Silly Bits VI

The Government appears to be about ready to shut down today.  Since this is one of the silliest things that the government does (a statement which goes much further than I'm sure the two major parties would be willing to concede), what better time to talk about some of the Silly Bits involved where this particular shutdown is concerned.

Shutdown, Schmutdown ... big deal.  After all, we've shut down the government some 17 times in recent history, and for all the common sense that seems to make, the damn thing keeps coming back to life like the evil lead in a Zombie Apocalypse movie.  Besides, all the really cool stuff in Washington DC like White House tours, the parks, and the museums were shut down already because of last year's Sequester. (Or so they've told us.)  

I for one am suspicious about these so-called shutdowns.  They tell us that this one will not threaten the checks of soldiers or the elderly on Social Security, but could eventually threaten the processing of claims for both; all so they can keep the special subsidies for a medical plan for members of Congress and theirs staffs who are making far more than the average citizen.  We'll no doubt keep writing checks for foreign aid (a post in itself that will have to wait for another day); all to keep from granting the same one year delay to individuals signing up for the ACA through legislation that were granted by Presidential fiat to employers. 

Besides, it's getting hard to worry about the bad things that will happen from this government shutdown when House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi already told us only last week that the government has cut everything it can already and can't cut more.  If that's the case, for all we know we might have been shut down already.   

Democrats want to blame Republicans for this potential shutdown, since it was their idea to shut down the government the last time in 1995.  Republicans in turn would like to blame Democrats, since it's Harry Reid and his party in the Senate that seem to have become the party of 'NO' lately in their refusal to compromise (or in many cases, even vote). A pox on both their Houses!

The truth is that Government is on the verge of shutting down because both parties are too busy posturing for position for an election that's 13 months away to have done their job for the previous 12 months.  Both parties require some media face time, good sound bites, and a jumping off point for fund raising.  So instead of doing one of the few things that they are obligated to do under the Constitution to perform, they ignore their fiscal responsibilities (and common sense) and square off on partisan lines at the last minute in such a way that any decision made must be ill-considered at best and a knee-jerk reaction at worst.

I've got an idea!  How about instead of passing a Continuing Resolution, we have them instead pass a law to hold a special election this November for ALL of those currently in office in both houses (regardless of the status of their term).  How about we make a 'very special' election' and not allow incumbents to run in it?  If your party gamesmanship is so important to that you continuously place it above your oath of office, take the bullet for it and go find another place to work.  If you're unable to perform the simplest requirements of the job you have, step a aside and allow us to find someone who will.

According to Democrats and some in the media, Republicans in the both houses of the national legislature should stop messing with Obamacare (The Affordable Health Care Act) because its law.  What a preposterous notion!

It's the job of members of the Congress to challenge laws when and if necessary, and to fix those that need it even after they're passed.  They've been doing this since the inception of this branch of government and as a result, we've seen things as foolish as the 'Jim Crow' laws of this nation redressed.

Of course, still waiting in the wings is the Debt Ceiling and yet another possible stand off .  You remember the Debt Ceiling; it's the limit of the government's ability to borrow money.  Now however, the President is out there on the stump telling us that the nation's debt is going down faster than it has in years.  Am I the only one that sees the logical inconsistency in this?  

If the debt is going down, why have we once again run out of money to borrow?  How is it that what we were told were the 'draconian cuts' of the 2012 Sequester have not prevented this from happening as threatened (promised)?  If we are so quickly again reaching the national credit limit however, shouldn't we be doing even more to bring in line the government's spending with it's revenues (like delaying a very expensive new government program like Obamacare)?

By the way, where does the $85 billion of government debt that the Federal Reserve purchases in bonds every month figure into this concept?  Call it Quantitative Easing or just the monthly bond auction, this government escapade doesn't even show up on the balance sheet.  Likewise, no elected official has to approve it, since this is the Fed's money and not really the government. (Like there's a difference?) This ruinous fiscal policy already has already led to devaluation of the currency and will eventually lead to some fairly massive inflation.  Such devaluation may some good for some in the stock market and those looking at the national debt we're worried about, but it won't do much good for anyone who earns and purchases in US dollars.

During the 2012 election, Presidential candidate Ron Paul held up a silver dime when talking about the current price of gasoline.  He reminded the nation that because of the changing worth of the currency in 'real goods', the value of the metal in what was a ten cent coin when minted was still enough to buy a gallon of gas, even at today's prices.  

As to the idea of a federal government shutdown itself, it should probably be pointed out that the real problem may not be whether it should happen or not; but this:

How did we let this government become "too big to fail" in the first place and allow the potential of its temporary shutdown to matter.   

The federal government long ago exceeded the limitations placed on it in the the Constitution.  This rampant overreach is as much responsible for the potential train wreck than anything else we're facing today.  Perhaps if so much money and power were not relegated to this bug-infested swamp on the Potomac River, we'd be cheering rather than fearing its potential of its temporary demise.  
 

It's Oil Lies I Tell You

This week's mid-week rant is late, (and will probably be a bit short) for good reason, in that my health has been suffering for a couple of days.  Just as I get back into the swing of things however, I find that the truth is suffering far more than I have while I have been regaining my strength.  It's campaign season after all, and whether you're running for a nomination, or already running for the highest office in the land, it seems to be a requirement for the truth to take far more of a beating than my tired old carcass has taken this week.

The same president who refused to let the Keystone XL pipeline become part of a Congressional bill a couple of months ago and deferred approval to 2013, now has the political temerity to stand in front of a pile of pipe in Oklahoma and say that he's trying to expedite the process.  In typical campaign fashion, he blamed political opponents for attempting to circumvent a process that he felt needed more time three months ago; while now telling applauding audiences that he will cut regulatory red tape (that his Administration created) to speed the process up.       

Note:  The president and candidates for office are likely to see much more in the way of applauding audiences this year, since recently passed legislation makes it illegal to protest in the presence of someone guarded by the Secret Service ... like the president and presidential candidates.

He went on to say that he's going to order federal agencies to expedite the approval process that he once delayed (after all, the project has only been under review for three years).  Curiously, few in the media seem ready to point out that President Obama has no dog in this hunt, as the section of pipeline being built does not require federal approval; and none seem ready to use the term 'flip-flop' in discussing the President's restatement of his previous strongly held position, one which greatly appealed to his core constituencies in the environmental movement.

In a CNN piece offered today, he also said "Anyone who says that we're somehow suppressing domestic oil production isn't paying attention".  Now for those of you not paying attention, this is one of the lies by omission.  Oil production is not being suppressed by the Administration, since it comes from wells whose drilling began long before the President took office.  Fewer permits are being issued for new exploration however, and vast tracts of land have been placed out of reach for exploration by this Administration.  This bodes ill for future long-term domestic production. 

There was more 'creative truth' forthcoming in the Oklahoma speech, when the president said "the price of oil is set by the global market", going on to blame unrest in the Middle East for the higher prices.  Curious then, that the price of oil is higher now than during the Arab Spring or the Iraq War; nor did they reach current pricing levels even during Egypt's popular uprising and the uncertainty of its ability to control the Suez Canal.  

What wasn't mentioned in the speech however, is that oil is traded in US dollars; and that as our unaddressed national debt continues to go up faster than a 'shovel ready project' and the government printing presses held by the Federal Reserve continuing printing this fiat currency at a record pace, the value of those dollars continues to diminish in value for real goods like gold, silver, and OIL.  Hence this inflated currency will not buy as much oil as it used to, and prices effectively go up. 

It's not all lies however. Some is merely a misleading way of telling the truth.  For example, the President said in a speech in Columbus later today that, "America's dependence on foreign oil has gone down every single year." (since he took office in 2009) This statement has some truth to it, if you use the excuse that the current floundering economy requires less oil to fuel it, and therefore depends less on foreign production.  This however, is like saying 'My out of pocket expenses were down this year, because I was dead'.    

Now before those of you flying your Republican flags dislocate your arms by patting yourself on the back, try and remember that none of your candidates has yet to put together a cohesive energy policy.  They remain content to castigate the man in the Oval Office, while presenting no alternatives other than 'Drill baby, drill'.  Newt Gingrich, mostly irrelevant now in the process anyway, has gone so far as to make $2.50 gas part of his stump speech; as if his wishing it were so will make it so.  

How then will he achieve this objective? More drilling would certainly bring up production and reduce prices, but as we've been reminded far too often, it take 5-7 years to bring a well into production; long after the first term of an Obama replacement were to end.  Oh sure, price controls mandating $2.50 per gallon for gas could be instituted, but not only would this have a negative impact on future drilling; but it hardly seems the reaction of someone who calls himself a  Capitalist and small government Conservative.

Rick Santorum is calling the current Administration policy that of "N-O", but this seems a strange attack from another supposed small government candidate who is already talking about calling out a new morality police to end pornography.  He also has failed to produce what anyone would even laughingly call an energy policy as part of his bid for the highest office in the land, being too concerned with winning the religious right instead of the fiscal right; something that's long been his Achilles heel.

The Republican frontrunner Romney is quick to slap the Administration around on what it's doing, inferring that this is about making gas on par with an alternative energy agenda that they've been pushing (which may the only truth being spoken here), but is much slower on the draw in describing what he'd do instead.  Perhaps this former business executive (and not career politician) thinks that this is situation is like what we were told about the now two year-old Patients Affordable Health Care law (Obamacare) that might be his opponent's largest achievement in office.  It's a situation where we should vote for him before we learn what his energy policy is.

The truth of the matter is that 75% of the potential Republican nominees energy position amounts to little more than, 'The other guy is a bad man, doing bad things'.  (I thought about using 'The other guy's a bad man and a doo-doo head'; but didn't want to slander the President for fear that I would quickly find myself doing an interview with the Secret Service.) 

I won't go into Ron Paul's position in great detail, in spite of the fact that it agrees with mine (or is it vice versa).  He believes that the real culprit in the oil crisis is inflation.  He in fact went on "The Tonight Show" earlier in the week (no, I don't watch Jay Leno, but read about it after the fact here), and described the problem rather succinctly.  Holding up a silver dime, he went on to explain that based on the current value of silver (approx $30 per ounce) that you could buy a gallon of gas (even at its current price) for the precious metal value of the weight of this 10 cent coin.  The cost of everything unfortunately, goes up when our currency is no longer based on the real value of real things, and when we allow the Federal Reserve and the Federal government to play games with the value of currency and the credit rating of the nation.  (But of course Ron Paul's opinions are crazy.)

The bottom line here is that with this one rare exception, everything that you're being told about the price of oil, and the subsequent price of a gallon of gas ... is Oil Lies.

                      

TFP Column: Campaign 2012 - Open Mouth, Insert Foot

In continuing to watch this year's campaign for the Republican nomination for President, I have to say that I haven't seen this many verbal faux pas since the last time that I attempted to be a substitute host for 1370 WSPD's "Eye on Toledo".  Not being able to help noticing these little errors, I found myself putting together "Campaign 2012 - Open Mouth, Insert Foot". 

Of course I suppose such incidents are only natural in these days when not only are we living in a 24-hour a day news cycle, but when everybody with a cell phone can record the times that you have trouble getting a coherent word out around the leg appendage you find stuck in your pie hole.  For those of you overly concerned that this might reduce the number of candidates available for the highest office in the land or be a single party problem, of that this condition might be Republican Party related I include a few similar verbal miscues from our current commander-in-chief.

Fortunately, there is likely to be far more intelligent and erudite efforts to be found already in the TFP's midweek Star edition, and I'm sure that we will have even more as we get to the newspaper that's #1 in Sunday circulation in Toledo, as well as Ohio's Best Weekly paper, the Toledo Free Press. 

Stabilizing the MCP (Again)

I have spoken before about the Miscellaneous Crap Pile near my desk, comprised of tidbits of information that I found enlightening, interesting, or simply bizarre that I hadn't yet managed to find a use for. The MCP however, is as much mental as physical, requiring periodic review in a mostly useless though never-ending attempt to maintain both stability and storage capacity, both of which appear to be woefully limited around here.  These periodic purges allow me to take on a variety of subjects in a form whose brevity is as welcome by JBS readers as it is unusual for me.  Since the unusual has long been something that we embrace here at JBS, I am therefore happy to oblige.


The French threatened yesterday to pull their forces out of Afghanistan after four of their ranks were killed and fifteen wounded in what has been deemed an attack by a 'rogue Afghan soldier'.  Apparently the fact that the French are out of practice in the act of surrendering, means that in spite of their threat, they're still there today.  Of course France's contribution of 4,000 of the 130,000 NATO forces currently stationed in Afghanistan, troops which were scheduled to leave next year anyway, will probably not end either NATO or US involvement in an area that cries out for a lack of involvement.  Afghan President Karzai (speaking of both 'rogue' and 'lack of involvement') is due in Paris in a week, and has already offered his condolences to the families (and here many of us thought that President Obama was the only world leader to travel around the world apologizing).  Maybe while he's visiting he can also explain how bad guys keep apparently infiltrating the ranks of his army, or how to tell the difference between a rogue soldier and any anyone else in the Afghan army (other than not being ineffectual of course).


For those of you who have somehow missed it, the Costa Concordia is still lying on its side on the coast of Islo del Giglio.  To say that no ship's captain has made more mistakes since 'The Skipper' took some folks out for a purported three hour tour with Gilligan is an understatement.  I don't mean to make light of a situation in which human life was needlessly lost, but one cannot help but see a certain 'gallows humor' in this tragic example of the vaunted technology of Mankind failing on an epic scale.  That one of these floating islands managed to crash into a real one is ironic on a scale seldom seen in fact or fiction.  That the circus currently surrounding the circumstances of this maritime disaster involves a ship that's part of a cruise line named 'Carnival' only adds to the incongruity.  The concept that environmental scientists are as concerned with the food stored in the ship making contact with the local environment as they are that the fuel will speaks volumes about environmental scientists and what we stuff in our pie holes.The pathetic excuses of the ship's captain in shirking his responsibilities and abandoning his charges to their own fate cannot help but make one believe that this miserable example of humanity has a lot of time to look forward to in prison ... or in politics.  In Italy, perhaps both.


Speaking of miserable examples, last week's self-serving announcements by two former Mayors in Toledo about how the current office holder is doing his job is apparently a plot that's thickening.  While these lamentable examples of alleged political leadership only sought to take the stage after a story reported in the Glass City's daily paper, we now see that rather than it being a shining example of that institution's fading star of investigative journalism, the facts of the tale were fed to the Blade based on the investigations of a member of City Council.  Fortunately, the Toledo Free Press is on the case, and there is little doubt that the facts of the case will now come out. 


As for lauding the stalwart former detective / politician / investigative reporter's channeling of Columbo (or was it Woodward and Bernstein), one may want to look a little closer before awarding the laurel wreath.  D Michael's legislative aide is a former well-known Toledo blogger whose talent for sniffing out facts, knowing who to talk to in getting them confirmed, and gathering them into a consistent narrative are far more likely to deserve the actual credit than the Councilman.  Lest one seek to deride the man in question for taking all the credit for the detective work involved, for failing to first approach the Administration with its results of the investigation, or for handing the story over to the daily in the hopes of embarrassing the Administration; one should first listen to his smug attempt to present his case at a City Council meeting a while back.  It seems that his false attempts at humility (he thought he would accused of political grandstanding) and his failures to live up to Peter Falk's portrayal of the intrepid cigar chewing detective are only exceeded by his even greater inability to channel the late Raymond Burr's portrayal of Perry Mason (as well as his failure to distinguish the difference between a hypothetical and rhetorical questions).  


The Republicans had another debate this week (yawn) as a prelude to the South Carolina primary (yawn).  It was somewhat easier to bear, as with the withdrawal of Rick Perry we were down to a number of candidates on stage that didn't require a wide angle lens.  Unchanging however, is the fact that the debate moderators still haven't managed to get most of the contestants of this political version of 'American Idol' to hand out more than political standards and show tune sound bites that the pundits can later congratulate them for.  Along the way however, all seemed to have added a number to their repertoire that includes a healthy dose of ridicule for the media themselves, whose feeding frenzy for irrelevancy is only equaled by the candidates willingness to chum the waters for them, and whose inclusion guarantees them a standing 'O'.  


This however, is apparently a truly sorry bunch of candidates.  Mitt Romney is sorry he made so much money in the private sector (which leaves one questioning why failure should be more laudable in a candidate for this nation's highest office).  Newt Gingrich is sorry that he got married so many times, but happy that he paid a higher tax rate than Romney (which leaves one questioning why paying more taxes is good).  Rick Santorum is sorry that he can't reconcile his supposed Conservative credentials with his Statist pronouncements and voting record (not that we've ever demanded logical consistency of Presidents).  Ron Paul is sorry that no one took him this seriously 20 years ago, that he never learned to speak 'soundbite' well enough to play at this level, and that no matter what he says they're still going to treat him like a crazy relative with turrets syndrome that everyone hopes will leave.  The ponderous political process continues however, with all of faux drama of a poorly written reality show, and all of the excitement of the Tic-Tac-Toe championships.


OK, that's enough natural fertilizer for one sitting (though it is a miscellaneous CRAP pile after all).  I've cleared enough of the pile away to show me the many other useless writing assignments that I need to work on, so I'm going to get to work.


Smoke em if you got em. 

Ideological Inconsistency

.
I am becoming increasingly frustrated by what is apparently the most widespread epidemic in the world today, ideological inconsistency.  From the pundits to the electorate, few have managed to escape a malady afflicting the nation.  While I don't consider myself above occasional bouts that must be treated, I do try however to give myself regular inoculations of the cold, hard facts in a largely successful prophylactic effort.  Perhaps that's why the dissonance of arguments on both the left and the right seem so confusing to me these days.

Conservatives want to remove subsidies from farmers (something long overdue), solar and wind technology, and ethanol producers.  They claim that industries and technologies that are marketable do not require government assistance in order to survive.  How then do we explain the inconsistency to their wanting to continue subsidies to oil companies and defense contractors?  Is the oil industry not profitable without government assistance?  If such assistance were removed, would they not maintain their profit margins through the market?  And how much has been and is still being poured into corporations developing technologies that this country will never deploy in its own defense?  How much treasure is wasted in contractor malfeasance and featherbedding for projects woefully behind schedule or those that will never succeed?  

Progressives for their part, want to pull the financial plug on any form of energy coming from oil and coal which are already in place and generating inexpensive power much needed for potential economic growth; leaving in place supports for energy sources that will never be more than marginal ones incapable of supplying current, let alone future needs, in anything like their present form.  They somehow manage to forget fact that according to their ideology, subsidizing corporations is inherently evil (especially when any of their manufacturing is done overseas), apparently capable of setting aside such ideology in the name of 'green technology'.  Ideology likewise seems irrelevant when it's pointed out that ethanol produces more pollution (and less energy) than oil; or the concept that while mercury pollution produced by the burning of coal is unforgivable, that released when an energy-saving light bulb is broken is OK.

Meanwhile Congress continues pointless ideological discussions of how to cut the growth of spending in the future instead of the actual spending in the present that's behind our runaway debt. In a perfect example of conflicted dogma, the left and right simultaneously debate how to raise revenue (taxes) without raising taxes (except on those paying most of them already).  Naively believing that this time they can tax the hideously rich (some of whom are already in Congress) without having them lobby their way around it or move their money out of the US to avoid such taxation entirely (and further hurting the economy); they ignore the elephant in the room that even if they were capable of such a monumental feat of legislative legerdemain, the sum taken in wouldn't come close to balancing the government's books (paying 1-2% of the current deficit by most respected estimates).

While they wrestle with this insubstantial demon, the unmistakable monster of government bureaucracy before them continues its reign of terror, absorbing more money and power with each passing moment.  In this government-approved version of "Oliver Twist", the young orphan attacks the grown-ups with his plate, and beats them about the head and ears while taking whatever he determines is his fair share. Ideologically weak legislators on both sides of the aisle, intimidated by this unruly juvenile delinquent, seem unwilling or unable to curb his monstrous appetite; nor can they deny him the increasing authority he takes without asking.  Regardless of Ideology, everything be damned when the business of 'government as usual' is at stake for these unelected courtiers of an increasingly corrupt system.

And of course what discussion of distorted and duplicitous ideology would be complete without touching on the choosing of a Republican challenger for the sitting President that's so much in the news and on the minds of 'those who know'.  USA Today for example, talks recently about non-candidate Governor Chris Christie of New Jersey never entering the race as a governor who after all, "has held office for less than two years" (a crime that they consider Sarah Palin equally guilty of).  True enough as far as it goes, unless one wishes to look at the time before Christie entered office, when in 2008 we elected a junior Senator from Illinois with 'less than two years experience' (and who spent most of that time campaigning for the office he currently holds), to the highest office in the land .

Not to be left out on capricious and incoherent thinking, those on the right still talk about a movement to draft this man of relative inexperience during the national convention where they hope to pick a replacement for one that they complain does not have a proper background and experience of leadership required to perform this function.  

Herman Cain is likewise attacked for a lack of experience from the left and the right, but no one asks whether the experience of running a profitable business is better that of leading an unprofitable government, or why the experience of being a professional politician is a good in and of itself.  We've had experienced politicians in the White House much of the 20th and 21st Century after all, and what have they gotten us except into the mess we now find ourselves desperately seeking a way out of.

Strangely, the only candidate with a consistent ideology is the one most disregarded and demonized.  One cannot help but wonder that if consistent ideology is sought by Republicans, what clearer choice could they have?  Who has more knowledge of what caused the financial disaster we stand on the brink of or spoken more clearly on its solutions?  Who has likewise spoken more often and plainly on a return to a Constitutionally limited government that so many claim as their ideology? 

Instead of praise for such ideological purity however, Paul has been marginalized.  In spite of the fact that he has more experience at working with Democrats and Republicans alike in Congress than any of his counterparts, he's seen as unable to do so.  In spite of apparently standing for exactly what the Republican electorate claims they want from the next candidate for the highest office in the land, the argument continues to be over which of the other candidates is the most electable lesser of evils.  

Like Alice down the rabbit hole, the whole concept of consistent ideology has become 'curiouser and curiouser'.  At a time when we most need an outlook based on an objective analysis of the facts before us, what we get is anything but. The facts today don't seem to count except in how they are capable of being edited into soundbites that fit a pre-existing ideological vision more twisted than the Red Queen. We've so lost sight of what it means to hold firm to anything like the tenets of a consistent personal philosophy that we may soon use H G Wells instead of Charles Dodgson to say that, 'in this country of the blind, the one-eyed man will soon be forced to have government mandated and paid for Lasix surgery'. 

.