Waxman-Markey

I saw this post linked by Instapundit. So I called congressman Markey's office to ask a few simple questions:

1. Is the Congressman aware that his bill would push carbon limits to Haiti or US 1875 levels? Does he think the quality of life achieved here since then might be related to those levels?


2. Is he aware of what the effects of this legislation would be on jobs in his district? In the state? In the country? Does he realize there is a recession going on and that it's almost guaranteed the regulations would have a negative impact short term?

After having no answers - "you know the congressman sponsored the bill?", to which I responded "yes, so it should be easy for his staff to have some simple answers" - and clearly readying my complaints for the recycle bin - the joke of a staffer said "I think the congressman hopes that his bill would actually create jobs, green jobs." Firstly the only green I'm interested in when it comes to jobs is cash. Secondly - his hope is about as likely to be true as my hope to have my congressman read a bill and have some basic understanding of it before sponsoring it. Then I asked this follow up:

3. How many of our top American companies rely on oil or are directly in the oil industry? Does he know what happened in Spain with their "green jobs" foray? (He did not.)



So in summary: if the congressman wants to improve air quality, he should start by removing his head from his posterior.

Standard Ops

This is how it goes today. Discrimination protection for thee, but not for me.

Guess that Immigration Status

http://www.cnn.com/2009/CRIME/03/03/chandra.levy.suspect/

Since they don't say, I'll guess he's an illegal. What do you want to wager?

Malkin was there weeks ago: http://michellemalkin.com/2009/02/23/return-of-the-chandra-levy-case-and-illegal-alien-sex-offender-ingmar-guandique/

Yep, he's illegal, seems like information that a news story should report.

Changes I don't care about

I saw some write ups about how certain Obama changes, notably reducing or eliminating Tax Deductions for mortgage interest and charitable giving, were big mistakes. Frankly I don't care about these changes.

1. If you believe in a free market, then Gov't regulation through the tax code bothers you. On the mortgage interest (and I'm enjoying the benefit, so this is an argument against self interest) it's a contributor to encouraging people to buy, and it creates upward pressure in the home market. Like subsidizing student loans this distorts the market, and IMO drives prices too high. It also subsidizes home owners at the expense of renters. Renting is probably a better choice for people in the lower brackets and with certain lifestyles (i.e. jobs that move you a lot.)

2. On charitable giving - yes this will effect churches and good organizations, but most people doing this kind of donations, probably will still find a way to give. The whole charitable corporation is so corrupt these days, I'd like to see the entire industry take a hit. Every time you see an article about some charity funneling money to terrorists, or really being a front for a political group, etc - it makes the whole thing seem dirty.

Now I do agree that these changes happening over night and in isolation are probably bad policy, but again - that's not a surprise. Obama has zero experience in anything other than pandering - so why would expect anything different? For at least the next two years, expect bad policy ideas to be the topic du jour.

How would I deal with these? Phase out any changes of this magnitude.
1. Shift all corporations to be tax free - but none to be charitable (i.e. you can't give money to a company and then not pay taxes on it, no matter what). It's our government and we should (individually) pay for it.

2. Set all personal tax at the same rate and allow no deduction, tax all income at the same rate (no special treatment for investor class income.)

3. Use the no speed bump approach to make the tax code somewhat progressive and handle welfare issues. Have the federal government remove itself all together from any other welfare issues. (Think of this as the Gov't taking out an insurance policy on you.) Note this approach removes the regressive nature of todays biggest welfare policies (payroll tax, medicare, SSN.)

4. Reform campaign finance and speech: allow any organization to campaign on it's own behalf with disclosure. Require all campaign contributions be from individuals directly. Require reporting on all funds over $100 within 24 hours via the campaign website. Charge an audit fee on all non-traceable funds (anything that comes in as cash or is under the $100 reporting limit and not reported) in the amount of 2* the personal tax rate. Candidates should be personally responsible (civil or criminal) for any behavior of their campaign. Any money later moved from the reported to the non-traceable category should be subject to the same payment, plus a matching fee charged to the candidate.

Prepare for the worst

Our society has declined to the point that a soft tyranny is now appearing right before our eyes:

Obama and company are making unprecedented power grabs. In one swoop, grabbing money to buy favors for his friends and take over industry. Grabbing the census bureau to realign electoral votes in his favor. Dividing us with fearmongering and class warfare. And coming soon: Imigration policy that imports poverty and redefines citenship for votes. Fairness doctorine that attacks free speech. A massive gun grab. Lifetime activist judges. The list goes on and on.

Does the majority care? No. They are getting their bread and circuses, at least in the modern form... Welfare and reality TV.

This cowardly, lazy, greedy, and selfish trend is unsustainable. It has created the current tyrant, and will encourage the worse ones that will follow.

Tue Gov't Reform

In an article close to my heart Winds of Change talks about what's wrong with the weapons systems. I'll give you a hint, so many of the systems require systems engineering, specifically software engineering. The bidding process is bloated, corruption is rife (what's the 60 minute rule?), and the politicians don't help. But inherently many of these systems require software development, and the procurement process can't handle it. As much as the GAO would like - (or whatever body) - cutting edge R&D, engineering, and system development are hard to spec, you can't just say "give me 100" pencils.

Another idiotic trend is to classify everything. In many cases the components of these systems could be built openly at a greatly reduced cost, but it's harder to do, so they classify it all. (BTW it's my opinion when you classify everything, you get many more leaks.) True gov't reform of the military would make the defense industry competitive and market driven - since we're all socialists now, we'll cut spending, except on "defensive" forces that can be easily turned on the populace.

I've got a death grip on my guns and religion

I live in Pennsylvania and voted for McCain in the 2008 presidential election. I find myself wondering, how did Obama win this state? Surely people were going to sour to him after threatening to bankrupt the coal industry, mocking the second amendment, hanging out with terrorists, and worshiping with racists. In search of an answer, I did some light examination of the election results, and as usual, every county with an urban area went for Obama. This is especially true in Philadelphia, where people voted for Obama at a rate of almost 85%. The demographic results yield some surprises:

55% of Catholics voted for Obama. Why is this not 0%?
78% of Jews voted for Obama. A certain video (if it is ever released) may cause them to regret that move.
45% of Whites voted for Obama. 95% of Blacks voted for Obama. On election night, reporters were gushing over the results, "We have come so far as a nation to be able to elect a man of color..." Well, after looking at these results, I agree that Whites as a group do not factor race into their decision making process. But what about Blacks? 95%! Blacks as a group appear to look at race as a primary criterion in their decision making process.

Since, the election results raised more questions instead of answers, I swallowed my pride and began talking to Obama supporters. However, I have yet to meet someone who can give me specifics on why they have chosen to support the Democrat's nominee. The typical answer is, "Well, Bush has made such a mess of things..." I have also seen many "man on the street" interviews, where the interviewee supported Obama because the country needs "Change". Alas, the ability to further define this change seems to escape them. Then I see videos like this and wonder, how many people really spent time evaluating Obama's plans against their own values? How many people take the time to figure out what their own values are? From what I've seen, not many people got past the sophisticated marketing techniques and jumped right on board a train with an unknown destination.

How can people be so uninformed? Why can't people see past the pandering? Why do people buy into the welfare lie? My vote was canceled out by the uninformed, the racist, and the socialist, who now appear to have a critical mass. I just don't get it, and I don't see a way out of it, other than voting with my feet. Oklahoma looks nice. Maybe Idaho.