The G.E. Rule is still Right

 I've written before about how G.E. is Right in not paying taxes:

You may have seen that GE, despite having a massively profitable year, will pay zero federal income taxes for 2010.  That’s right, less than you!  And this is the second year in a row.  I have no love for GE and its hearty embrace of crony capitalism, but they are doing the right thing by not paying any taxes. How can I say this? Because I believe no business entity should pay taxes, and that includes behemoth GE.

Let me ask you a question: How many people do you think would die of cancer each year if all cancer cells could be somehow trained to start growing on the tip of your nose? Every morning the first thing you would do is look in the mirror and see if you had any cancer. If you saw something, you would immediately have it removed. That would be the end of cancer, right? 

The price of runaway government today is like cancer in that it hides undetected until the symptoms begin. By then, it’s often too late. If every citizen woke up every morning and could see the true cost of runaway government on the tips of their noses, they would never allow it to metastasize, and that would be its ultimate demise.

Business taxes are a good example of this disease. The fact is, businesses don’t actually pay taxes. Citizens do. Businesses merely collect taxes and pass the cost along to the next entity in the supply chain until an ultimate “end-user” buys the product and pays the cumulative tax. Economically literate politicians, (an oxymoron) know this full well, but will never end stealth taxes unless forced to because they are a perfect way to ensure that the cancer they caused stays undetected. 

Today, Jeff Immelt addressed this issue, but claimed the reports were wrong, and asserted G.E. did pay taxes.  That's a shame.  Regardless of the facts, I'd have preferred he embrace my G.E. Rule, which states that no business should pay more taxes than G.E., which allegedly pays zero.  "The G.E. Rule" would solve "The Buffett Rule" along with a plethora of other economic issues:

• Unemployment would plummet

• Growth would flourish

• Capital would flood into the US

• Your pay would go up

• Your company would be able to compete with the Big Boys who currently get special treatment

• It would end the deduction for employer health insurance freeing you to make your own health choices  

• You could leave your job and your health insurance would go with you 

• Obama’s  Buffett Rule could be satisfied as it would end double taxation on dividends and  capital gains which could then be taxed at the same rates as income 

• Overseas profits could be repatriated instantly

• It would end taxation without representation for businesses 

• It would deal a serious blow to Stealth Taxes (more taxes would be transparent to voters once and for all)

• Most corporate lobbyists would be out of a job

• Crony capitalism would be seriously curtailed

• Prices on all goods and services would plummet 

• Stock bubbles, like the Tech Bubble of the 90s, would not happen as stocks would be rationally valued and taxed once at the individual level.   

• Companies, even Warren Buffett’s Berkshire Hathaway, would pay dividends!

Of course your taxes would go up, but that would alert you to the TRUE size of government and how long would it be before you did something about that?

Jeff Immelt should be defending G.E.'s tax avoidance instead of denying it.  

Oil Speculation Explained

Oil Speculation Explained via Colombian Hookers

This Piece is not about Race or Racism

I thought about writing a piece about race and racism, but decided against it.  It’s just too hot.

If I had, I’d have written about the race prism through which Blacks and Whites can see the same event, like OJ Simpson and the Trayvon Martin shooting, in such different ways.

I thought I’d start by talking about my experience during the OJ Simpson trial:  Back then, I ran a company of about 100 employees split evenly between Blacks and Whites.  On the day of the OJ verdict, we put televisions in the lunchroom so that everyone could watch it live.  When the not-guilty verdict was read, the Blacks unanimously cheered and celebrated, while the Whites were unanimously depressed.  Then we all went back to work as if nothing had happened.  But, it forever changed my perspective on the racial divide. 

 

I thought about writing about that continuing dichotomy and the Trayvon Martin case.  How could the races see the same circumstances and come up with such disparate and unanimous conclusions?  (The Trayvon Martin case is mostly conjecture at this point, but nothing will change once the facts come out.  Trust me.)

If I had written about race, I’d have talked about how “culture” is the sum total of all the experiences of a group going back in time.  For instance, in the case of Blacks and Whites, I would have obviously pointed to slavery as the main cultural  point of departure in America. 

With that in mind, here’re some relevant facts from 1860, just prior to the Civil War:

• Virtually all Blacks in 1860 were either slaves, recently freed, or had slavery in their immediate ancestry.
• According to the US census, only 2% of Whites owned slaves nationwide in 1860.

It’s safe to say 150 years later, after multiple waves of immigration, and the civil rights gains of the 1960s, the cultures have not merged:

• Black culture, attitudes, and world-view in America are still 99% affected by a direct lineage to slavery.
• White culture, attitudes, and world-view in America are 99% detached from any direct lineage to slavery.

In other words, 99% of Blacks in America are the cultural descendents of slaves, and 99% of Whites are the cultural descendents of people who never owned slaves!   That does not put Blacks and Whites at opposite ends.  That puts them 200% apart; they occupy two different planes!

So what about discrimination, something Blacks have always dealt with in America? 

Unfortunately, discrimination is a human constant and not limited to White or Black Americans:

• Within African cultures, where virtually everyone is of shared ancestry, there is widespread discrimination and a caste structure.  
• In China, where virtually everyone is of shared ancestry, there is widespread discrimination and a caste structure.   
• In India, where virtually everyone is of shared ancestry, there is widespread discrimination and a caste structure.  
• I could go on about every single culture throughout history.

In other words, discrimination is a human constant and cannot be explained as racism.  That doesn’t make it any less real, but it does suggest that blaming it on race is intellectually lazy.

  

Why, I would have asked, had I written about this, did Barack Obama get a higher percent of the vote than recent White Democrats Bill Clinton, Al Gore, and John Kerry?  Perhaps discrimination here is based on something other than race, just as it is around the world?  Perhaps we are similar to other cultures, only exceptional perhaps in that discrimination here can be overcome by ability and achievement?

      

I thought I’d write about all this, but then I decided not to.  This message is probably just too hopeful and too controversial, all at the same time.      

It's Likability Stupid!

"If all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail."  This nugget of psychology, often attributed to Abraham Maslow, is particularly relevant to today's politics.

Two cases in particular:  

On one side is all the conservative hand-wringing over Mitt Romney's apparent victory in the GOP primary.  Conservative analysts are almost unanimous in their disdain for Mitt Romney claiming he is not a "real conservative" and will certainly lose a general election like other "moderates" John McCain, George H. W. Bush, and Bob Dole. 

In the telling of these analysts, Ronald Reagan's victories were all about ideology and contrast.  According to them, the American people got all analytical, just like them, and carefully weighed the policies of the candidates.  In the end, after all the analysis, they were won over by the sensible, logical conservative policies of Ronald Reagan.  Bunk.  

Reagan got elected because the American people liked him.  If ideology and contrast were the winning formula, Barry Goldwater would have been President too!  

On the other side, Barack Obama is making a similar error.  He got elected in 2008 because the American people liked him, not because they liked divisive rhetoric and class warfare.  Yet, with a dismal record on the economy, a long line of broken promises, low polls on ObamaCare, Dodd-Frank, and foreign policy, his campaign is entirely based on three negative emotions: hate, envy and guilt. 

According to Saul Alinsky's "Rules for Radicals", which is Obama's tactical bible: 

If the organizer begins with an affirmation of love for people, he promptly turns everyone off. If, on the other hand, he begins with a denunciation of exploiting employers, slum landlords, police shakedowns, gouging merchants, he is inside their experience and they accept him. 

Electoral politics is different from Community Organizing, and Obama may be squandering the one thing he had going for him, likability.  

The 2012 race will ultimately come down to a contest between two men who will fight it out, not on some ideological battlefield contesting the brains of voters, but rather the way it's always been done: over hearts.  

It's likability stupid!   

      

  

Inception

I was watching the movie “Inception” last night and was struck by the following quote: 

Cobb: “What is the most resilient parasite? Bacteria? A virus? An intestinal worm? An idea. Resilient... highly contagious. Once an idea has taken hold of the brain it's almost impossible to eradicate.”

In case you haven’t seen the movie, “Inception” refers to the implanting of ideas by entering the subconscious during an induced dream state, and then manipulating the dream to get the implanted idea to take hold. 

The elements of inception are these:

• An induced dream state
• A willing subconscious
• A compelling dreamscape
• Active manipulation of the dream
• An idea to implant
• A strong defense against competing ideas  

Political liberals have either consciously or unconsciously understood this concept, and used it to make their ideas “resilient… highly contagious…. and impossible to eradicate”. 

Here’s how liberals have achieved inception success: 

• First they induce a dream state:  With their dominant position in entertainment, academia, and news media, liberals have unique access to the subconscious.  Whether sitting in a classroom, living room, or theatre, the captive subject is in a state of relaxed “suspended disbelief” where the critical mind is on standby. (How else could you believe in talking toys, Jedi Knights, or time travel?  The “willing suspension of disbelief” is one of the keys to entry into the subconscious, which is why it's key for hypnosis too.)
• Next they make the dream appealing:  Utopianism, Hope and Change, Free Stuff, Social Security, Social Justice, and Equality of Outcomes.  Who in their right mind wouldn't find a one-sided presentation of these ideas appealing?   
• Next, they manipulate the dream:  To advance their ideas, liberals employ bogus statistics, sophistry, and outright lies.   I realize this is a serious charge that requires some backup.  A full accounting would take years, so in the interest of brevity, I’ll just cite a few examples from...    yesterday:  
• The President stated that if the Supreme Court overturns ObamaCare, it would represent an “unprecedented, extaordinary” act because the law passed congress.  This is a lie:  The Supreme Court routinely overturns unconstitutional legislation.  In fact, that is its purpose.
• The President indicated The Supreme Court lacks credibility because they are “unelected”.  This is a lie: The Constitution deliberately insulates the Supreme Court from politics by creating a court of lifetime appointees.
• The President stated that if ObamaCare is found unconstitutional, that would be an act of “judicial activism”.  This is a lie:  Judicial activism is when judges find new rights and powers not specifically enumerated in The Constitution.
• Finally, liberals work very hard to destroy any competing ideas, regardless of merit.   Sarcasm, snark, propaganda, and fear, are just some of the tools utilized to make any competing idea toxic.  Perhaps the best illustration of this comes from the following quotes from Saul Alinsky’s “Rules for Radicals”, the tactical bible for today’s liberals:

 

“One acts decisively only in the conviction that all the angels are on one side and all the devils on the other.”

“…Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it.”

“…Ridicule is man’s most potent weapon.”

Ever since these ideas entered the community, in an organized manner, polarization and demonization have been the rule from liberals. 

Conservatives have a marked disadvantage when it comes to inception:     

• Conservatives do not have access to the subconscious.  Conservatives have almost no voice in the pop culture, pop academia, or pop media - the entry points into the subconscious.  
• If conservatives had access to the subconscious, they still could not easily make their dream appealing.   Personal responsibility, accountability, and hard work suck!  Moreover, these behaviors never offer immediate gratification.
• Conservatives are programmed to tell the truth. That's not to say they always do.  Nobody’s perfect.  But I would argue, this one characteristic is the defining difference between most liberals and most conservatives.  [UPDATE:  This is one reason Donal Trump is so unnerving to liberals;  he's co-opted their main tactics!]  
• Conservatives are pre-disposed to avoid gratuitously destroying their enemies.  Decorum, manners, honor, and tradition are all conservative concepts.  Liberals have no similar fealty to such antiquated notions of behavior.  [UPDATE:  Ditto above.]         

In order to deal with this imbalance, conservatives must find new ways to implant their ideas. 

Perhaps the best example of this today is Glenn Beck who has combined education, comedy, internet distribution, live performance, publishing, and even God to get his conservative message out.  Others in the fray are a few internet-based media-focused groups who also use comedy, news, entertainment and education, to get their messages out.

Conservatives do have a voice in some traditional media outlets like talk radio and cable news.  And thanks to the internet, a conservative revolution in news and commentary has already occurred there.  But, to a large extent all of this is currently preaching to the choir. 

What is still needed is a concerted effort to potentially reach everyone, and to do that, conservatives must produce more high quality general entertainment content.  Some of it is out there no doubt, but much, much more is needed.  Movies, music, comedy, and theater: only through more of this will conservatives be able to break into the vast subconscious that liberals currently have near exclusive access to.          

Until Conservatives figure out how to generate much more quality content in general entertainment, they will forever be losing to liberals in the war of inception.  For my part, I'm going to take a stab at a screenplay.  Maybe you should too?   

Magic Bullets Part IX

Ruth Bader Ginsburg unwittingly said a most ironic thing during the oral arguments this week regarding ObamaCare: 

"It's a choice between a wrecking operation … or a salvage job," groused liberal Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg. "And the more conservative approach would be salvage rather than throwing out everything."

Apparently Justice Ginsburg has never tried to renovate a run-down building.  Anyone who has, knows that demolition and starting from scratch are always the most conservative ways to end up with a building that meets the need at the lowest cost.  The only reason to salvage a run-down building is for nostalgia or coercion.   

The healthcare bill known as ObamaCare was itself an attempt to salvage federal control over a mess of tangled laws and regulations dating back at least to the 1940s:

 

• WWII wage controls sparked the practice of employer provided health insurance, which killed the individual market.  Businesses could deduct health insurance for tax purposes, and to this day individuals cannot.
• The McCarran-Ferguson Act of 1945 effectively allowed states to prevent the purchase of out-of-state health policies, giving insurers state monopolies and further trapping individuals. 
• Then came Medicare, which placed half the medical industry under a socialized system and forced all the profits to come from the other half, driving up costs and largely creating the current “crisis”. 

In other words, “a salvage operation” is what got us into this mess in the first place!   At some point we must stop adding new construction on top of an old run-down building and commence with a “wrecking operation” and then construction of a new modern structure. 

The Supreme Court may give us that opportunity.  If they do, here are some Magic Bullet solutions to fix the healthcare market and solve each of the major problems we have today: 

Question:  Why don’t Americans buy their own health insurance, and why does everyone think health insurance is someone else’s responsibility?

• Re-establish an individual market by allowing individuals to deduct their health insurance expenses in the form of refundable tax credits.   (With refundable tax credits, lower income individuals who do not qualify for Medicaid, AND don’t make enough to pay taxes, would get a check.  This is only one of many ways to undo the damage from the uneven tax treatment which has gutted the individual market:  See The Healthcare Gecko )

Question:  Why is it that you can buy almost anything you want from another state except health insurance?

• Repeal The McCarran-Ferguson Act and allow health insurance to compete across state lines.  (Follow the “commerce clause” as it was intended!)

Question:  If Medicare was an outgrowth of everyone getting their health insurance at work (After all, how could we ask retirees to enter the healthcare market for the first time at age 65?) and it shortchanges providers, is rife with fraud, and is bankrupt, do we need it anymore?

• Repeal Medicare and phase it out for younger Americans who will be accustomed to insuring themselves in the new individual interstate market. 

Question:  Why is it that if you walk into a grocer and steal food, it is an obvious crime.  Yet, if you drive to a hospital in a Ferrari, demand to be treated by a team of doctors, and then refuse to pay, it is not?

• Make theft of Medical Services a crime. 

Question:  How can we prevent insurance companies from dropping coverage for high risk individuals? 

• How do we prevent car companies from selling dangerous or inferior cars?  Of course we can’t, but the market, the courts, and some level of regulation do the job quite well. 

Question:  What can be done about pre-existing conditions? 

• Medicaid must be a viable option for those who become ill while uninsured, or refuse to obtain insurance until after they become ill.  Part of Medicaid’s role should be insurer-of-last-resort, but it should not be free to those who can pay.  

Question:  What about the poor? 

• Once an individual interstate market is established, Medicaid will be less burdened and easier to rebuild into a better safety net. 

Question:  What about quality, cost, and availability of healthcare?

• A vibrant individual interstate market is the only way to insure high quality, low cost, and abundant healthcare services in the future.     

Of course, there is a limit to the building analogy when it comes to laws.  Unlike buildings, laws don’t exist as distinct stand-alone entities.  They are more like electricity grids with tentacles going into every aspect of our lives and interactions, and each branch has a vocal constituency demanding it be preserved as is.  Laws almost never get repealed. 

The wrecking operation is going to take a political revolution.  As for the new construction, the market will do that overnight.    

A Tragedy No Matter What

Here are the pertinent facts that we know about the tragedy in Florida:

• A seventeen year old boy is dead
• The shooter claims self-defense
• Six witnesses saw or heard part of the struggle
• It is unclear if anyone saw the entire event
• More than one witness corroborated part of the shooters account 
• It is unclear if any witness contradicted the shooter's account, though at least one had their positions reversed during part of the struggle  
• The police on the scene recommended charging the shooter
• The state did not initially charge the shooter
• A Special Prosecutor has been assigned to the case
• The State is collecting the facts and preparing the case for either a Grand Jury or the Special Prosecutor to make a recommendation

Here's what we know about the tragedy in Washington:

• The dead boy was black and the shooter was "white hispanic" (according to the NYT) and may have said "fucking coon" or "fucking goon" while in pursuit.  This has given the incident racial overtones, and before all the facts were known, the President made comments reinforcing that perception    
• The New Black Panthers have put a bounty on the head of the shooter and the President has said...nothing
• Spike Lee, a supporter and financier of the President's tweeted the address of an innocent couple claiming it was the shooters, endangering the couple and forcing them to flee their home while the President said...nothing
• Congressional Black Caucus members have used racially charged rhetoric and made irresponsibly accusatory statements from the floor of Congress and to the media, while the President has said...nothing
• Black leaders like Louis Farrakhan, Al Sharpton, and Jesse Jackson have incited anger and used violent rhetoric in promoting this as a racial incident and the President has said...nothing
• Death threats have been issued to the shooter, friends of the shooter, the family of the shooter, and witnesses who've come forward corroborating the shooters account, and the President has said...nothing  
• Angry protesters ransacked a store, and the President said...nothing
• Social media accounts have sprung up calling for the murder of the shooter, and the President has said...nothing

It may take a Special Prosecutor, a Grand Jury, and a trial to sort through the Florida tragedy, but justice will eventually be served.  

Meanwhile, the Washington tragedy proceeds apace until possibly the November election.  

Photo Journalism

Trayvon in a Hoodie...According to the Pop Media

The War on Women

In case you missed this (and hoping you will share it): 

Cluster Fluke

Sandra Fluke (rhymes with duck) and Slutgate have done Republican's a huge favor.  Huge.  There are at least four levels on which this episode has exploded in the faces of the Democrats:

• On one level is the blatant hypocrisy of the whole thing as demonstrated first by liberal analyst Kirsten Powers in this piece, and then in this video by SHE-PAC,  and also in my own take in this cartoon.  
• On a second level is the very substance of Fluke's testimony which has been debunked and exposed by numerous pieces such as this:  Birth control pills cost $9.00 per month, NOT $90.00 as Fluke testified.  (Abstinence and condoms are available for free!)  And this piece on the weight of her testimony.  
• On a third level, it turns out Sandra Fluke (rhymes with duck) is no fluke (rhymes with duke), and was likely brought in to testify by former White House communications czar Anita Dunn, famous for her effusive praise of Communist icon Chairman Mao.  Fluke, Dunn, White House, and CBC
• On a fourth level is yet more hypocrisy regarding the supposed "Republican War on Women".  Unfortunately, wars usually have casualties and on that score, Democrats have no peer:  
• Juanita Broaddrick was sexually assaulted (raped) by Democrat icon Bill Clinton when he was the top law enforcement official (Attorney General) of Arkansas.
• Kathleen Willy, Paula Jones, and allegedly others were also sexually groped/assaulted by serial offender Democrat Bill Clinton, some while he was President. 
• Mary Jo Kopechne was killed in a car driven by a drunk Democrat Senator Edward Kennedy who left the scene while she drowned.  
• Mimi Alford was sexually used and objectified by Democrat President John F Kennedy, as well as other Democrats including Democrat Edward Kennedy.  
• Democrat Al Gore's masseuse, among others, was crudely propositioned by him, resulting in the global cooling of his marriage to Tipper.
• Elizabeth Edwards, ex-wife of Democrat Senator John Edwards, and now deceased, was publicly humiliated by him as he fathered a child with his mistress while she was battling cancer.

Political analysts were agog at the skill with which the Democrats had turned a huge negative into a big win by twisting the narrative into something called "Women's Rights" and "The Republican War on Women".   Now those same analysts are agog at how Sandra Fluke and Slutgate has blown-up in their faces.  

Like everything in politics, the lessons learned won't be revealed for some time.  But as of today, this sure looks like a Democrat Cluster Fluke (rhymes with...well, you know). 

Sandra Fluke is no Slut

Rush Limbaugh has apologized for calling Sandra Fluke a Slut and a Prostitute.   That’s good, because she is neither. 

Sluts hurt no one.  A slut will take on all comers and ask nothing in return.  You gotta admire sluts; they are the most charitable people you’ll ever encounter.  I assure you, if you ever encounter a capable slut, you will leave with a smile on your face.

 

Prostitutes are also admirable.  They offer a service at a market price, and no one is mandated or coerced to purchase it.  Prostitution is the purest exchange of values and the oldest.  Like all properly functioning markets, prostitution only survives if both sides see it as a win-win.  I assure you, if you ever encounter a capable prostitute, you will leave with a smile on your face.

Sandra Fluke is no slut or prostitute.  She wants to have unlimited sex at your expense.  You are not a party in the fun as with a slut or prostitute.  You only get to pay for it via a government mandate.  You get all the expense and none of the fun.

  

Sluts and prostitutes have more integrity in their pinkies than Sandra Fluke has in her entire body.  Sandra Fluke is the lowest of the low: she is a Marxist.  I assure you, if you ever encounter a capable Marxist, you will be poorer, less free, and you will not leave with a smile on your face.  

Rush Limbaugh is a Big Fat Idiot

Warning: Some Rough Language

Romney The Weak?

I keep hearing about how weak Mitt Romney is as a Republican front-runner.  Despite steady victories, strong second-place showings, winning the popular vote, winning the delegate count, and having the deepest organization, the perception is he is weak and has not inspired the Republican base.  This is a valid observation when it comes to a primary, but is utterly meaningless when it comes to a general election against incumbent Barack Obama.

There are three kinds of voters in a general election:

• one third will vote Democrat no matter who's on the ticket
• one third will vote Republican no matter who's on the ticket
• and one third will vote for the person they like the most

In a highly polarized general election, the third group is the only one that matters.

However, in a primary, the third group does not vote.  Thus, primaries tell us nothing about the relative general election strengths of a nominee.  

Regardless of who gets the Republican nod, the first two groups will be highly motivated and will show-up to vote in November.   How will the the third group treat Romney and will they like him?

All you need to do is watch the left, and they are really scared of Mitt Romney.  Here's why:

• Last time around, Barack Obama won the votes of white women. 
• White women never warmed-up to John McCain.  (or Sarah Palin)
• This time around, Obama needs those white women again.  
• Apparently, white women like Mitt Romney. 

Democrats are currently engaged in building a myth around a "Republican War on Women".  The first group has bought into it hook, line, and sinker.  The second group isn't buying it at all.  And the third group will not buy the notion of Mitt Romney as a misogynist.

We always hear about "swing states" but really this will come down to "swing voters", and in 2012, they will be white women.

Mitt Romney cannot be painted as a misogynist, and white women are already warm to him.  Mitt Romney will be the Republican's strongest candidate with these swing voters.    

Farrakhan - The Gift That Keeps On Giving

I LOVE, LOVE, LOVE, when Louis Farrakhan is in the news (He made a 3 hour speech in Chicago yesterday and blabbed on about a bunch of imaginary things) because it gives me a chance to re-post this from August 2010...

Now that President Obama has come out in favor of the mega-mosque at ground zero , it opens up an opportunity to combine some of the Prez's most important priorities into one neat solution:

Recall that the head of NASA, Charles Bolden,  revealed to Al Jazeera that Prez Obama has directed NASA to make it's "Primary Mission" outreach to Muslims.  Recall also that Louis Farrakhan and his Nation of Islam (Obama is a supporter and ally) believe that there is a spaceship called the  "Mother Wheel" which orbits the planet and...well, nevermind. 

So let's see, we need a giant place for Muslims to worship, check, we have the full resources of NASA, check, and there is already a giant muslim spaceship circling the planet, check mate.  Hmmm, I love it when a plan comes together!

I also get to post this from March 2010 again, since the pull-quote from Farrakhan's rant was about how Obama is in grave danger from racist assassins...

Have you seen the many references to the mortal danger President Obama is in from potential assassins? The latest piece appeared today in the UK Guardian . I’m not surprised we are seeing these stories because racist whackos could be an additional threat for Obama, but make no mistake about it, Presidents face danger as all modern ones have found out.  That said, Barack Obama is statistically much safer than even George W Bush was!

The tragic fact is that virtually every modern president has been the subject of some kind of assassination attempt. Every one. That’s not to excuse it, but to highlight that danger is part of the office. The job is not for the faint-of-heart. Some nut is going to try and fly a plane into your house (Nixon, Clinton, Bush 43), or blow you up (Kennedy, Bush 41, Bush 43), or just try to shoot you (Truman, Kennedy, Ford, Carter, Reagan, Bush 43). And that is all of them post-WWII!

But, going back all the way, your chances of actually taking a bullet are almost twice as bad if you are a Republican. Five have been Republicans, (Lincoln, Garfield, McKinley, Ford, Reagan) and three have been Democrats (Jackson, Truman, Kennedy).

As far as actual assassinations, three were Republicans (Lincoln, Garfield, McKinley) and only one was a Democrat (Kennedy). In short, your chances of being killed are three times worse if you are a Republican! Moreover, Kennedy, the only Democrat was a tax-cutting supply-sider. If you look at it that way, Barack Obama will die in his bed as an old man. Now, if he could only quit smoking…

The Coming Civil War – Who, What, Where, When, and Why

Are we becoming Greece? Perhaps, but I believe there is a better example somewhat closer to home – The Civil War of 1861-1865.

No, I’m not saying that half the country will soon secede, or that we are headed for mass casualties. This will be different. But, it will also be the same in many respects.

•  Did you ever wonder why the South waited until 1860 to secede? Why not 1858 or 1863?
•  What was the precipitating event that made push come to shove at that exact moment?
•  Why was it that our political system could not resolve those issues peacefully?
•  What was it about slavery and states rights that rendered the political system useless?
•  Is it even remotely possible that we have some of the same types of issues today?

Again, I’m not suggesting that violence is a given. After all, there have been bloodless revolutions throughout history. But, if there is going to be another civil war, peaceful or otherwise, here is the Who, What, Where, When, and Why, using 1860 as a roadmap.

Why?

     1st parallel: Entitlement Economics

When you think about it, The Civil War was fought nominally over slavery and state’s rights, but at its core the issue was economics. The South did not secede from the union because they liked abusing Africans and wanted to continue doing so! They seceded because they were married to an economic system based on slavery. To the South, slave labor had become an entitlement, and they were afraid of losing it.

For generations, slaveholders and their economic counter-parties had enjoyed outsized living standards based on their slave labor entitlement. As they saw it, these plantation owners were not doing anything particularly radical for their time. Slave owning had been going on uninterrupted throughout history. It was their birthright, and it was legal. They didn’t create the system. They were born into it.

The economics and morality of our entitlement system today are essentially the same as the slavery entitlement in 1860. Have you not heard credible analysts say we are enslaving our heirs? That is not to imply any equivalence with the treatment of black slaves, only that we are making a similar claim on the labor of others. Has it not occurred to you that this is as morally wrong today as it was then?

Despite the above, how many times have you heard your contemporaries say: “I paid into the system, I played by the rules, and I broke no laws. Now you want to tell me the money’s run-out, and I have to sacrifice?”

How is that different from what the Southerners were saying? “Slavery is legal, I didn’t invent the system, my family fought for this country, and we played by the rules. Now you want me to sacrifice, and give it all up?”

Put in those terms, our issues today are eerily similar. Slave owners were living an unsustainable lifestyle off the labor of their slaves. We are living an unsustainable lifestyle off the future labor of our heirs.

Mandate Mania!

That stupid Constitution of ours is so obnoxious!  With all its checks and balances and limitations on what one man can do, it’s enough to drive an aspiring dictator crazy!  Luckily, we’ve found a nifty way around all that, and it’s called “The Mandate”.

How cool is The Mandate?  Take The Mortgage Mandate from the 90’s.  This was a mandate on banks to provide mortgages to anyone who could fog a mirror.  No obvious tax increase needed.  No contentious new laws passed.  There would not even be any resistance from the banks, once they were promised two escape hatches:  Fannie and Freddie.  

The Mortgage Mandate was pure genius.  It delivered millions of votes for Democrats, didn’t cost taxpayers a dime (initially), didn’t raise any suspicions at the time, and when it finally blew-up, the stink all landed on…Republican, George W. Bush.  It was the perfect crime!        

Bill Clinton knew that he could not provide subsidized mortgages to his voters the Constitutional way.  No, that would require a huge tax increase and legislative (bipartisan) action.  That would have been way too messy, and could easily take longer than sex with an intern.  But, through the magic of The Mortgage Mandate, it was a discreet quickee, all done behind the back of that annoying document from Philadelphia.  

Ditto Obama’s brand new Contraception Mandate;  Barack Obama knows the key to his reelection is white women.  He kicked butt among white women last time and, this time around, it’s just not clear that they hate Mitt Romney as much as they did John McCain. 

Obama really needs white women.  He needs white women more than Otis Day and the Knights.  So, what better way to win support among white women than the promise of government subsidized orgasms?  That’s right, under Obama’s free birth control mandate, every woman can have unlimited sex at no cost to herself!  How cool is that?  Who would vote against that? 

Well, the fans of that pesky document from 1787 for one, but they didn’t vote for Obama in the first place.  Also, strict Catholic white males who are similarly useless to an Obama re-election campaign.  And who get’s to pay for this?  Nobody.  It’s magical and free! 

This whole debate about the so-called “individual mandate” is another matter entirely.   Regardless of how one feels about the constitutionality at the state or federal level, at least the individual insurance mandate is a tax levied on voters, despite Obama’s denials.   The Mortgage and Free Sex Mandates do a handy end-run around those pesky balloteers, as do nearly all the other mandates in that monstrosity known as Obamacare.  The Obamacare Mandates make The Mortgage Mandate look insignificant in comparison.      

I used to believe that the Supreme Court would never let us slip into anarchy; that they would ultimately defend the Constitution and preserve The Rule of Law.  Experience has taught me otherwise.  The People are the last line of defense, but tragically, The People can be cheaply bought for the false promise of free McMansions, Free Sex, and Free Healthcare.   

(If you got here by searching for Kate Upton, my apologies.)  

                    

If Mitt Romney had a Sense of Humor

Have you heard the one about the Liberal, the Conservative, and the Moderate who walk into a bar?    The bartender says: "Hi Mitt!"

Never mind that Mormons don't drink,  if Mitt Romney had a sense of humor, he'd come back with this joke:

"A Marxist, a Dictator, and a Golfer walk into a bar

...and somehow, it's Bush's fault!"

 

A Bumper Sticker for Our Time

Our Constitutional Right to Free Food

If free contraception is a "health care right", what about food?  Seriously, what's more important for health - nutrition, or birth control?  I say all health insurance plans must provide free food for everyone!  

If we did this, we could end the Food Stamp Program and save taxpayers a fortune!

Free food for all!    

Why Conservatives Suck - by Bill Whittle

Dear Mr. Eastwood...

Dear Mr. Eastwood,

With all due respect, for Chrysler’s bond-holders it is not “Half-Time in America”- no, for those unlucky victims of President Obama’s bailout, it is actually “game over”.  

Let me tell you a story worthy of a Hollywood script.

One week before my father-in-law died at 88, he confided in me that a chunk of his life’s savings had been wiped-out when Chrysler’s secured bondholders were bypassed in Obama’s bailout.  Unlike you, Robert W. Scisco Sr. did not play a tough guy in the movies, instead, he actually fought real Nazis in North Africa, up through Italy, and eventually earned a Purple Heart in France.  This was not a man prone to showing fear, yet at the time he told me about his Chrysler bonds, he seemed afraid - afraid of his own government!   

You see, President Obama did not follow the normal bankruptcy route when he imposed the Chrysler bailout on us.  Instead, he decided to bypass the secured bondholders, who were first in-line, wiping them out, and delivered the company unencumbered to Fiat, the US Government, and the UAW.  This was an unprecedented redistribution from secured creditors to the President's supporters.   Unlike you, Bob Scisco understood this, and was wise enough to envision the full implications for him, his heirs, and the future of economic liberty in the country he had fought to defend.
   

For Chrysler’s bondholders like my father-in-law, Obama’s bailout was a knife in the back.  Within a week of him telling me this, with fear in his eyes, he was dead.

Obamaball

In light of the recent celebration surrounding the drop to 8.3% unemployment, I am reposting "Obamaball" which first appeared 12/21/11.   

Have you seen the movie “Moneyball” or read the Michael Lewis book by the same name?  To make a long story short, it is a true story about winning baseball games without superstars by taking a deeper look at the statistics and analyzing them in a better way.  Baseball and economics share a fondness for statistics so the question arises, could economic statistics reveal a similarly undiscovered strategy for the economy like what Oakland General Manager Billy Beane did in “Moneyball”?  Moreover, could the President's economic plan, “Obamaball”, be that strategy?  

Baseball stats and economic stats are not all that comparable.  In baseball there have always been nine members on a team, ninety feet has always been the distance between bases, sixty feet six inches has always been the distance from the mound to the plate, the bat is always wood, there are three outs, three strikes, four balls, nine innings, and so forth.  Therefore, an ERA has always been an ERA, an AVG has always been an AVG, and R, H, and E have always been R, H, and E.   

If only things were as simple in economic statistics, especially since the big ones all come from the government.  Unlike baseball, the government is always changing how they measure and what they measure.  Sometimes the statistics change because of an unintended consequence from a change in a law.   Sometimes it is for practical reasons.  And sometimes it just seems political.   After all, government economic stats come from the very government they sit in judgment of!

Here are four key statistics which form the basis for much of the economic rhetoric heard today.  In all four cases these statistics fail the baseball test.   

•       Inflation (CPI)– Not only has the Bureau of Labor Statistics changed the way it measures inflation over the years, notably in 1980 and 1990, but they cannot avoid relying on prices for manufactured imported goods which tell us more about foreign labor markets and regulations than they do about our own currency.  When these changes are backed-out, the actual inflation rate is about 2.5% higher than what is reported.  What makes inflation so problematic is that all other measures of economic performance are “inflation adjusted” and thus dependent on an accurate inflation number to start with.  Even corporate earnings must be weighed against an accurate inflation measure.

•       Economic Growth and Recession  (GDP) – GDP numbers are all adjusted for inflation too and thus suffer the effect of any inflation inaccuracies.  That is why a 2.0% annual growth rate based on a “GDP Deflator” which is under-measured by 2.5% feels exactly like, well, a -.5% growth rate.  That is how GDP can be reportedly rising by 2% yet polls can show most people believe we are still in recession.  The people are probably right.

•       Unemployment (U3) – You’d think that “unemployment” would be a cut-and-dried statistic:  “The number of people not employed as a percent of the labor force”.  But that’s not how the government does it.  In fact, if every single person in the US was collecting unemployment, disability, welfare, food stamps, or some other form of assistance but not actively seeking a job, the official unemployment rate in the US would be…0%!  The way we measure, we could have no one working and still have zero unemployment.  If we corrected for just this issue and undid the error back to Barack Obama’s inauguration, the real unemployment rate would be 11%.  If all the nonsense is removed, the actual number is close to 23%.    

•       Income Inequality (1% vs. 99%) – Much of the recent rhetoric about the 1% vs. the 99% is based on a CBO report from October of this year, which has numerous issues.  In order to measure income inequality, the CBO used a government measure based on income tax returns from 1979 to 2007.  Not 2010, which should have been available, but 2007, right before the financial meltdown in the midst of a bubble!  Second, many returns in the top brackets include corporate pass-through income, which is a recent phenomenon and makes income tax returns meaningless for measuring changes in personal wealth.  Moreover, tax rates changed constantly from 1979 to 2007 making any trends difficult to discern.  These are just a few of the problems making this CBO report useless for analyzing trends.

And then there’s the economic analysis.  Here are four big economic issues and the current administrations analysis along with some questions.    

•       Arguably the biggest economic issue of our time is the financial crisis of 2008 and its aftermath.  According to President Obama’s analysis, greedy fat-cat bankers largely caused the whole thing.   Isn’t that like blaming a plane crash on gravity?  Aren’t gravity and greed constants?  Are bankers today greedier than they were, say, in the 1950s?  Were there any sub-prime loans back then?  Where did sub-prime loans come from?  Wasn’t the President part of the chorus demanding sub-prime mortgages in the 90’s and didn’t he then protect and subsidize the dangerous practice through his support of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac as a US Senator?

•       Once the analysis points to greedy bankers, it’s a short leap to blaming the continued malaise on the same class, which the President has made the theme of his re-election campaign.  So what has prevented Obama from stopping the greedy and the rich from continuing the malaise?  Didn’t he have two solid years of filibuster-proof control of the entire federal government?  Didn’t they pass Dodd-Frank?  How then can he explain MF Global and Jon Corzine (D-NJ), the newest example of greedy fat-cat banking failure?  Why did Obama and the Democrats keep the Bush tax cuts “for the rich” back in 2010 when they were set to expire?  How does this all add-up?  

•       If greedy bankers caused a financial crisis, what better way to fix it than to go on a 5 Trillion dollar spending and borrowing binge, right?   Who will pay for the extra 5 trillion in borrowing? Does that even matter as long as the inevitable collapse is timed to occur after the Obama reign?  Can “the rich” possibly make-up the difference if the top 10% of the country earn 40% of the income and pay 70% of the income taxes already?

•       If the financial crisis was due to greedy rich bankers, then the healthcare crisis must also be caused by greedy rich insurance companies and greedy rich doctors, right?   What better way to fix it all then to put the federal government in-charge of the whole thing?  Aren’t Medicare and Medicaid both disasters from a sustainability standpoint?  How can putting the same government in-charge of the entire industry be a good thing?  How can Obama claim the “free market” has failed in healthcare when it hasn’t been involved in healthcare since WWII when employers got to deduct premiums but individuals did not?      

So this is it in a nutshell:  President Obama, the General Manager of our team, has looked at the statistics, done his analysis, and believes he has saved us from a Great Depression, free markets don’t work, greedy rich people caused all the problems in the first place, the government’s job is to re-distribute wealth, and borrowing 5 trillion is OK as long as it blows-up on someone else’s watch.  

Welcome to “Obamaball” where all the stats are rigged and all the analysis is wrong.

Dear Facebook Friend,

What She Said...

"Three Cheers for Romneycare" by Ann Coulter

The G.E. Rule – Part 2

In an earlier post I proposed The G.E. Rule, which is that no company should pay more tax than General Electric, the nations largest corporation and President Obama’s favorite company.   Since G.E. pays ZERO taxes, this would end income tax at the business level and solve a plethora of major problems today:

• Unemployment would plummet
• Growth would flourish
• Capital would flood into the US
• Your pay would go up
• Your company would be able to compete with the Big Boys who currently buy influence
• Your health insurance choices would be yours and not your boss’s (it would end the corporate deduction for employer insurance) 
• You could leave your job and not worry about your health insurance 
• Dividends and capital gains could be taxed at the same rates as income (Obama’s  Buffett Rule would be satisfied)
• Overseas profits could be repatriated instantly
• It would end taxation without representation 
• It would satisfy the Tea Party and end Stealth Taxes (all taxes would be transparent to voters once and for all)
• Most corporate lobbyists would be out of a job
• Crony capitalism would be seriously wounded
• Washington’s manipulative power would be greatly reduced
• Prices on all goods and services would plummet 
• Stocks would be rationally valued as the double taxation would end (this would end stock bubbles like the Tech Bubble of the 90s) 
• Companies, even Warren Buffett’s Berkshire Hathaway, would pay dividends

And this is just a partial list of instant benefits from The G.E. Rule.  (Update:  For much more on this, check out my older post - GE is Right!) 

Of course, this would be politically impossible because almost no politician in Washington wants to cede power to business, markets, or voters.  Lobbyists would freak out.  In fact no politician, even Ron Paul, is proposing anything like this.  If I was a Republican frontrunner, I’d take a good hard look at The G.E. Rule.       

If I was Mitt Romney... Part 2

If I was Mitt Romney - I'd fire back at Romneycare critics and say, "Look,  everyone keeps citing similarities between Romneycare and Obamacare but this misses the point; it's the differences that matter.  Chimpanzees and humans share 90% of their DNA, yet no one would confuse a human with a chimp.  Romneycare and Obamacare do share some DNA but they are very different animals.  Romneycare was a plan to prevent freeloading, and that was its only purpose.  Obamacare is a direct line to socialized medicine, and was specifically designed for that purpose."  Game. Over.        

If I was Mitt Romney...

If I was Mitt Romney - I'd fire back at Romneycare critics and say, "Look,  Massachusetts is a little different.  Context is everything.  You try Governing a state made-up of Barney Franks!"  Game. Over.      

The GE Rule

President Obama is making his "Buffett Rule" a central part of his re-election campaign.  According to Obama's "Buffett Rule", Warren Buffett should pay a higher tax rate than his secretary.  Currently, Mr. Buffett pays about 15% tax on his dividends and capital gains, while his secretary, who lacks dividends and cap gains, pays perhaps a 35% income tax on her last dollar of salary earnings.

Unfortunately, like most of Mr. Obama's statistics, this one is misleading.  Worse still, his cynical bet that he can pedal this nonsense and ride it back into the oval office is, I fear, not really a long shot.  With most Obama voters being either government dependents, government employees, the liberal professoriat,  the liberal media, student dependents, artists, union members, or the uneducated,  this kind of arcane taxation issue will never be understood.

The truth is, Mr. Buffett is actually paying about 45% total tax because his income is taxed twice.  All dividends and capital gains are double taxed - once at the corporate level and once at the personal level.  Moreover, this double taxation amounts to Taxation Without Representation.  If one is taxed twice, shouldn't one be able to vote twice?   Didn't we fight a revolution over this very concept?  Isn't this what the original Tea Party was about?

I say Republicans should campaign on the "GE Rule".  General Electric, President Obama's favorite corporation pays ZERO income taxes!  That's right, one of the largest corporations in the US pays nothing.  This is due to cozy relationships with lawmakers and effective lobbying efforts which have resulted in loopholes and kickbacks in all the right places.  Smaller corporations could never afford that kind of influence and it represents everything that is wrong with the Crony Capitalism model favored by Obama and the Democrats.

I say, let every corporation pay ZERO income tax.  Let everyone enjoy the "GE Rule".  End corporate lobbying.  End Taxation Without Representation.  End double taxation on dividends and capital gains.  And, finally, make the dividend and capital gains rates the same as the income tax at the individual level.

The GE Rule would satisfy the Buffett Rule, the Tea Party Rule, the Crony Capitalism problem, and the excessive lobbying problem.  A Magic Bullet if ever there was one.  

(Update: Check out GE Rule - Part 2)

Demand Side Economics - Update

Investors Business Daily - Lawmakers Proposed 1 Trillion in New Spending Last Year

The NTUF analysis found that congressional Democrats are by far the biggest spenders. Last year, 692 spending-hike bills had either all or majority Democratic sponsorship. Republicans, in contrast, sponsored just 126 such bills.

At the other end of the spectrum, GOP lawmakers introduced 172 bills that would have cut federal spending, compared with just 33 such bills offered up by Democrats.

As I've said, the "Demanders" are still in-charge!

(Hat tip:  Instapundit )

Honey, I blew up the world! (And still got a second term!)

We are just now getting a glimpse of Fed transcripts from 2006, and the view is not encouraging.  But is anyone who pays attention really surprised?  I wrote this a year ago, just before Ben Bernanke's reappointment as Fed Chairman: 

Listen to any Ben Bernanke detractor and they’ll sing basically the same tune, which goes something like this: “Ben Bernanke is a an excellent academic economist and an honorable guy who performed well this past year as Fed Chairman, but he was right there at Alan Greenspan’s side in the early 2000’s when interest rates were kept too low for too long. Those low rates helped cause the housing bubble which eventually burst and collapsed the global financial system in 2008. That kind of negligence should not be rewarded with a second term.”

I have trouble disagreeing with much of that, except that there is a far better and more compelling reason to lay some blame for the financial collapse with Fed Chairman Bernanke. I haven’t heard the following argument from anyone in the economic press, so that could either mean I’m out of my mind, or everyone else is missing something. Read on, and judge for yourself.

First a little history: Below is the Fed Target Rates for the last 10 years. The period most Bernanke detractors are focusing on is the period of low rates from roughly 2002 through 2004 when he was Alan Greenspan’s right-hand man.

Ben Bernanke became Fed Chairman February 1, 2006 when the Fed Target rate had already been raised by Greenspan to 4.25%. The day Bernanke became Chairman, he raised the Target Rate to 4.5%, but he didn’t stop there. He kept raising until July 1, 2006 when the Fed Funds Target hit 5.25%. So from July 1, 2004 to July 1, 2006 the Fed raised it’s Target Rate from 1.00% to 5.25%, an increase of 425% in 24 months.

What effect did all those rate increases have on the yield curve and why would that matter? Well, as most economists will tell you, nothing screams recession quite like an inverted yield curve (when long term rates are lower than short term rates) and forcing one is economic poison.

In January, just before Bernanke became Chairman, the yield curve was essentially flat with a slightly positive bias, but that quickly changed. Bernanke’s first raise to 4.5%, resulted in a slightly negative yield curve and again, he kept raising the Fed Target all the way to 5.25% by July 1, 2006. By November 2006, there was a clear downward trend in yields. (see chart below).

Why did Ben Bernanke keep raising interest rates in the midst of a housing bubble, with an election coming up in November 2006, and a yield curve already threatening negative by late 2005? Why did he persist and force the yield curve decidedly negative by mid 2006 which threw us into recession and crashed the housing market? No one but Ben Bernanke knows for sure, but in my humble opinion, if there is a smoking gun against him, it is this and not the period from 2002 to 2004, before he was even Chairman!

In Hebrew, Shalom, which is Bernanke’s middle name, can mean Hello, Goodbye, or Peace. I say Goodbye, and leave us in Peace, but I don’t see that actually happening. In a political and economic climate where a tax cheat can get Senate approval to be Treasury Secretary, a reckless but honorable Fed Chairman is virtually a shoo-in.

(For further encouragement, Treasury Secy. Tim Geithner was a Fed official in 2006!)

The Tebow Test

Reflections on the GOP primaries and Tim Tebow:  

During post-game analysis in the midst of Denver's winning streak, I heard Jimmy Johnson, ex-coach, superbowl winner, and football analyst, opine that he’d never seen a quarterback get more out of his teammates and inspire them to play-up than Tim Tebow.  It reminded me of Harry Potter, the average wizard who manages to pull off amazing feats against all odds with the help of his loyal group of friends, without whom he would not be nearly as magical.  Sunday he did it again against the heavily favored Steelers.

And this brings me to the GOP primaries.  Being a chief executive is never a solitary endeavor despite what we’ve heard.    Good executives are team leaders.  Sure, “the buck stops here” and “it’s lonely at the top”, but look at any effective leader and you will find a team inspired by his/her example.  

The questions for voters are these:  Who will build a team and inspire them to play-up when the game is on the line?  Who has done that in the past?  Who has maintained good relations with former teammates?  Who can lead by example?    Are ideology and oratory enough?  What value should be placed on effective leadership experience?  Who is capable of turning adversaries into allies?  

In other words, who in the GOP field can pass "The Tebow Test"?

(This is an UPDATE of an earlier post by the same name.) 

The Batman Primaries

Check out this cartoon for more commentary on the 2012 race:  Useful Idiots