Daily Archives: 18 April 2017

A Democrat’s Disagreement

Posted on by
Reply

During the recent debate in the Arizona legislature concerning a bill that would allow school vouchers for all Arizona children, Democratic Congressman Jesus Rubalcava wrote on his Facebook page that he wanted to throat-punch one of the sponsors of the bill, Republican Senator Debbie Lesko.  The Arizona Republic captured a screen shot of Rubalcava’s Facebook post:

After Rubalcava’s post began circulating, after the ensuing uproar over his threat of violence against someone impertinent enough to disagree with him, he deleted his post (but not before the Republic had captured that screen shot) and apologized to Lesko.

And so, my comment, was definitely unprofessional, and it was unacceptable.  And I want this body to know that I have apologized to Senator Debbie Lesko for my comment, and I sincerely apologize, I want this body to know.

His apology?  It followed the form of one, but its substance?  Aside from cynically playing his victim card (in his apology he also carefully pointed out that he had been raised by a hard-working single mom, as though millions of Americans—who have not stooped to threats—have not been), he already had misbehaved, and his words of apology do not—can not—undo his threat of violence against a politician whose crime was to disagree with him.

Furthermore, his threat was not uttered in the heat of a zealous debate; not a bit of that.  He wrote his threat on his Facebook page—wrote it, not spoke it—which gave him plenty of time to reflect most carefully about what he was about to publish.  And then he published it.

This is what a Democrat looks like when he has even the merely perceived power of government at his back.  Congresswoman Lesko is a very generous woman, and she accepted this Democrat’s apology.  It’s a fine example, and we all should forgive, as she has done.  But we dare not forget the threats of Democrats when they’re in government.

Nor must we overlook the fact that the Arizona Democratic Party has not yet taken action against Rubalcava.  The Party’s hesitation is instructive in itself.

Spending Our Tax Dollars

Posted on by
Reply

The table below is constructed from the table and data provided by Laura Saunders in her piece in Friday’s Wall Street Journal.  It shows how $100 in our tax monies paid to the Federal government were spent on a range of government purposes.

Item 2016
Social Security $23.61
Medicare $15.26
National defense $15.24
Medicaid $9.55
Interest $6.25
Other spending $4.94
Veterans $4.58
Civilian federal retirement $2.57
Transportation $2.39
Refundable credits* $2.21
Education $2.08
Food stamps $1.89
Supplemental Security Income $1.53
Justice $1.48
Housing assistance $1.27
Foreign aid and international affairs $1.14
Affordable Care Act subsidies $1.09
Natural resource protection $1.01
Unemployment insurance $0.86
Child nutrition $0.60
Other health† $0.36
National Park Service $0.08
National Endowment for the Arts and National Endowment for the Humanities $0.01
Congressional salaries $0.00
                                                            Total: $100.00

Notice some things (I’m going to ignore some things, too, but this is my post on my blog; I get to do that). The bulk of the Federal social safety net—Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid—comprises in its aggregate nearly half of those hundred dollars.  Yet these are the most easily and directly privatisable, and as a matter of personal responsibility and individual freedom, they should be.  Each State should take care of its own poor: New Yorkers shouldn’t be paying any part of Illinois’ Medicaid costs in this arena, for instance.  Each individual should be paying toward his own future retirement and retired medical costs (and/or the retirement and medical costs of his own parents, if he—not the Feds—wishes) and not for the current retirement and medical costs of complete strangers.

There are far better uses to which the Federal government should be putting those $48+.  One such is plussing up another major component of the Federal social safety net: National defense (OK, I’m not using the standard definition of social safety net here, but I suggest that absent an effective national defense establishment, in very short order there won’t be any social to be kept safe).  National defense currently takes up only a bit over 15% of that C-note, and it certainly could use some increases in order to fund more troops, more and better equipment, and much more rapid and broad R&D.

Then there’s that Interest cut.  Those $6+ dollars are the interest on the national debt, a debt that continues to grow, courtesy of another datum Saunders provided.  It takes an additional $15.24 beyond that Benjamin to cover the Federal budget deficit that’s growing our debt.  A significant fraction of those $48+ could be sent toward the debt’s principle as well as those interest payments—which are only going to get larger as the underlying interest rates go up now that the Federal Reserve Bank (finally) is easing up on its artificially depressed interest rates.

One minor side note: congressional salaries aren’t actually zero; they’re just a good approximation of zero on this scale.  But you already knew that.