American Oligarchs

According to the Progressives in America:

  • the Koch brothers—billionaire oil men and entrepreneurs, who also support Conservative political causes

Those they’ve…missed:

  • George Soros—billionaire hedge-fund manager who supports Progressive political causes
  • Tom Steyer—multihundred millionaire (via capital markets) who supports anti-fossil fuel development
  • Al Gore—multihundred millionaire (via “green” energy firm investments) and supporter of al Jazeera
  • Elon Musk—multimillionaire (via “green” energy subsidies, electric-car tax credits, and solar-energy mandates) who supports more “green” freebies

Hmm….

 

h/t The Wall Street Journal

Federal Transfer Payments to States

Federal transfer payments to state and local governments totaled some $444 billion in 2013; these included payments of $282 billion for Medicaid, $3.4 billion for LIHEAP, $80 billion for SNAP, and some $78 billion for other transfers to the states.

The payments often are synergistic, not at all fixed, too.  For instance, LIHEAP payments are used by the states to magnify SNAP payments, since SNAP contains an energy allowance, a “standard utility allowance.”

Governor Dannel Malloy [D] last week announced that Connecticut would “expend $1.4 million in available federal energy assistance funding” to raise minimum LIHEAP payments for 50,000 beneficiaries, or about a quarter of its food-stamp rolls.  The increase…will “preserve approximately $66.6 million” a year in food-stamp benefits.  So Connecticut will leverage $1 in additional federal LIHEAP funds to reap $48 more from Washington for food stamps.

Mr Malloy’s neighbor Andrew Cuomo jumped for the free lunch the next day by declaring that New York would “dedicate approximately $6 million in additional federal” heating assistance to maintain $457 million in food-stamp payments.

Of course, this is done with taxpayer money, so the money transferred to, say Connecticut, comes in part from nearly bankrupt California, in part from bankrupt Illinois, in part from nearly bankrupt New York, etc.

It would help if the synergies were done away with.  It would help even more, and more permanently if the transfers were done away with, and the States required to see to their own responsibilities without freeloading off other States’ citizens.

The President’s Defeatist Budget

It’s illustrated by Table S-12 Economic Assumptions from the White House’s Summary Tables, repeated below.

The table is hard to read; the money line is the third one, labeled “Real GDP, percent change, year/year.”  Beginning in the year 2018—just four years from now—President Barack Obama and his “economic” advisors predict our nation’s economic output—our GDP—growth rate to shrink from 3.1% growth per year to an historic low rate, and abysmal rate, to 2.36% in 2-019, and then to less than 2.5% after that.  And to stay at that abysmal level as far as the prediction can see.

This is the defeatist attitude of the Progressive.  1979 Presidential Candidate Ronald Reagan had a different vision [emphasis added]:

Someone once said that the difference between an American and any other kind of person is that an American lives in anticipation of the future because he knows it will be a great place. Other people fear the future as just a repetition of past failures.  There’s a lot of truth in that.  If there is one thing we are sure of it is that history need not be relived; that nothing is impossible, and that man is capable of improving his circumstances beyond what we are told is fact.

There are those in our land today, however, who would have us believe that the United States, like other great civilizations of the past, has reached the zenith of its power; that we are weak and fearful, reduced to bickering with each other and no longer possessed of the will to cope with our problems.

Much of this talk has come from leaders who claim that our problems are too difficult to handle.  We are supposed to meekly accept their failures as the most which humanly can be done.  They tell us we must learn to live with less, and teach our children that their lives will be less full and prosperous than ours have been; that the America of the coming years will be a place where—because of our past excesses—it will be impossible to dream and make those dreams come true.

I don’t believe that.  And, I don’t believe you do either.  That is why I am seeking the presidency.  I cannot and will not stand by and see this great country destroy itself.  Our leaders attempt to blame their failures on circumstances beyond their control, on false estimates by unknown, unidentifiable experts who rewrite modern history in an attempt to convince us our high standard of living, the result of thrift and hard work, is somehow selfish extravagance which we must renounce as we join in sharing scarcity.  I don’t agree that our nation must resign itself to inevitable decline, yielding its proud position to other hands.  I am totally unwilling to see this country fail in its obligation to itself and to the other free peoples of the world.

The crisis we face is not the result of any failure of the American spirit; it is a failure of our leaders to establish rational goals and give our people something to order their lives by.

We can, indeed, do better than that Progressive budget implies.  We just need to get the Progressives out of the way.  Beginning this year, but necessarily continuing in 2016 and the election cycles beyond.

Gutting our Defense Capacity

First, President Obama moves to gut our Federal defense establishment, including among other moves reducing the size of our Army to 1940 levels.

Now he wants to gut our state militias, in particular the States’ Army National Guards, also—and reduce thereby their ability to deal with internal matters ranging from disorder to disaster recovery.  And, oh by the way, severely restrict the States’ ability to reinforce that drastically curtailed Federal defense capacity.

Hmm….

US “Policy to Counter Putin Still Evolving”

President Barack Obama has threatened to consult with allies to see about beginning to think of what might be done vis-à-vis the Russian attack on Ukraine.  He even spent 90 minutes over the weekend on the phone with Russian President Vladimir Putin being chastised by Putin for his effrontery in demurring from that invasion.

Secretary of State John Kerry has decried Putin’s “unopposed entry” into Ukraine as a 19th century move in the 21st century—as though that means that Russia’s invasion hasn’t actually occurred.  On Tuesday, he was enroute to Kiev while, as the Fox News headline put it, our “policy to counter Putin still is evolving.”

Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel hasn’t said anything at all.  That may be the wisest move of the three: remaining silent and being thought a fool, rather than speaking and removing all doubt.  Even if he is silent only because he doesn’t make policy.

How is it, after this administration’s five years in power, the last 14 months with the current crowd, that we’re only now getting around to start to begin developing some sort of policy to deal with Russian behavior?

Could it be because the grade school amateurism of a community organizer, a motor boat skipper, and a guy who won’t be making defense policy is unequal to the task of facing the world?

In the meantime, keep an eye on the Senkaku, Spratly and Paracel Islands.