the slightest bit of merit in any argument against the Second Amendment. It is just overwhelmingly mind-boggling that any American could EVER endorse a state of affairs where it is somehow okay for our government to tell us that we, as law-abiding citizens, are not allowed to be armed. Every argument I have ever heard on the subject strikes me as abject bullshit, contrived by people who oppose guns simply because they don't want them, and - if they don't want them - then nobody else should be allowed to have them either. It's circular bullshit, based on nothing more than personal preference, and people don't seem to realize that although they are free to exercise their CHOICE to not own firearms, the RIGHT to own them if they so choose is - and should be - inviolate, both as a matter of law and as a matter of political practicality.
Lets look at the law. The Second Amendment reads: "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed." The most common argument you hear against the Amendment is that it is outdated. That there is no more militia in this country, and that such militia is no longer necessary to the security of a free state. These arguments are, in a word, BULLSHIT. The militia DOES exist, and IS necessary for a free state. Didn't you read the Amendment? The Amendments are second only to the Constitution in defining what IS in this country, and that's what the Amendment says. A militia is necessary. Unless you change the Amendment, that is the legal reality.
Going further, and still sticking to matters of law, there is ABSOLUTELY an American Militia. Under the Constitution (Article I, Sec. 8, cl. 16), Congress has authority to form a national militia, and the language of the Amendment essentially mandates the existence of the Militia as a necessary legal entity. Congress has expressly endorsed that existence, and - whether you realize it or not - militia membership includes just about every law-abiding adult male. It is the law, and I am not just making this up. The American Militia includes every law abiding American male between the ages of 17 and 45, excepting only those in military service, and others already Federally employed. The militia DOES exist, based on express published law of the United States. It can be called upon by the President to respond to dangerous situations, almost exactly the same way the Armed Forces or Reserves might be.
Considering that any member of the militia might legally be summoned to duty to respond to, for example insurrection, or situations were civil order has broken down, it's probably a good idea if the members of that militia are appropriately equipped to deal with the situations they are sent to handle. Look up The Children's Crusade for details about what happens when armies march armed with nothing but idealism. Can you imagine people being sent unarmed and unequipped into post-Katrina 'Nawlins to restore order? The legal option was there to ORDER simple male citizens in to deal with it. According to the law, any American male age 17-45 can be sent to fight as a militiaman, even without being drafted into the Armed Forces, and independent of normal military channels, (including independence from military supply channels, from which they might gain things like equipment). If that means you, don't you think it might be a good idea to have a decent rifle and reliable pistol? If you were sent into post-Katrina 'Nawlins to help restore order, would you have felt safe with a bolt-action hunting rifle?
So. Legal arguments that the milita no longer exist and no longer have any legal basis to be armed are absolute bullshit, and arguments to the contrary amount to "yeah, but" arguments against the letter of the law. As a matter of law, a comprehensive firearms ban would require massive amendment of American law, or else leave an established part of the American military not only unarmed, but legally barred from bearing arms. The militia DOES exist. While that legal reality that might be changed, it cannot be ignored.
Besides overlooking those legal realities, people (intentionally or incidentally) also tend to misread the the intention of the Second Amendment. The expressed purpose is to maintain the security of a FREE state. Which is not necessarily the same as maintaining the United States. Bear in mind that the existence of the American militia predates the founding of the United States. Look at history: In many ways, it was the Militia that CREATED the United States, rather than vice versa.
The founding fathers' highest goal was to create a nation free of tyranny, where every citizen had standing in the government, and freedom to live as they saw fit. They wanted assurances that no government was going to step into the place of George III and start telling them how they were going to live their lives. For some time prior to the establishment of any American political structure, the American Militia was fighting for that freedom. The founding fathers were, at heart, militiamen. The simple fact of the matter is that when you consider the ideal of democracy, with every citizen taking an active role in the political system, and standing up (or fighting) for their rights and freedoms, what you are imagining is the early American Militia. If you believe that such bold traditions and mindsets endure, you have to recognize that the American people are not so much the militia as the militia is the ideal of the American people: politically active citizens, involved in the defense of their rights and the support of a free country.
Going further in the idea that the Militia IS the people rather than being made up of the people, note that the duties of the militia are not limited to defense against foreign powers. The Oaths of Service and of Citizenship, for example, includes swearing to defend against all enemies, foreign AND DOMESTIC. Now here's the important part: as outlined in Federal law, the Oath is not to defend the American GOVERMENT. The Oath is to defend THE CONSTITUTION. This is more than just splitting hairs: The founding fathers, rebels themselves, were absolutely aware that the greatest threat to freedom is not the tyranny of a conquerer, but the tyranny of those already in power. Barack Obama represents a VASTLY more substantial threat to the American way of life than Kim Jong Il, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, and Osama Bin Laden all put together.
The ultimate goal of the United States was (and is) a FREE state. A nation where the people dictated the terms of the government, not vice versa. Where government operated with the leave of the people, rather than the people operating with the leave of the government. Under the Constitution, the government does not control the populace, but is instead controlled by the populace. To whom does the American President really have to answer to, other than to the People?
Now then: how can you, even for a second, claim to live free under a government that tells you that you cannot be armed? The sole difference between living under the control of the government and living by the leave of the government is the ability of the populace to keep the government under control. When people are divested of their ability to engage in effective armed conflict (which will ALWAYS be the final recourse of diplomacy), they are no longer free. Rather, they are at the mercy of those who CAN engage in armed conflict, and rest assured, the United States as a government is pretty good at it. Talk all you want about enlightened societies, but the fact of the matter is that those who can and will kill ALWAYS exercise control over those who can not, or will not. Politicians will absolutely send armed men to enforce their will. Happens every day. How to stop them from gathering ever more power to themselves (at your expense), when your arguments lack teeth? The difference between a plea and a demand is the ability to take further action should the petition fail. If you live unarmed under under an armed government, all rights and freedoms that you have are simply discretionary.
To any American, that is unacceptable. The reason the Second Amendment exists to to ensure that American citizens, even if they consent to the control of another, never live by the leave of another.
The militia, established as a legal entity by Congress through the Constitution, and armed pursuant to the terms of the Second Amendment, IS THE PEOPLE, AS AN ARMED POLITICAL BLOC. The Second Amendment makes it so, as a check and balance to ensure that our rights do not fall victim to our own leaders. An armed Militia exists for the benefit of a FREE state, including the benefit of American people in curbing the excess of American politicians. The Militia does not exist or operate at the whim or leisure of the President, or of the Courts, or of any party (foreign or domestic) other than leaders directly elected by the people, and it is charged with supporting a free state against anyone acting in violation of the Constitution. An armed militia, formed of the populis, is the final recourse of the American people against tyranny. Just as it was in 1776.
The People ARE the Militia. Disarmament of the Militia means the end of the people's power to defend their own freedoms. The founding fathers themselves were men who, following the failure of process and diplomacy, took up arms and stood tall in support of freedom and inalienable rights. Again, the Militia's defense of American freedom predates the United States! It is the ultimate embodiment of the idea that, as Americans, we as individuals will stand and fight against those who would oppress us. And it works. The Militia's track record already includes defeating the greatest military power on the planet at the time (the English). Hopefully, the defense of freedom will not require the Militia to repeat that feat against the United States.
But while I really do have an opinion on pretty much everything, and am not shy when it comes to telling you all about it, I like to think that most of my positions are based on rational analysis, rather than any ingrained programming or the toeing of any party line. Bad beer is not really made better by being able to drink a lot of it. It's a lot easier to replace an HEI chip than to fuck around with ignition points, and better still to have a car that doesn't break. Living in the desert, I like the ability to shoot accurately beyond 200 yards, preferably with a slug heavy enough to retain energy. I like Republican economic conservatism, but cannot support any party that opposes brilliant emerging technologies (notably stem cell research) based on esoteric religious dogma. A well made cake is never bad, but pie has SO many more options, and ninjas are highly trained professional assassins, whereas Pirates are almost always just waterborne thugs. On most subjects, there are reasons why I feel the way I do.
As a corollary to this rational approach, I like to think that I can see the other side of most arguments, even if I don't agree. If you have bad beer, good to be able to drink a lot of it. Fords are good cars, AKs are good guns, and Democrats sometimes have the right idea (in small doses). Both cake and pirates have their undeniable moments of greatness. (Black Forrest and Jack Sparrow, respectively.) For the most part, I can at least understand the other side of the debate on pretty much any issue you'd care to choose.
Except one.
No matter how hard I try, and no matter how loudly the other side yells, I cannot find the slightest bit of merit in any argument against the Second Amendment. It is just overwhelmingly mind-boggling that any American could EVER endorse a state of affairs where it is somehow okay for our government to tell us that we, as law-abiding citizens, are not allowed to be armed. Every argument I have ever heard on the subject strikes me as abject bullshit, contrived by people who oppose guns simply because they don't want them, and - if they don't want them - then nobody else should be allowed to have them either. It's circular bullshit, based on nothing more than personal preference, and people don't seem to realize that although they are free to exercise their CHOICE to not own firearms, the RIGHT to own them if they so choose is - and should be - inviolate, both as a matter of law and as a matter of political practicality.
Lets look at the law. The Second Amendment reads: "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed." The most common argument you hear against the Amendment is that it is outdated. That there is no more militia in this country, and that such militia is no longer necessary to the security of a free state. These arguments are, in a word, BULLSHIT. The militia DOES exist, and IS necessary for a free state. Didn't you read the Amendment? The Amendments are second only to the Constitution in defining what IS in this country, and that's what the Amendment says. A militia is necessary. Unless you change the Amendment, that is the legal reality.
Going further, and still sticking to matters of law, there is ABSOLUTELY an American Militia. Under the Constitution (Article I, Sec. 8, cl. 16), Congress has authority to form a national militia, and the language of the Amendment essentially mandates the existence of the Militia as a necessary legal entity. Congress has expressly endorsed that existence, and - whether you realize it or not - militia membership includes just about every law-abiding adult male. It is the law, and I am not just making this up. The American Militia includes every law abiding American male between the ages of 17 and 45, excepting only those in military service, and others already Federally employed. The militia DOES exist, based on express published law of the United States. It can be called upon by the President to respond to dangerous situations, almost exactly the same way the Armed Forces or Reserves might be.
Considering that any member of the militia might legally be summoned to duty to respond to, for example insurrection, or situations were civil order has broken down, it's probably a good idea if the members of that militia are appropriately equipped to deal with the situations they are sent to handle. Look up The Children's Crusade for details about what happens when armies march armed with nothing but idealism. Can you imagine people being sent unarmed and unequipped into post-Katrina 'Nawlins to restore order? The legal option was there to ORDER simple male citizens in to deal with it. According to the law, any American male age 17-45 can be sent to fight as a militiaman, even without being drafted into the Armed Forces, and independent of normal military channels, (including independence from military supply channels, from which they might gain things like equipment). If that means you, don't you think it might be a good idea to have a decent rifle and reliable pistol? If you were sent into post-Katrina 'Nawlins to help restore order, would you have felt safe with a bolt-action hunting rifle?
So. Legal arguments that the milita no longer exist and no longer have any legal basis to be armed are absolute bullshit, and arguments to the contrary amount to "yeah, but" arguments against the letter of the law. As a matter of law, a comprehensive firearms ban would require massive amendment of American law, or else leave an established part of the American military not only unarmed, but legally barred from bearing arms. The militia DOES exist. While that legal reality that might be changed, it cannot be ignored.
Besides overlooking those legal realities, people (intentionally or incidentally) also tend to misread the the intention of the Second Amendment. The expressed purpose is to maintain the security of a FREE state. Which is not necessarily the same as maintaining the United States. Bear in mind that the existence of the American militia predates the founding of the United States. Look at history: In many ways, it was the Militia that CREATED the United States, rather than vice versa.
The founding fathers' highest goal was to create a nation free of tyranny, where every citizen had standing in the government, and freedom to live as they saw fit. They wanted assurances that no government was going to step into the place of George III and start telling them how they were going to live their lives. For some time prior to the establishment of any American political structure, the American Militia was fighting for that freedom. The founding fathers were, at heart, militiamen. The simple fact of the matter is that when you consider the ideal of democracy, with every citizen taking an active role in the political system, and standing up (or fighting) for their rights and freedoms, what you are imagining is the early American Militia. If you believe that such bold traditions and mindsets endure, you have to recognize that the American people are not so much the militia as the militia is the ideal of the American people: politically active citizens, involved in the defense of their rights and the support of a free country.
Going further in the idea that the Militia IS the people rather than being made up of the people, note that the duties of the militia are not limited to defense against foreign powers. The Oaths of Service and of Citizenship, for example, includes swearing to defend against all enemies, foreign AND DOMESTIC. Now here's the important part: as outlined in Federal law, the Oath is not to defend the American GOVERMENT. The Oath is to defend THE CONSTITUTION. This is more than just splitting hairs: The founding fathers, rebels themselves, were absolutely aware that the greatest threat to freedom is not the tyranny of a conquerer, but the tyranny of those already in power. Barack Obama represents a VASTLY more substantial threat to the American way of life than Kim Jong Il, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, and Osama Bin Laden all put together.
The ultimate goal of the United States was (and is) a FREE state. A nation where the people dictated the terms of the government, not vice versa. Where government operated with the leave of the people, rather than the people operating with the leave of the government. Under the Constitution, the government does not control the populace, but is instead controlled by the populace. To whom does the American President really have to answer to, other than to the People?
Now then: how can you, even for a second, claim to live free under a government that tells you that you cannot be armed? The sole difference between living under the control of the government and living by the leave of the government is the ability of the populace to keep the government under control. When people are divested of their ability to engage in effective armed conflict (which will ALWAYS be the final recourse of diplomacy), they are no longer free. Rather, they are at the mercy of those who CAN engage in armed conflict, and rest assured, the United States as a government is pretty good at it. Talk all you want about enlightened societies, but the fact of the matter is that those who can and will kill ALWAYS exercise control over those who can not, or will not. Politicians will absolutely send armed men to enforce their will. Happens every day. How to stop them from gathering ever more power to themselves (at your expense), when your arguments lack teeth? The difference between a plea and a demand is the ability to take further action should the petition fail. If you live unarmed under under an armed government, all rights and freedoms that you have are simply discretionary.
To any American, that is unacceptable. The reason the Second Amendment exists to to ensure that American citizens, even if they consent to the control of another, never live by the leave of another.
The militia, established as a legal entity by Congress through the Constitution, and armed pursuant to the terms of the Second Amendment, IS THE PEOPLE, AS AN ARMED POLITICAL BLOC. The Second Amendment makes it so, as a check and balance to ensure that our rights do not fall victim to our own leaders. An armed Militia exists for the benefit of a FREE state, including the benefit of American people in curbing the excess of American politicians. The Militia does not exist or operate at the whim or leisure of the President, or of the Courts, or of any party (foreign or domestic) other than leaders directly elected by the people, and it is charged with supporting a free state against anyone acting in violation of the Constitution. An armed militia, formed of the populis, is the final recourse of the American people against tyranny. Just as it was in 1776.
The People ARE the Militia. Disarmament of the Militia means the end of the people's power to defend their own freedoms. The founding fathers themselves were men who, following the failure of process and diplomacy, took up arms and stood tall in support of freedom and inalienable rights. Again, the Militia's defense of American freedom predates the United States! It is the ultimate embodiment of the idea that, as Americans, we as individuals will stand and fight against those who would oppress us. And it works. The Militia's track record already includes defeating the greatest military power on the planet at the time (the English). Hopefully, the defense of freedom will not require the Militia to repeat that feat against the United States.
Thursday, July 23, 2009
Political Developments
One of the biggest problems that anyone claiming to be a leader faces is the possibility of losing the support of those the leader purports to lead. Talk about an embarrassing development, where a leader is trying to lead and the tacit led just roll their eyes. Nobody wants to be in that position, especially people with the kinds of egos that compels them to, for example, run for public office. The reason that most governments throughout history have tended towards caution and conservativism is that a certain amount of caution serves leaders well. Any fool knows that decisions made quickly are MUCH more likely to result in the decider having to explain later what the hell he was thinking. Add in the fact that, these days, any sort of political decisions can have vast repercussions that must be considered. The end result is that any call for hasty action is likely to draw - at the very least - suspicion from the leader's constituiency, and the leader who makes such calls is sooner or later going to have to explain himself. Generally, people are smart enough to know that things done quickly get done poorly.
People tend to complain that the legal system - including both the Courts and the legislative process - takes a whole lot of time to do a whole lot of nothing. Well. Here's a newsflash: THAT'S THE WAY IT'S SUPPOSED TO BE. When things go quickly, that is when mistakes get made. That is when unintended consequences arise. That is when heads roll after the fact. It is not supposed to be easy or convenient to enact new policy or to make new law. When a system of government reaches the level were setting policy is as casual as, for example, lords telling the people to eat cake, revolutions quickly - and rightly - follow.
The process is supposed to be slow. It's supposed to be time consuming. Because that is the best way - and really the only way - to get it RIGHT. When things happen quickly, they happen badly. Take for example Obama's recent victory in the house over green energy (the cap-and-trade legislation). As Americans, we should be embarassed about the way that went through the House of Representatives. Setting aside the extremely poor economic reasoning behind the legislation, just consider the process of its passage: The final draft of that bill, which was over a thousand pages long, was completed and circulated among the House THE MORNING OF THE VOTE. That means that when the vote came, NOBODY WHO VOTED FOR IT HAD EVEN READ THE FINAL VERSION OF THE LAW. The bill was pushed through the Democratic House by a Democratic President so fast that nobody could even read it, based on little more than the force of his personality, and with those supporting the bill not actually knowing the terms they were approving.
Kids, this is exactly why there is a separation of power between the White House and the Capitol. Congress is supposed to do their own jobs, not just toe the line set by a President who happens to claim the same party affiliation. If your congressman voted in favor of that bill (here's a list) they sold out this country's energy industry on nothing more than the word of a President with questionable political agenda, even more questionable social connections, and no track record of successful leadership. They rushed it through. They treated sweeping legislation like a vote for high school class president, and checked the box that the popular kids told them to.
Now, Barack is trying to take the same measures in forcing through his healthcare agenda, by doing things like placing short deadlines (August) on Congress' reaching a vote on restructuring healthcare FOR THE ENTIRE COUNTRY. Healthcare is an issue that Congress has been trying to work out for years, but Barack was demanding results within 8 months of his taking the throne. He Ordered it to be so. Clearly, national socialized healthcare is Obama's sine qua non, and is probably what he intends to be his legacy as president. He wants history to say that he got healthcare for everyone, which is a project - he says - tantamount to putting a man on the moon. He could be right. But he doesn't seem to realize that the Apollo program took 9 years to make the dream a practical reality. Can you imagine what a disaster it would have been if, eight months after announcing the Apollo program, Kennedy expected there to be a rocket ready to be launched? Almost inevitable result of that timetable is a KA-BOOM on the launch pad. Do we want to risk that sort of explosion where the rocket in question is our healthcare system?
Fortunately, our Founding Fathers set things up pretty well, and there's still hope. We have a two-house legislative system, and the Senate will, for example have time to actually read the cap-and-trade bill before voting on it. As I'll get to, lawmakers - even democrats - are steadily realizing that Barack Obama has no idea how to run a country, and are no longer being coerced into idiotic action by nothing more than his charisma. Hopefully the bill will never make it out of the Senate committee process.
There are other good signs as well, which indicate the process is continuing to work, notwithstanding the Administration. The House has just passed a "pay-as-you-go" (PAYGO) measure, which if endorsed by the Senate, will require the Federal Government to come up with a dollar of savings for every dollar spent in new legislation. When then send more money somewhere, they have to take that same amount of money from somewhere else, rather than just printing more money or assuming more debt. Essentially, it's a bar on deficit-spending. Unlike pretty much everything the White House has sent to congress, this type of law has a solid track record. A similar measure was enacted in the early 90s to reign in deficit problems back then, and actually resulted in a $5.6 trillion budget surplus. Which was wasted, of course, but it was there.
The passage of this bill is political wrangling in action, and frankly bodes poorly for the President. As charming and dynamic as he is, he doesn't have the experience, support, or slipperiness to take on congress in a straight-up political fight. While there is no single politician in America that can out-charisma Obama, that charisma really gets mileage only in campaign years. The rest of the time, being an American politician means practicing politics against opponents of the highest level. Obama's short history in the game means that, when it comes to political maneuvering, Congress is going to take him out behind the woodshed for an asswuppin.
So make no mistake, PAYGO is a political attack on the President by Congress. If the PAYGO measure gets through the senate, Barack's political ass will be on the line when the bill comes to him to be signed into law. Here is the dilemma he will face: If he vetos the PAYGO bill, he will be vetoing cost controls, and essentially telling the world that his Administration cannot operate without deficit spending. He will have to admit that his programs rely on the ability to pass off their bills onto whatever Administration (or generation) comes next. Not a good message to send, as even left-leaning polls indicate that many Americans fear overwhelming deficit more than they fear a slow economy.
However, if Obama signs PAYGO into law, it will effectively kill his healthcare plan, and throw high hurdles in the way of most of the other far-left social reforms that he champions. There is no way that the Federal government is going to be able to balance several trillion dollars of healthcare and social welfare spending into an already exceeded budget, if they are unable to simply assume the cost as debt. PAYGO is actually a brilliant move by Congress, which has all the experience and political savvy that Obama lacks: Passage of PAYGO will kill nationalized healthcare, without even requiring congressional democrats to openly vote against nationalized healthcare.
Strangely enough, this crunch between congress and the President is actually the system working the way it is supposed to. Clearly - and notwithstanding one-liners from Administration mouthpieces (read: Harry Reid, Nancy Pulosi) - congress as a body opposes Obama's plan. America cannot afford and will not support his sweeping reform agenda. Google "blue dogs" for an account of how even Democrats are publicly refusing to toe the line. Those rumblings of non-support have been going on for weeks.
A politically savvy president would have and should have responded to those rumblings accordingly: backing off the push, or redirecting efforts into something that would get widespread support, at least from his own political party. But Obama is not politically savvy. He ignored those polite indicators of dissent from congress. So, polite messages having failed, congress has thrown down the gauntlet. You think it's coincidence that PAYGO comes through concurrently with congressmen asserting worries about cost controls on healthcare reform? If he continues his frantic, fanatical crusade on healthcare reform, congress is going to put Obama in a politically untenable spot, the softest results of which would be forcing him to back down on healthcare. In the face of PAYGO, he will need to come up with some economically viable middle ground for healthcare, abandon his healthcare quest, or else concede (through a veto of PAYGO) that America cannot afford his programs without mortgaging the future.
Nobody who knows politics should be surprised by any of this. Barack, I guarantee you, is surprised by this, and probably outraged that people are not simply rallying behind him the way they did last November. I'm actually kinda eager to see how he responds to this, including wondering if he's going to take note of the PAYGO thing and its implications before law reaches his desk for signature. But regardless, for all his personal charisma, he has not been politician enough to avoid this ultimatum from congress, and I cannot imagine that he is politician enough to manage the ultimatum well. We'll just hear more dazzling rhetoric, which will have less and less attention paid to it. For all his personal charm and charisma, I expect Barack to be outed as what he is: a charming, intelligent egomaniac who is way over his head in politics he has not the experience or support to deal with.
With the recent admission by Congressional principals that there will not be a healthcare bill going to vote before the August recess, momentum for that bill is fading. The passage of PAYGO is clear rumblings from congress that wild spending is not going to be signed off on by the House. If the senate approves the PAYGO measure before any sort of viable healthcare bill is passed in law, there will be no healthcare bill passed. I expect the end result will be PAYGO reaching the President's desk, followed shortly by the demise of nationalized healthcare, without Democrats even being forced to publicly vote contrary to party Presidential leadership. Which will work, and allow everyone to save face.
Except for the President.
Obama is already looking like a jackass. No clearly beneficial steps have been undertaken under his leadership. The economy now is worse than it was before, and people can only blame prior administrations for so long. Eventually, people are going to realize that we've gone from the Bush Recession into the Obama Depression, based largely on Obama trying (and sometimes succeeding) in jamming through legislation the kills business to provide welfare and healthcare to people who don't earn it.
Further, the crown jewel of Obama's first months in office, national healthcare reform, is on the verge of being rejected by a congress controlled BY THE PRESIDENT'S OWN PARTY. While this is good for America, it's also bad for America, as it shows that world that the American President is really not even in control of his own nation. Obama's conduct and comments fully dictate that he needs to have his political dick cut off and shoved up his ass. However, if that happens, the end result will be at least three years under the rule of a crusading president who has lost the support of the army he tacitly leads. While that situation is infinitely preferable to one where he leads us all to our deaths in pursuit of his glorious ideals, it doesn't bode well for the country either.
People tend to complain that the legal system - including both the Courts and the legislative process - takes a whole lot of time to do a whole lot of nothing. Well. Here's a newsflash: THAT'S THE WAY IT'S SUPPOSED TO BE. When things go quickly, that is when mistakes get made. That is when unintended consequences arise. That is when heads roll after the fact. It is not supposed to be easy or convenient to enact new policy or to make new law. When a system of government reaches the level were setting policy is as casual as, for example, lords telling the people to eat cake, revolutions quickly - and rightly - follow.
The process is supposed to be slow. It's supposed to be time consuming. Because that is the best way - and really the only way - to get it RIGHT. When things happen quickly, they happen badly. Take for example Obama's recent victory in the house over green energy (the cap-and-trade legislation). As Americans, we should be embarassed about the way that went through the House of Representatives. Setting aside the extremely poor economic reasoning behind the legislation, just consider the process of its passage: The final draft of that bill, which was over a thousand pages long, was completed and circulated among the House THE MORNING OF THE VOTE. That means that when the vote came, NOBODY WHO VOTED FOR IT HAD EVEN READ THE FINAL VERSION OF THE LAW. The bill was pushed through the Democratic House by a Democratic President so fast that nobody could even read it, based on little more than the force of his personality, and with those supporting the bill not actually knowing the terms they were approving.
Kids, this is exactly why there is a separation of power between the White House and the Capitol. Congress is supposed to do their own jobs, not just toe the line set by a President who happens to claim the same party affiliation. If your congressman voted in favor of that bill (here's a list) they sold out this country's energy industry on nothing more than the word of a President with questionable political agenda, even more questionable social connections, and no track record of successful leadership. They rushed it through. They treated sweeping legislation like a vote for high school class president, and checked the box that the popular kids told them to.
Now, Barack is trying to take the same measures in forcing through his healthcare agenda, by doing things like placing short deadlines (August) on Congress' reaching a vote on restructuring healthcare FOR THE ENTIRE COUNTRY. Healthcare is an issue that Congress has been trying to work out for years, but Barack was demanding results within 8 months of his taking the throne. He Ordered it to be so. Clearly, national socialized healthcare is Obama's sine qua non, and is probably what he intends to be his legacy as president. He wants history to say that he got healthcare for everyone, which is a project - he says - tantamount to putting a man on the moon. He could be right. But he doesn't seem to realize that the Apollo program took 9 years to make the dream a practical reality. Can you imagine what a disaster it would have been if, eight months after announcing the Apollo program, Kennedy expected there to be a rocket ready to be launched? Almost inevitable result of that timetable is a KA-BOOM on the launch pad. Do we want to risk that sort of explosion where the rocket in question is our healthcare system?
Fortunately, our Founding Fathers set things up pretty well, and there's still hope. We have a two-house legislative system, and the Senate will, for example have time to actually read the cap-and-trade bill before voting on it. As I'll get to, lawmakers - even democrats - are steadily realizing that Barack Obama has no idea how to run a country, and are no longer being coerced into idiotic action by nothing more than his charisma. Hopefully the bill will never make it out of the Senate committee process.
There are other good signs as well, which indicate the process is continuing to work, notwithstanding the Administration. The House has just passed a "pay-as-you-go" (PAYGO) measure, which if endorsed by the Senate, will require the Federal Government to come up with a dollar of savings for every dollar spent in new legislation. When then send more money somewhere, they have to take that same amount of money from somewhere else, rather than just printing more money or assuming more debt. Essentially, it's a bar on deficit-spending. Unlike pretty much everything the White House has sent to congress, this type of law has a solid track record. A similar measure was enacted in the early 90s to reign in deficit problems back then, and actually resulted in a $5.6 trillion budget surplus. Which was wasted, of course, but it was there.
The passage of this bill is political wrangling in action, and frankly bodes poorly for the President. As charming and dynamic as he is, he doesn't have the experience, support, or slipperiness to take on congress in a straight-up political fight. While there is no single politician in America that can out-charisma Obama, that charisma really gets mileage only in campaign years. The rest of the time, being an American politician means practicing politics against opponents of the highest level. Obama's short history in the game means that, when it comes to political maneuvering, Congress is going to take him out behind the woodshed for an asswuppin.
So make no mistake, PAYGO is a political attack on the President by Congress. If the PAYGO measure gets through the senate, Barack's political ass will be on the line when the bill comes to him to be signed into law. Here is the dilemma he will face: If he vetos the PAYGO bill, he will be vetoing cost controls, and essentially telling the world that his Administration cannot operate without deficit spending. He will have to admit that his programs rely on the ability to pass off their bills onto whatever Administration (or generation) comes next. Not a good message to send, as even left-leaning polls indicate that many Americans fear overwhelming deficit more than they fear a slow economy.
However, if Obama signs PAYGO into law, it will effectively kill his healthcare plan, and throw high hurdles in the way of most of the other far-left social reforms that he champions. There is no way that the Federal government is going to be able to balance several trillion dollars of healthcare and social welfare spending into an already exceeded budget, if they are unable to simply assume the cost as debt. PAYGO is actually a brilliant move by Congress, which has all the experience and political savvy that Obama lacks: Passage of PAYGO will kill nationalized healthcare, without even requiring congressional democrats to openly vote against nationalized healthcare.
Strangely enough, this crunch between congress and the President is actually the system working the way it is supposed to. Clearly - and notwithstanding one-liners from Administration mouthpieces (read: Harry Reid, Nancy Pulosi) - congress as a body opposes Obama's plan. America cannot afford and will not support his sweeping reform agenda. Google "blue dogs" for an account of how even Democrats are publicly refusing to toe the line. Those rumblings of non-support have been going on for weeks.
A politically savvy president would have and should have responded to those rumblings accordingly: backing off the push, or redirecting efforts into something that would get widespread support, at least from his own political party. But Obama is not politically savvy. He ignored those polite indicators of dissent from congress. So, polite messages having failed, congress has thrown down the gauntlet. You think it's coincidence that PAYGO comes through concurrently with congressmen asserting worries about cost controls on healthcare reform? If he continues his frantic, fanatical crusade on healthcare reform, congress is going to put Obama in a politically untenable spot, the softest results of which would be forcing him to back down on healthcare. In the face of PAYGO, he will need to come up with some economically viable middle ground for healthcare, abandon his healthcare quest, or else concede (through a veto of PAYGO) that America cannot afford his programs without mortgaging the future.
Nobody who knows politics should be surprised by any of this. Barack, I guarantee you, is surprised by this, and probably outraged that people are not simply rallying behind him the way they did last November. I'm actually kinda eager to see how he responds to this, including wondering if he's going to take note of the PAYGO thing and its implications before law reaches his desk for signature. But regardless, for all his personal charisma, he has not been politician enough to avoid this ultimatum from congress, and I cannot imagine that he is politician enough to manage the ultimatum well. We'll just hear more dazzling rhetoric, which will have less and less attention paid to it. For all his personal charm and charisma, I expect Barack to be outed as what he is: a charming, intelligent egomaniac who is way over his head in politics he has not the experience or support to deal with.
With the recent admission by Congressional principals that there will not be a healthcare bill going to vote before the August recess, momentum for that bill is fading. The passage of PAYGO is clear rumblings from congress that wild spending is not going to be signed off on by the House. If the senate approves the PAYGO measure before any sort of viable healthcare bill is passed in law, there will be no healthcare bill passed. I expect the end result will be PAYGO reaching the President's desk, followed shortly by the demise of nationalized healthcare, without Democrats even being forced to publicly vote contrary to party Presidential leadership. Which will work, and allow everyone to save face.
Except for the President.
Obama is already looking like a jackass. No clearly beneficial steps have been undertaken under his leadership. The economy now is worse than it was before, and people can only blame prior administrations for so long. Eventually, people are going to realize that we've gone from the Bush Recession into the Obama Depression, based largely on Obama trying (and sometimes succeeding) in jamming through legislation the kills business to provide welfare and healthcare to people who don't earn it.
Further, the crown jewel of Obama's first months in office, national healthcare reform, is on the verge of being rejected by a congress controlled BY THE PRESIDENT'S OWN PARTY. While this is good for America, it's also bad for America, as it shows that world that the American President is really not even in control of his own nation. Obama's conduct and comments fully dictate that he needs to have his political dick cut off and shoved up his ass. However, if that happens, the end result will be at least three years under the rule of a crusading president who has lost the support of the army he tacitly leads. While that situation is infinitely preferable to one where he leads us all to our deaths in pursuit of his glorious ideals, it doesn't bode well for the country either.
Friday, July 3, 2009
The Will
In the monologue which really made his Hollywood career, Marlon Brando spoke of conflict, and of the importance of will. How victory went not always to the army with the largest battalions, but to the combatant who would go to the greatest length to either prevail, or to avoid defeat. When a man will cut off the arms of his own children because those arms have been invasively handled by the enemy, how can you hope to match that level of determination? This is the problem with terrorists. They hold their convictions so deeply, that - delusional or not - they value the killing of the enemy above their own lives. With such an enemy, there is no real alternative to ongoing struggle, until such time as you yourself are willing to concede defeat, or else where you are willing to slay the enemy to the last man. Wars are won in the will.
But beyond the issue of the philosophical value placed on victory - deciding the moral and practical price that your society will pay to prevail - there is also the will of the indivdual combatants. In order to cut off the limbs of infants in pursuit of total victory, you must have among you a soldier who will wield the machette, not against an enemy, but against the children of his own people. Besides the philosophical desire for victory at any costs - something politicians are not shy about extolling - there must be soldiers who even if not eager, will do what is necessary. Who will pay the price demanded by the situation.
Throughout history, such soldiers are among the rarest and greatest commodities a nation can possess. In ancient Greece, a man named Hereclitus was charged with raising and training armies. Speaking to his overlords, he asserted that for every 100 men that were sent to him, 10 should not be there at all. 80 were nothing but targets. Only nine were real fighters, and they were lucky to have them, for those men make the battle. Then there is the one that remains of the hundred. "Ah, the one. One of them is a warrior, and he will bring the others home." There are among us on this planet people who have the gift for being soldiers comparible to child prodigies with the piano. People who, in the midst of armed combat, seem to transcend the situation around them. Watch 'Troy.' Read 'Armor.' Or just google 'Sgt. Alvin C. York.'
Those individuals can actually have an astronomical effect on the outcomes of battles. Amazingly enough, one of the greatest problems armies have had through history is getting their soldiers to actually kill the enemy. In digging up civil war battlefields, researchers have found many muskets that have as many as nine or ten loads in the barrel. Where the soldier would load, not fire, and then load again, many times in a row. Perhaps this could be accidental if there were one or two loads in the barrel; some error, or a mechanical problem with the weapon which cause a failure to fire. But eight or nine? The only rational explanation is that the soldier - standing in rank and file with his fellows - did everything his fellows did, loading and pointing his rifle appropriately so as to not stand out from his fellows. He did everything he was told to do as a soldier, except pull the trigger when the order came to fire. Based on the archaeological evidence, this was not a rare or isolated occurrence in civil war battles. Even as high as the body count in the Civil War was, it really is remarkable - with armies standing within a few hundred yards of each other, shooting for literally days on end - that casualties added up as slowly as they did. The explantion was that many of the soldiers were simply unable to bring themselves to fire at the tacit enemy. No matter what you see on the news about violence and brutality, men are genetically programmed to NOT kill each other, which is a hard program to evercome.
It can be done, as evidenced by - for example - operant training methods which make the United States Marine Corp both so feared and so respected. Among enemies of the United States, it is a common story that Marines must kill a member of their own family before being awarded the Globe and Anchor. This reputation exists because in the Marines, nearly every man is a fighter. Perhaps every Marine is not every one the One described by Hereclitus, but he is at least one of the Nine that make the battle. It doesn't work that way in most armies around the globe. With most armies, they do their fighting with maybe two or three men our of every ten affirmatively, consciously trying to kill the enemy. So while foreign armies continue to face the age-old problem of more than half their men cowering instead of fighting, the United States military fields forces where nearly every man is a combatant, instead of just being a man in combat. When you consider the capabilities of forces like the Navy SEALs, or Army's Delta, where every single man in the unit IS the One, enemies rightly quake. A substantial fighting force where every man actually fights, while something that civilians take for granted, is largely unprecedented in history, and this is reflected in the speed and relative surety of victory wherever the United States is capable of readily finding enemies to send hard me to go kill.
The point of this is that - regardless of philosphical bent or source of motivation, and regardless of imperatives created by politicians far from the fighting - when a state or a nation has a goal that must be met or achieved, hard men must go and obtain the goal. Soft men, even with the best of intentions and highest of moral goals, will not be able to do what is necessary to win the day. Even if they stand in formation, even if they keep loading their rifles, and even if they truely do see the necessity of the battle (even to the point of believing that the enemy must in fact be killed), history, psychology, and genetic imperative all indicate that soft men will not be able to make the hard choice, and actually pull the trigger. When lives and nations are on the line, it is the hard that tend to survive, because the soft lack the will to do what is necessary.
This has been on my mind lately, after a conversation with my brother, GL. Strange as we are, we talk about things like zombie uprisings and the collapse of society, and how one might fight through it. When asked how the hell he expected to last, living in the overpopulated, extremely liberal city of San Jose, California, GL had a simple response. No, he would never starve, regardless of the breakdown of social order. He was not above cannibalism, he said. "When I look around, all I see is steaks." Of course, he was joking. Mostly. But neither of us doubted that if GL did happen to die in some apocalyptic breakdown of law and order, he would not be dying of starvation. Just as in armed conflict: when pushed to the extreme, the strong survive because they will embrace means for survival that others would not resort to.
Hardness and softness is applicable to less than armed conflict. The ruthless and agressive, those who strive through difficulties instead of yielding to them; those are the successful and productive. While their mindsets (hopefully) do not extend to dismembering children as the Viet Cong did, they are the warriors of our modern society. All of us, to one degree or another, can often times tell with just a few minutes contact whether a person has that sort of drive, focus, and/or capability. Although it does sometimes take something to draw it out (Alvin York was a pacifist farmer who initially refused to fight in WWI), the lengths to which people are capable of pushing themselves, or the lenghts to which they will go to obtain the end they desire, is often a function of who people are. Hardness and softness exist largely independent of morality, philosophy, or education.
Hereclitus' Nine (and even his One) are not all that difference from the rest of us. But they ARE different, and something inside us will often spot that difference. Think about it. If you were tossed into a situation where your survival was in doubt, and where you and your groups' lives depended on the choices you made (or the depths to which you would sink to survive), do a few people you know not immediately come to mind as those with the best chance to get through? Among your friends, is there not some One who you would trust to bring the others home? I'll bet there is. And I'll bet the people you're thinking of tend to be capable and dynamic; able to make hard decisions, and to pay the price those decisions require. Not all of those who would be the One end up as soldiers.
These days, I just wish some of them would find their way into politics. As a country, we have some hard decisions coming, and I would really like to see them made by men hard enough to make the right choice, instead of just seizing the easy choice.
But beyond the issue of the philosophical value placed on victory - deciding the moral and practical price that your society will pay to prevail - there is also the will of the indivdual combatants. In order to cut off the limbs of infants in pursuit of total victory, you must have among you a soldier who will wield the machette, not against an enemy, but against the children of his own people. Besides the philosophical desire for victory at any costs - something politicians are not shy about extolling - there must be soldiers who even if not eager, will do what is necessary. Who will pay the price demanded by the situation.
Throughout history, such soldiers are among the rarest and greatest commodities a nation can possess. In ancient Greece, a man named Hereclitus was charged with raising and training armies. Speaking to his overlords, he asserted that for every 100 men that were sent to him, 10 should not be there at all. 80 were nothing but targets. Only nine were real fighters, and they were lucky to have them, for those men make the battle. Then there is the one that remains of the hundred. "Ah, the one. One of them is a warrior, and he will bring the others home." There are among us on this planet people who have the gift for being soldiers comparible to child prodigies with the piano. People who, in the midst of armed combat, seem to transcend the situation around them. Watch 'Troy.' Read 'Armor.' Or just google 'Sgt. Alvin C. York.'
Those individuals can actually have an astronomical effect on the outcomes of battles. Amazingly enough, one of the greatest problems armies have had through history is getting their soldiers to actually kill the enemy. In digging up civil war battlefields, researchers have found many muskets that have as many as nine or ten loads in the barrel. Where the soldier would load, not fire, and then load again, many times in a row. Perhaps this could be accidental if there were one or two loads in the barrel; some error, or a mechanical problem with the weapon which cause a failure to fire. But eight or nine? The only rational explanation is that the soldier - standing in rank and file with his fellows - did everything his fellows did, loading and pointing his rifle appropriately so as to not stand out from his fellows. He did everything he was told to do as a soldier, except pull the trigger when the order came to fire. Based on the archaeological evidence, this was not a rare or isolated occurrence in civil war battles. Even as high as the body count in the Civil War was, it really is remarkable - with armies standing within a few hundred yards of each other, shooting for literally days on end - that casualties added up as slowly as they did. The explantion was that many of the soldiers were simply unable to bring themselves to fire at the tacit enemy. No matter what you see on the news about violence and brutality, men are genetically programmed to NOT kill each other, which is a hard program to evercome.
It can be done, as evidenced by - for example - operant training methods which make the United States Marine Corp both so feared and so respected. Among enemies of the United States, it is a common story that Marines must kill a member of their own family before being awarded the Globe and Anchor. This reputation exists because in the Marines, nearly every man is a fighter. Perhaps every Marine is not every one the One described by Hereclitus, but he is at least one of the Nine that make the battle. It doesn't work that way in most armies around the globe. With most armies, they do their fighting with maybe two or three men our of every ten affirmatively, consciously trying to kill the enemy. So while foreign armies continue to face the age-old problem of more than half their men cowering instead of fighting, the United States military fields forces where nearly every man is a combatant, instead of just being a man in combat. When you consider the capabilities of forces like the Navy SEALs, or Army's Delta, where every single man in the unit IS the One, enemies rightly quake. A substantial fighting force where every man actually fights, while something that civilians take for granted, is largely unprecedented in history, and this is reflected in the speed and relative surety of victory wherever the United States is capable of readily finding enemies to send hard me to go kill.
The point of this is that - regardless of philosphical bent or source of motivation, and regardless of imperatives created by politicians far from the fighting - when a state or a nation has a goal that must be met or achieved, hard men must go and obtain the goal. Soft men, even with the best of intentions and highest of moral goals, will not be able to do what is necessary to win the day. Even if they stand in formation, even if they keep loading their rifles, and even if they truely do see the necessity of the battle (even to the point of believing that the enemy must in fact be killed), history, psychology, and genetic imperative all indicate that soft men will not be able to make the hard choice, and actually pull the trigger. When lives and nations are on the line, it is the hard that tend to survive, because the soft lack the will to do what is necessary.
This has been on my mind lately, after a conversation with my brother, GL. Strange as we are, we talk about things like zombie uprisings and the collapse of society, and how one might fight through it. When asked how the hell he expected to last, living in the overpopulated, extremely liberal city of San Jose, California, GL had a simple response. No, he would never starve, regardless of the breakdown of social order. He was not above cannibalism, he said. "When I look around, all I see is steaks." Of course, he was joking. Mostly. But neither of us doubted that if GL did happen to die in some apocalyptic breakdown of law and order, he would not be dying of starvation. Just as in armed conflict: when pushed to the extreme, the strong survive because they will embrace means for survival that others would not resort to.
Hardness and softness is applicable to less than armed conflict. The ruthless and agressive, those who strive through difficulties instead of yielding to them; those are the successful and productive. While their mindsets (hopefully) do not extend to dismembering children as the Viet Cong did, they are the warriors of our modern society. All of us, to one degree or another, can often times tell with just a few minutes contact whether a person has that sort of drive, focus, and/or capability. Although it does sometimes take something to draw it out (Alvin York was a pacifist farmer who initially refused to fight in WWI), the lengths to which people are capable of pushing themselves, or the lenghts to which they will go to obtain the end they desire, is often a function of who people are. Hardness and softness exist largely independent of morality, philosophy, or education.
Hereclitus' Nine (and even his One) are not all that difference from the rest of us. But they ARE different, and something inside us will often spot that difference. Think about it. If you were tossed into a situation where your survival was in doubt, and where you and your groups' lives depended on the choices you made (or the depths to which you would sink to survive), do a few people you know not immediately come to mind as those with the best chance to get through? Among your friends, is there not some One who you would trust to bring the others home? I'll bet there is. And I'll bet the people you're thinking of tend to be capable and dynamic; able to make hard decisions, and to pay the price those decisions require. Not all of those who would be the One end up as soldiers.
These days, I just wish some of them would find their way into politics. As a country, we have some hard decisions coming, and I would really like to see them made by men hard enough to make the right choice, instead of just seizing the easy choice.
Thursday, June 25, 2009
Energy Markets
Our savior Barack has been busy. Besides vowing to get the economy back on its feet, he is also waging a minor little battle over healthcare reform. I think it's a joke the way he's handling the economy and an even bigger joke the way he's handling health care, but we'll save most of those points for another day.
Today, we'll go back to the issue of energy, a subject near and dear to my heart. Previously on these pages, I put up commentary in support of high gas prices, as such high gas prices provide an incentive for the use of alternative fuels. With current technology it is in fact possible to manufacture light crude oil from things like medical waste, raw sewage, or old tires. We can do it. The problem is that the production cost for gasoline, for example, hovers at around $4-5 using those techniques. While the technology is already there, its not being used, because we can pump oil out of the ground, ship it where in needs to go, refine it, and get it to customers in such a way that the customers only pay about half that amount per gallon. There are alternate sources of oil and power available. We just rely on oil because, believe it or not, oil is an exceptionally cheap form of energy. As oil becomes more scarce, that equation will change, but much slower than most people really think. And in the meantime, people will best continue to rely on oil as the cheapest option, which it unquestionably is.
That cheapness is important these days. Energy costs are a primary controller of economic health, because nearly every exercise of commerce requires something to be moved. Crops from fields to processing plants. Goods from manufacturers to wholesalers to retailers. Even you getting from your home to the grocery store and back depends on an expenditure of energy, and no matter how well-stocked any single link of the distribution chain is, it's only the movement of goods along that chain that creates commerce. That movement takes energy. Fuel for trucks. Fuel for trains. Fuel for planes. Energy IS commerce, and for better or worse oil IS energy. As I've stated before, the closest thing that America will ever have to a guarantee that its businesses and economies will continue to function is a healthy oil industry.
Thus, while I am all for the development of alternative power, I think that that needs to be driven by economic factors. The price of oil WILL reach the point where those alternative power sources become viable. And in the meantime, we kind of need energy to stay cheap, what with this pesky recession thing, and all. You think things suck now? Imagine the economy also having to deal with $6/gallon gasoline. That means not only that you have to pay higher prices at the pump, but also that every single plane, train, and truck that is involved in commerce has to pay that higher price as well. Guess who that added cost gets passed on to. As a consumer, doesn't that sound like fun?
Clearly, it is in the interest of America for oil and energy to remain cheap. While there is certainly room for the expansion of green energy, let's aim for a slow, gradual change. Preferably one that allows a gradual rise is the costs being bourne by the consumer; we are the ones who will be footing the bill for the change to green energy, after all. Maybe we can rely on oil at least a little bit for a while? You know: build those big, expensive, inefficient solar plants a few at a time?
But our President has only a limited term in office, so we don't have time for a rational solution. Notwithstanding the fairly dire need that critical commodities (oil) remain cheap these days, our President has taken action to the contrary, trying to force through a "green energy" bill. While it's not getting nearly the press play it deserves, I believe that this bill, if passed, will have a FAR more substantial effect on National and World politics than anything else he's doing, and I include in that comparison the billions being spent keeping auto makers afloat and the trillions expected to be spent providing cheap, bad, and hard-to-get healthcare to the American populace.
Because it's not an energy bill. It's a tax bill. Barak has proposed an energy tax. The specific stated goal of this tax is to increase the cost of traditional energy sources, such as coal and oil. Rather than letting the economy dictate the market, our politicians are attempting to dictate the market: they are going to make alternative energy viable. However, they are not doing this by lowering the price for alternative energy. Rather, alternative energies are to be made competitive by increasing the cost of traditional energies. In short, the bill does not and is not intended to make green power more viable. Rather, the focus is to make traditional energy LESS viable, by placing huge tax burdens on producers and users of such energy. The plan itself is based on "cap-and-trade" (which, incidentially, was tried in Europe, without success): it will place a moritorium on greenhouse gas emissions from large producers, and sell pollution permits to manufacturers of energy. Manufacuters will not be allowed to generate energy beyond the levels of their allotted emission of CO2. Any power needs beyond those levels will have to come from sources that don't require those emissions permits: inefficient, expensive processes like solar and wind energy. All in an expressed attempt to make green energy more viable by making traditional energies drastically more expensive.
I've written before about what happens when governments decide that they know the economy better than the business do. Hopefully, this instant bit of Democratic Party hubris is not going to lead to the catestrophic meltdown that California suffered under Grey Davis, but frankly, I don't see it going any other way.
First of all, the cap-and-trade plan is about as close as you will EVER find to blatant political/economic cronyism. Since the ability to produce oil or coal energy is tried to whether or not you have the permit to produce the related gases, and since the government is the party that issues those permits, the government essentially decides what businesses are going to be able to function. Add in things like some companies being either grandfathered in or granted legislative exceptions.
In the end, history will be made similar to history past: governments weilding that sort of power generally don't make their choices based on economics or reason. Pet projects that are cute or trendy will be given a disproportionate share, while the engines that keep us moving - Exxon/Mobil, Royal Dutch Shell, etc. - will be told to suck it up. It won't take long before the prices of energy rise, since the fact of the matter is that, even if distribution of emissions permits is handled will, a multitude of small corps using inefficient "green" production methods will NEVER be able to produce as much energy as quickly or as cheaply as the establishement. Even Barack's own staff estimate that the energy costs will increase substantially. Mark Furman, head of Obama's National Ecomonic Counsel, says the plan is going to cost about $250 billion per year. Other estimates show an across the board increase in American's energy and utility expenses by about 50%.
What's gonna happen then? Especially with rampant unemployment and a weak job market, people start writing to their legislators about the high cost of energy, and complaining that they can't afford their heating/air conditioning bills. And then? That's right. Price caps will be put into place by a democratic government pandering to the needs of the moment, complete with the resulting long-term cluster-fuck. With one hand, the government will sign law ordering the manufacturers to generate energy, but with the other hand, they will sign law limiting the amounts that those manufacturers will be able to charge. The end result will probably be the same as it was in California in the early 2000s. Demand will rise. Supply will stagnate, as energy producers don't have the capitol to build new infrastructure or plants. There will be a crunch, and we will ALL BE FUCKED. Astronomical energy bills. Rolling blackouts. Nothing in abundance except shortages.
If this energy bill gets passed, that's the way it's going to go. I can say that with confidence, because that part has happened before, at the state level. Our current economic situation will not support this, should the resulting hike in oil and coil reach anywhere near the projected levels.
Which brings us to the next point: this bill does not make oil itself any more expensive. It just makes MANUFACTURING oil into into usable fuels more expensive. It's not a change to the commodity, but a change to the tax structure. It doesn't take a genius to realize that a big part of Barak's Master Plan is to pay America's way to health care and welfare reform by wringing the necks of the traditional energy giants. Problem is that, for better or worse, we depend on this giants.
I see serious threat for backfire here. What exactly is stopping Exxon/Mobil, etc., from simply packing up and moving to Mexico or Canada? Why would they sell a barrel of oil here and pay $50/barrel in extra taxes, when there's rampant demand for that same oil in India or China? Why would they maintain their refineries and plants in Houston and New Orleans, and live under the Barack tax burden, when industrial real-estate is readily available on other shores? Why does Barack think the industrial giants will sit still for this, and why can he not see how fucked we are going to be without those industrial giants?
Finally, and least obviously, there is Texas. Which has always been an oil state. I honestly believe that the only way that the United States could fall as a nation would be through a civil war with Texas, and this bill is EXACTLY the sort of thing that will have that entire state in an uproar. I can hear it now: "There's a damn oil pump in my backyard! Why the hell do I gotta pay $6 a gallon for gas?" And they're right. The passage of this bill will be a crippling blow to the Texas oil industry. Thousands of jobs will depart overseas when Exxon decides that it's just not worth it to live under Barack's regime. Millions will be paid by Texans into the Fed in taxes, to be spent on "green" energy projects, like solar plants in California.
If you're a Texan, do you think sticking with this whole United States thing is really worth the loss of a critical grass-roots industry? Are you okay with businesses (and not just small businesses) being taxed into oblivion, so Wall Street and welfare can continue business as usual? If this bill gets passed, count on hearing about the Texas secessionist movement gaining momentum among the mainstream. One step closer to economic collapse and/or civil war.
Thanks Barack. You're doing a bang-up job. With everything that's going wrong with the country and the economy, what we really do need right now is to intentionally take on a discretionary 50% increase in energy costs on top of it all. Good thinking.
Today, we'll go back to the issue of energy, a subject near and dear to my heart. Previously on these pages, I put up commentary in support of high gas prices, as such high gas prices provide an incentive for the use of alternative fuels. With current technology it is in fact possible to manufacture light crude oil from things like medical waste, raw sewage, or old tires. We can do it. The problem is that the production cost for gasoline, for example, hovers at around $4-5 using those techniques. While the technology is already there, its not being used, because we can pump oil out of the ground, ship it where in needs to go, refine it, and get it to customers in such a way that the customers only pay about half that amount per gallon. There are alternate sources of oil and power available. We just rely on oil because, believe it or not, oil is an exceptionally cheap form of energy. As oil becomes more scarce, that equation will change, but much slower than most people really think. And in the meantime, people will best continue to rely on oil as the cheapest option, which it unquestionably is.
That cheapness is important these days. Energy costs are a primary controller of economic health, because nearly every exercise of commerce requires something to be moved. Crops from fields to processing plants. Goods from manufacturers to wholesalers to retailers. Even you getting from your home to the grocery store and back depends on an expenditure of energy, and no matter how well-stocked any single link of the distribution chain is, it's only the movement of goods along that chain that creates commerce. That movement takes energy. Fuel for trucks. Fuel for trains. Fuel for planes. Energy IS commerce, and for better or worse oil IS energy. As I've stated before, the closest thing that America will ever have to a guarantee that its businesses and economies will continue to function is a healthy oil industry.
Thus, while I am all for the development of alternative power, I think that that needs to be driven by economic factors. The price of oil WILL reach the point where those alternative power sources become viable. And in the meantime, we kind of need energy to stay cheap, what with this pesky recession thing, and all. You think things suck now? Imagine the economy also having to deal with $6/gallon gasoline. That means not only that you have to pay higher prices at the pump, but also that every single plane, train, and truck that is involved in commerce has to pay that higher price as well. Guess who that added cost gets passed on to. As a consumer, doesn't that sound like fun?
Clearly, it is in the interest of America for oil and energy to remain cheap. While there is certainly room for the expansion of green energy, let's aim for a slow, gradual change. Preferably one that allows a gradual rise is the costs being bourne by the consumer; we are the ones who will be footing the bill for the change to green energy, after all. Maybe we can rely on oil at least a little bit for a while? You know: build those big, expensive, inefficient solar plants a few at a time?
But our President has only a limited term in office, so we don't have time for a rational solution. Notwithstanding the fairly dire need that critical commodities (oil) remain cheap these days, our President has taken action to the contrary, trying to force through a "green energy" bill. While it's not getting nearly the press play it deserves, I believe that this bill, if passed, will have a FAR more substantial effect on National and World politics than anything else he's doing, and I include in that comparison the billions being spent keeping auto makers afloat and the trillions expected to be spent providing cheap, bad, and hard-to-get healthcare to the American populace.
Because it's not an energy bill. It's a tax bill. Barak has proposed an energy tax. The specific stated goal of this tax is to increase the cost of traditional energy sources, such as coal and oil. Rather than letting the economy dictate the market, our politicians are attempting to dictate the market: they are going to make alternative energy viable. However, they are not doing this by lowering the price for alternative energy. Rather, alternative energies are to be made competitive by increasing the cost of traditional energies. In short, the bill does not and is not intended to make green power more viable. Rather, the focus is to make traditional energy LESS viable, by placing huge tax burdens on producers and users of such energy. The plan itself is based on "cap-and-trade" (which, incidentially, was tried in Europe, without success): it will place a moritorium on greenhouse gas emissions from large producers, and sell pollution permits to manufacturers of energy. Manufacuters will not be allowed to generate energy beyond the levels of their allotted emission of CO2. Any power needs beyond those levels will have to come from sources that don't require those emissions permits: inefficient, expensive processes like solar and wind energy. All in an expressed attempt to make green energy more viable by making traditional energies drastically more expensive.
I've written before about what happens when governments decide that they know the economy better than the business do. Hopefully, this instant bit of Democratic Party hubris is not going to lead to the catestrophic meltdown that California suffered under Grey Davis, but frankly, I don't see it going any other way.
First of all, the cap-and-trade plan is about as close as you will EVER find to blatant political/economic cronyism. Since the ability to produce oil or coal energy is tried to whether or not you have the permit to produce the related gases, and since the government is the party that issues those permits, the government essentially decides what businesses are going to be able to function. Add in things like some companies being either grandfathered in or granted legislative exceptions.
In the end, history will be made similar to history past: governments weilding that sort of power generally don't make their choices based on economics or reason. Pet projects that are cute or trendy will be given a disproportionate share, while the engines that keep us moving - Exxon/Mobil, Royal Dutch Shell, etc. - will be told to suck it up. It won't take long before the prices of energy rise, since the fact of the matter is that, even if distribution of emissions permits is handled will, a multitude of small corps using inefficient "green" production methods will NEVER be able to produce as much energy as quickly or as cheaply as the establishement. Even Barack's own staff estimate that the energy costs will increase substantially. Mark Furman, head of Obama's National Ecomonic Counsel, says the plan is going to cost about $250 billion per year. Other estimates show an across the board increase in American's energy and utility expenses by about 50%.
What's gonna happen then? Especially with rampant unemployment and a weak job market, people start writing to their legislators about the high cost of energy, and complaining that they can't afford their heating/air conditioning bills. And then? That's right. Price caps will be put into place by a democratic government pandering to the needs of the moment, complete with the resulting long-term cluster-fuck. With one hand, the government will sign law ordering the manufacturers to generate energy, but with the other hand, they will sign law limiting the amounts that those manufacturers will be able to charge. The end result will probably be the same as it was in California in the early 2000s. Demand will rise. Supply will stagnate, as energy producers don't have the capitol to build new infrastructure or plants. There will be a crunch, and we will ALL BE FUCKED. Astronomical energy bills. Rolling blackouts. Nothing in abundance except shortages.
If this energy bill gets passed, that's the way it's going to go. I can say that with confidence, because that part has happened before, at the state level. Our current economic situation will not support this, should the resulting hike in oil and coil reach anywhere near the projected levels.
Which brings us to the next point: this bill does not make oil itself any more expensive. It just makes MANUFACTURING oil into into usable fuels more expensive. It's not a change to the commodity, but a change to the tax structure. It doesn't take a genius to realize that a big part of Barak's Master Plan is to pay America's way to health care and welfare reform by wringing the necks of the traditional energy giants. Problem is that, for better or worse, we depend on this giants.
I see serious threat for backfire here. What exactly is stopping Exxon/Mobil, etc., from simply packing up and moving to Mexico or Canada? Why would they sell a barrel of oil here and pay $50/barrel in extra taxes, when there's rampant demand for that same oil in India or China? Why would they maintain their refineries and plants in Houston and New Orleans, and live under the Barack tax burden, when industrial real-estate is readily available on other shores? Why does Barack think the industrial giants will sit still for this, and why can he not see how fucked we are going to be without those industrial giants?
Finally, and least obviously, there is Texas. Which has always been an oil state. I honestly believe that the only way that the United States could fall as a nation would be through a civil war with Texas, and this bill is EXACTLY the sort of thing that will have that entire state in an uproar. I can hear it now: "There's a damn oil pump in my backyard! Why the hell do I gotta pay $6 a gallon for gas?" And they're right. The passage of this bill will be a crippling blow to the Texas oil industry. Thousands of jobs will depart overseas when Exxon decides that it's just not worth it to live under Barack's regime. Millions will be paid by Texans into the Fed in taxes, to be spent on "green" energy projects, like solar plants in California.
If you're a Texan, do you think sticking with this whole United States thing is really worth the loss of a critical grass-roots industry? Are you okay with businesses (and not just small businesses) being taxed into oblivion, so Wall Street and welfare can continue business as usual? If this bill gets passed, count on hearing about the Texas secessionist movement gaining momentum among the mainstream. One step closer to economic collapse and/or civil war.
Thanks Barack. You're doing a bang-up job. With everything that's going wrong with the country and the economy, what we really do need right now is to intentionally take on a discretionary 50% increase in energy costs on top of it all. Good thinking.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)