Miscellany

I have to start off this week's post by patting myself on the back for correctly calling this year's Grammy winner for the second year in a row.  Mumford & Sons, a terrific new band that has reignited a genre took the honors with its album, Babel.

My second correct judgment came in my assessment that the correct analysis of Washington DC is to view DC as an alcoholic or drug abuser in denial.  Sure enough, Nancy Pelosi made my case for me by arguing that "It's almost a false argument that Washington has a spending problem?"   Huh?   Every hear that kind of talk from an alcoholic?   "I don't have a drinking problem," they proudly announce.  Yeah, well, this is the third time this month you left your car parked your car up on the lawn.

I won't bore you with a full critique of the State of the Union speech.  It contained its expected litany of Big Government solutions to all our problems and conveniently forgot to mention that we don't have anything left on our tab for Big Government solutions.

But I have to pick out a couple of egregious items.

First is Obama's newfound support of manufacturing.  And he proposes to help manufacturers by creating manufacturing hubs (yet another project from the Bureau of Central Planning).  But before we launch off on that escapade, let's take stock of what the Obama Administration has done for manufacturers so far.  He has raised taxes, particularly on Sub-S corporations.  He has inflicted Obamacare on them.  The EPA has unleashed a torrent of new rules on them.  His energy policies (and fiscal policies) have increased energy costs for them.  The Department of Labor (with its unconstitutionally appointed members) has empowered unions, with the most outrageous example of its attack on Boeing for attempting to open a plant in nonunion South Carolina.   Dodd Frank has incrementally made financing more difficult.  I have a simpler solution than manufacturing hubs.  How about just stop inflicting the tax and regulatory torture?

The second knee slapper was Obama's criticism of "sequestration."  True, it is a blunt instrument and arises out of a complete lack of discipline and ability to responsibly budget.  But President Obama forgets that sequestration was HIS idea.  The saner and more responsible approach was Bowles-Simpson, which he kicked to the curb.

I could go on, but I won't.  The true nature of the severity of the division in our politics became very apparent to me on Tuesday night.  I am fortunate to have some very bright and very well educated friends on both ends of the political spectrum.  During the State of the Union, emails clogged my inbox.   My liberal friends are still swooning over the Obama mystique.  "Visionary," "intellectually substantive," "strong agenda," were some of the comments I received.  My conservative friends had things to say like, "every time he speaks, I throw up a little in my mouth," or "is utterly contemptuous of the restraints the Constitution places on him."  It's interesting that equally educated people can see things in such markedly different ways.

Sadly, however, the opposition is in a shambles.  I note that two groups of which I am a member- the Republican Party and the Catholic Church are in complete disarray.   Both are sorely lacking in young, vibrant, competent leadership.  There is hope for the Republicans in Marco Rubio.   We'll see about the Catholic Church.  I am hoping they will use this transition to truly revitalize the Vatican.

You'll Never Hear About It

I have a bold prediction.

The Republicans lost in '08 to Barack Obama, in part because of the war in Iraq.  We all know the controversy and arguments around the decision to oust Saddam Hussein, and the failure to adequately plan for a post-Hussein Iraq undoubtedly cost American lives.

Ultimately, however, I believe that Barack Obama's domestic policies will ultimately lead to more premature American deaths than George Bush's decision to invade Iraq.

These deaths will arise out of at least two areas.  First, there will be deaths that arise out of  Obamacare.  I have been reading more about the U.K.'s experience with nationalized healthcare.  While  we have not gone that route yet (the true liberals would like to take us there), we have taken the first step, and President Obama's former head of Medicare, Donald Berwick, famously announced that the U.S. health system was "trapped in the darkness of private enterprise."  This gives you a hint of where they ultimately would like to take us.  Great Britain's death rate after major surgeries is four times what it is here.  And a recent study showed that care was so poor at hospitals administered out of the mid Staffordshire trust that hundreds have died.  The "death pathways" (yes, Sarah Palin was right to be concerned) misdiagnose people regularly leading to even more deaths.

It is true that we aren't on the UK system yet, but the law of supply and demand dictates that putting more people in the system without increasing the number of doctors and facilities will increase treatment delay, and some number of delays will have fatal consequences.  Doctors here at Mt. Sinai (which serves mostly Medicare and Medicaid patients) are deeply concerned over whether that hospital will be able to remain open after Obamacare reimbursement levels are cut.  Some of those people will defer treatment.

So much for compassion.

The other  policy decision that  will lead to more American deaths is in CAFE (Corporate Average Fuel Economy) standards.  CAFE standards are known to cause at least 2,000 deaths and 20,000 injuries per year, and that number has been confirmed by several independent sources, including the National Academy of Sciences and the NHTSA.  This is simple physics.  To meet the mileage requirements, cars must be made out of lighter materials.  These materials do not stand up as well in high speed collisions.  President Obama recently mandated that these standards be gradually raised to 54.5 MPG by 2025.  Hundreds more highway deaths will result, even though CAFE standards have not shown to be effective in lowering fuel consumption.

You will never hear about it.  You will never read about it.  It will be dark, insidious and silent.  But I predict that the cumulative effect of Obama's domestic policies on mortality in just these two areas over time will eclipse American deaths resulting from the invasion of Iraq.

Bet on it.

Late to the Party

This will not surprise anyone that really knows me, but once again, I was late catching a wave.  I spent much of Super Bowl weekend catching up (or really starting up) the immensely popular PBS series, Downton Abbey, which follows the British aristocratic Crawley family during the early part of the 20th century.  I now understand the show's popularity.  It is well written, well-acted, and excellently portrays British class structure during that time.  I'm really not a TV watcher, although I did get hooked on Friday Night Lights, which I thought was exceptionally well done.  I am similarly hooked on Downton Abbey, although for different reasons.  I was never highbrow enough to be a regular Masterpiece Theatre watcher.  But this is different.  It contains the FNL character development in a Masterpiece Theatre setting.

I am fascinated by the rigidity of British class structure, where stratification occurs, is layered and is important even within classes.

One aspect of the series jumped out at me, and that is the disdain for work.  In an early episode, a family member that is in line to be an heir is a practicing lawyer.  He is looked down upon for "Gentlemen don't work."  Similarly, his mother is held in contempt because she wished to do volunteer work at a hospital.  What was most esteemed was to be part of the moneyed leisure class.

I find it an interesting contrast to early 21st liberal thought in America.   In contrast to early 20th century British society, the vast majority of the top 10-20% of earners in America work like dogs.  Even the reviled 1%, the Wall Streeters, business owners, lawyers, doctors and the entrepreneurial class work constantly.  Many forego vacations and routinely put in 16 hour workdays, and are extremely devoted to their craft.  And while they do so, the bottom 20-25% work little at all or are employed by The State, which rarely demands that level of devotion.

Perhaps a century ago in Great Britain, it was true that "Gentlemen don't work," and the lower classes worked hard for little and little hope for advancement.  But in 21st century America, gentlemen and ladies (i.e. the top 10%) work endlessly and tirelessly and then are reviled by our President for doing so and not "paying their fair share,"  although they pay 70% of the taxes.

My, how times have changed.

Who Really Pays?

Just as I predicted, no sooner did we agree to feed the insatiable beast of government, Democrats were clamoring for more.  Nancy Pelosi is already casting her lustful eyes on even more tax increases, and President Obama immediately asserted that any spending cuts would necessarily be accompanied by more taxes.

See? The only way to truly understand Washington is through the addiction model.  We know that Obama said to John Boehner in the negotiations over the fiscal cliff, "we do not have a spending problem."  How many of us have seen the friend or relative reeling and reeking of gin assert, "I don't have a drinking problem," or "I can quit anytime I want."  Right.

Washington has an uncontrollable spending addiction.  It will never stop until we stop enabling it.  And right now, most of the Republicans are enablers (mostly because many of them secretly like to spend other peoples' money, too).  Kudos to the few brave and principled souls like Ted Cruz, Rand Paul, and Marco Rubio that had the courage to say no.  Because this deal will cost a lot, will not solve the debt and deficit problem, and the Big Government crowd has vowed to come back for more.

The Democrats, led by Obama, asserted that this tax increase was targeted at "the rich" who need to pay "just a little bit more."  But who really bears the brunt of this?  To be sure, some of it will be borne by the rich.  But the real consequences are more insidious.  You see, in the real world, people do budgets.  People work hard and take risks to achieve a certain lifestyle and a certain level of success.   And most business people have a certain standard of living that drives and motivates them, which is funded by after tax cash.

So, let me give you a few anecdotes of conversations I have had recently with actual people that run professional service firms.  Both have worked long and hard to build successful businesses.

One told me flat out that he was going to lay off at least one, maybe two people to make up the difference.  Both of these people were middling employees anyway, but the tax burden was enough to  make the decision to let them go more urgent.  This person told me, "I'm just not going to take the hit.  I've worked too hard for too long."

A second person, who is a fastidious personal financial planner, and budgets and tracks his family expenses monthly and who is VERY GENEROUS with his charitable contributions, told me, "At the end of the month, the spreadsheet has to balance.  The extra tax will come out of my charity."  So there you have it.  Government will now get what a private charity would otherwise get.

A third person, who runs a business at the edge of the Obamacare requirements has already laid people off to stay under the employee limit, and is working to outsource functions they would otherwise do themselves.  So Obamacare is incenting them NOT TO GROW.

I know these are just anecdotes, but when you get enough anecdotes, we call that data.  The Big Government crowd can crow all they wish about "the rich" paying their fair share.  But when you hit them with new taxes the parties that actually feel the pain are the middle class.  It's the laid off employee, the charity that will have to do with less, and it's the people that don't get hired because the business has been motivated to shrink.

Why Republicans can't make this argument is beyond me.  Until they can, Big Government will take more and more.  It doesn't think it has a spending problem.

Pantsed

In this iconic picture of Lucy, Charlie Brown and the football, can anyone guess what role John Boehner played last week?  In an incredible feat of incompetent negotiating, Boehner conceded a two decade Republican position on taxes and got NOTHING in return.

As I asserted in my prior post on the fiscal cliff, to understand the Statists, you need to view it through the addiction model.  Addicts and alcoholics will promise ANYTHING to get their next fix.  Similarly progressives will made all sorts of pledges on FUTURE spending cuts in order to get their fix (increased taxes) TODAY.  The taxes are immediate.  The cuts....well, they never quite get there.  They did it to Reagan.  They did it to Bush 41.

You knew it was going to end badly for conservatives when Boehner after the election stated, "Well, we're only 1/2 of 1/3 of the government."  Later, he adopted the language of Left and said that taxes would have to go up on "the rich."  Can you imagine Nancy Pelosi or Harry Reid making such statements at the outset?  Nonsense.  The correct position would have gone something like this, "Yes, Obama won the election, but the people also chose to maintain the body in which the Constitution vests taxing and spending authority in GOP hands.   President Obama's proposal to raise taxes, spend $60 billion MORE, and demand that Congress hand over unlimited authority over the debt ceiling to the executive branch shows how irresponsible and contemptuous the president is on fiscal matters and we have to be the adults in the room."

There were two positions that the GOP could have taken that were superior to where we ended up.  The first, and the one advocated by this writer, would have been to pass Simpson Bowles.  That would have put Obama in a terrible political box since it was HIS commission's proposal.  I wrote to my Congressman proposing that and two days later, he (along with Congressman Lapinski) proposed exactly that.   The second tactic would have been to allow the fiscal cliff to happen, and raise taxes on ALL taxpayers.  That would have had the double benefit of all taxpayers feel the brunt of the Big Government costs that they supposedly voted in and ensured there would be meaningful spending cuts.

Instead, Boehner and McConnell chose surrender.  I was so incensed that I tweeted conservative pundit Michelle Malkin, who commented on my tweet and retweeted it.

Michelle Malkin @michellemalkin No, they are pantsing US. RT @mkos66:@michellemalkin Boehner and McConnell got totally pantsed. 02:29 PM - 01 Jan 13

Best and Worst of 2012

No question that 2012 was a rough year for us conservatives.  Despite the worst recovery in the post war era and despite running moderate candidates for president and for our local congressional seat, we lost both races, enabling progressives to strengthen their claim that resources should be taken from the private sector and turned over to the public sector.  Our country remains as divided as it has ever been since the Civil War.

Still, there were some glimmers of hope and things to be pleased about in 2012--in the arts, music and sports.  So here is my annual Best and Worst of for 2012.

Best News of the Year:  The Housing Recovery.  After several years of precipitous decline, foreclosures, and several false starts, the housing market finally showed signed of sustained life.  Housing prices increased in almost all geographic areas, bringing at least some optimism to a segment of the economy that had taken such a tremendous beating.

Worst News of the Year:  Well, there was a long list to choose from.  But I chose the two Sandys:  Hurricane Sandy and Sandy Hook.  The first was a natural disaster, the second, a man made one, and one so horrific, I couldn't get my head around it. Curiously, progressives chose to respond to the Sandy Hook tragedy with an attack on the 2nd Amendment, notwithstanding the questionable effectiveness of gun control measures.  A more logical national conversation would have focused on the deplorable state of our treatment of our citizens with mental health issues and the fact that people with problems end up on the street or in prison.  That is a conversation worth having.

Best Nonfiction Book of the Year:  Behind the Beautiful Forevers by Katherine Boo.  The writing in this book was so good, I thought I was reading  a novel.   In America, we forget what real poverty is and this book about a family in a Mumbai slum reminds us that by world standards, our poor are not so bad off.

Best Fiction Book of the Year:  Coral Glynn by Peter Cameron.  This novel about a woman hired to care for a gentleman's ailing wife who then takes up with him after she passes was reminiscent of some of the best writing of Somerset Maugham.  Cameron connects superbly with the human emotions of loneliness, isolation, and realities of diminished expectations.

Best Film of the Year:  Lincoln.  Daniel-Day Lewis, Tommy Lee Jones, and Sally Field all turn in masterful performances in Spielberg's retelling of the story of emancipation.

Worst Film of the Year to receive critical acclaim:  Beasts of the Southern Wild.  I actually left this one early.  There is only so much viewing of a cute little kid being verbally abused that one can take.

Best Album:  Babel by Mumford & Sons.  Close your eyes and you and imagine yourself in an English Pub, listening to a modern day version of The Marshall Tucker Band.  I Will Wait is just a fantastic number.  I can't wait... to see them on tour.
www.youtube.com/watch?v=rGKfrgqWcv0

Biggest Loss:  Isaiah Sheffer, founder of Symphony Space.  I have listened to Selected Shorts for over two decades, on radio and podcasts, where actors read short stories live on stage.  I particularly loved Isaiah Sheffer's readings and will miss his sonorous voice, his wit and his devotion to the arts. Attending a live reading of his was on my bucket list and sadly, I will not have that opportunity.  His work definitely enriched my life.

Worst of America:  There were a number of strong contenders in this category from the Penn State scandal to the Benghazi Scandal.  But my vote goes to Sandra Fluke, who burst onto the scene at the DNC, demanding that the taxpayer underwrite her sex life,  evidently forgetting that the type of sexual activity that puts a woman at risk requires two people and that her significant other also has financial responsibility for all this.

Best of America: Is a young man who you do not know, but who I ran into yesterday.  I got to know him when he was a high school freshman.  He is a graduate of Boys Hope Girls Hope (www.boyshopegirlshope.org) in Chicago, a not-for-profit that provides support (including residence) for at risk kids.  This young man had an absentee father and a drug addicted mother.  He was an athlete in high school and was admitted to a Big 10 school.  Despite the hand he was dealt, he had the most positive attitude I've ever seen, always friendly, always sporting an infectious smile.  He told me he's graduating this spring and already has a job lined up with a major insurance company.  With all the craziness, anxiety, and strife in the world, when you see a kid like that up close, it gives you hope.

Have a great 2013!

Just Do It

Go ahead.  Do it. Go off the cliff.

That is almost the unanimous view of my conservative friends, despite the warning that it may trigger a new recession.

Why?

3 reasons.

First, there is almost a complete lack of faith in John Boehner's ability to negotiate with Barack Obama.  Spooked by the election results, he immediately signaled his willingness to roll over on taxes and several other Republicans have chimed in.  Grover Norquist is being treated as the Grand Wizard of the KKK.  Even Bill Kristol has gone wobbly.  And what will the results be?  Almost inconsequential for the budget.  Letting ALL of the Bush tax cuts expire runs the government for about 8 days.  The Democrats have proposed NO meaningful adjustments to entitlements.  Without that, we are getting nothing for our concessions.  Boehner simply is not up to the task.

Second, any tax increase will only be the start.  To understand this, you need to apply the addiction model to government.  Government is addicted to spending.  Addicts will say or do ANYTHING to get their next fix.  They always promise that they will quit tomorrow.  It is no different with government.  Obama will promise some token cuts to go into effect at some future date, or will promise to slow increases....if he can have his fix today.  He will pocket the money, but the cuts will never come or will be reversed out or will be managed by some budgetary accounting gimmicry.  And then they'll come back for another fix.  They always do.  They key to understanding this concept was Obama's assertions during the debates.  For years, he carped about the wars Bush waged that weren't paid for.  Then, in the debates he promptly asserted that half of the money "saved" (that we didn't have in the first place) from winding down the wars would  be used to "invest" in much -needed infrastructure.  Huh?  Setting aside the concept that the "stimulus" was supposed to be used for that purpose, how do we reallocate money we didn't have in the first place for other spending?

Third, assuming that we as a society have decided that Big Government is what we want, then we ALL have to share in the pain.  The "rich" and the middle class and the lower class.  We ALL need to share in this and feed Big Government because there simply aren't enough rich people to satiate the beast.  It is easy to tax YOU to pay for MY government goodies.  But if we ALL have to pay, perhaps we will make different choices at the ballot box.   Everyone needs to feel what it feels like to have government taking more of what they earn.  Then, if we are still happy with this state of affairs, so be it.  But we ALL need a dog in this fight.

In the final analysis, this should be an OK deal.  Obama would get most of what he really wants---higher tax rates and big reductions in the military.  The Republicans would get reductions in social spending.  What's not to like about this deal?

Unless we choose the fiscal cliff, we will get immediate tax increases and illusory cuts.

We might as well hold hands and jump together.