So out of touch... They just don't get it.

I read an article in the paper this morning that called my attention to how newspapers (in this case headline writers) don't understand th underlying principles of fiscal conservatives. I wanted to share this on my little blog, so I dutifully went to the newspapers web site to link the article, but something struck me. While the article is the same, the headline is quite different. Here's a link to the online version:

Rep. Cohen serves up pork for Memphis; suburbs not so lucky

While it does convey the skewed perspective that having a porker representative that feeds at the trough of most paying subscribers taxpayers, it's not as skewed as the printed version that got me riled up:

As you can see, the lack of "luck" on the part of our elected representatives has morphed into "failure"

Whatever the case, I applaud my representative, Marsha Blackburn and others in the GOP caucus who have eschewed pork and politics as usual. It's unfortuante that it takes getting drubbed at the polls and run out of power to find your inner fiscal conservative.

Tea Party Movement

Isn't it amazing how one lone soul on a relatively obscure cable TV network can capture the concerns and helplessness of America and jump-start a social/political movement?

Most rational people understand that you cannot borrow your way out of debt. Further, it is an economic absurdity to believe that you can just print more money without driving the basic cost of living beyond the reach of "the middle class".

So this guy makes this impassioned plea on TV and the Tea Party Movement is born. Hey, I'm right there with you.

A word of caution: I've been along for the ride on this train before. It is very easy to get a large group together based on something we all oppose. It's quite another thing to carry the idea forward to proactive goals we can agree on.

Anthropogenic Global Warming... Oops!

This seems pretty pointless now, since the current economic meltdown would prohibit most rational governmental leaders from commiting any funds to stave off AGW, even if it were true and possible, but I'll post this anyway:

Arctic Sea Ice Underestimated for Weeks Due to Faulty Sensor

Economic Irony

Isn't it funny... no matter how repressive, misogynistic, communistic, autocratic, totalitarian or tyrannical a government may be, they still recognize the power of the markets and bad economic policy.

Foreigners Wary of Long-Term U.S. Securities

Nationalized banks

I have begun researching the health of privately held banks in the increasingly likely event that the federal government nationalizes some failing banks.

I understand the faulty reasoning behind nationalization, but as a free market proponent, I could no more do business with a bank controlled by the government, than I could drive a car manufactured by the government. So I'm looking at small banks.

The refrain of a David Bowie song keep running through my mind and I can't seem to stop it:

A little piece of you

The little piece in me

Will die

For this is not America

I realize this isn't exactly what Bowie had in mind, but it seems to fit right now and I'm concerned for my family and my country.

Deconstructing government

I've been an "IT Professional" for most of my professional career. From my college days back in the early 80's, I've had the good fortune to witness some incredible advances in hardware and software.

In academia, the mantra is "publish or die"; In IT, you must adapt/innovate or you'll be run over by an organization younger and hungrier.

There are 2 kinds of technical advances, evolutionary and revolutionary. The former is constant; the latter is much less frequent. The former means you get a nice raise. The latter means you're the next Bill Gates.

I've been thinking a lot about the 18th century. Alexander Tyler wrote:

A democracy is always temporary in nature; it simply cannot exist as a permanent form of government. A democracy will continue to exist up until the time that voters discover that they can vote themselves generous gifts from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates who promise the most benefits from the public treasury, with the result that every democracy will finally collapse due to loose fiscal policy, which is always followed by a dictatorship. The average age of the world's greatest civilizations from the beginning of history has been about 200 years. During those 200 years, these nations always progressed through the following sequence:

1. From bondage to spiritual faith;

2. From spiritual faith to great courage;

3. From courage to liberty;

4. From liberty to abundance;

5. From abundance to complacency;

6. From complacency to apathy;

7. From apathy to dependence;

8. From dependence back into bondage.

Is there an IT-like solution to the fate of American democracy? we've evolved from 1 thru 7 of Tyler's prescient high-level roadmap. Can we insert an iterative construct that gets us back somewhere around 4 or 5?.

Can it be evolutionary?

My fear is that at this point, getting back to #3 would take the governmental equivalent of Bill Gates.

Must it be revolutionary?

Credit Bubble

samizdata.net via instapundit.com

There are just too many culprits in the "sub-prime mortgage debacle" to name, but just a minor addition to the point made in the post;

By skewing the markets adding (non creditworthy) buyers and injecting federally guaranteed capital, the prices paid for the homes were artificially inflated. Thus anyone who purchased a home during this period has already paid for the folly. AND a further reason creditors are reluctant to get back into the lending biz, since the asset values are still not stable, relative to the "real" yet undetermined market values.

Proposed new dictionary defination: irresponsible

irresponsible (adj.) - Any elected official that votes for legislation they haven't read.

No matter what you may think of the pending "stimulus" conference report, it is unbelievable that any responsible elected official would agree to commit over a trillion dollars to anything they haven't read. If it's worth doing, it's worth doing right, and in the open, and under careful public scrutiny.

I would implore thoughtful senators to delay a cloture vote, AT LEAST until you've had a chance to read the bill. I would further ask that a SEARCHABLE soft version of the 1100 page report be made available for public scrutiny.

This is a butt-load of money and as the (parents and grandparents) of citizens paying for it, we deserve at least that.

Your Tax Money at work (in Brazil)

I wondered how long it would be before this shoe would drop. In a pre-bailout post, I posited that even if bailout money wasn't spent directly on foreign projects, it would free-up capital to invest offshore. The net effect is the same.
Voila!

Ignorance is bliss? You reckon?

h/t instapundit

...public pensions may have to look to corporate bonds and real estate to get investment returns. Are these investments likely to produce historical rates of return that equities have? It’s very unlikely.

...Either governments will have to increase taxes – perhaps dramatically – or force public employees to endure the same risks and potentially anemic returns the rest of us may be up against. Given the size of these funds, and the enormous political power of government workers, this may create one of the major political conflicts of the coming decade.

It's unlikely that taxpayers will be willing to "belly up" for state pensioners while the taxpayers themselves are living hand to mouth waiting to begin collecting their social security benefits at the revised retirement age of 85...

Taxation WITH representation...

President Obama chided corporate leaders for taking bailout money and using it to fund junkets to Vegas, executive compensation and "golden parachutes". So now the full ramifications of federal bailout are becoming clear for bailout recipients. The federal government is now the 1000 pound gorilla lurking in the corner of the corporate board room.

I vehemently oppose using federal money to purchase a stake in private enterprise. However, if it's going to happen anyway, the beneficiaries have to understand that they've given up the right to control their corporate destiny.

The government is not structured to manage a private company in any way. Companies have to actually, you know... make a profit and if they fail, they close, people lose their jobs, yada yada. It's a natural, albeit unpleasant fact of the capitalist economic model. Winners and losers. (Kids, that's why you get the best education you can so when you have to find another job, you're actually qualified, but I digress) Our current federal overseers have the idea that government can step in and interrupt this natural economic flow. I'm extremely dubious that the policy direction currently underway will help in the short run. It will most likely hurt in the long run by saddling us and our grand kids with unbearable debt and inflation... time will tell.

That's not really the point of this post.

As many states (and some cities) line up for their "fair share" of the federal stimulus dollars, I'd like to ask our legislators to consider something.

Citizens of some states have chosen to provide amenities to their citizenry. In our federalist national governance model, that is just fine and dandy. If California wants to allow its kids to attend public university free of charge, great! If New York want's to pay double the price for roads and bridges by requiring union labor, or minority contractor participation, whoopee! That's one of the things that's so great about our country. Each state can experiment with policy. If things work, we can all learn from them and impliment those programs we like in other states.

Sometimes things don't work.

When the economy is humming along, states can afford to make some mistakes, shut programs down and move on. Sure, it may be a bit costly, but as long as the money is coming in, they can bury the costs and eventually recover.

When states look to the federal government for a bailout, the rules change. Remember that federal money is actually our money (assuming you're a taxpayer and not a cabinet nominee). Like private industry, when states receive bailout money, they give up the right to control their own destiny. And as one whose tax money is going to fund these lavish state policies, I want my voice heard in those states. Taxation WITH representation.

I'm not advocating that federal government take over the role of state government. They're no more equipt to do that than they are to run GM or Bank of America.

But as a defacto California taxpayer, we should have a seat in California government. If a state bill is passed to pay for all kids to attend graduate school, we should have veto power. If the California state legislature passes a law baring oil exploration on the inner continental shelf, we should have the power to veto that ban.

Don't use my money to support failed state policies without even giving me a voice in that states' policy debate.