New Chinese Weapon?

Apparently, the Chinese may have a new weapon which would, if reports are true, change the balance of power in the Pacific. It's a ballistic missile modified to strike a moving target and to modify it's course to tract the target and avoid defenses. It's believed to target US carriers, and is also believed to not currently have a countermeasure. It will be interesting to see how this develops.

Good News

There is a piece of good news out of Washington for those of us who believe they should have the right of self defense. The NRA is apparently having a fair amount of success limiting anti-gun legislation. This is mostly due to pressure on Conservative Democrats/Democrats from Conservative districts. However, even liberal Democrats remember that the "Assault Weapons Ban" play a role in their loss in the 1994 elections, and are unwilling to risk a repeat of that defeat in 2010. Hopefully, this will stave off the attempts by the Statists to outsource self defense.

Response To The Obama Presser

President Obama gave his second Prime time speech and news conference. If you missed it, or don't watch TV because it makes you stupid, you can read it here.

My response was a very simple, two part thought. He is truly gifted at abstractly arguing for his position in rhetorical terms, and at sounding extremely centrist. He is able to do this for the very simple reason that he was won the battle over the battlefield. That is to say, he has succeeded in framing the argument in a framework where is positions are moderate and reasonable.

Conversely, Republicans have failed because they took the bait, and tried to argue with the President on his own terms. They are trying to argue over what course of State action would be the most effective, rather than arguing over what the role of the state is. As long as they do not challenge the role of the State, they will always lose. They are going against a relatively popular President who succeeded a extremely unpopular President of their party, and have historically represented some constituencies that are extremely unpopular currently. Going on his turf and arguing his issues on his terms is not a formula for success. In order to have a chance, they need to force the debate out of his home field and onto their field. In this case, their home field is the role of government in abstract. Most Americans are still against Statism. Hopefully, they will figure this out before the midterm elections which may well prove pivotal for the country.

Welfare Alternatives

After seeing that the so-called "Octomom" had planned on supporting her kids on welfare, I decided that I would go into a little more depth on what I see as a critical reform to the tax and welfare system.

The idea is extremely simple. Enact a dollar for dollar tax credit(not deduction) for charities that take the place of welfare, up to the full amount your taxes would be. Obviously, they have to be nonprofits, and some general guidelines would need to be put in place. As they take off, there will be less and less need to have any governmental welfare, and once it is unneeded, it can be ended.

The beautiful part is, it's voluntary. Pay taxes OR support private charity. Generally speaking, liberals give far less to charity than conservatives anyway, so both groups can be happy.

The critical component is this: it removes the role of government in a place it doesn't belong. No more governmental involvement in socialistic redistribution of wealth.

Indeed, this approach could be applied to virtually all functions of the government, outside of a few bare bones functions such as law enforcement. You know, the way the founders intended?

The real question is: why has this not been proposed by the Republican Party? It is in accordance to several of the key "official" principles of the party: limited government, reduced welfare and reduced effective taxes. But the Republican Party has been seduced by power. Truly reducing the power of the government would reduce the power they have when they manage to convince people to vote them in by complaining about things they have no plan to fix. Remember, it was Clinton who last reformed welfare, not either of the Bushes.

Without tax revenues, they couldn't invade other countries with their shiny toys that they spend 30-50+% of the budget they complain about on. They couldn't use earmarks to bribe the people who helped to elect them on a platform of no pork. With reduced government spending, there would be less lucrative contracts to sign immediately upon leaving office to lobby for government spending.

So Republicans really don't care about cutting down the size of government or taxes, at least outside of soundbites and campaign ads. That's why they don't do it when they have power. At least the Democrats tell us what they are going to do.

It's time for another way.

Deficit Spending

The latest projections are that the policies sought by the Obama administration will contribute to nearly ten trillion dollars in deficits over the next decade. A moderate Republican who was nominated for Secretary of Commerce by President Obama says the new budget will bankrupt America.

To President Obama's credit, he campaigned on these principles. People knew what they were getting, and the fault lies with the American public as a whole. Though they are not happy with the spending, they seem resigned to it. Republican complaints, while red meat to the base, are not resonating with moderate Americans. Why should it? The last Republican administration brought us an illegal, absurdly expensive war and loads of pork barrel spending. All this from a President who mouthed the official Republican lines, then turned around and did the opposite. True, he enacted a temporary tax cut. However, when you increase spending, you by definition increase taxes. The two are linked.

Because of this, it will take time for Americans to believe the words of the Republican party. In order to regain credibility, the Republican party must reject the pop politics of talk radio, of simplistic political duality, and re-embrace their foundation. They must embrace limited government, not just pay it lip service. Tell us how you would cut the deficit. Take back the House in 2010 and actually cut the budget, and not just settle political scores with budget trimmings that are more than offset with barely concealed bribes to campaign contributors.

How about changes to the tax code that actually empower the private sector to take over government waste. How about a dollar for dollar tax credit for charitable donations? What about a tax credit for private or home school? What about ending the War on Drugs?

It will take a bold agenda to capture the attention and trust of the public, because you squandered it last time. If you continue being reactive and negative, sniping at the Administration without offering new solutions, then there is a very real prospect of lasting one party rule in America.

Is This Where We're Headed?

It's widely agreed that President Obama is steering the country towards a British-style mild socialism. Somewhat higher taxes with a sturdier "social safety net". Doesn't sound so bad, does it? Well, check out this British family. All four of them claim to be too fat to work. So the government pays them a healthy salary to sit around and eat. Sounds like a pretty sweet deal, eh? The worthless (can't find an word to use that isn't extremely vulgar)s whine that it's not enough money, that it's not their fault they are fat, and they are too poor to buy healthy food and don't have time to exercise. Can even the most bleeding heart liberal give me a reason they shouldn't be put down? Remember, none of the traditional excuses work. It's a socialist country. School and health care are free. They clearly aren't too busy working. Got anything?

If this is where we're heading, I don't want to go.

Where Are Americans Heads At?

There is an interesting article in the WSJ where a former Clinton pollster breaks down President Obama's poll numbers. He concludes that the numbers being reported in the MSM are misleading and that Mr. Obama's numbers are lower than Mr. Bush's were at the same time. He also notes that many Americans are deeply pessimistic about the near future, and are especially worried about the effects of deficit spending. This is likely to increase as China becomes increasingly vocal about it's loaning to the US.

Another key sign that Americans are uneasy is the continued reports of weapon and ammunition hoarding. Ironically, President Obama may be responsible for more guns being in circulation, if he spends his political capital before pushing through his draconian gun ban.

Some people are using the economic situation to advance common-sense legalisation. In California there is a bill to legalize and tax marijuana. Now that the stormtrooper-esqe Bush Administration DEA has been replaced by the somewhat more pragmatic Obama DEA, this would actually go into effect. This would cost the state less, while bringing in revenue. Funny how no one ever cites liberty as a reason...

Is The War On Success Driving Companies Offshore?

As a natural result of President Obama's War on Success, firms are starting to move offshore to escape the crushing US corporate taxes, which are among the highest in the world. The Swiss in particular stand to gain a great deal as they already have treaties with the US in place. This minimizes the consequences for firms. It may only be a matter of time before US citizens of high personal worth make similar moves.

Also, though he was obviously being hyperbolic, it's still not a good sign that a US governor is warning of a Zimbabwe style economic collapse in the US.

Establishment Losing Patience With Obama?

There are increasing signals that the Washington Democratic establishment is over it's honeymoon with President Obama. Even some in the admittedly left wing media are starting to question his general handling of things. His staff is getting slightly defensive. All of this is despite the fact the he remains popular with the public. However, that public opinion moves slowly is a double edged sword. While they may be slow to turn on the new President, they will also be slow to embrace him again if his luster fades.

Indeed, one of the criticisms of President Obama during the campaign was that once he was forced to make the difficult decisions, and put his rhetoric into practice, his supporting coalition would crumble. This seems to be happening. It is starting with the political class, and his largest challenge will be keeping it from spreading to the public. The spread is not a foregone conclusion. The public content will have more to do with the shape of the economy that policy squabbles.

The most dangerous part for the President is dealing with the "Blue-Dog" Democrats. Not only will they eventually reach the limit of their part loyalty, the voters they represent are easy pickings for the Republican insurgency. Navigating this constituency is key for the President's future success.

Warnings

Yet another leader who has experience with socialism warned President Obama against infringing on free markets today.

Those who have dealt with the state running the economy are far more protective of the free market than those of us who take it for granted. The have suffered first hand the chilling effect of such systems. Hopefully we will not be forced to learn this the hard way.

For a particularly harsh look at the Obama administration's plan, read this article by Kevin Hasset.

Conservatives vs. Republicans

David Frum has a very good article on why Rush Limbaugh is bad for the Republican party. He illustrates why if the Republican party continues to revere Limbaugh, they are doomed in the polls. It's a pretty decent article for MSM.

However, it misses the larger point. The Republican's problems go much deeper than Limbaugh. At the heart of them are a lack of firm ideological foundation and worse, a tendency towards hypocrisy when they do gain power. Both of these are rooted in the modern Republicans near constant opposition status. Since the end of the second World War, for only a few years did Republicans hold both Houses of Congress and the White House. When they did, they abandoned the principles they claimed.

Because they were in opposition for so long, to a large degree the Republicans defined themselves in opposition to the Democrats rather than creating a base of ideology. Consequently, they tend to attack more so than suggest alternatives. This is precisely what causes the hypocrisy when they do achieve power. Because the focus was simply on what the Democrats were doing wrong, the Republicans did not have a ideological framework to base their administration on. Instead, they go about it as righting wrongs and rewarding patrons. The best example of this is 2000-2004. For decades the Republicans had been complaining about "tax and spend" Democrats. They finally gain control of all three Houses, and what do they do? Skyrocket spending. Sure they cut taxes, but only for 10 years. Even if the tax cuts didn't sunset, they would eventually have to be repealed, as you can't cut taxes while increasing spending indefinitely.

As a result of a lack of agenda and hypocrisy, the Republican Party, is limited to opposition. True conservatives must not bow to the lesser of two evils mantra that is rolled out each election cycle when the Republicans field another lousy field of candidates that are "not great but at least they're not a Democrat". Aren't true conservatives against rewarding mediocrity? Until we demand excellence, we will keep getting the same welfare-grade candidates. We need to make our voices heard, and let the GOP know that they won't get our votes until they start standing for something, and following through on it when they have the chance.

The "Obama Bear Market"

The WSJ has an excellent write up on what is causing the "Obama Bear Market". With the jobless rate at a 25 year high, things are looking grim in the short term. Tent cities are starting to pop up, though they are not yet called Obamavilles. Declaring war on the successful is a sure way to slow down the growth that is needed. Hopefully President Obama realizes this before we are fully mired in the Second Great Depression. However, it looks doubtful that he learned the lessons of that time. Even the far-left New York Times notes that raising taxes during the Depression made it worse. Indeed, there was a surge in investment in 1938 when the Democrats lost 72 seats, dramatically reducing the attack on the successful. Hopefully we will repeat that in 2010, and not later.

The War On Success

As the Obama Administration's War on Success continues to be announced, the stock market continues to slide in the face of technical analysis that would suggest a rise. This is because the traders can read the writing on the wall. In fact, the Wall Street Journal opined that President Obama's actions may actually make the recession longer and recovery weaker.

There is also a growing sentiment of resistance to the punitive tax on success. People are realizing they really don't want to work just to have much of that money taken away, so individuals that run small businesses are considering working only part time so less of their income is taken from them. Why bother working so the money can be given to someone else? Of course, this will be devastating to the economy, as small business are the engine of job growth.

Before you get too nostalgic for Republican rule, read the memos the Bush administration kept secret for their whole administration. Basically, they claim the Constitution doesn't apply if they don't want it to. Scary stuff.

When will Americans stopping looking at politics as the lesser of two evils and start actually working towards a prosperous and free future? Hopefully before it is too late.

Yet Another

Yet another Obama Administration nominee has been found to need to pay back taxes.

Corruption We Can Believe In

Apparently President Obama's "Urban Czar" whatever that is, has some pretty shady habits. It seems that when people "contributed" to him, their projects got approved and funded. This is typical of the Chicago machine politics where President Obama got his political start.

The real question is: Can some of the wealthy pay off the Obama Administration to keep from destroying the economy and punishing success? It'd probably pay off after everything is said and done.