AndrewMGarland's Comments

Big Government : The Negative Tone of the Campaign Is Blocking the GOP Message

Mon, 13 Feb 2012 02:53:33 +0000

Neither US political party Democrat or Republican has a unified policy. Members of each party need not have the same beliefs, message, or policies. Each party is a coalition of politicians, and I mean that as an insult. Think of them as being (almost always) mercenaries gathered under two flags, fighting for the income of the taxpayer. One central theme is not enough to capture the support of most Americans, but two themes mostly does the job. Each party uses power to enrich itself while delivering policies which appeal to a majority of the populace. Neither party cares much that these policies are the best for the peasants, or even sustainable. Both parties support the increasing power of the state, the power which they want for themselves, to do well "by doing good" for the peasants. The people running for the nomination of the Republican party cannot be called Republicans because of their common understanding of public policy. They are only Republicans because they last held office or registered to vote in the Republican coalition, and they have at some time or another spoken in favor of some theme which is more common to Republicans than Democrats. That is why the message of the Republican candidates is argumentative and negative. They don't have to support the central policy of the Republican Party, because there is no central policy to respect. The nomination is a competition of themes, lies, and accusations. Some accusations could have been made by Democrats. The first priority is to win the nomination by any means. Whover wins has a chance to rule. The eventual policy of the Republican Party is whatever the winners say it is.

Big Hollywood : BH Interview: 'Fools on the Hill' Pushes Politicians to Read Bills Before Signing Them

Sat, 4 Feb 2012 03:28:40 +0000

The Democrats are not getting sufficient credit for their tremendous accomplishments, efficiency, and attention to detail. They act, they implement, they sign secret orders, and they interpret whatever they want to support their actions. This is in the grand tradition of FDR in the 1930's. The public respects action, especially when they don't understand what is going on. Democrats have passed amazing legislation. They certainly have enacted into law more words in fewer bills than any other Congress in history. More amazing is that those bills are so intuitive and natural in what they accomplish, that it is not even necessary to read them. The President and his viziers can now decree what is necessary and right, confident that this power to do good is contained somewhere in these documents. And, there is more good news to come. The "Do the Right Thing" Bill ======== Future news: "Do The Right Thing" will give us open, consistent, dynamic government. It grants President Michelle Obama (now in her 3rd term in office) all principles and powers to consider all matters and then "Do the right thing". The Congress retains the important function of advising on the President's actions should she desire this. The Congress is now free to do what it does best, arrange for hospital admissions, allocate liquor licenses, and grant carbohydrate waivers to restaurants. ========= We have a choice in the next few elections. Vote out any legislator, Pub or Dem, who wants to increase control over your life without the clearest necessity. Or, embrace a government which will Do the Right Thing for you, in every detail.

Big Hollywood : Daily Call Sheet: Box Office Analysis, America Doesn't Care About Sundance and '30 Rock' Day 2

Mon, 23 Jan 2012 20:13:36 +0000

I was appalled at Disney's Beauty and the Beast the first time I saw it. The original tale of BnB is of a kind, intelligent, and handsome prince who is made ugly by an evil spell. A beautiful girl sees those great inner qualities and ignores the ugliness. The spell is broken by her insightful love. Moral: Look below the surface into the true and valuable qualities of someone, and your love for them will make them beautiful. The Disney BnB story is of a kind, intelligent, and handsome prince who is made ugly and cruel by a spell. He starts by kidnapping and threatening the beautiful girl and her father. The girl does not know this is a spell. Somehow, the girl comes to love the Beast anyway! Her irrational and stupid love for a cruel, threatening, (and ugly) Beast breaks the spell. Moral: Ignore the cruel and evil actions of someone ugly, and your love for them will transform them. The moral of the original story makes sense. You can do better in life by appreciating someone's valuable qualities and tolerating superficial ones. The moral of the Disney version is stupid and misleading. It is a one-in-a-million power fantasy that love is going to convert someone into being kind. In fact, the best approach toward evil and cruelty is to defend and run away.

Big Government : Illinois Lottery Winners' Checks from the State Bounce

Sat, 7 Jan 2012 22:11:04 +0000

To DB523: It doesn't take much to drive you around the bend. Get a grip. Yes, the Illinois Lottery bounced a check. I don't defend Lang's use of language. It is proper that the Lottery will reimburse the bank fees. If they don't, that would be another story. In the meantime, what is the policy implication of the Lottery's actions? What is political about this story? The policy errors of government are important; its admitted errors are not (unless often repeated through bad administration).

Big Government : Illinois Lottery Winners' Checks from the State Bounce

Sat, 7 Jan 2012 18:17:31 +0000

From the linked article. == == “Not bounced … returned,” says Mike Lang, spokesman for the Illinois Lottery. He says lottery officials failed to key in the required security verification on the checks issued on Dec. 28. Lang says Furio and the 84 other winners who tried to get their winnings but couldn’t can re-submit the checks. He says the state lottery will reimburse them for any bank fees. == == this was a clerical error within an Illinois state department. They are reimbursing the forseeable costs of the error. I don't see the political significance of this story. Government does so many bad things intentionally through bad policy. Why clutter the discussion with simple errors of no further meaning? EasyOpinions.blogspot.com

The Humble Libertarian : Occupy Mordor or Destroy the Ring?

Mon, 28 Nov 2011 06:48:47 +0000

Politicians acquire power, and yet more power, claiming that they need this to shape a society which will be more efficient, fair, and prosperous, and to counter fraud and greed. They claim that their accountability, public spirit, honesty, and honor make them suitable for this task. Groups of people (corporations and partnerships, including law firms) have economic interests and plans that can be affected by the decisions of these honorable politicians. They offer political contributions of a few hundred thousand dollars to gain benefits in the range of a few hundred million dollars from the politicians. A campaign contribution of just $5,000 will influence a congressman to support a local financial interest. The public sees this process and blames the unelected corporations for being greedy. The public does not blame the powerful politicians for selling out their offices, cheaply at that. The public wants to give yet more power to the politicians to oppose the corporations, although this power is what attracts the contributions (bribes) and gives politicians the ability to accept them. Political power will always attract bribes and provide the means for accepting them. If you want to have a better society, then blame the politicians and limit their power. Make it legal to offer a bribe to a politician, and illegal for the politician to accept one. Politicians have the power to refuse bribes. They can not claim that they are simple children, unable to refuse the candy of the evil corporations, after they make it clear that they want that candy.

Big Government : Gallup: Gov't Regulations Top Problem Facing Small Business

Tue, 25 Oct 2011 21:55:53 +0000

Can we blame Obama for not trying to remove these regulations? It would be a political coup to revive the economy and increase job participation by removing the leftover regulations of the evil Bush.

Big Government : Gallup: Gov't Regulations Top Problem Facing Small Business

Tue, 25 Oct 2011 21:53:37 +0000

I understand. The only reports which can be believed that are critical of liberal policy, are those published by liberal organizations. The rest are lies paid for by business interests.

Big Government : Gallup: Gov't Regulations Top Problem Facing Small Business

Tue, 25 Oct 2011 17:39:28 +0000

More regulation feeds into the plans of many large businesses. It imposes a complexity and cost that drives smaller firms out of business. Larger companies don't mind the extra costs, as long as everyone has to pay them and there is a tariff against foreign imports. Then, these costs can be passed along in increased product prices. Also, larger companies can lobby for gentler regulatory treatment, citing their large emloyment in a particular congressional district. Keynesianism feeds into the idea that our wise social planners know best, and lulls the public into supporting regulation to protect against the "unplanned", free market. We get crony-capitalism along the way. Regulation of, by, and for Big Business
12/06/10 - Econlog by Arnold Kling === === Regulation in general, far from coming against the wishes of the regulated interests, was openly welcomed by them in nearly every case. As Upton Sinclair said of the meat industry, which he is given credit for having tamed, "the federal inspection of meat was historically established at the packers' request. ... It is maintained and paid for by the people of the United States for the benefit of the packers." In any case, congressional hearings during the administration of Theodore Roosevelt revealed that "the big Chicago packers wanted more meat inspection both to bring the small packers under control and to aid them in their position in the export trade." Formally representing the large Chicago packers, Thomas E. Wilson publicly announced: "We are now and have always been in favor of the extension of the inspection." === === EasyOpinions.blogspot.com

Big Hollywood : Parents Need To Stop Blaming Hollywood and Take Responsibility

Sun, 18 Sep 2011 20:06:08 +0000

Some researchers at Columbia recently concluded from their sudy that Internet browsing decreases memory function. Evidence? People who knew that information was available on the Internet did not memorize that information as well as people who were told that their memory would be their only resource. We must assume that these researchers are also against the distribution of books, for similar reasons. The Memory of Idiots

Big Government : Obama Bundler George Kaiser Made Multiple Visits to White House in Months Prior to $535 Million Loan

Sun, 4 Sep 2011 18:35:55 +0000

The beauty of a free society, without an all powerful government handing out favors, is that we would not have to care much about how much credit people are using. Say some company BankCardCo is loaning too much money to Mike. Mike can't pay it back. Who cares, except BankCardCo and its stockholders? BankCardCo will be out of business soon, and its stockholders will be poorer, but it doesn't affect me much. I would prefer that BankCardCo had made better decisions, but that is their business. Almost all companies like BankCardCo will make good decisions, if they lack government backing. The bug in the soup is that we do have an all powerful government, contrary to our Constitution, that hands out favors. They are willing to bail out BankCardCo, and did so before our eyes, using our money. Now, bad decisions are encouraged (moral hazard) by the political guarantees of the government. When BankCardCo's lose money, the cry goes out that we have to save them (sniff, tears). They are robbing us blind, under the guise that they are only taking the money of the other guy (the rich guy). Wake up. They are taking the future from us all and stuffing it into their pockets. Our recession was promoted by collapsing home prices and mortgage losses, after an extended period of government providing easy money and guarantees to support Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, and the entire banking system. The government is still doing this. The bad housing policy was designed, encouraged, and required by government, mostly by Democrats. The government's ability to issue guarantees is an unlimited, off-budget, extremely dangerous power. Guarantees were granted to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac (among other institutions) above and below the table. They used these guarantees to borrow and lend massive capital resources. Used unwisely, to build houses that could not be paid for, this has caused our financial crisis. Here is what the guarantees mean: "Heads I win, tails you lose". Our politicians ("the government") made good on their promises with the bailouts, while saying "We're the Solution". The debt limit negotiation means nothing when the government can make guarantees which send us into poverty. We Guarantee It - The Government Caused the Economic Crisis

Big Hollywood : Little Green Tyrannists Run Amok in Hollywood

Mon, 29 Aug 2011 04:05:49 +0000

The molecular mass of a substance (water 18, co2 44, iron 56) is the same as its weight in grams per mole, which compares the same number of particles. This is not related in any simple way to its density in various forms. For example, the density of water is 1, iron is 7.8. But, the molecular weight of iron is about 3 times that of water, not 7.8 times. Just to get started, you would have to look up the measured density of solid co2, and you would need to know how it dissolves into and moves within ice. Atmospheric co2 is increasing slowly. The big questions are: Is this primarily because of human activities? What difference does it make? and Even if it makes a difference, are we really going to live without the benefits of industry, power, and mobility? EasyOpinions.blogspot.com

Big Hollywood : Little Green Tyrannists Run Amok in Hollywood

Sun, 28 Aug 2011 22:55:57 +0000

Flushing Money Down the Toilet http://easyopinions.blogspot.com/#d110228 (See the link at the upper right) Low flow toilets are having a big impact on San Francisco, just not the intended one.

Big Journalism : Sound Bite For the Day: The Meaning of Compromise

Tue, 19 Jul 2011 20:12:43 +0000

compromise noun. Reconciling differences to find the middle way. When the Democrats want to take all of your money, and the Republicans want to take 1/3rd, then a compromise is taking 2/3rds of your money. It is commonly observed that our government runs on compromise, and that politics is the art of compromise, at least until the money runs out. EasyOpinions.blogspot.com

Big Government : Hutchison Tackles Liberal Distortion of Social Security's Health

Tue, 28 Jun 2011 20:50:32 +0000

People paid payroll taxes for thirty years to support those who had retired. But, they were told that they were contributing to their own retirement fund. They paid in more than was needed for those retirees. The government did not invest the extra cash; it spent it on government salaries and projects. Now, those people want to retire. To support them, younger people will be asked to pay FICA taxes at about double the previous rate, 24% instead of the current 12.4%. (You may think that the employer is paying 6.2%, but it all comes out of the production of the worker.) Those younger people will be wise to the scheme, and will wonder about who is going to pay for them. They may not like the idea that their savings will be vanishing, leaving them with only the option of extracting support from the next younger cohort of people. They may resist. Ponzy Schemes Like Social Security Here is an XTraNormal video (2:12) which presents the facts about the SocSec Trust Fund: Government Accounting There is nothing real in the Social Security "trust fund" (or in any US government "trust fund"). There is only a political promise to find the money somewhere that was paid in and already spent. The shortfall in Social Security is about $15 trillion in today's dollars, about equal to the entire yearly income of everyone in the US. That promise is much more than what is recorded in the trust fund, which is itself only an unfunded promise. US Treasury Trust Funds are only a record of what was collected and then immediately spent for things other than Social Security. Amazingly, this is exactly like an insane person saving up for his children's college education. He puts $100 each Friday into his savings account. Each Monday he takes out that $100 and spends it on niceties, but he carefully records what is in the "college fund". When his kids are 18, he tells them that he saved $50,000 over the years, as shown on his "fund account paper". He only has to pay back what he took out, or borrow the money in the name of the children. Are they happy at that result? This has been justified over the years with the slogan "we owe the money to ourselves, so why not spend it now?" OK. Now, in your retirement, pay yourselves back. Medicare and Medicaid are much larger and equally unfunded, except by much higher taxes, and not just on the rich.

Big Government : Connecticut Governor's Legislative Agenda Shocks State and Awes Unions

Sat, 4 Jun 2011 23:11:43 +0000

The problem is that I'm going to get the government that they deserve.

Big Government : Connecticut Governor's Legislative Agenda Shocks State and Awes Unions

Sat, 4 Jun 2011 17:25:22 +0000

The problem with Obama, Progressives, and other lovers of big government is that they all have a plan to restore America to greatness. Or, more accurately, to bring it to its first greatness. They have many plans. If one doesn't work, they have lots of others to try. They proclaim that no one is more intelligent or deserving of doing this work than they are. Eventually, no matter how long it takes, they will try plan after plan until they find one that works. Progressives think that the hard part is passing grand legislation. ObamaCare is typical. Declare that you will change everything. They understand that changing the world is difficult. Many details are unknown. Many are quite large details. How can they be expected to get everything right? Chill out. That is what waivers and special deals are for, "minor" exceptions to the grand vision. In the meantime, everyone should shut up and join in the effort. Any dissent may derail the entire operation. We are all in this together, especially those who will be paying for it. They think, why have power if you won't transform the world? Surely this is worth the temporary comfort, wealth, and maybe a few lives of the little people. Leading the People - If You Don't Agree Now, You Will Later

Big Government : Got Medicare? Not For Long-It's More Broke Than We Thought

Tue, 17 May 2011 23:10:16 +0000

Ponzi Schemes Like Social Security Dr. Susan Berry thinks she is reporting bad news, but reality is far worse. Unfortunately, she has accepted the political trick of thinking that the Social Security Trust Fund can pay for anything. The Social Security Trustee report spreads this illusion. There is nothing real in the Social Security "trust fund" (or in any US Treasury trust fund). The special Treasury bonds in the trust fund are only a political promise to find the money somewhere. The shortfall is about $15 trillion in today's dollars, about equal to the entire yearly income of everyone in the US. That promise is much more than what is recorded in the trust fund, which is itself only an unfunded promise. The trust fund bonds are a promise, but they don't help to pay for the promise. The Social Security Trust Fund is only a record of what was collected and then immediately spent for things other than Social Security. Reporters assume incorrectly that something called a "trust fund" must have something valuable in it. These "funds" were created and named by politicians. It only holds IOU's from the Treasury to itself. Call it a reminder of what the Treasury took out of the fund and someday should put back, maybe. Amazingly, this is exactly like an insane person saving up for his children's college education. He puts $100 each Friday into his savings account. Each Monday he takes out that $100 and spends it on niceties, but he carefully records what was once deposited in the "college fund". When his kids are 18, he tells them that he saved $50,000 over the years, as shown on his "fund account paper". He only has to pay back what he took out, or borrow the money in the name of the children. Are they happy at that result? The Social Security program is broke today, not years in the future. It has always depended on tax receipts as a pay-as-you-go program. There are no savings or "funds". The payout this year exceeds the Social Security taxes collected from payrolls, with the remainder coming from general tax revenues. The Treasury must either raise more tax revenue, borrow, or print money, and is already doing the last two in a big way. Don't take my word for it. Here is a statement by the Congressional Budget Office - May 2003 [edited excerpt]: == == The money that the government owes to itself has no impact on the economy because it represents debt owed from one Treasury account to another, mostly held in federal trust funds. Trust fund holdings are not assets of the government and do not represent money owed to program recipients individually. Payments to Social Security recipients (like other social insurance programs) are based on rules set by law unrelated to trust fund holdings. A federal trust fund is an accounting device that measures the difference between the income designated for a program and the expenditures made to its beneficiaries. The accumulated balance often represents the future "spending authority" for the program, but it is not a reserve of money for making payments. == ==

Big Hollywood : EXCLUSIVE: 'Atlas Shrugged' Producers Intend to Complete Trilogy; CNN & MSNBC Reject Their Ads

Fri, 29 Apr 2011 01:30:06 +0000

Possibly Aglialoro could raise money by selling discount vouchers. They would be good for a rebate on the share earned by the production company. The theater showing the film would keep its receipts, it would remit the movie fee to the producers, and they would send that part to anyone sending in the cancelled voucher. This preserves the profit motive of the film while allowing supporters to pre-pay the production costs and get a discount when seeing the film.

Big Government : Massive Budget Cuts

Tue, 19 Apr 2011 03:14:06 +0000

Here is a summary of Federal 2010 finances. $ 2,200 Federal Tax Revenue (billions) $ 1,300 Borrowing (the deficit) ---------- $ 3,500 Total Spending $ 0 Total Saving $14,500 Entire economy (GDP) 15.2% Taxes as % of Economy 9.0% Borrowing as % of Economy 24.2% Total spending as % of Economy What if (say) Bob's family budget operated like the government, in proportion? That gives a feeling for our situation: $50,000 What Bob can spend from his income $29,900 Bob borrows this ---------- $79,900 Bob's spends it all 60% more than Bob's income $ 1,400 The GOP cut in proportion The proposed GOP cut in spending of $61 billion is just 1.8%. For Bob, it would be $1,400. The federal government has made big promises, far above what it will collect in taxes at current rates. $75,100 billion ($75.1 trillion) is the amount of a fund which would pay for the unfunded part of promised entitlement programs over the next 75 years, if available today and invested at 3% interest. Of course, there is no such fund, so meeting those promises would require immediately increasing tax revenues by 76% to pay off that "mortgage", or those promises will be broken. Don't take comfort from the 75 year time frame. We are already falling short, being made up by huge borrowings (the deficit). The result of the 75 year analysis is that things will steadily become worse. Collecting 76% more in taxes might cause or deepen unemployment. Or, increasing tax rates might actually decrease tax revenues if people decided to earn less and pay less. Or, it may be impossible to convince younger people to give up their savings in exchange for the right to charge their children high taxes in turn. I think the promises will be broken. This problem is huge. The retirees of today and in the future have paid into Social Security thinking that their "insurance premium" will fund part of their retirement. Actually, all of the cash (real resources) has been spent. What remains is only the promise to now tax the non-retired to pay for the retired, at much higher rates. That is not what people thought Social Security would deliver to them. Promises for Medicare and Medicaid are worse; they are bigger and just as unfunded. What is more kind: to face reality now, or to default on these promises at the last minute? Unfunded Promises (billions) 7,900 Social Security 22,800 Medicare 35,300 Medicaid 9,100 Federal Debt 75,100 Total Unfunded Promises (billions) above curent tax collections 2,100 Federal Pensions 3,700 Veteran Benefits 1,600 All Other ---------- 7,400 In current budgets (billions) $82,500 Total Promises (billions) The unfunded promises of $75,100 billion are 34 times the $2,200 billion in taxes estimated to be collected in accounting year 2010 (the year ending Nov 30, 2011). There is nothing saved or set aside to satisfy those promises, and there is no tax revenue now collected or saved to pay those amounts now and during the next 75 years; that is the meaning of "unfunded". Bob's unfunded promises (in proportion) would be $1,736,00 increasing at 3% yearly, to be paid off in 75 years, over and above Bob's current, spendable income (current tax collections) of $50,000. http://easyopinions.blogspot.com/2011/02/family-b... Family Budget