Tag Archives: government

“Ryan Budget” in a Nutshell

Posted on by
Reply

Here’s a summary of the budget that the Progressives have begun demagoguing the moment Congressman Paul Ryan (R, WI) was asked to run for Vice President.

  • The latest full-scale version of the plan, unveiled in March, vows to cut spending by $5 trillion over the next decade, compared against President Obama’s plan.
  • The plan would, a decade from now, give seniors the option of taking a government payment to purchase health insurance. That payment could be used to buy a private insurance plan, or go toward the traditional Medicare plan. The plan calls for extra assistance to help low-income beneficiaries and those with “greater health risks.”
  • The plan would overhaul Medicaid by turning it into a block grant system for states.
  • The plan would cut the corporate tax rate from 35 percent to 25 percent. It would implement two individual income tax brackets — 10 percent and 25 percent.
  • The plan would head off the scheduled automatic defense cuts, first by diverting the planned $55 million defense cut in 2013 by implementing those cuts elsewhere.
  • The plan vows to bring the size of government to 20 percent of GDP by 2015.

Of what are the Progressives so terrified in this budget?  Ryan put his finger on it two years ago in the summary paragraph of his Wall Street Journal op-ed, reprinted by the WSJ over the weekend:

The contrast with our budget couldn’t be clearer: We put our trust in citizens, not government.  Our budget returns power to individuals, families and communities.  It draws inspiration from the Founders’ belief that all people are born with an unalienable right to the pursuit of happiness. Protecting this right means trusting citizens, not nameless government officials, to decide what is in their best interests and make the right choice about our nation’s future.

With the people in charge, Progressives won’t have anything to do.

Progressives and the Republican VP Choice

Posted on by
Reply

The immediate, and so far sole, response to the Republicans’ selection of Congressman Paul Ryan (R, WI) as their Vice Presidential Candidate has been to attack the man and the man’s budget—which one branch of Congress thought well enough of to pass twice, and from which the Do-Nothing Democrat-controlled Senate has run screaming, not even allowing a debate of it.

Here’s a sampling of the Progressives’ response.

  • A claim that the Ryan budget (summarized nearby) would increase taxes on the middle class so millionaires can continue to get tax cuts.  Their position is, then, that reducing the existing 6 tax brackets to two—10% and 25%—is a tax increase.
  • Obama Campaign Manager, Jim Messina:
    • [the Ryan budget will] end Medicare as we know it and slash the investments we need to keep our economy growing the all while cutting taxes for those at the very top [and]
    • doubled down on his commitment to take our country back to the failed policies of the past
    • Mitt Romney has chosen a leader of the House Republicans who shares his commitment to the flawed theory that new budget-busting tax cuts for the wealthy, while placing greater burdens on the middle class and seniors, will somehow deliver a stronger economy
  • Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid echoed Messina’s claim:
    • doubled down on his commitment to gut Social Security and end Medicare as we know it
  • Maryland Governor Martin O’Malley (D), continuing the Medicare theme:
    • a strong commitment to end Medicare as we know it

What are the Progressives’ alternatives?  Raise taxes on a group of Americans whom they routinely vilify.  Block all efforts to reform, and so save, Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security (and yes, the reform will change these programs “as we know it;” that’s kind of the nature of reform.  Without reform, though, these programs will be bankrupt in 10-20 years).  Otherwise, the Progressives’ alternatives—since they decry earlier policies—seems to be to continue their current, destructive policies; policies that over the last three years have exploded our deficit, exploded our debt and earned our nation its first credit rating downgrade, suppressed an economic cycle recovery and held us in a post-recession recession with 8.1+% unemployment the entire three years, stalled GDP at 1.5%-1.8% growth that doesn’t even keep up with population growth,….

In the end, by focusing on attacking the Republican ticket and the only budget passed by one house of Congress, without offering any meaningful alternatives, the Progressives are simply confessing that they have no alternatives.  That they have no idea at all about how to fix our country’s ills.  That they have no clue about how to put Americans back to work in a burgeoning, free economy.

The New Jim Crow?

Posted on by
Reply

I’ve written about racism and religious bigotry here, here, and here.

Now I want to take a broader view.  We’ve had, in quick succession in the last very few years, the following.

President Obama’s Health and Human Services mandates that businesses and insurers to provide, at no cost to the insurees, health insurance coverage for contraceptives and abortifacients, without regard for the religious beliefs of the businesses or insurers.  This mandate also requires Americans to buy such health insurance coverage (even though these added items are to be provided at no additional cost), regardless of the religious beliefs of these individual Americans—or to accept the coverage from their employers.  There is an “exemption” that allows businesses to put this off onto their insurers, but this cynically ignores, among others, those entities who self-insure.

Virginia State Senator Louise Lucas (D), says that Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney is appealing to racists who do not want a black man in the White House.

I absolutely believe it’s all about race, and for the first time in my life I’ve been able to convince my children, finally, that racism is alive and well[.]

House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D, CA) suggesting that Republicans are simply manipulating American Jews for political gain.

HUNT: That’s why some of the Republican Jewish supporters are really active.

PELOSI: Well, that’s how they’re being exploited. And they’re smart people. They follow these issues.

Unions, in one overt case, are attempting to keep black children down on the plantation, at least in Louisiana.

[L]awyers for the Louisiana Association of Educators, one of the state’s two major teachers unions, threatened private and parochial schools with lawsuits if the schools accept students participating in a new school choice initiative that starts this year.

The Maryland State Board of Education has established a policy of race-based discipline, regardless of the nature of the misbehavior.

President Obama’s Department of Justice, shortly after Obama took office, dismissed a civil case against New Black Panther members, accused of voter intimidation against white voters, after the case had been won by default through the non-appearance of the defendants.

The Freedom from Religion Foundation is threatening Steubenville, OH, with civil suit if the city doesn’t remove a cross from the city’s logo—a logo that

includes several local landmarks, including the Franciscan University’s Christ the King Chapel

which, oh by the way, has a cross on it.

The ACLU has been attacking America’s fallen soldiers and their families for years, using, for instance, the Mt Soledad Veterans Memorial Cross as a vehicle.  The ACLU wants the military decoration—the cross—removed.  Worse, the Obama administration now is attempting to “negotiate” a settlement with the ACLU without including the central party to the controversy, the Mount Soledad Memorial Association, in the talks.

US District Judge Fred Biery, in response to a complaint from a single family, blocked a Texas school district’s “invocation” and “benediction” and banned any prayer at the ceremony altogether, even threatening the valedictorian with jail if she mentioned God in her speech.

The Obama administration’s Department of Veterans Affairs  demanded that the pastor presiding over a private funeral at the Houston National Cemetery not make religious references in his prayers at the soldier’s burial.

Progressive leaders also attack conservative women.  Bill Maher said this of Governor Sarah Palin:

Did you hear this—Sarah Palin finally heard what happened in Japan and she’s demanding that we invade ‘Tsunami,’” Maher said. “I mean she said, ‘These ‘Tsunamians’ will not get away with this.’ Oh speaking of dumb twats, did you—

And we get this about Congresswoman Michele Bachmann (R, MN):

Michele Bachmann says certain things that sound crazy to the general public.  But to anybody raised in the environment of the evangelical right wing, what she says makes perfect sense.

The list goes on.  Are we seeing, now, a resurgence of the attitudes of Jim Crow, but with a different, broader, more unfocused set of bigotries?

An Influence on Bank Lending

Posted on by
Reply

Professor Alan Blinder, of Princeton University, has another laugher in The Wall Street Journal.  This time he wants the Fed to “encourage” private bank lending—in an environment where the intended market is vary chary of taking on debt, new or additional—but without “without interfering in private credit-allocation decisions.”

His idea is stimulated by a scheme (in both the British and American English senses) of the Bank of England’s, itself generated out of the premise that UK banks aren’t lending enough to suit the government suits.  Essentially, Blinder wants to ape the BoE scheme of giving private lenders preferential rates on central bank lending according to how much lending the private lenders are doing.

Hmm….

First, Blinder operates from a false premise.  It’s impossible for government to “encourage” without “interfering in private decisions.”  The whole point of government encouragement to execute exactly that interference.  To claim that compliance is voluntary and so not interference is disingenuous sophistry.  Banks are out to make money for their owners, just as any business must—its fiduciary duty drives it to—make money for its owners.  The offer of a goodie for doing what government wants is no less a cudgel than providing a penalty for not doing.

Second, Blinder gives his game away in the penultimate paragraph of his piece:

Last, but certainly not least, there is the crucial question of what types of bank lending to subsidize.

Of course, the sole purpose of a subsidy is to drive the recipient to a government-desired behavior.  The whole point of government encouragement to execute exactly that interference.

The Obama Debt Plan

Posted on by
Reply

John Hinderaker, of Power Line, commented on President Obama’s plan to pay down the national debt, as demonstrated by Obama’s mid-year budget plan update.  Obama also is campaigning on his plan to “pay down the debt in a balanced way.”

Here’s what his “balanced plan” does to our national debt, illustrated by the following graph from Power Line, and The Washington Times.

That’s a rather startling increase in the size of this paid-down debt.  “But wait,” some of you might object.  “What about the debt as a per cent of our GDP, a perhaps better way to assess the size of our debt?”

Our 2011 GDP was some $15 trillion, and it’s projected to be in the neighborhood of $24 trillion by 2021 (my calculation based on data in Table 1-6 of the CBO’s report “Budget and Economic Outlook: Fiscal Years 2011 to 2021.”

That makes our national debt 98.7% of GDP in 2011, and 105.8% of GDP by 2021.  This is how Obama intends to “pay down the debt in a balanced way” via Obamanomics’ New Math.