What I'm looking for in the way of policy

The United States has a problem.

That problem is the size, scope and power of its government.

We have a series of on-going economic crises, yes, and those stem from the problem.

The 'Housing Crisis' starts not with 2007 but back in the late 1960's when HUD lobbied President Nixon to create an agency to allow for the packaging of home loans with government guaranteed security on the risk of those loans.  Yes one government agency was telling the President that we needed more government!  It seemed like a good idea at the time, no doubt, but what this did is allow the large commercial banks to have guaranteed risk portions in their portfolio dedicated to residential lending.  These large organizations could out-compete local S&L's who could not take on such wide and varied risk as the larger entities could.  S&L's remained tied to what made sense for lending in a local market and the intervention of GNMA created a national market that had risk tolerances above and beyond what normal lending practices for the S&L's would allow.  This meant that the S&L's had to seek to diversify their risk portfolio into areas they had never been in and, as inexperienced players, they went down in the 1980's.  To get to the S&L crisis of the 1980's you have to have GNMA created by President Nixon.

At that point a home was still just a home, however, and not an upwardly increasing value property.  Prior to the 1960's home base valuation would go up at 1% per year, if you were lucky, thus a home was not an investment that would appreciate but a roof over your head.  After the creation of GNMA came a slow but steady rise in home valuation above the rate of inflation.  This was tied to other regulations that were illiquid until certain dates, which is to say 401(k) plans and IRAs.  These were protected assets that you could carry over after a bankruptcy, while a home became subject to bankruptcy proceedings. Consumers shifted their savings patterns away from reducing mortgage debt (via pre-payments or ahead of schedule payments) to put money into safer vehicles, like those provided for in the tax code.  Those investment vehicles meant that money was tied into them for the long term, protected and could appreciate faster in value than a home could.  Thus the home now became a secondary investment vehicle because the next round of regulations loosened up the Loan To Value ratio for lending.  With less stringent loan regulations comes higher home prices as people can expect to ask more than their prior 1%/year appreciation and GET IT.

Were the banks involved?

Yes, they were, at every step of the way.

Are they the sole culprits?

No.  The influence of Congress in its role to allow the creation of new regulations that allowed greater risk to flow into the system, while urged on by the banks, was something that was taken up by those Congresses.  No one forced them to do it and no President was forced to sign on to these bills.  To change the playing field you needed Congress and multiple Congresses obliged through vehicles like the Community Reinvestment Act in the 1980's, and then the loosening of requirements on how much had to be put down to get a loan in the 1990's.  By the early 2000's the NINJA loan (No Income, No Job or Assets) along with highly leveraged ballooning loans were the vehicle pushed by the regulatory atmosphere that was enabled by the regulators via the Congressional bills to do that.

Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac played large roles in this, as well, since they could use their money to lobby Congress directly.  This is an instance of a quasi-governmental agency getting a direct line into Congress, which means that the regulators and facilitators could now spend their money on politics to woo legislators.  Today these two entities continue to bleed the US treasury in ill founded loans that are guaranteed for risk by Ginnie Mae.

Thus we now have as culprits: Congress, large commercial banks, quasi-governmental agencies, government agencies, Presidents and those doing the asking for so much money on their homes.

These are the pre-conditions for a bubble and the agencies, quasi-governmental agencies and regulations (along with regulators) are still around unchanged since the housing bubble popped in 2007-08.  Not a single one of them has even been 'adjusted' by two Presidents.  No Congressional majority or minority in either party has even SUGGESTED killing off the source of the rot and returning to basic and fundamental local economic institutions assessing local risk for local lending.

Mind you this isn't the FIRST TIME that the government has sought to reshape the physical landscape via housing policy.  That goes back to Harry Truman and the Housing Act with its repercussions seen via a retrospective of those blacks who lived in areas deemed to be 'ghettos'.

 

Next up is the EPA started by... President Nixon.

Do not ever try to tell me that Nixon was in any way, shape or form a 'conservative'.  These agencies he created are Progressive monuments to governmental power.

Throw in the Dept of Energy with the EPA and you have a nasty pot just needing the right legislation (like the Endangered Species Act) plus activist regulators (seeking to 'expand' their Congressional mandate), plus an overly regulated mining and oil industry (via the Interior Dept.) and what you get is a strategic attack on the energy infrastructure of the United States dedicated to stopping industrial production and impoverishing American citizens.  Strangely enough the EPA didn't need to exist at all as States were already implementing their own regulations to stop pollution, clean up air and water, and didn't need federal help to do that.  Burning rivers stopped before the EPA even existed due to those regulations.  Simple observation shows that you cannot apply the same environmental regulations from sub-arctic tundra to sub-tropical swamp land.  It doesn't work.  And if you need to change it via local environmental needs the place to do that is the most local of areas, the State or local government, not at the highest end which is the federal government.

Indeed the federal charter we call the US Constitution allows for States to get together and ask the federal government for help in setting up a multi-State organization to deal with cross-border issues.  So long as it does not tread on federal powers, such organizations are the way for States to deal with common problems across their borders.  The federal government doesn't run such organizations, the member States do.  This concept was also brought up under the recent health care debates to allow multiple States to pool their requirements, de-conflict them and create their own multi-State based insurance requirement system for those wanting to get health insurance.  What these sorts of agencies do is cut the federal government out of the regulatory loop because it has no power to start that loop in the first place.

 

Not to harp too much on Republicans but the next place of rampant graft, corruption and federal policy going where it shouldn't is in the Dept. of Agriculture started by... President Lincoln.

Hey!  He couldn't be right all the time.

The Dept. of Agriculture was a key government instrument for helping to expand farming into the Soutwest of the US.  It encouraged the type of straight furrow, high water farming that was the norm in the Mississippi direct drainage basin in place that had a bit less rainfall.  A bit less when we got to them, at least.  What this did is encourage the expansion of farms with government help so that these techniques were used when the local natives didn't use nor want them at all.  Why didn't they want them?  Dry spells lasting years to a decade or more which cyclically go through the region due to Pacific wind currents.  The result is known as the 'Dust Bowl' and it was miraculously 'ended' by USDA people wanting tree wind breaks planted and examining the idea of contour farming.  Oh, the rains returned, too.  The plus side of all this was knocking down the western locust so we don't get swarms of them going over the  great plains every couple of years.  That was due to farming in Colorado and Wyoming... of course those farms are now becoming uneconomical so they are dying out and you can expect the locust to come back as their population was only cut down to wild areas, not eliminated.

Isn't that great?

Along with 'modern' farming policy comes the draining of the Oglalala Aquifer which sits under a number of western States and is utilized for dry, upland farming via irrigation.  Note this is not native dry, upland farming which used little irrigation, but the reduction of a deep aquifer that has a re-charge time that no one has measured but an inch a year for a few hundred feet of it begins to tell you of the time frames involved.  Sounds like a good, multi-State organization is needed here instead of the corrupt blunderbuss of the USDA.  No scalpel needed, just ignore the problem until it becomes a 'crisis' and expand government to 'solve' it!  Gotta love how that works, huh?

Next on modern farming is turning food into fuel.  What an asinine idea!  You can't eat ethanol... well you can but its not a great foodstuff, unlike beer... and the conversion rate of corn to ethanol is excellent but ignores the fact that such policies are hitting the third world, and soon the first world, hard.  Mexico has a problem in that their old, rural agricultural system that helped to sustain their population went north in search of jobs.  First to the cities and then, when those manufacturing jobs from the US went overseas to places like Thailand and Vietnam, those migrants decided that the US was a great place to get illegal jobs.  This was great while corn was cheap via the US, but corn has gotten very expensive because human food corn is now being replaced by corn to make ethanol, which I go over in this article.  Now with jobs running scarce in Mexico along with food where is the money at?  Why criminal organizations, of course!  Jobs disappearing due to globalization is one thing, but food disappearing due to asinine farming policy of a neighboring nation is another.

Then there are the subsidies to agriculture beyond just paying people not to farm.  Those are about 12-15% of the USDA budget and go far beyond corn to such things as setting price floors for some crops (like sugar beets) and guarantee payments.... plus payments to those farmers owning a farm in one State and not farming there to get their payment in another State. 

Isn't that great? 

The US government 'protects' certain crops NOT through long-term storage of a small percentage each year in case of famine but by paying people who can't compete in the world market and paying others NOT to compete in the world market, both on the taxpayer dime.  Thankfully the current generation of farmers is in their late '50s and early '60s and as we aren't encouraging the next generation to take up agriculture as a business...

What problems could we POSSIBLY get from that?

Why I haven't even hit on the 'entitlements' yet, and I have already covered all of the energy and food production for the Nation under the lovely control of the federal government via regulations that only suit the feel-good Congresscritters and the petty tyrants in the bureaucracy wanting to control the Nation.

Who needs Islamo-Fascists when you can get the home grown regular sort at home?

Of course we also have the other sort to deal with overseas, too... not that we will have any energy or food to deal with them.

Mind you the rest of the planet depends on our food supply and the fact that China has not had a good harvest and even some dustbowls recently points out that they are on the brink of a catastrophe.  There are already food shortages in the kleptocracies in Africa, but that is normal and cyclical... having governments that were relatively stable dictatorships go under to such things is a different matter...

 

The next President?

Name the one that will aim to take out, not manage 'better' or 'reform' but REMOVE any or all of the following: USDA, EPA, FHA, Fannie/Freddie/Ginnie, select parts of the Dept. of Interior, Dept. of Energy.

I can add to that list: Dept. of Education, DoJ (did you know when we had a small government that each agency had to enforce its own little jurisdiction and there was NO DoJ?), BATFE, Dept. of Labor (can't people figure this out on their own), SBA, anything involving the arts & humanities... and the UN and its dues and various hangers-on.

When you are facing insolvency it is time to do away with luxuries and that time is now here.  These places can be closed down, their funding removed, and those that are part of the federal government have their property and equipment sold off to generate some final revenue.

 

Yes, the entitlements have to take a hit.  I have a standard prescription for those.

Close off SSA to new entrants.  End the retirement age. Turn SSA into a regular spending program and get rid of FICA.  Give everyone an account they can spend from that is federal tax free where any investments can accumulate without any hit to them, and then allow spending after holding them for 20 years or 20 years after the date of issuance of the SSA card.  In other words find good savings that appreciate even minimally and you are set.  Anyone in SSA who wants to get out can, and have such an account in their name immediately with the thanks of the US government to becoming a self-sufficient citizen once again.  Once the last person getting payments dies or quits the program, it is ended.

Add Medicare and Medicaid together.  Divide by 2.  Apportion via Block Grants to the States to spend on health care for their people.  Stage this down to zero over 5 years.  That is the end of the federal take-over of your medical care, and you are on your own.  Lobby your State and local governments or help with charitable institutions to get something to cover those without the ability to get good medical care.  The US government sucks at it.

Put together a flat tax for corporations and individuals, remove all other taxes.  For those earning under the poverty line the tax can be graduated down, but everyone MUST pay into the US government as it serves ALL OF US without exception.  If you can figure out how to live without having a job, then our blessings should be upon those people as they have figured out how to carry their load without burdening the rest of us.

These give a firm and stable position that if you want to 'retire' you must DIY with NO help from the government and if you can't figure out you need health care then charitable institutions are your answer.

Do taxes go up?  Yes for those currently paying no federal income tax, but they may find that their new 'tax rate' is actually lower as there is NO FICA around to bite you.

No new taxes are necessary for this: no consumption tax or sales tax.  Those are left up to the States as we don't TRUST the US federal government to have such income capability.  Look how it has squandered the Progressive Income Tax by jerking everyone around with it.

 

Defense policy?

It starts at the borders.

Not Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya or Timbuktu.  We have a massive criminal insurgency threatening to spill over into the US and we have zip, zilch, nada in the way of preparations for it spilling over.  Sorry, that doesn't fly and neither do 'open borders' or 'path to citizenship' that doesn't start with an Embassy in a foreign country.

I'm willing to cut down on the illegal immigrant magnets by doing a 'Three Strikes and You're Out' policy for employers:

- First instance, fine and a couple of weeks in the pokey for all involved in the hiring chain from CEO to local approval office in a company.

- Second time is a massive fine (say 10% of the gross income of a business) and a year in Club Fed for all in that hiring chain.

- Third time the company is broken up at auction, never to be reformed and all in the hiring chain go away for 10 years in Club Fed.

There, that is a sane immigration policy in support of our defense policy and should get some of the corporate scofflaws out of the way in no time at all.  See how that goes?

I'm sure that would deflate the OWS people in no time and taking the support for the big banks away would collapse their fun little support for tyrannical socialism/communism/progressivism/anarchism.  They will hate not having Big Daddy Government to hit up for support, but them's the breaks.

 

In other words a policy that looks like:

1) A vastly smaller federal government getting back to basics and leaving the States and the people alone, which means ending entire agencies and their regulations all at one go.

2) Ending the entitlements as they cost too much, keeping promises to those on SSA and letting the States figure out if they want something better on their own for medical care.

3) Flat tax, no exceptions, everyone sends a check to the IRS.

4) Defense must start at home at the borders.  COIN isn't just for overseas any more.

5) Letting the legal system handle the collapsing banks and corporations either via their own hand in tinkering with regulations that will not sustain them or in hiring those they shouldn't hire.  Good companies go unmolested.  The bad ones downsize or disappear via normal legal means.  Nothing, and I do mean NOTHING, is 'too big to fail'.

 

Yes, Rome wasn't built in a day.

It was, however, looted in 3.

We are closer to the latter than the former.

 

For the life of me I can't seem to find a politician who has a clue on what policy is.

Plans come from policy.

Methodology is utilized to enact plans.

If no one has a policy, then their plans are based on nothing, anchored to nothing and entirely too flexible for my taste.  I can tell a Presidential Candidate who has no policy in minutes.  I am not voting for any who can't articulate what it is as they are, by default, a Progressive.  No matter how nice the 'plans' sound, they are words spoken in the winds of opportunism.

Dumb Looks Still Free time on: Experience

Just a short note, but it is worth putting down.

 

I think that all Americans can now agree that touting experience of running a National campaign, of any sort, is not something that can be cited for a candidate's ability to step into the office of President and actually show ability to be Presidential.

 

We can now take that off of all future campaigns as a citation for 'experience'.

Who said what? Say, what?

Ok, the debate, which everyone is putting down as one of the worst of its kind, so lets just key up some phrases and then identify who said it. I will be using the RealClearPolitics transcript.

First up this bit:

"I think everybody knows now we are in the worst financial crisis since the Great Depression. And a lot of you I think are worried about your jobs, your pensions, your retirement accounts, your ability to send your child or your grandchild to college."

"Worst financial crisis since the Great Depression"? Yup, Sen. Obama. And the Great Depression was all about retirement accounts, your ability to send your children to college, and...

Say, what?

The Great Depression was about not having enough jobs, loss of faith in the banking industry, runs on the banks, and not having enough money to keep a roof over your head. Does anyone remember the term 'soup kitchens' for those without work and who couldn't even buy enough food? Bread lines? Thousands of unemployed sitting outside factories hoping that, maybe, a job might get posted up today?

No?

That is not only hyperbole, it is grandstanding and clearly mis-stating history. Sen. Obama, you just lost in the American History 101 zone. This is nowhere NEAR the problems of the Great Depression, not even close by a long shot. This might be the largest 'crisis' since 'Stagflation' of President Carter's era, or the Wall Street Bust of 1987, or the collapse of the Tech Bubble that started in 2000. Although 'Stagflation' probably takes the cake amongst these.

Second up comes this lovely bit:

We've got to have a package of reforms and it has got to lead to reform prosperity and peace in the world. And I think that this problem has become so severe, as you know, that we're going to have to do something about home values.

Someone is running for President of the World!

Say, what?

And that is... Sen. McCain.

Hey, I thought he was running for President of the United States... but I guess he is going to take reform to all these other countries like China, Russia, Iran, Egypt, Libya, Syria... maybe even France and Germany! And then we will teach them about reform, peace and prosperity!

Are you sure these guys don't have the same guys writing their talking points?

Now we get to 'bi-partisanship' on the third bit which features both candidates on who they want in the Treasury and I will obfuscate who is which with a [redacted]. First the one candidate:

Well, Warren would be a pretty good choice -- Warren Buffett, and I'm pleased to have his support. But there are other folks out there. The key is making sure that the next treasury secretary understands that it's not enough just to help those at the top.

Now the other candidate:

A supporter of Sen. [redacted] is Warren Buffett [chairman of Berkshire Hathaway]. He has already weighed in and helped stabilize some of the difficulties in the markets and with companies and corporations, institutions today.

Hey! If Warren Buffet is so smart, then why isn't he telling these guys that letting the financial institutions handle this and clear out the bad actors is the way to go? That there is good, personal responsibility like Mr. Buffett has shown and that we need more of that and less 'federal help'? Perhaps Mr. Buffett doesn't believe in a non-activist government?

Yes it was Sen. Obama first and Sen. McCain second, both talking on who would be good to have in the Treasury. From what I've seen Warren Buffett is a nice guy... and I'm damned glad he is on the OUTSIDE of Washington looking IN. Put him in Treasury and his credibility tanks... and you had better damned well make sure his large and deep financial connections via holdings are put so far away out of his reach that there is not even the slightest hint of impropriety.

Fourth bit:

Sen. [redacted] is right that we've got to stabilize housing prices. But underlying that is loss of jobs and loss of income. That's something that the next treasury secretary is going to have to work on.

Say, what?

Current seasonally adjusted unemployment rate as of 03 OCT 2008 for SEP 2008 is 6.1%. Last seen in MAY-SEP 2003 according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics where it peaked at 6.3 and then declined. It was also seen in the period of NOV 1990 to JUL 1994, JAN 1980 to JUL 1987, NOV 1974 to APR 1978, OCT 1960 to NOV 1961, FEB to DEC 1958 and MAY 1949 to MAR 1950. Plus a few months scattered in the non 6.1% and above periods. Two things of interest in this: those periods just after the 1950 and just after the 1961 end periods featured the Korean and Vietnam Wars. Yes there are unemployment raises and dips, but, apparently, a Nation at war doesn't have as much problem with unemployment because people are employed in supporting it.

As the modern armed forces quip goes: 'The Marine Corps is at war, America is out shopping.'

That part came from Sen. Obama, who is raising the specter of a huge unemployment problem while it was the policies that were put in place by President Carter and that President Reagan tried to deal with that caused the 1980-1987 unemployment era with all sorts of 'jobs programs' and 'worker support' and the federal government trying to tell people how to do their jobs. That went north of 10% nationally and I remember how all those nice 'ideas' raised those problems even higher on a local basis during the 'Rust Belt' era. And from what I've seen of his 'economic plan' on mandates in health care, involvement in the housing market, and all sorts of other, lovely government expenditures like his new Interior Security Department that will be the size of DoD, that some folks might begin pining for the fiscal soundness of President Carter.

Now, here's the deal: is the 'housing crisis' a CAUSE or an EFFECT of government policies in lending to people who can't hold a steady job?

And if you have people who can't 'make ends meet' because they can't hold a steady job, then why should they seek to OWN a home? If there is a decline in jobs or even a period of low wage growth and the mortgages continue to balloon out of all proportion to what people can earn you see problems in the housing market. Because these people shouldn't have tried to own a home IN THE FIRST PLACE.

To 'stabilize' the housing market you get the federal policies on lending OUT of the picture, let the market CORRECT itself, and abolish the institutions on the federal side that CAUSED these loans to be made. The job market will then sort itself out, the 'bad loans' will hit the economy and the economy will RECOVER ON ITS OWN without any of the 'help' that got it into this mess IN THE FIRST PLACE.

You want to stabilize jobs? Good.

Get out of dictating unsound monetary and fiscal policy on the part of the federal government so that people have to realize that being able to own a home is an exercise in LIBERTY not a RIGHT.

Number five on the 'say, what?' area:

So this rescue package means that we will stabilize markets, we will shore up these institutions. But it's not enough. That's why we're going to have to go out into the housing market and we're going to have to buy up these bad loans and we're going to have to stabilize home values, and that way, Americans, like Alan, can realize the American dream and stay in their home.

Yes, going into the housing market to buy up loans of those who were encouraged to give and get them on an unsound financial basis is to be *rewarded*.

Say, what?

That is from Sen. ACORN... no, wait... Sen. McCain! Yes, he is running with the ACORN bail-out plan, who are one of the leading causes of this 'crisis' and now seek to profit from the 'bailout' by getting lots of federal funds to 'help poor people' that they encouraged to get such unsound loans IN THE FIRST PLACE.

Yes, we have two candidates that can't figure out anything in economics because they are convinced that it is too difficult to figure out. Just give the money away and it will all be fine....

Taxpayer money.

Your money and mine.

Number six, a description of 'socialism':

You know that home values of retirees continues to decline and people are no longer able to afford their mortgage payments. As president of the United States, Alan, I would order the secretary of the treasury to immediately buy up the bad home loan mortgages in America and renegotiate at the new value of those homes -- at the diminished value of those homes and let people be able to make those -- be able to make those payments and stay in their homes.

Government comes in, relieves you of your responsibility, acts responsible FOR YOU, then forces YOU to take a deal you could never have gotten on your own. All due to YOU being fiscally irresponsible enough to seek a loan above your means.

Say, what?

That comes from Sen. McCain.

When I say Sen. McCain is a Democratic Socialist, this is what I mean.

Number seven, and its a doozy:

And then long-term we've got to fix our health care system, we've got to fix our energy system that is putting such an enormous burden on families. You need somebody working for you and you've got to have somebody in Washington who is thinking about the middle class and not just those who can afford to hire lobbyists.

So the medical lobbies and energy lobbies aren't that powerful, huh? Can't scrape up a lobbyist between them?

Going to the OpenSecrets Lobbying Spending database we get the top lobbying areas by sector for 1998-2008.

#1 Finance, Insurance & Real Estate - $3.2 billion

#2 Health - $3.04 billion

#3 Misc. Business - $2.9 billion

#4 Communication/Electronics - $2.6 billion

#5 Energy & Natural Resources - $2.1 billion

Say, what?

Who is the solon of wisdom that wants to give more lobbyists for the #2 and #5 lobbying areas more power in Congress?

The quote is from Sen. Obama.

If you thought $3.2 billion in lobbying to get us a $700 billion bailout was bad, just imagine what happens when over $5 billion gets applied to Health and Energy. Because Sen. Obama seems to have forgotten that these groups ALREADY HAVE LOBBYISTS. And Congress is definitely NOT 'looking out for the middle class'. Nor can a President easily STOP THEM.

And note that neither of these swell bozos wants to get rid of Fannie and Freddie, cut AIG loose, and remove the Congressionally mandated lax federal regulations and laws regarding lending. They both want to KEEP the current lobbyists in positions of power and empower two more of the largest to take a larger say in how the government runs OUR LIVES.

Number eight, socialist economics and how it works:

Well, Oliver, first, let me tell you what's in the rescue package for you. Right now, the credit markets are frozen up and what that means, as a practical matter, is that small businesses and some large businesses just can't get loans.

If they can't get a loan, that means that they can't make payroll. If they can't make payroll, then they may end up having to shut their doors and lay people off.

Yes, businesses get loans to pay their employees. They don't do manufacturing, sales, production and such to get income... you see, without credit these big and small companies can't borrow enough to pay people... that is how socialists imagine capitalism works.

That came from Sen. Obama.

Say, what?

Of course you can MAKE PAYROLL without a loan - that is what sales and profit are all about. By adding work value to an item and selling it at the cost of that work plus original materials plus profit to keep overhead & maintenance going, along with any longer term plans sustained, you can, indeed, make payroll. In tough times it is expansion and longer term plans that get cut first to sustain current production and maintaining overhead. Extras get cut out, like 'freebie' lunch programs or other incentives. Or added 'non wage benefits' get cut, like 'health insurance'.

Oh, wait a second, Sen. Obama wants to MANDATE health coverage, thus removing flexibility from businesses and ensuring a good costing of health benefits gets done. And because government will say this MUST BE A PART OF EXPENDITURES businesses will have an ever increasing burden in their infrastructure that they will be unable to do anything with during tough economic times. While it may help in the overall economy, trying to 'share the burden' means that smaller businesses carry a larger proportion of the load because they don't have the infrastructure to properly cope with such MANDATES. Even exempting 'small businesses' there is a great gulf and wealth of businesses between 501 and 5,000 people that serves as a major backbone to the US economy.

Number nine, running down the American worker as we are today:

The point is -- the point is that we can fix our economy. Americans' workers are the best in the world. They're the fundamental aspect of America's economy.

They're the most innovative. They're the best -- they're most -- have best -- we're the best exporters. We're the best importers. They're most effective. They are the best workers in the world.

And we've got to give them a chance. They've got -- we've got to give them a chance to do their best again. And they are the innocent bystanders here in what is the biggest financial crisis and challenge of our time. We can do it.

"We've got to give them a chance to do their best again"?

After saying that we are the best, most productive, most talented people on the earth?

Apparently we are 'innocent bystanders' in this mess, right?

I don't know about you, but as a person who took out a loan that could be afforded, at a good rate and gets payments in promptly and pay down the capital part of that debt, I don't feel like an innocent bystander.

I feel like the TARGET as I am the one who pays my taxes and will have MY money going to those who should have KNOWN BETTER and been REFUSED loans.

Who is the bozo who says we are 'the best' and that we can 'do their best again' who are unwitting patsies in this?

Sen. McCain said that and if it weren't wholly unintelligible I wouldn't be offended. I understand it and I'm insulted. Yeah, Sen. Obama has said the same, they are 'bi-partisan' on this and they have BOTH insulted me.

Number ten, forgetting history:

No, I am confident about the American economy. But we are going to have to have some leadership from Washington that not only sets out much better regulations for the financial system.

The problem is we still have a archaic, 20th-century regulatory system for 21st-century financial markets. We're going to have to coordinate with other countries to make sure that whatever actions we take work.

All of the regulation concepts started in the 20th century and continued on, being 'updated' by those wanting to INCREASE regulation and provide 'incentives' for people to act fiscally irresponsible. A 21st century financial market needs LESS OF THAT not more or 'better'. All of the insanity that we have NOW is because people think they could make it 'better' and more 'fair' by taking out personal fiscal responsibility.

Say, what?

Who has forgotten this recent history? Sen. Obama is the source of that inanity.

Again.

Number eleven, promising but not telling:

You know, you may have seen your health care premiums go up. We've got to reform health care to help you and your budget.

We are going to have to deal with energy because we can't keep on borrowing from the Chinese and sending money to Saudi Arabia. We are mortgaging our children's future. We've got to have a different energy plan.

We've got to invest in college affordability. So we're going to have to make some investments, but we've also got to make spending cuts. And what I've proposed, you'll hear Sen. [redacted] say, well, he's proposing a whole bunch of new spending, but actually I'm cutting more than I'm spending so that it will be a net spending cut.

That came from President Clinton... no, wait, it was Sen. Obama! Almost sounded like 1992 again... having a candidate promise all sorts of spending without telling you how he is going to pay for it.

Say, what?

Here's the deal: for every mandate, government program and promise on energy, the plans of these two, fine bozos are not that far apart. I know. I've looked at them. They suck.

One guy promises to 'cut government programs' which then turns out to be pork and the other promises to 'cut spending' which turns out to be more spending and inability to lay a finger on anything worth cutting. I've got a good list of entire government Departments that we don't need because they haven't done the things they were set up to do.

Dept. of Education - reading rate exactly at the same level of 1958 when poor Johnny couldn't read.

Dept. of Agriculture - the largest Congressional slush fund ever devised.

Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac - more slush funds for Congress.

Dept. of Energy - why do we have recurring energy 'crises' if this Department can't figure out how to get decent energy at an affordable price? Kill it.

These places add regulation, add government overhead, add unaccountable bureaucracy, add unaccountable payouts and don't do the jobs they are set to do. Don't get me started on SSN or Medicair/Medicaid as they should have helped people to find a better way to pay for their retirement and for their health needs WITHOUT billions from government and increasing price supports to the medical industry.

Did I just say something dirty?

Government pricing pushing the cost of medications and the providing of medical services UP? Because it DOES. Providing a tax break for businesses to provide a 'non wage benefit' is one thing. Pumping money into a system that can't track all the payments, can't figure out good health policy, and then decides what you deserve to get or not is not a system that will either keep prices down or ensure that you get a large say in your own health care. Sen. Obama plays up 'letting you keep your doctors' while I have the experience of good doctors LEAVING health insurance groups out of DISGUST for their practices and costs.

And the people who are going to be in charge of 'reform'?

Congress and bureaucrats. See the housing 'crisis'? Guess who was in charge of 'reform' for those...

I will stop here on the debate analysis.

I actually wouldn't listen to this drivel live. I wanted to keep my dinner down, my blood pressure even and my disgust in check. That is because, no matter how the 'performance' the actual meat that is being proposed is rancid and maggot infested, and that comes from both candidates and both parties. I am expected to check my good sense at the door for 'bi-partisanship' or for 'hope & change'.

So sorry, but fifth graders could have come up with these talking points and been more lucid in presenting them. Probably think them out about as well, too, as these two campaigns.

I refuse to vote for putting childish ideas and nonsense in the seat of the Executive Branch of the United States. I want good reasoning based on sound historical understanding that creates good policy from which plans are derived.

That should be simple as it is what executives DO.

Instead we get the rampant communist with a pretty face, Sen. Obama, running on a 'government can do it all' platform and then glosses over the cost of others having tried that. And we also get a social democrat, Sen. McCain, who just can't come to say that there is anything wrong with having so much government that reaches so deeply into the lives of average citizens with so little oversight and controlled by politicians who know what is 'good for us'.

One is soft on terrorism and wants to ruin the economy and leave the Nation defenseless.

The other is strong against terrorism, wants to invite in millions of people from around the world and not bother to check who they are, subvert the defenses of the Nation by not bothering to see who 'all gods children' are that are here and keep the ruinous parts of the economy going.

They both don't give a damn about your money, and see that government intervening in the lives of ordinary Americans is 'necessary'... for the good of government. Neither of these swell fools can ever say that government is now the SOURCE of many problems and must be REDUCED significantly and the tools of manipulation in our economy REMOVED from the hands of politicians. Note that the Federal Reserve not only didn't stop the 'Great Depression' but may have actually helped to cause it via its lending policies. Why is such a tool left in the hands of government? Regulation is to set the bounds of good practices, not 'fine tune' whatever is regulated: that is for the people and their businesses to work at within the bounds of good policy. These two Emirs of Incumbistan want to increase the role of government, increase regulation and have YOU pay for letting politicians meddle with social engineering on the people of the United States.

One can't understand capitalism.

One can't understand socialism.

They alternate on those daily on which is which.

Fed up with the bully pulpit and the Elites

Just who are the 'Elites' in America?

Mostly they self-identify into a few broad classes: Political, Media, Business and Military.

They are the self-important 'know-it-alls' who are willing to sacrifice liberty, freedom and the Nation to their beliefs that they are the best ones suited to run the world. They are the wannabe ruling class who are always ready to tell you what is good for you, and then use the power they have at hand to try and force that to come to pass. You see they 'know' things and are way smarter and more powerful than you, and they... they 'know' what you want... if you would just let them give it to you.

Take Yuval Levin's link to ABC News and a video clip of Sen. Obama at a Planned Parenthood meeting answering a question on sexual education for children. I'll point out what struck Yuval at The Corner at NRO, and it is extremely telling about Sen. Obama in that portion of the video at about the 3:10 mark:

The one thing that I want to insist on is that, as I travel around the country, the American people are a decent people. Now they get confused sometimes. You know, they listen to the wrong talk radio shows or watch the wrong TV networks, um, but they’re, they’re basically decent, they’re basically sound.

- Sen. Barack Obama, 18 JUL 2007

What that leaves out are the appreciative audience twitters and scattered laughs after 'they get confused sometimes' and 'listen to the wrong talk radio shows'. The audience likes those remarks and do believe that *you* are confused and that *you* listen to the wrong talk radio programs. Way to be for the 'little guy'... the 'they' out there, Sen. Obama, that you talk about as if it is a microbial colony that you are not apart of. Come on in and join the gene pool, Senator. That passage is *not* something that demonstrates that he wants to reach out to the American people, and, just before that, he tells you how he sees the President's role in this just before that excerpt:

You know I... eh...eh... the longer I'm in this race for the Presidency, the more I realize that so much of leadership is about using the bully pulpit to frame the issues in a way that allows us to draw on the best impulses of the American people.

Now C-Span has the dating of that term back to President Theodore Roosevelt and he had a slightly different outlook on the American people than Sen. Obama has, to say the least. On 20 MAR 1912 he gave an address at Carnegie Hall on "The Right of the People to Rule", and it was captured by Thomas Edison and is provided as audio at Project Gutenberg, and I will use the transcribed text at the T.R. site, with the opening paragraph as follows:

THE great fundamental issue now before the Republican party and before our people can be stated briefly. It is, Are the American people fit to govern themselves, to rule themselves, to control themselves? I believe they are. My opponents do not. I believe in the right of the people to rule. I believe the majority of the plain people of the United States will, day in and day out, make fewer mistakes in governing themselves than any smaller class or body of men, no matter what their training, will make in trying to govern them. I believe, again, that the American people are, as a whole, capable of self-control and of learning by their mistakes. Our opponents pay lip-loyalty to this doctrine; but they show their real beliefs by the way in which they champion every device to make the nominal rule of the people a sham. I have scant patience with this talk of the tyranny of the majority. Wherever there is tyranny of the majority, I shall protest against it with all my heart and soul. But we are today suffering from the tyranny of minorities. It is a small minority that is grabbing our coal-deposits, our water-powers, and our harbor fronts. A small minority is battening on the sale of adulterated foods and drugs. It is a small minority that lies behind monopolies and trusts. It is a small minority that stands behind the present law of master and servant, the sweat-shops, and the whole calendar of social and industrial injustice. It is a small minority that is to-day using our convention system to defeat the will of a majority of the people in the choice of delegates to the Chicago Convention.

Yes, a minority that cannot get the most votes, games the system and then pays lip service to ideals of liberty and freedom and then go on to say how wrong-headed the American people can be. President Theodore Roosevelt did come from an Elite family, Elite upbringing and had an Elite stature. While going on safari may be considered an idle of the rich, he also went hunting through various parts of the US from desert sands to the rugged northwest to his trips in the Adirondacks near old familial haunts. He had the money to indulge himself, but that did not stop him from forming up the Rough Riders or becoming the Mayor of NYC to confront the Democratic political machine there. He did not want to be Vice President, but accepted it as a service to the American people. Of course, when in office he took a view that would offend many 'strict construction' views of the Constitution held today, and the attitude of the idea of States rights being a 'fetish' is on that would also be abhorrent to more than a few today... even with the federal government slowly marginalizing and removing duties from the States and the people contrary to Amendment IX and X. Those views he goes over in Chapter X of his autobiography, thus making President Theodore Roosevelt a man who would come to trust the power of the people to rule, only once he was out of office.

Having expanded that power base of the Executive branch, taking a 'if the Constitution doesn't prohibit it, I can do it' attitude contrary to the Constitutional proscriptions in Amendments IX and X, and then citing the problems that those wishing to restrict liberty and freedom will cause when THEY get a hold of that self-same power makes the warning all the more clear: he thought he could be trusted with this power in the office, and forgot that the office holds the power, not the individual temporarily occupying it. The 'bully puplpit' or wonderful speaking platform taken as an advocate for something, then morphs from explaining a President's position to one of telling the American people why they should support this or that legislation. Instead of explaining policy and implementing it within the bounds of the office we get Presidents pushing to change the political landscape to suit their whims. That is a change from the 'stewardship' approach of T. Roosevelt: no longer is the President just maintaining things, the President becomes an advocate of change and wishing to change or alter what should remain in stewardship to be passed on as little changed as possible.

That is Elitist.

President Theodore Roosevelt only learned the wisdom of the founders *after* he left office, not while he was in it. And the moment a candidate who would attack *him* shows up and seeks to utilize the power of the Presidency in ways that *he* doesn't like, does Theodore Roosevelt begin to need to announce the supremacy of the American people in the process of government. Apparently there is 'advocacy' that is 'good' in the mind of one man that may not like when 'advocacy' he considers 'bad' to use the same tools he created to work its ends. Of course he was also seeking office to make sure that his 'good' advocacy would win... and try to marginalize that 'bad' sort.... just like Sen. Obama wants to help those 'confused' American people.

The political Elites are the easiest to pick up: they so continually announce their Elite status that it is hard to miss. Do I have problems with Sen. Obama's opponent, Sen. McCain? You betchya! One of my earliest posts looked at the things that really points to Sen. McCain being at the bottom of his hole and not learning to stop digging. Took me a scant few minutes to put down the things I detested about his positions, his past political works and his Elitism. His anti-pork views? Say, when he was heading up the Armed Services Committee to draft expenditures, why didn't he do much to stop the porking up of those bills? That stuff got worse through the 1990's and then so bad that it would be a problem in the billions of dollars by 2004. The logistics and war reserves necessary for modern operations were inadequate when we needed to operate in Afghanistan and Iraq, and those problems date back over a full decade.

Pork in the budget is not *just* the granting of political favors and cronyism with the public's funds, although that is horrific enough to want it ended. No, all that pork requires programmatic oversight which is NOT added into such appropriations. So agencies not only have to care for their own projects, but then have to stretch their staff (legal, admin, financial, contract) thinner to cover for the pork. That means that the necessary jobs don't get proper oversight. That can run as much as 10% to 15% of the appropriation in necessary agency logistic support to ensure the funds are appropriately spent and accounted for. And that money comes from normal operations to meet the actual duties of the agency.

To be 'anti-pork' means far, far more than not asking for earmarks: it requires the recognition of the bad public policy they are and the threat to the public good by inadequate oversight that those funds cause.

The 'Maverick' stance is to take the 'I didn't ask for any' position, while not doing a damned thing to end the practice, so that you can still use those items being added in by others to grant political favors. Needless to say, I have problems with that. Sen. Obama is on the high pork fat diet and now points to the infrequent twinkies as his commitment against pork... that is after having the whole hog on the Luau. So your choice is: a man who wants to grant political favors by asking for them or one who wishes to grant them by denying a few.

Now I've gone over the larger theme of the status of Elites before, hitting the military Elites or pundits, before. Mostly that is from the outside, although of late there are a number of high ranking personnel who found themselves without backing for their jobs who left the Pentagon to complain about what they saw as wrong-headed policy. Mind you, many of these people left because their way of fighting war from the 1980's and 1990's couldn't address the needs of 2001 onwards. That internal political fight for this or that weapons system then moved from the Rings of the Pentagon to national television, with those who recently left being critics of policy. Because their pet projects went away. And if you look at their last active service deployments in the field, in combat, you begin to understand why they found themselves out of place: they were out of place. Of course a man like Gen. Wesley Clark was already out of place when he was in the field and deployed, and I'll take this from my previous article:

First up is this lovely little item from The Quarterly Journal, No. 1 March 2003 (p.103):

At this point, it is easy to foresee that casualty aversion is not only a governmental problem. Hence, as Weinberger states, fighting in the current context will require a high level of public support. This assumption, largely driven by the U.S. experience in the Vietnam War, directly involves the public as a major actor in this debate. Charles Reiss, in February 2001, related elements of the Future Strategic Context for Defence to this: "The armed forces, both in peacetime and on operations, will come under greater public and pressure group scrutiny." Through this type of attitude, governments seem to project casualty phobia onto the public, and treat it as if it is a weakness in the nation to be fought. The media are the other foci of attention for these concerns in governments. Reiss mentions "the pressure from public opinion and the media for minimum casualties" This is perfectly illustrated by the declaration of U.S. General Wesley Clark after the Kosovo campaign: "When you start to lose these expensive machines (aircraft), the countdown starts against you. The headlines begin to shout, `NATO loses a second aircraft,' and the people ask, `How long can this go on?' Therefore, although governments recognize casualty aversion, they tend to attribute the pressure behind the phenomenon to the media and the public.

Yes, governments and the media project a lack of will to fight on the public... not the other way around. Fun, isn't that? Say how do you like being told by the government and media what is or is not your will to fight? Remember that there are those that want 'zero casualty warfare' in which flowers are strewn instead of bullets, and everyone sits in the campfire and sings together... while someone else sneaks up and slits your throat, I guess. I never could fathom that. But at least they are HONEST in the fact that they are pacifists and that 'no war is just'... or at least semi-honest, since they want all those 'black, brown and other people of color' to be freed, but then complain when that freedom must be paid for. They probably thought the best way to disarm someone out to kill you is to sit down at a conference table with coffee and donuts and figure out exactly when and how harshly you will be killed.

The need for the MSM to fill air time drives news, that news acquisition cycle then presses public servants who are trying to supply information to the people to ask for those things the MSM is interested in and that gets supplied and hyped. Anything else that tries to be supplied gets filtered out: the MSM acts as 'gatekeeper' telling you what it wants you to know... and then asks pundits to pontificate on those things it wants you to know. And the rest of the information? Kept behind the gate, so that the public has to work to find out what our public servants are trying to tell us about. And when those exact, same servants actually can get a word out that discredits the MSM message?

Why that is 'showing political bias'!

And the 'gatekeeping' that advocates a position isn't?

Gen. Wesley Clark would have something far worse on his hands, however, as after having a 'death free' mission, and again I will excerpt and cut off a transition to the conclusion on the military/government/public interface:

Now, since the good General Wesley Clark was involved, lets take a bit of a look at some further things from that same study (pp.105-106):

At first, the public seems to be the favorite source to which to attribute casualty aversion. Nevertheless, this is an assumption that is too easy to make. For example, several studies exist stating that the public is not casualty averse at all. In The Myth of the Reactive Public, Kull and Ramsay conduct an in-depth analysis of surveys done during recent conflicts. The results of this study are simple: the public is much more robust regarding casualties than initially expected. In particular, they reach this conclusion for the Gulf War, the crisis in Mogadishu, and the attack against the U.S. Marines barracks in Lebanon in 1986. After the images of the incident in Somalia were seen, the public wanted more U.S. involvement and retaliation. Likewise, U.S. public support reached its peak when severe losses occurred in the Gulf War and in the days following the terrorist attack in Lebanon. Dealing with the Vietnam War, Jeffrey Record comes to this surprising conclusion: “In retrospect, it is amazing that public support remained as strong as long as it did, given the war's geographic remoteness and the predominantly abstract quality of declared U.S. war aims." Initially, the polls were clear: the public did not respond by demanding an immediate withdrawal. Furthermore, they describe the misperceptions of the public with regard to the number of casualties. Their starting point for this study was a PIPAsurvey in 1999, where American people estimated that 172 U.S. soldiers died in Bosnia, whereas the U.S. actually had no casualties. This survey envisaged different scenarios of degradation. Each time, the public responded with a large majority demonstrating a will to reinforce or to retaliate. A similar survey by PIPA, in 1999, leads to the same conclusions.

Ah, the American people not only think that freedom can be bought with casualties but EXPECT IT! Even when there are ZERO actual casualties, the common folk of the US think that we have paid a price for freedom in blood. And do note that the incidents in Somalia and Bosnia and Kosovo are AFTER the end of the Cold War. Fascinating stuff, isn't it?

All that hard work to cater to the MSM and its voracious news appetite for death during conflict, to stage a campaign that saw zero US deaths and the reward is: the public thinks people died, anyway. The public EXPECTS that actual military conflict will have a casualty toll on it and only the most far Left of individuals believe otherwise... right up to the point they want 'humanitarian missions' to do one thing or another. Deaths in the National interest are to be avoided, yes, but that civil sword cannot remain unbloodied to that end... which is why the far Left is so ready to expend lives in things not to the National interest, because that furthers their anti-Nationalist ends. Incidents like Blackhawk Down in Mogadishu, or the Marine deployment in Lebanon show that when the Nation expends lives in places of questionable National interest, the Nation comes to take a dim view of them. That is because the Presidents involved did not believe in their commitment and to assuage their 'good faith' they expended lives to no good end and diminished the public's respect for them and the armed forces, while emboldening our adversaries. If either of those Presidents had committed to going after those involved, Hezbollah in Lebanon or al Qaeda with warlord support in Somalia, then we would not BE in Iraq or Afghanistan. And Hezbollah would be a footnote of a nasty group that got hunted down until they fled to Syria crying about 'being oppressed' by the US, which would be a lovely Leftist talking point, like what is happening to FARC these days.

This problem with 'peacekeeping' is glossed over by the military pundits and the MSM, both in the Elite structure pushing a worldview where these things are supposed to 'help', while actually rewarding those who caused the problems in the first place. And yet we hear a drone of 'peacekeeping missions' and 'humanitarian missions' and rarely, if ever, the cost in lives of those missions that would require the full commitment of not only the President and Congress, but the American people, as well. And that 'bully pulpit'? Worked great in Yugoslavia for President Reagan, no? So wonderful for President Clinton in the Balkans that those hard problems that have been there for centuries have been fully resolved, right? How about President Bush (41) and that grand coalition with National backing against Iraq, that solved everything by 1992, right? And, say, since nearly every President since Woodrow Wilson has been dabbling in Haiti, just how close is that poor Nation to having things worked out there? That 'bully pulpit' has been so often deployed it is on castors and sits in the wings to be wheeled out every few years...

What comes with the pulpit, however, is the vision of a Priest, most often celibate, talking about the evils of fornication and how you really shouldn't be doing it, except to provide children which is your duty. It is all 'fire and brimstone' the first time through, but by the tenth time it is a polite yawn and check your watch and just what is on for dinner tonight? That 'bully pulpit' has the same problem: it is effective when utilized rarely. But it has seen so many sermons on the same subject that, really, we pay more attention to commercials on the need to floss daily than we do to Presidents on just *why* this or that program or project is vital to the Nation, and you'll get higher taxes to get it, too. The commercials, at least, are short and often pithy, when we don't hit the 'mute' button for them. Sort of like you do with Sen. McCain preaching about the low pork diet, and then making sure the bacon is properly distributed at the pot luck dinner after the anti-pork sermon.

'Fireside chats' with the American people were all well and good from FDR, but he had the novelty of the technology to play upon and showing that he was 'modern' by using that means to effectively communicate. Sen. Obama by hosting a number of anti-American, bigoted blogs loses his ability to show that he understands the medium and that by opening the floodgates you can expect the raw sewage to come out with the rainwater. And if he can't learn to Google 'McCain AND disabilities', then just what the hell is so hip and modern about the guy? Not that the MSM won't eat up that drivel. Sen. Obama is no modern day FDR, nor is Sen. McCain a latter day TR: neither are willing to address the extreme problem of an activist Presidency that the American people don't want.

Gov. Palin does address that, to a degree, but she is on the VP side of things. So, unless she has a stout cluebat to batter Sen. McCain about the head and shoulders with, you can expect him to do asinine things to give up his 'principled positions' to get 'bipartisan support' in which he gives up 90% of his loaf to get 90% of their loaf, which then becomes law. See, he stood for 10% of something he believed in! So 'maverick'.

While politics isn't the cure to many things, it can be the cause of them. Take the latest 'sub prime crisis' du jour of the crisis brigade. Dean Barnett does a lovely job rounding up the mess at The Weekly Standard, and we get to see the heady mix of irrational regulators pushing asinine policy leading to bad loans to NINJAs. That is a term that does not refer to black-clad martial artists stealthily killing those that oppose them... we should be so lucky! No this refers to the class of people who were getting sub-prime loans at the urging of politicians being paid money from the political arms of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. It is a wonderful term! Here are the NINJA loan seekers:

No Income, No Job or Assets

That was the 'new class' of potential homeowners who would benefit by easy money policy backing insane lending practices pushed by wealthy political machines by both Fannie and Freddie which are backed by Federal funds and get political appointees who have no other qualification than a President likes them. Gotta love that oversight, no? While Sen. Obama has been a beneficiary of the political largesse of Fannie and Freddie, being #2 on the recipient parade for them after Sen. Chris Dodd, who was sitting in the Senate when these awful rules were drafted to allow for Presidents to put plum jobs in those institutions to political cronies? And not complain about it, save in the Pork upon the Pulpit way? It is a part of the 'broken culture of Washington' and who hasn't done a damned thing to fix it? If you said Sen. McCain, then grab some bacon!

Now to forestall those that support Sen. McCain, may I point out that even he DID oppose that sort of thing and brought forth a bill or two on Fannie and Freddie, and that he has been ineffective in actually doing anything about it? That 'bipartisanship' is just how often Sen. McCain can compromise principles of his party and that of conservatives just so that *he* can say that he did that. That is not 'effective bipartisanship', but it is a huge problem in showing that his wanting to 'compromise' doesn't equate to actual and effective legislation or addressing the 'Washington culture'. Just like pork.

Whatever Sen. McCain's fixed principles are... yeah, he has written a lot about his background and experiences, but just what is it that he is following is anyone's guess. It isn't classical liberalism of the freedom and liberty for the individual sort. He answered that question years ago with McCain-Feingold. And McCain-Lieberman.

He isn't about economic conservatism, that would put forth that regulation stifles competition and ingenuity and makes it harder for small businesses to unseat large ones to create creative turmoil amongst companies. Sen. McCain loves regulation and talking about the crooked people on Wall Street so much that he has forgotten that the average American now has investments in stock and bond vehicles that were previously not open to the common man by the actions of a very few people leading a few companies to do that over three decades ago. Regulating Wall Street is telling you what you can do with your money within the limits set by the federal government. And its role from the Constitution in that area is...?

Really, when the US deregulated the telephone market prices plummeted, services increased and a plethora of new companies emerged. When the US deregulated the airline industry you got start-ups like SouthWest who could actually try new business models. And the cost of air travel dropped like a rock. And if you want to complain about Freddie, Fannie and AIG, then look to the self-same Congresscritters that have been courting lobbyists and taking cash to change the way loans are made. Hey, how about some regulations for Congress? Those members sure as hell ACT like they are a big business these days.

Sen. McCain brought the military conservatives over to him with his attitudes on Iraq and they have forgotten his votes in the 1990's to support military cuts, which harmed logistics and end-strength to the point of two US Army Divisions going to their lowest readiness levels since Vietnam in 1999. That same Senator then turns around and asks why we don't have more people in the Armed Forces in 2003? But so many just want to 'forgive' him or say that those things are 'unfair' because Sen. McCain has no crystal ball. Which is why you keep a robust military around: you don't know what the hell the future is going to bring and it costs far less to need it and have it than to need it and NOT have it.

So when someone figures out the guidebook that Sen. McCain is reading from, let me know. Remember, Teddy Roosevelt had a number of misgivings about the use and application of Presidential power when he was out of office. He did, indeed, go after Wall Street - monopolies and oligarchies. That is a good thing as it shook up the market and stopped it from having unassailable areas by start-ups. Too much regulation puts those fortifications back in place. Just look at how Big Media have lobbied Congress to make the copyright into near perpetuity via legislation enacted into law. Good job, that, stifling the content of creativity to the common man. And protecting Mickey Mouse and giving the Disney Company the right to erect barriers to creative entry into the marketplace.

My problems with Sen. Obama are fundamental - he takes money from crooks, associates with domestic terrorists and racists, and then bottles that in shiny, new authoritarian bottles of 'home and change'.

Got it?

Sen. McCain complains about the past vintages, but is more than willing to sign on to letting those be poured into the mouth of the body politic because he abstains, donchayknow? And when he wholeheartedly signs up to quota systems and supporting things like the Legal Services Corp. to expend public funds to bring suits against the government on behalf of Leftist interests? Or to stop low power FM broadcasting for local communities that get no service from those bands locally? Or to try to make free political opinion something that should be controlled by the FEC? Or the 'gunshow loophole' to keep track of who goes to gunshows? Or that the federal government has an interest in local cable right-of-ways doled out by local governments? Illegal alien amnesty? Why don't we just help those nice folks from MS-13 become all nice and legal with a sham 3-day 'processing period' for mountains of paperwork. They are 'all God's children' after all....

That is Sen. McCain's version of 'federalism', don't mind that it doesn't look like any form of 'federalism' under any definition of the term.

Sen. McCain loves to complain NOW about things he has been a part of for more than 20 years.

I have a problem with that.

What really gets me is the 13 month (or whatever the attention-deficit disorder length is for conservatives) or so cycle that conservatives have with Sen. McCain. He will join with the opposition, stab you in the back until we get the pitiful 'Et, tu, Brute?'

Then he will strut around, make merry for a few months, condescend to help you out, lift you up... and then join in a new backstabbing complete with 'Et, tu, Brute?' on the part of conservatives.

That has been going on since his first votes not to sustain President Reagan's vetoes on a number of bills. By the third time around it was pathetic. And now the co-dependency cycle works itself around, he puts Gov. Palin on the top spot and... well... I can feel it coming. Will it be immigration? Taxes? Backing out on his pro-drilling conversion and joing the Gang in the Senate? And he will do that just in time for the Feiler Faster Thesis to be in gear for Sen. Obama who will be on his upswing from the dregs and start to overhaul Sen. McCain who will be doing his strutting thing and trying to reach out, again, because, you know, 'he is the best we can do'.

If I don't vote Cthulhu it is because I will do something truly Evil.

I will write in Gov. Sarah Palin for President.

Because SHE is the best being offered this go-around, even where I disagree with her, and depending on the rules for the counting of these things in the States, that just *might* start to change the vote count for the Elector sent to the Electoral College. All it takes is a few of those and the actual election, in the EC. And then we will see *just* how dirty the 'maverick' will fight... to keep his VP out of the top spot.

Yeah, I'm willing to do that.

The hell of it is, that doesn't show up until the votes are counted.

And like President John Quincy Adams said, I will know that I voted for the RIGHT PERSON and to hell with the rest of those wanting me to be 'partisan', I will sleep well at night knowing I voted for the right person even if she LOSES. It is what my country asks of me.

Truly, only Cthulhu could inspire such Evil so that even if It loses, It wins.

Sounds like fun! Plus it is the right thing for me to do and uphold my end of the Constitutional bargain. Who would have thought that something pointed to by so many as a great good, could actually end up being an evil process? Oh, they are the 'partisans'... but then so am I. For my Nation.

Because I have had it with the tyranny of the Elitist minorities and the Big Business that is Congress.

And I distrust anyone with a Sen. or Rep. in front of their names save for a very, very, very few. You want the source of the problems in lending and Wall Street now showing up? Look for the Sen. or Rep. label and you will have hit the rotten fish in the rotting barrel. Remember that Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Mussolini, Pol Pot, and the rest of that crew had lovely controlled and regulated economies. And that those Western Nations getting over regulated, France, UK, Germany, Italy, Spain, Greece, Netherlands, Denmark, Sweden, Norway, et. al. all have declining populations, are importing north african and middle eastern islamic populations, face a dwindling work force and all have extremely well regulated economies. Where else can you get the doctors to all walk out for a month of paid vacation and let people die in the hospitals but in a well regulated economy?

I want the power basis of the US to shift to a more representative one and BREAK the power of Congress to act as a Big Business. You want to get rid of the bad fish? Get a bigger barrel and add in a lot of small predators. Soon it will be *all* small predators beholden to YOU. I support the 1:30,000 maximum House under the Constitution, as the best answer for corrupt democracy is lots more democracy and let the rotting extremities of government get chewed away by it. I can't get to there from here through Sen. Obama or Sen. McCain. But Gov. Palin just might understand that concept. She sure as hell has a better chance than anyone else in the race, that is for sure.

Let us join together to dilute the power of the Elites in our government.

You can't get that through reform.

You can get it through vital and diverse democracy.

Just like the founders wanted.

I like that vision of America, where our Congresscritters are beholden to the 30,000 adults in their district.

And more people will realize the power of their vote is not diluted and become deluded with the system, as is happening now with our Fascist and Communist trends towards regulation and diminution of liberty and freedom.

I want my fellow citizens to control this Nation for good or ill, and to take power from these Elites and their huge money supplies and face them with the inordinate task of having to try and bribe a good portion of 10,000 Members of the House. They couldn't hide that. And certainly not from local voters where each and every single vote counts.

You know, local democracy?

That is what the 'reformers' are against.

Accountability for everyone, save them.

And lets put the 'bully pulpit' in the storage attic for a few decades... and find some people who can govern, not rule the Nation.

You had better believe it!

Ahhh... the Obama campaign...

Yes it is probably photoshopped... still... H/t to Mark Hemmingway at NRO.

Then there is this number by Ed Morrissey at Hot Air on Sen. Obama flunking history:

After receiving a hailstorm of criticism for considering Brandenburg Gate for a public speech, as well as official German dissuasion, Barack Obama moved the venue to the Siegessäule monument. Obama will speak about “historic” US-German relations, but once again, Obama’s own grasp of history has been proven deficient. Not only does the site contain a monument to Prussian victories over other American allies in Europe, its placement was decided by Adolf Hitler — in order to impress crowds in his idealized version of Berlin called Germania:

Still, even as the issue of his speech’s location has now been settled, a number of politicians in Berlin are still dissatisfied with the site. The Siegessäule — or Victory Column — was erected in memory of Prussia’s victories over Denmark (1864), Austria (1866) and France (1870/71). The column originally stood in front of the Reichstag, Germany’s parliament building, but was moved by Adolf Hitler to its current location in 1939 to make way for his planned transformation of Berlin into the Nazi capital “Germania.”

“The Siegessäule in Berlin was moved to where it is now by Adolf Hitler. He saw it as a symbol of German superiority and of the victorious wars against Denmark, Austria and France,” the deputy leader of the Free Democrats, Rainer Brüderle, told Bild am Sonntag. He raised the question as to “whether Barack Obama was advised correctly in his choice of the Siegessäule as the site to hold a speech on his vision for a more cooperative world.”

Andreas Schockenhoff of Chancellor Angela Merkel’s Christian Democrats said, “the Siegessäule in Berlin is dedicated to a victory over neighbors who are today our European friends and allies. It is a problematic symbol.”

Hitler didn’t just move the monument to its more central location. He had a taller column built for it as well, to emphasize its message of German military domination over Europe. He saw it as a message to Germans of their destiny — as well as to other Europeans as their destiny as well. It was never meant as a symbol of peaceful, multicultural co-existence.

Yes going from the Brandenburg Gate,

Image: Wikipedia

with all of its historical import about being steadfast against the USSR and seeking to re-unite the German State, to... well...

Image: Wikipedia

...winged victory.

Over Denmark, Austria and France.

Well there you have it: Sen. Obama looking to piss off European Allies in a way no Republican would dare do.

Change you can believe in!

As no matter how bad things are, they can always get worse.

Plans aren't policy

Just a little bit of fun with the Presidential candidates from their websites:

Energy Plans

Sen. John McCain

Greenhouse Gas Emission Targets And Timetables
2012: Return Emissions To 2005 Levels (18 Percent Above 1990 Levels)
2020: Return Emissions To 1990 Levels (15 Percent Below 2005 Levels)
2030: 22 Percent Below 1990 Levels (34 Percent Below 2005 Levels)
2050: 60 Percent Below 1990 Levels (66 Percent Below 2005 Levels)

The Cap And Trade System Would Allow For The Gradual Reduction Of Emissions.
The cap and trade system would encompass electric power, transportation fuels, commercial business, and industrial business – sectors responsible for just below 90 percent of all emissions. Small businesses would be exempt. Initially, participants would be allowed to either make their own GHG reductions or purchase "offsets" – financial instruments representing a reduction, avoidance, or sequestration of greenhouse gas emissions practiced by other activities, such as agriculture – to cover 100 percent of their required reductions. Offsets would only be available through a program dedicated to ensure that all offset GHG emission reductions are real, measured and verifiable. The fraction of GHG emission reductions permitted via offsets would decline over time.

Sen. Barack Obama

Cap and Trade: Obama supports implementation of a market-based cap-and-trade system to reduce carbon emissions by the amount scientists say is necessary: 80 percent below 1990 levels by 2050. Obama's cap-and-trade system will require all pollution credits to be auctioned. A 100 percent auction ensures that all polluters pay for every ton of emissions they release, rather than giving these emission rights away to coal and oil companies. Some of the revenue generated by auctioning allowances will be used to support the development of clean energy, to invest in energy efficiency improvements, and to address transition costs, including helping American workers affected by this economic transition.

The question is: if 'greenhouse gases' are NOT causing 'global warming' then why do we need any 'cap and trade' system?

Both plans seek to 'regulate' such emissions, but the question is why is the federal government the best one to do that? If such emissions are demonstrated not to be linked to any 'global warming' and, indeed, fluctuate independently of global surface temperature, then the entire bureaucracy set up to do such things would have to be dismantled. Now considering that the federal government took a century or so to remove taxation on telephone use to help pay for the Philippine-American War, why would it be expected to be any quicker in getting rid of this bureaucracy?

While both Candidates have 'plans' to 'mandate' technologies, isn't it the marketplace that is best set up to determine economically viable technologies and their use? Who gave these candidates such wisdom of the ages to determine these things?

And for those thinking that Sen. McCain's is any more 'friendly' to small businesses, what he is doing is setting up a huge gap of regulation between small and large businesses and effectively ensuring that NO small business covered under his regulatory system will ever BECOME a large business. Sen. Obama at least wants to wipe out the small businesses instead of having them around by applying it equally to everyone to 'ensure the burden' is spread evenly so that the smaller businesses can't cope with them.

Which is better?

Government ensuring that the large polluters can never be challenged properly or Government ensuring that small businesses get hit the hardest and have a truly nasty uphill slope to climb while larger firms just absorb the cost and pass it along to consumers? Either way the small business sector becomes more limited for those areas covered by regulation.

Both Presidential candidates want larger government intrusion into a market that has ALREADY met ALL commitments that anyone would have wanted from the US out of Kyoto without doing a damned thing. Why regulate it AT ALL? It is outperforming every other Nation on the planet signed on to Kyoto. Strange by not signing on we meet standards, while others that sign on can't meet them through centralized regulation....

Next up:

Healthcare

Sen. Barack Obama

• Obama's Plan to Cover Uninsured Americans: Obama will make available a new national health plan to all Americans, including the self-employed and small businesses, to buy affordable health coverage that is similar to the plan available to members of Congress. The Obama plan will have the following features:
  1. Guaranteed eligibility. No American will be turned away from any insurance plan because of illness or pre-existing conditions.
  2. Comprehensive benefits. The benefit package will be similar to that offered through Federal Employees Health Benefits Program (FEHBP), the plan members of Congress have. The plan will cover all essential medical services, including preventive, maternity and mental health care.
  3. Affordable premiums, co-pays and deductibles.
  4. Subsidies. Individuals and families who do not qualify for Medicaid or SCHIP but still need financial assistance will receive an income-related federal subsidy to buy into the new public plan or purchase a private health care plan.
  5. Simplified paperwork and reined in health costs.
  6. Easy enrollment. The new public plan will be simple to enroll in and provide ready access to coverage.
  7. Portability and choice. Participants in the new public plan and the National Health Insurance Exchange (see below) will be able to move from job to job without changing or jeopardizing their health care coverage.
  8. Quality and efficiency. Participating insurance companies in the new public program will be required to report data to ensure that standards for quality, health information technology and administration are being met.
• National Health Insurance Exchange: The Obama plan will create a National Health Insurance Exchange to help individuals who wish to purchase a private insurance plan. The Exchange will act as a watchdog group and help reform the private insurance market by creating rules and standards for participating insurance plans to ensure fairness and to make individual coverage more affordable and accessible. Insurers would have to issue every applicant a policy, and charge fair and stable premiums that will not depend upon health status. The Exchange will require that all the plans offered are at least as generous as the new public plan and have the same standards for quality and efficiency. The Exchange would evaluate plans and make the differences among the plans, including cost of services, public.
• Employer Contribution: Employers that do not offer or make a meaningful contribution to the cost of quality health coverage for their employees will be required to contribute a percentage of payroll toward the costs of the national plan. Small employers that meet certain revenue thresholds will be exempt.
• Mandatory Coverage of Children: Obama will require that all children have health care coverage. Obama will expand the number of options for young adults to get coverage, including allowing young people up to age 25 to continue coverage through their parents' plans.
• Expansion Of Medicaid and SCHIP: Obama will expand eligibility for the Medicaid and SCHIP programs and ensure that these programs continue to serve their critical safety net function.
• Flexibility for State Plans: Due to federal inaction, some states have taken the lead in health care reform. The Obama plan builds on these efforts and does not replace what states are doing. States can continue to experiment, provided they meet the minimum standards of the national plan.

Sen. John McCain

John McCain Will Reform Health Care Making It Easier For Individuals And Families To Obtain Insurance. An important part of his plan is to use competition to improve the quality of health insurance with greater variety to match people's needs, lower prices, and portability. Families should be able to purchase health insurance nationwide, across state lines.

John McCain Will Reform The Tax Code To Offer More Choices Beyond Employer-Based Health Insurance Coverage. While still having the option of employer-based coverage, every family will receive a direct refundable tax credit - effectively cash - of $2,500 for individuals and $5,000 for families to offset the cost of insurance. Families will be able to choose the insurance provider that suits them best and the money would be sent directly to the insurance provider. Those obtaining innovative insurance that costs less than the credit can deposit the remainder in expanded Health Savings Accounts.

John McCain Proposes Making Insurance More Portable. Americans need insurance that follows them from job to job. They want insurance that is still there if they retire early and does not change if they take a few years off to raise the kids.

John McCain Will Encourage And Expand The Benefits Of Health Savings Accounts (HSAs) For Families. When families are informed about medical choices, they are more capable of making their own decisions and often decide against unnecessary options. Health Savings Accounts take an important step in the direction of putting families in charge of what they pay for.

[..]

John McCain Proposes A Number Of Initiatives That Can Lower Health Care Costs. If we act today, we can lower health care costs for families through common-sense initiatives. Within a decade, health spending will comprise twenty percent of our economy. This is taking an increasing toll on America's families and small businesses. Even Senators Clinton and Obama recognize the pressure skyrocketing health costs place on small business when they exempt small businesses from their employer mandate plans.

CHEAPER DRUGS: Lowering Drug Prices. John McCain will look to bring greater competition to our drug markets through safe re-importation of drugs and faster introduction of generic drugs.

CHRONIC DISEASE: Providing Quality, Cheaper Care For Chronic Disease. Chronic conditions account for three-quarters of the nation's annual health care bill. By emphasizing prevention, early intervention, healthy habits, new treatment models, new public health infrastructure and the use of information technology, we can reduce health care costs. We should dedicate more federal research to caring and curing chronic disease.

COORDINATED CARE: Promoting Coordinated Care. Coordinated care - with providers collaborating to produce the best health care - offers better outcomes at lower cost. We should pay a single bill for high-quality disease care which will make every single provider accountable and responsive to the patients' needs.

GREATER ACCESS AND CONVENIENCE: Expanding Access To Health Care. Families place a high value on quickly getting simple care. Government should promote greater access through walk-in clinics in retail outlets.

INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY: Greater Use Of Information Technology To Reduce Costs. We should promote the rapid deployment of 21st century information systems and technology that allows doctors to practice across state lines.

MEDICAID AND MEDICARE: Reforming The Payment System To Cut Costs. We must reform the payment systems in Medicaid and Medicare to compensate providers for diagnosis, prevention and care coordination. Medicaid and Medicare should not pay for preventable medical errors or mismanagement.

SMOKING: Promoting The Availability Of Smoking Cessation Programs. Most smokers would love to quit but find it hard to do so. Working with business and insurance companies to promote availability, we can improve lives and reduce chronic disease through smoking cessation programs.

STATE FLEXIBILITY: Encouraging States To Lower Costs. States should have the flexibility to experiment with alternative forms of access, coordinated payments per episode covered under Medicaid, use of private insurance in Medicaid, alternative insurance policies and different licensing schemes for providers.

TORT REFORM: Passing Medical Liability Reform. We must pass medical liability reform that eliminates lawsuits directed at doctors who follow clinical guidelines and adhere to safety protocols. Every patient should have access to legal remedies in cases of bad medical practice but that should not be an invitation to endless, frivolous lawsuits.

TRANSPARENCY: Bringing Transparency To Health Care Costs. We must make public more information on treatment options and doctor records, and require transparency regarding medical outcomes, quality of care, costs and prices. We must also facilitate the development of national standards for measuring and recording treatments and outcomes.

Yes, I am greatly abbreviating these monster proposals.

Both plans are set upon subsidizing health insurance. I have some bad news for the Senators, but when you subsidize a good or service it gets used uneconomically thus driving up the overall cost or lowering the overall availability or BOTH. This is a central understanding of healthcare as practiced since the start of WWII and is a direct consequence of the 'New Deal' requiring individuals to *retire* just as labor was desperately needed in factories. As John Stossel points out on 21 SEP 2007:

America's health-care problem is not that some people lack insurance, it is that 250 million Americans do have it.

You have to understand something right from the start. We Americans got hooked on health insurance because the government did the insurance companies a favor during World War II. Wartime wage controls prohibited cash raises, so employers started giving noncash benefits like health insurance to attract workers. The tax code helped this along by treating employer-based health insurance more favorably than coverage you buy yourself. And state governments have made things worse by mandating coverage many people would never buy for themselves.

Competition also pushed companies to offer ever-more attractive policies, such as first-dollar coverage for routine ailments like ear infections and colds, and coverage for things that are not even illnesses, like pregnancy. We came to expect insurance to cover everything.

What is not accounted for in any mention of healthcare 'plans' is the cost of overhead for 'insurance'. Insurance is bought on a provisional basis that you are expecting something to happen to you and the insurer is betting that it will not: it is a wager system in which the one accepting the risk of the gamble, namely the insurer, sets the price on the wager. Healthcare, unfortunately, because it has been subsidized has been over used and abused by the American public, thus distorting the cost of healthcare.

Using government 'mandates' then becomes an effort to shift accountability out of the hands of patients, no matter how 'market oriented' a mandate is, and to meeting 'standards' set by a regulatory body that is appointed, not elected. As Mr. Stossel points out the average doctor utilizes 14% of their income to deal with *paperwork*, and even with most of that being electronic it requires the hiring of non-medical staff to handle insurance 'oversight' and paperwork. What you pay *into* health insurance becomes a fraction of what is paid out: you subtract of insurance company overhead, overhead of that burden on doctors who must change pricing due to it, and the increased cost of 'controls' and 'accountability' by the insurance company against fraud and just keeping track of the records. If you consider that 14% to be a baseline, just on the medical overhead side, then what is the baseline for the insurance company just to manage paperwork? 1% seems unlikely. 5% if it was run extremely well. In fact for most industries the non-work portion of the day for employees is considered at 20% and that is without profit added in.

If the insurance part is 20% and you throw in, say, a generous 12% profit... even 8% to be low... and you add in the cost of increase to doctors to keep track of the paperwork and pass that cost along, just what part of this 'insurance' is actually going to pay for medical expenses? You know, the stuff you use like doctor's visits and purchasing medications? 70% seems relatively fair, in that realm. So, if 15% of your overall budget goes to healthcare via insurance and you get a 70% useful return on that 15% you are actually spending, yes, 10.5% for healthcare. And that of your grandparents who didn't have insurance, back in the day when that was possible? I've read figures as high as 6-8% and as low as 3%.

That cost delta is lost money due to government mandates, regulations, tax subsidies and generally interfering with your health.

Weaning an addict off of their addiction is a slow process, but if you don't do it that addict begins to spend more and more for their addiction and get less and less return. That is the problem of Canada, which has across the country the same number of MRI machines as Philadelphia metro area. A country that is closing hospitals, even though there are sick people needing beds and where, in some towns, if you have an emergency, it will have to wait for a doctor. Or get flown to the US.

That is from a country that is always cited as having well managed government healthcare. A couple of years ago in France the death toll due to sick and elderly in the summer from doctors taking a month of vacation *mandated* by government shows how much worse things can go along that route. If subsidized insurance is so good, then why are the UK and Canada looking to slowly move away from it?

I would move on to education, but let me put forward something that no one likes: local education is not the business of the federal government. That comes from the US Constitution:

Amendment IX

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Amendment X

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

As the 'right to get educated' is not delegated, by the Constitution to the federal government, it is reserved for the States and the people. As it is not a federal responsibility but a wholly local one, and not enumerated in the Constitution it is not to be disparaged nor controlled by the federal government. That exact, same, argument goes for healthcare and 'greenhouse gases' as these are not a power reserved to the federal government. At each point in these things when the government has stepped in the results have been the same: performance has decreased across the market, markets turn into un-economic zones where government determines who can enter and who can't by raising the barrier to entry, and from those the people end up paying more. Lots more.

One of my earliest ideas was on education reform, and it did point out that since the book Why Johnny Can't Read came out, the reading scores across the US have remained absolutely flat:

That from Jerry Pournelle's site. Since 1958, I believe it was, the rate of Poor Johnny's reading has remained, for all the billions upon billions spent by the federal government, dead flat. Notice that the billions spent have not changed that one jot. You want better reading scores? Perhaps more money isn't the answer, as it certainly seems to be not helping when you DO add money in... and what was my cure for that? Ok, here is something that none of the 'change' folks will stomach, which is change away from something that is proven not to work:

If you want reading, writing, mathematical and other basic abilities to improve, you must *not* hand off responsibility to the Federal government for it. That is an abdication of your responsibility to exercise your rights as a citizen in the US. You, the voter, have signed it over to them by not asking for accountability, clear and precise objectives, a rewards system for actually achieving the goals of teaching children to learn *how* to learn. And then the *expert* educational people come in and tell you that they can do so much *more*... if you would just pay them... continually... and not hold them accountable... ever.

To anyone who reads this, and who thinks that the Federal government is the place to put the responsibility for teaching children, go look in the mirror and you will see the source of the problem. For nearly three generations the responsibility for the right of education has been handed over to *experts*, *qualified professionals*, politicians, bureaucrats and the ever loving school board you never voted for because you couldn't get *involved*. Three generations of parents have abdicated their responsibilities for exercising their rights and being held accountable. And then have the temerity to whine... 'But Johnny Can't Read!' Well, that is what you got: a set of institutions devoted to keeping illiteracy alive and at a steady rate.

There *is* an American answer. It is the *only* answer that will work in the long run. Not in one year. Not in five years. But certainly in time. And it will cost you time, precious time of your life... to learn about your children... to shoulder the true responsibilities of raising a child... and to *not* letting the 'Village' do it for you! And for those that feel that there is some collective need to help children from the highest level, I offer you this humble methodology.

1. Eliminate the Department of Education at the Federal level
2. Establish the goal of meeting the top academic scores in the world and set that as the 100% mark.
3. Take 2/3 of the money given to the Department of Education and Block Grant it out to the states. The states may not use this for anything other than education of children for those things being tested.
4. Each state will get funds based on that State's overall percentage score to the 100% mark for all of their students.
5. No school that refuses children based on race, gender, religion or other otherwise means tests children will be eligible for this money.
6. Children may not be instructed in religion with this money and all instruction related to Federal funds must be clearly separated from religious instruction and enrollment may not be held as contingent upon religious instruction.
7. Homeschoolers get paid directly the portion allotted to their child based on performance in standardized tests.

What this does is very simple: it removes the question of supporting religion with Federal funds from the equation. If Catholic Schools have a better methodology of teaching those basics needed for excellence in education, they may not require a student attend religious courses to get such schooling. Similarly, if a group of Satanists find a wonderful way to up test scores via teaching methodology, they are not to be barred from it. And at for those that perform *over* the 100% mark, they will get additional Federal funds as that would prove a sound investment for society, no matter how the teaching was done. And the public schools will be forced to *compete* and start to rely upon and lobby those people who can most *help* them: Parents.

It is far too easy to say to a Congressman: 'We are doing so poorly because we do not have enough money'... it is far harder to tell a parent living near that school the exact same thing, and keep that parent's children at your school. You have to offer *solutions* to parents or ask them to *help* in solving the problems. And if a school is falling apart, has students with failing grades, disinterested parents, sky-high property taxes and an apathetic school board... well... why exactly *should* they get more money?

Education cannot be the right of everyone and the responsibility of bureaucrats.

Yes, equal treatment under the law, set real standards, pay for performance and block grant the money. Public Schools *compete* against Private Schools, and money is given out to those who teach well via international standardized tests that everyone likes to point to. If you can teach children well, you should damned well get paid well FOR THAT. And if you CAN'T, then why should you get paid well AT ALL?

Would you pay to get your car repaired like we pay for education? No? Why not? Don't like lowest common denominator car repairs with subsidies going to those who don't repair cars well? Mind you, this is just the next generation of the Nation we are talking about, not like they will make life and death decisions based on poor schooling paid for by lackluster voters who can't be bothered to care about the future anymore...

So, if the federal government isn't a good steward of education, where else has it proven to be less than able?

Consider the problem of what the domestic, small producer oil companies faced in the 1990's when profits were low, supply plentiful and there was a problem of keeping our own, internal, oil production solvent as seen by Steve Layton, President and CEO of Equinox Oil Company, part of the Independent Petroleum Association of America in testimony given to the US Senate Committee on Energy and Natural resources in 1999:

Today’s hearing is intended to examine the current state of the petroleum industry. I must say at the outset that I have never seen the domestic petroleum industry facing a more complicated and potentially devastating set of problems than it now does. The industry has faced a low oil price crisis for the past year, but today’s problems are very different and far more threatening than the ones that began the problem.

A year ago, the price crisis was started by a combination of events – the collapse of Asian economies, a warmer than normal winter in the northern hemisphere, and ultimately a market share fight between Venezuela and Saudi Arabia. The events created a surplus of oil in the international market and prices fell. The production most at risk was marginal oil wells in the United States – wells that produce about 20 percent of America’s domestic production, an amount equivalent to our imports from Saudi Arabia. And, I might add the wells from which I make my living.

Now, we have experienced a year of low oil prices – historically low prices that threaten the very heart of U.S. oil production. Domestic oil production is divided into three general areas – the onshore lower 48 states, offshore, and Alaska. The onshore lower 48 states account for about 60 percent of total domestic oil production. The Energy Information Agency has released a recent report that over 60 percent of this onshore lower 48 production comes from independents, a percentage that has increased by ten percent over the past ten years. It reflects an irreversible trend. Major oil companies are leaving the onshore lower 48 states. Particularly since 1986 when the last price crisis occurred, major oil companies have turned their attention away from the onshore lower 48 states shutting in or selling off their production. They have concluded that these wells do not produce the volumes they need to meet the return on capital that they seek. Majors now operate in the United States primarily in the offshore and Alaska, but more and more they are seeking their new production overseas.

[..]

In fact, we would submit that Iraq now controls world oil prices. We would submit that the current U.N. sanctions program has failed on two counts. First, it has failed in its primary mission to provide humanitarian aid to the Iraqi people. Second, it has handed Saddam Hussein the victory he lost in the Gulf War. He invaded Kuwait to control oil prices; now he does and he is penalizing his enemies.

[..]

First, world oil prices are essentially set by the last barrel sold. A year ago, Iraq exported about 700,000 barrels/day. In December 1998, it exported about 2.3 million barrels/day. By March it will have another 500,000 barrels/day of capacity on line. Iraq was the only OPEC country to boost its oil revenue in 1998. As other OPEC countries have reduced production to stabilize oil prices, Iraq has become the swing producer of world oil. The swing producer sets the price.

Second, Saddam’s objectives differ from other oil producers. He wanted higher oil prices when he invaded Kuwait – money he needed to build his military forces. Now, he can’t spend money to buy arms. But, he can – by keeping oil prices low – punish his enemies, first by reducing the income to Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Iran, and others; second, by driving critical U.S. production to be shutdown and plugged forever.

Third, looking purely at demand and productive capacity, today’s surpluses should not drive prices to their historic depths. We estimate that worldwide production capacity currently exceeds demand by about 4 percent.

Nobody cared about the lack of support for oil producers when the cost of gasoline was low, and yet the small producers saw what was happening and reported on it to the US Senate: market manipulation happening during a price war between Saudi Arabia and Venezuela.

America has a problem: we only care about things when they become a 'crisis' and don't care that our internal policy is so skewed that it creates crises because of our 'crisis' driven mentality.

The problem with the 'plans' of the candidates is that they are NOT POLICY: they are legislative views towards a branch of government that does NOT create legislation. Each of these candidates is depending on getting legislation PASSED by Congress when they BOTH sit in the very institution that does that. And as their plans have a high degree of accord, why don't they work NOW to get them passed?

Could it be that the plans of both are *losers* and can't get a majority to agree with them? That no amount of 'bipartisanship' can get them even *started* in Congress?

If these two cannot show Leadership in the very place that starts legislation, then why should a change of venue to an office that doesn't start these things *help*? Yes, some Presidents do get a 'honeymoon' period, which lasts far less than a year, these days, and my guess is the next President, no matter *who* is elected, will not even get a few weeks.... to get started a legislative process they have had YEARS to address.

I am supposed to find a difference between these two non-performers?

If the difference is between Big Government and Bigger Government, just how can I choose for someone that will, actually, represent my beliefs and ideals for how government is supposed to be run from the Executive branch and actually get a Smaller Government? Because they are not running to be Super-Duper Senator or Uber-Legislator, although that is what their 'plans' imply, but for running to be Head of the Federal Government, Head of State, Commander in Chief and Final Pardoner. And none of those things are looking at Education, Healthcare or even energy production. That power isn't given to the Executive, Legislative or Judicial branches.

And if you try to cite some emanating penumbra' from the Preamble, may I suggest that I read the Preamble damned differently and don't see one jot or tittle handed to government there?

They both want to take more from me, you and all of our fellow citizens in the way of rights and responsibilities. I am supposed to like or even admire that in either candidate? Vote for one? Which one is it that is running to be President?

If these two suckers can't even figure out what a policy *is*, then why should I seek to entrust either with the highest office in the land? One is less worse? Less worse than *what*, praytell? The other? They aren't even running for the job of President but as Super Legislator as they don't understand the difference between the two. Even worse is that neither can do their present job in a way to secure liberty, not remove it.

As a responsible voter trying to safeguard my Nation and my liberty, and ensure that both of those get passed along undiminished to those that follow me, then voting for a candidate who promises to diminish my liberty is a non-starter. And they are *both* doing that in different areas and promising us the same old nostrums of some lovely government that actually can figure things out, with all proof for multiple decades and, indeed, a century or so, pointing out that the federal government is the worst place to put faith for doing anything with the powers not handed to it by the Constitution. Unfortunately we have been doing so for a long time, and the last time this country faced a government that felt it could dictate to the people what the people should do, there was a Revolution.

'Government mandated free market' is an oxymoron, in case it has escaped anyone's attention.

And yet that sort of comment can be upheld as being a great idea, profound even, if either of these individuals speak it.

The more I look at these two candidates the more I am disgusted by them.