(Edited to add) Best comment seen:
That’s no moon! That’s the National Debt!
(Edited to add) Best comment seen:
That’s no moon! That’s the National Debt!
How Did I Miss This?
I’ve mentioned author Orson Scott Card here before, most recently in October. Card writes mostly Science Fiction, but he also has an intermittent op-ed column called WorldWatch that I check on every now and then. Well, I missed this one, One Party Rule Forever! published in mid-February. (Granted, I was working 65-hour weeks at the time.)
Obama has set himself up to rig all future American elections, not through any democratic process, but by fiat. Just like a dictator.
Remember how, when the Patriot Act was passed, we were flooded with outraged stories in the press about how Americans’ rights were going to be trampled on?
None of it came true.
But now we have a genuine attack on the roots of the Constitution and the principle of counting only people who can be proven to exist when apportioning the House of Representatives. It’s a naked grab for power. It’s a coup d’etat.
And the so-called freedom-lovers in the Leftist media are absolutely silent about it.
If Bush had put Karl Rove in charge of the Census without so much as asking Congress for permission, the howls and screams would have been deafening. Obama does the identical thing … and the freedom-loving Left is fine with it.
Because they don’t love freedom. They just love having their views prevail, without regard to democracy or human rights.
Quote of the Day
One funny thing about Democrats–the leading ones, anyway–is that they’re pretty much all rich. I mean really rich, not “rich” like you and your spouse together make $250,000 a year, so now you have to pay someone else’s mortgage. – John Hinderaker, Power Line – It Gets A Bit Chilly At Night If You’re One of the Little People
That’s the opening line. It gets better from there.
I’m sort of tempted to ask Professor Reynolds if this seems plausible to him. Does it seem plausible to him — a law professor who is probably paid around 200K a year by the great state of Tennessee to do whatever it is he does while performing what is technically his actual job — that he is “working” five times “harder” (using Wingnuttia’s definition of “hard work”) than a guy roofing houses in San Antonio in July who makes 40K a year? – Lawyers, Guns and Money, Working Hard or Hardly Working?
Now, Paul himself is a professor of law at the University of Colorado, and by all appearances about as socialist as they come, rather than economically illiterate, but really Professor, can’t you do any better than that?
Of course, he precedes this by building a virtual army of strawmen which he then hacks at with great zeal, but here’s the deal:
People get paid based on one thing, primarily: how valuable their skills are to others. Of course, their individual competence weighs heavily in there, too, but there are a lot of people who can do roofing. There’s a somewhat lesser pool of those with the skills required to be law professors.
I, for example, am an electrical engineer. I’m well paid for the area in which I live, but compared to similar electrical engineers in other markets I’m probably average or a bit below-average in base pay. (Tucson doesn’t pay all that well, but I refuse to move to Phoenix, for example.) However, the only reason the office I work at exists at all is because of one guy – an engineer who specializes in a pretty small field, and sits pretty high up in the rankings of that field.
Our home office is in California. When this engineer became available, they hired him in a heartbeat.
But he wouldn’t move to California.
That was OK with the home office. They opened a branch here in Tucson.
For one guy.
We currently have 14 people in the Tucson office. I am thankful every day for the existence of this individual.
But does he work “five times harder than a guy roofing houses in San Antonio in July who makes 40K a year?” That’s not the question. Can the guy roofing houses in San Antonio do the job of this engineer?
That’s the only question that counts. Because if he could, he’d be making the kind of money this engineer does.
And somehow, in Paul Campos’s world, having an ability that perhaps less than 1% of the working population possesses entitles the other 99% to a much bigger chunk of his income.
Campos says that the “wingnuts” paint the argument in terms of “hard work” versus “lazyness” – that rich people are rich because they “work hard” and poor people are poor because they’re “lazy.” This is, apparently, what we believe. (Sound like anyone you know?)
No, Paul. Rich people can be rich for any number of reasons, but quite a few of them got that way by having skills that other people don’t have, and using them. Poor people, the truly poor, generally are that way because of bad decision-making skills. Granted, some get there through illness or bad luck, but tell me why someone making $250k a year who is making their mortgage payment on time should have to fork over a bigger percentage of their paycheck than that $40k/yr roofer in San Antonio? Is he “poor”?
We believe that people should be rewarded according to their worth in the free market, not “From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs.” Because who put you in charge of determining either?
Quote of the Day
I have a name for the bright boys and girls who got us into this- “The Harvard Short Bus.” – commenter “Thrasymachus” at Belmont Club post Then and now
Rope, Trees, Some Assembly Required
Orlando Sentinel columnist Charley Reese cut loose in the mid-80’s. It’s even more pertinent now, and it’s making the rounds of the blogosphere, updated by someone. Here’s my little assist.
Politicians are the only people in the world who create problems and then campaign against them.
Have you ever wondered, if both the Democrats and the Republicans are really against deficits, WHY do we have deficits?
Have you ever wondered, if all the politicians are really against inflation and high taxes, WHY do we have inflation and high taxes?
You and I don’t propose a federal budget. The president does.
You and I don’t have the Constitutional authority to vote on appropriations. The House of representatives does.
You and I don’t write the tax code, Congress does.
You and I don’t set fiscal policy, Congress does.
You and I don’t control monetary policy, the Federal Reserve Bank does.
One hundred senators, 435 congressmen, one president, and nine Supreme Court justices 545 human beings out of the 300 million are directly, legally, morally, and individually responsible for the domestic problems that plague this country.
I excluded the members of the Federal Reserve Board because that problem was created by the Congress. In 1913, Congress delegated its Constitutional duty to provide a sound currency to a federally chartered, but private, central bank.
I excluded all the special interests and lobbyists for a sound reason.. They have no legal authority. They have no ability to coerce a senator, a congressman, or a president to do one cotton-picking thing. I don’t care if they offer a politician $1 million dollars in cash. The politician has the power to accept or reject it.
No matter what the lobbyist promises, it is the legislator’s responsibility to determine how he votes.
Don’t you see now the con game that is played on the people by the politicians? Those 545 human beings spend much of their energy convincing you that what they did is not their fault. They cooperate in this common con regardless of party.
What separates a politician from a normal human being is an excessive amount of gall. No normal human being would have the gall of a Speaker, who stood up and criticized the President for creating deficits.
The president can only propose a budget. He cannot force the Congress to accept it. The Constitution, which is the supreme law of the land, gives sole responsibility to the House of Representatives for originating and approving appropriations and taxes. Who is the Speaker of the House? Nancy Pelosi. She is the leader of the majority party. She and fellow House members, not the president, can approve any budget they want. If the president vetoes it, they can pass it over his veto if they agree to. Stop and think how long she has been Speaker of the House…..
It seems inconceivable to me that a nation of 300 million cannot replace 545 people who stand convicted — by present facts — of incompetence and irresponsibility. I can’t think of a single domestic problem that is not traceable directly to those 545 people. When you fully grasp the plain truth that 545 people exercise the power of the federal government, then it must follow that what exists is what they want to exist.
If the tax code is unfair, it’s because they want it unfair.
If the budget is in the red, it’s because they want it in the red .
If the Army & Marines are in Iraq, it’s because they want them in Iraq.
If they do not receive social security but are on an elite retirement plan not available to the people, it’s because they want it that way. If they were on Social Security then they would fix it fast.
There are no insoluble government problems. Do not let these 545 people shift the blame to bureaucrats, whom they hire and whose jobs they can abolish; to lobbyists, whose gifts and advice they can reject; to regulators, to whom they give the power to regulate and from whom they can take it.
Above all, do not let them con you into the belief that there exists disembodied mystical forces like “the economy,” “inflation,” or “politics” that prevent them from doing what they take an oath to do. Change the law so that it is unlawful for quasi public companies (like Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac) to donate to politicians or political parties etc and unlawful for those persons/organizations to accept donations from those over which they have oversight.
Those 545 people, and they alone, are responsible.
They, and they alone, have the power..
They, and they alone, should be held accountable by the people who are their bosses … provided the voters have the interest and incentive to manage their own employees.
We should vote all of them out of office and clean up their mess!
We should have, long ago. I think it’s too late for that to ever happen now. As I’ve said before, Claire Wolfe was wrong. It’s not too early to shoot the bastards, it’s too late.
Quote of the Day
It’s always the same, isn’t it? They’re going to infringe our rights just a little bit — and all for our own good. Little itty-bitty law, passed with nobly-strained faces.
Then, once it’s passed, next session of Congress, they take that law, and they tack on one itty-bitty extra sentence. Next session, they add a teeny,tiny little paragraph — and next thing you know, the whole stinking bloody camel is up under the tent. – Lawdog, Sweet zombie Jeebus here we go again
This behavior is often associated with the original nobly strain-faced lawmakers saying “We never intended THAT!“
I don’t know about you, but I’m sick and tired of it.
Oh For Fv*k’s Sake!
Obama pulls the plug on the nuclear industry’s last best hope.
And I have to learn this from SLATE?!?
“Energy independence” my aching SPHINCTER!
We Keep Losing Them
You entered the plane on a rickety jump ladder in the tail, walked through the fuselage filled with wooden ammo boxes and gun emplacemements, climbed around the retracted ball that was his home for forty missions, and then had to walk on a catwalk less than a foot wide between the bomb racks to get to the cockpit. All this for a man who needs a walker. – Sippican Cottage, My Father Asks for Nothing
Read it all.
After That Last Post . . .
Your Moment of Zen: