Archive for the ‘Economics’ Category

The Paris Climate Con

June 3, 2017

President Trump has announced the US will not be participating in the Paris Climate Accord and the world went wild. According to Weather.com, 150 mayors and 10 governors have denounced the President.

Tornado

Image from NOAA

It never occurred to these public officials that they are violating their oath of office to defend the Constitution. You see, the Paris agreement is a treaty that isn’t a treaty. It was never ratified by the Senate as required by the Constitution. President Obama didn’t want that pesky requirement to get in his way of a milestone so he did an end run. He also didn’t bother to negotiate in the best interests of the US so the accord puts punitive requirements on the US while letting countries such as China slide by not requiring them to reduce carbon dioxide emissions until 2030. According to estimates from the Charles Payne program on Fox Business News, the accord would result in an estimated:

  • 400K overall shortfall of jobs
  • 200K manufacturing shortfall of jobs
  • $30K total income loss for a family of four
  • $2.5 Trillion aggregate GDP loss
  • 13-20% electricity expenditure increase

So, this agreement is un-Constitutional and a bad deal to boot. Moreover, the claim is the agreement will reduce global temperatures by 0.02 degrees Celsius over 50 years. Even if this prediction, based on junk science, were accurate, it’s pretty inconsequential for climate. But the consequences for humans are great, requiring that we reduce our standard of living significantly for the benefit of international fat cats who benefit from scams such as carbon credits.

That last part is why the squeals are so loud. Bravo to the President.

The DNA of the Left

February 4, 2017

The election of Donald Trump has brought the crazies out of the woodwork, from the “nasty” Ashley Judd to the Madonna terrorist threat to shutting down airports and riots at Berkley. This was predictable by anyone who understands the history and philosophy, that is, the DNA, of the Left.

Karl Marx

Karl Marx

The Left has many factions. In part, that’s to give them the ability to morph into whatever form they need to take for a particular situation. But there are commonalities among them all. The first and foremost is their root philosophy of Marxism. Key elements of Marx’s and Engels’ thinking surface regularly in statements made by Leftists.

For instance, when preaching about the minimum wage, we are told that business owners have excess profits. In debates about international affairs we are told the US is imperialist or exploiting resources of other countries.  We are regularly told the Left is “scientific” while the Right is made up of “science deniers.”

All these claims were made by Marx in his exposition of Scientific Socialism (a tem coined by Engels to describe Marxism) where we are told that all value is created by labor and Capitalists exploit labor by taking profits that, morally, belong to labor. Moreover, Marx lectured us that the Capitalist, to survive, must exploit foreigners through imperialism and war. This is why the Left is anti war during Republican administrations (but not so much during Democrat ones). And finally, Marx posited that his system was scientific and all other social theories were not.

Furthermore, Marx and other socialists theorized that history was determined by class struggle between the various “classes” throughout history. In Marx’s time the classes were the Capitalists and proletarians, or workers. This is why the Left once marched in lockstep with the union movement.

But then, in the 20th Century, Marxist determinism started to break down. First off, the biggest Socialist state, the Soviet Union, did not grow out of a Capitalist society, as Marxists predicted, but out of a Feudal system. Second, Socialist economies did not out-preform Capitalist ones, as Marxists predicted, but the opposite occurred. Finally, the workers of the world did not unite, at least not behind the Marxists. Knowing where their bread and butter came from, workers, even union workers, opposed Socialists, for example, in the conflicts between “hard hats” and protesters in the ’60s and ’70s in the US.

What oh what was a good Commie to do? Salvation came in the form of a group of German dissidents who formed the Frankfurt School. Their big contribution to Socialism was “Critical Theory” and how it changed Marxism to explain the 20th Century failures.

This new thinking is responsible for all modern Leftist dogma. Instead of claiming that Capitalists and workers constituted the struggling classes, we now have the Capitalists versus women, minorities and the LGBTQ individuals. The more recent morphing is white men, versus the aforementioned groups. This explains some of the nuttier Leftist positions, such as defending suicide bombers, choosing Hamas over Israel, and so forth. The Left, true to Marx and Frankfurt, classify all people into tribes and then mark these tribes as good guys or bad guys in the great Class Struggle. So terrorists, because they are not Europeans, must be classified as the good guys.  Violent Black Lives Matter members considered good guys, only because they are not white, and Berkley rioters are justified only because Trump ran as a Republican.

Normal people have trouble understanding how the Left, that still claims a monopoly on science, can defend the indefensible and advocate for riots and atrocity. Simple. We only have to turn to a prominent member of the Frankfurt School and inventor of Critical Theory, Max Horkheimer, who said, according the Wikipedia:

The facts which our senses present to us are socially performed in two ways: through the historical character of the object perceived and through the historical character of the perceiving organ. Both are not simply natural; they are shaped by human activity, and yet the individual perceives himself as receptive and passive in the act of perception.”

The translation is that there is no objective reality. More specifically, a “wise Latina” on the Supreme Court is expected to judge differently than a black justice (Clarence Thomas doesn’t count) or a white one. A man cannot discuss women’s issues, a white can’t discuss black or Hispanic issues, a straight can’t talk about gays and so forth. We each, thanks to our tribe, our group, our class sees a very different reality. Except that the reality of the “ruling class” the rich, the white, the corporations, is corrupt, and the reality of ethnic minorities, gays, women Palestinians is virtuous. So the “news” media can make up stories and Democrat Party operatives can fund demonstrations and riots. Because, after all, what’s true for me isn’t what’s true for you.

In this world of class struggle and polylogism all bets are off. There can be no conversation, much less agreement There can be no justice except “social justice” which is just tribal warfare, not justice. There can be no rules when we each have our own reality. In fact, there can be no science without objective reality. And, of course, there can be no successful “reaching across the aisle.” So the Constitution, the law in general, is moot. All that remains is the great Class Struggle. And since there can’t be a conversation between radically different realities, all that is remains is lies and violence.

The peace and prosperity, the live and let live attitude, that was once taken for granted in America, is not the norm. It’s the exception in human history. Peace, prosperity and freedom are a result of Classical Western philosophy, the Scottish Enlightenment, and the concepts of individual rights, limited government and the rule of law enshrined in the Declaration and Constitution. What the Left delivers, instead, is brutal collectivism, dictatorial tyranny and mindless mob rule, a throwback ideology from a thousand years ago.

 

 

Leftist Memes – I

July 27, 2016

I’m starting a series based on the “irrefutable” posts on social media created by Leftists. Today, let’s examine one from mxviv – Mx Justin Vivian Bond – “I’ve been pretty quiet on the presidential race because I figure you’re already not voting for Trump if you’re following an agnostic transsexual gospel singer who writes for a TV show about a liberal Jewish trans parent. HOWEVER, we must must MUST support Hillary if we want to stomp out the flames of this dangerous and hateful movement.

Instagram postShow me where anyone has proposed ending all those programs, not that ending most wouldn’t be a bad idea. You would need an act of Congress first before a President could act, unless, of course, the President is Obama. But I’ll bite on a few.

EPA: Every state has one, presumable to handle the vast majority of local environmental issues. Meanwhile the Federal EPA has severely overstepped its mandate and is imposing dictatorial power over much of American commerce, including locally, outside it’s jurisdiction. The organization could be reduced significantly.

Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid: They are all going bankrupt and are unsustainable with projected obligations of $200 Trillion in a $18 trillion a year economy by mid-century. If something isn’t done, they will end all by themselves through failure, and take everyone with them, especially the poor that the Left claims to represent. These huge transfer payment programs need serious reform or replacement.

The minimum wage hurts the poor and the economy and every state has one anyway. The Federal minimum wage is supposed to only apply to employers that engage in interstate commerce. The Left argues that includes everyone.

Department of Education: What does it accomplish? Are SAT scores improving? Are poor kids getting good educations? The department merely imposes Federal mandates on local school districts, to no positive result.

Federal unions: They are incompatible with the Civil Service system and were opposed by FDR because collective bargaining with politicians exploits taxpayers who have no voice in the process. The Left depends on them for funds and support, now that private sector unions have withered away, so they are big political donors with conflicts of interest.

What energy has the Dept of Energy produced? Outside of managing a few national labs they don’t help.

High Speed Rail grants: Why is it a federal function to tax all Americans and send money to well-connected communities? This kind of spending is meant to buy votes in population centers at the expense of the rural and less well off taxpayers.

Fannie and Freddy are corrupt and manipulate the housing market. Their rules were largely responsible for the housing bust. In addition they provide revolving door jobs to retired politicians.

Corporation for Public Broadcasting: Insignificant budget but why is this a federal function when there are thousands of sources of media today? Ditto funding for arts and humanities which means funding for Leftist ideology.

Citizens United is about free speech for groups of people and organizations, you know, like Unions already have as well as the New York Times, ABC, NBC, CBS, PBS, MSNBC, CNN, Hollywood and even the Democrat Party. But the Left is very threatened by a few folks making an anti-Hillary movie.

I guess it is about 80 years of a Progressive movement, a movement that has increased the number of Americans in poverty, reduced the number of Americans working, presided over the downward trend in SAT scores and education in general, is responsible in the recent uptick in urban violence, largely responsible for our $19,000,000,000,000 in debt and our $200,000,000,000,000+ in unfunded liabilities, mostly due to Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security and, now, Obamacare because buying votes for the political elite is more important than our future. The Progressive movement can also take a lot of credit for our open borders, pushing wages down for the poorest among us and introducing MS13 and other criminals into our cities. The Progressive movement spawned Barack Obama and his administration, a failed administration internationally and domestically, with the slowest post recession economic growth since the Great Depression, leaving tens of millions of Americans out of work seven years after Obama’s “recovery.”

The Left asks how we can survive without all these laws and tax funded organizations that create tens of thousands of pages of regulations a year and, most importantly, steal your freedom. I think, without most of them, we would prosper.

Global Warming

February 12, 2014

The advocates of man-made global warming are fond of claiming science as their ally. But the science is almost immaterial since global warming is a thin disguise for what is a very dangerous political movement, one that would subjugate all of us to a tyranny that claims our lives and values are inconsequential compared to what authorities assert is best for the planet.

But, if we wish to pretend this is about science, the warmers have a few challenges.

Snow Covered MailboxHow do we measure Global Temperature?

We usually take if for granted, but how do we get a number, one number, for the temperature of the Earth? Terrestrial measurements a fraught with error as the environment around many measurement stations has changed. The most extreme examples are of rural stations ending up in the outskirts of cities where temperatures are normally warmer than in the rural location. There are also maintenance issues and other problems with terrestrial measurements.

Satellite measurements are more controlled but don’t go back very far, historically. Balloons provide great atmospheric profile data but weather balloons haven’t been around that long and they are not launched uniformly around the world. Ice core samples provide thousands of years of data but don’t help us know what the temperature was in places that don’t have ice.

So getting a single number for the temperature of the Earth today or historically is a problem. We either have long-term data or global data but not both. Still, we can at least look at something like ice core data and get information about the temperature record at one place on earth (let’s forget for now that the continents and their ice don’t stay put but move around over time.)

And even if we decide which measurements are the most meaningful, how does one integrate all the measurements to achieve one number, one, grand, global temperature?  These are not minor scientific problems.

Is the Earth Warming?

The second problem, after determining one temperature number, is to ascertain whether the earth is cooling or warming or staying the same.  In other words, are the measurement uncertainties small enough to allow us to predict a trend? The Earth’s temperature is certainly not staying the same over time, with or without people on board. (My preference is warming. Cooling would result in mass extinctions.)

Why is the Earth Warming?

Third, if we can get past that hurdles of measuring temperature and determining a trend, we are confronted with proving WHY the temperature is changing and not just qualitatively but quantitatively, to the fraction of a degree. A computer model is NOT A PROOF. A computer model is a hypothesis that must be proven by observation, experiment and testing. This is no different than what is required of any mathematical description of reality be it Newton’s laws or quantum mechanics.

How Do We Change the Temperature Trend?

Fourth, if we decide we can measure the temperature and that the temperature is changing and that people are the cause, we must now propose a solution. And, again, scientific necessity requires that we PROVE the hypothesis, that is, prove the cure we propose. Even advocates of warming have not found a solution tyrannical, oppressive and inhuman enough to make much of a difference in their temperature trend claims. By their own calculations “cap and trade” and other policy proposals make a difference of only a couple tenths of a degree C per century.

Is the Cure Worst Than The Disease?

Fifth, and finally, if we are to be humane, and the warmists show no signs of being humane, we should determine if our cure is worse than the disease. I say it is. The warmists predict oceans rising, cities being flooded and a host of disasters. (But, of course, it’s also true that more carbon dioxide means more plant growth and warmer climates have longer growing seasons.)

The warmists’ cure is an end to individual rights, freedom, capitalism and, frankly, humanity. Is living in a gulag run by enviro-nazis preferable to putting your home on stilts, moving inland or to a more Northern latitude?

Just to cap this off, what do we do if 1) we can measure the Earth’s temperature and 2) we can detect a trend and 3) the trend is caused by people and 4) we have a political cure but 5) our cure goes too far and we reverse the warming trend instead of stopping it? Would you prefer Cleveland is in the tropics or that Orlando is under ice?

More research and information can be found at the Junk Science web site.

Income Inequality

December 18, 2013

President Obama gave a speech on Dec 4th and he spoke about income inequality. The Washington Times reports on the speech here. On Dec 15 Paul Krugman wrote about the subject in the NY Times.

Steel MillIncome inequality is a recurrent bugaboo of the Left. On the surface, the concern seems to have merit. But worry over income inequality has, at it’s root, Marxist presuppositions. If, as Marx believed, workers are exploited, getting an incomplete share of what they produce for a business, then comparing the income of workers and business owners makes sense.

However, if one understands more completely the workings of a free market economy, that not just labor but also capital provide value, then there is no reason to be offended by what capitalists or management earns anymore than there is reason to be offended by what a bricklayer earns compared to a teacher or engineer.

As a rebuttal to the notion that inequality isn’t some sinister byproduct of Capitalism, modern Progressives have come up with arguments claiming that societies with greater income inequality have lower economic growth and other societal ailments.

At the root of the debate is a false premise, the premise of income inequality itself. As Thomas Sowell explains, an abstract discussion of income categories leaves out a very important component, people. If, instead of comparing income categories you compare individual people you find out some interesting things. The biggest income inequality is between the old and the young. Not only do people move up the income scale throughout their lives, individuals move in and out of income categories constantly as their income varies. Better to hear his explanation first hand:

And here is Margaret Thatcher’s more dramatic exposure of Leftist fallacy:

When Takers Are In Charge

December 3, 2013

On Oct 1st the Great Utopia was rolled out. The Obamacare website, healthcare.gov, opened for business. Well, it opened. Doing any business was another thing. Two months have gone by since the roll out and the list of ObamaCare Chartproblems disclosed continues to grow.   Mark Steyn on NRO give his take on the debacle here, and reveals that the Obamacare website is exempt from the HIPAA privacy requirement for medical information. In other words, if you go there your information is not kept private or secret.

A sober look at the problems was done by betanews: “If you wanted to build a case study in the perfect recipe for IT project disaster, you wouldn’t have to look any further than the new official Obamacare website, Healthcare.gov.” And now we are hearing reports that the programming for Obamacare was awarded through a no-bid contract to a Michelle Obama crony and that the same company was awarded $1.7 B in Sandy relief.

Even reliable Leftie Jon Stewart got into the act, “You can’t spin this turd.”

More recently, evaluations by experts conclude that the site is full of flaws and still a security nightmare, as CNBC reports here. The same expert speaks with Greta van Susteren here.

But, healthcare.gov is not plagued by glitches. It is plagued by takers.  The Democrat Party and, in particular, the Obama Administration represent the “business” of big government, of taxes and bureaucrats, and so they best represent the takers in our society. They are the party of parasites. Very few Democrat politicians have a private sector background compared to Republicans who, much more often, have had careers outside of politics.

As a result, Leftist projects are plagued by the lack of practical experience of their politically appointed managers. They are more interested in hidden agendas, political positioning and perception management than results that meet their alleged goals. The media and voters who cheer-lead Leftist projects are stricken by a hero worship of their leaders and an apparent lack of critical thinking skills when it comes to talking points versus performance.

Note how little concern the Obama Administration and the Democrat Party have for the healthcare.gov security issues. Note how the site is designed to prevent comparative shopping until after a user has entered a great deal of very private information. Note how the proponents of Obamacare continue to sell the talking points without any reference to what is actually in the law. That’s why they could deny, for months, what was apparent to the rest of us, that Obamacare would force us to give up our private insurance. Even now, while it is obvious that corporate insurance policies will be cancelled in mass next year so companies can cost-shift their, now unaffordable, benefits to the Federal Government, Obamacare supporters ignore or deny the possibility.

Government idolaters believe that, somehow, replacing competing insurance companies with a single payer government run system will make healthcare affordable. They believe that with no evidence and with much evidence to the contrary even in their personal experience. Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid and even AmTrak are all insolvent. And their websites and systems were designed when Democrats were still reasonable. But, somehow, Obamacare will be an economic miracle.

Or maybe they don’t believe any of that. Maybe that’s just one of the many rationalizations they hope will convince normal people to go along with their folly. I suspect what most of them really believe is that government run health care will make it easier for them to live at the expense of others. And isn’t that the real goal. They don’t care if Obmacare costs others more or even bankrupts families so long as they get theirs.

As I see it, the Left is divided into three broad groups, those who are naively well meaning, those that want something for nothing and even resent having to work for their necessities, and, finally, those that have an insatiable need to boss other people around, who seek unlimited physical power over others. That is, they are the naive, the moochers and the tyrants. Obamacare is the perfect metaphor for all three and the Obamacare failures are what you get when any of the three groups is in charge.

Opting Out of Utopia

October 6, 2013

I’ve had running arguments with people in person, on Facebook and Twitter about Obamacare. Most recently I was accused of wanting people to die in the streets from want of health care. Was that person born last week? Were people dying in the streets in 1950, 1960, 1970, before the great savior of all mankind gave us Obamacare? Are people dying in the streets today, before Obamacare is fully implemented?

Karl Marx

Karl Marx

Of course, we were told that the whole reason we needed Obmacare is because there are 30 million uninsured Americans. That number was always fraudulent because it included many people who could afford insurance but declined to purchase it and many people who were uninsured for only a couple months between jobs. At least President Obama has changed that. Now people are years between jobs, not just months. Nevertheless, the Congressional Budget Office estimates that under Obamacare there will still be 30 million uninsured Americans.

Obamacare is more expensive, more coercive, has fewer choices and doesn’t reduce the number of uninsured. But the defenders are rabid and unrepentant. They have argued that, indeed, it is flawed, but when we finally get to a single payer system we will see great improvements in the affordability and accessibility of health care. Neither graphs, nor statistics nor anecdotes about death and suffering under single payer systems cause the Obamacare supporters to pause one little bit and check their facts or premises. These individuals are not moved by the documented history of suffering wrought by state-run medicine from Bismark to Lenin to Castro to England, Canada or Sweden. They are True Believing Leftists (TBL). And despite their self-image, they are cold and heartless, unmoved by human suffering.

My graphs, data and anecdotes are met with accusations of being a TEA Party #Kochsucker who uses made up statistics. I’m told to “PLZ TAKE HEAD OUT OF ASS” and I’m treated to other, unassailable, and scientific arguments along those same lines.

So I have one last question for all the Obamacare TBLs, zealots, zombies and aging communists: Where do I go to opt-out of your Utopia? Certainly, such a brilliant bit of social engineering as is Obamacare can stand on it’s own merits. Certainly it has features and benefits so attractive that it will sell itself. But, if for now, I’m unconvinced, where do I go to opt-out? And when you get your single-payer-paradise, where do I go to opt-out of that brainstorm by your wizards of smart?

Of course, the answer is I can’t opt-out. I probably haven’t heard all the rationalizations about how it’s imperative to include all 300 million Americans in this scheme but the arguments I have heard so far include, “You can’t opt out of police and fire protection” and “It only works if everyone is included.” The first is false, depending on where you live.

I like that second one in particular. Supposedly single payer, government medicine works in Sweden, Great Britain and Canada. Those populations aren’t EVERYONE, are they? If success depends on everyone being included, does that mean they depend on some mythical rich people who will just hang out and get fleeced rather than move themselves and their money to Belize or Taiwan? Does that mean that doctors, nurses and other medical professionals need to be owned by the government?

In a free society, those who believe in collectivism could simply start their own collective, pool their resources, and have whatever social arrangement they wanted short of human sacrifice. But they almost never want that. The TBLs always, always, always need to force others into bondage for there supposed “greater good.” Sometimes they need to steal from the rich and other times they need to enslave the doctors. But they always need to coerce us all into participating.

Why can’t the TBLs just open one, huge, joint checking account and have all their wages direct-deposited there. They would each get a checkbook and could write checks against the account for their modest needs. It would be the perfect Leftist Utopia, from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs. I would support a Federal Law, exempting participants in that Utopia from having to pay any Federal, State or local taxes so long as the Utopia operated along true Marxist-Lenninist principles. Of course, they would lose the right to vote in MY elections. But, then, I wouldn’t be able to vote in theirs either.

So, go out among us and ask your Leftie friends why we can’t just opt-out of their brilliant social engineering concoctions. I would love to collect and document the answers and their explanations of why they think they own us.

The Left’s Unified Field Theory

July 18, 2013

In the early 1900s, after his formulation of his General Theory of Relativity, Einstein began work on what he called a Unified Field Theory that attempted to unite electromagnetism with relativity. The

Albert Einstein

Albert Einstein in 1904

modern attempts to do this include theories such as the Grand Unified Theory and the Theory of Everything, a version that isn’t restricted to fields alone and attempts to unify all known physical phenomena, gravitational, electromagnetic, quantum mechanical, in one theory that predicts the outcome of any experiment.

You could be forgiven for wondering why all these scientists and mathematicians work so hard on such tough stuff when all they would have to do is tune in to MSNBC or read the New York Times and find out that there is already an iron-clad explanation for all known natural and social phenomena: Racism.

Why is one person rich and another poor? Racism. Why are some countries rich and other countries poor? Racism. Why did a hurricane hit New Orleans? Racism. Why did Columbus discover the New World for Queen Isabella? Racism. Why was the TEA Party created? Racism. Why didn’t 100% of America vote for Obama? Racism. What put the ape in apricot? Racism.

Of course this Leftist philosophy is all nonsense, even the part about the hurricane and the apricot. But the Left believe it, or at least they think they can get the rest of us to believe it. If the ubiquitous racism accusation had any merit it wouldn’t work. It’s precisely that racism is a social taboo that the Left has any power over the targets of their accusations.

Karl Marx

Karl Marx

The Unified Theory of Universal Racism, as the Left’s Theory of Everything, is simply a modification of Marx’s Scientific Socialism and theories of class struggle. But, economic class struggle is a tougher sell for the Left, even though they still sell it, because anyone making the effort to look, knows people who change economic classes from poor to middle class to rich and back again, sometimes more than once. That fact, alone, threatens to demolish the very concept of economic classes let alone the theory of class struggle.

Race struggle is a better pitch than class struggle because racism obviously exists, especially in foreign cultures such as in our news media and universities. So who has the courage to deny that racism is responsible for poverty or hurricanes when it is likely that he would be called a racist just for questioning the Leftist dogma? But we must question the Left at every turn because their ideas are even more destructive when going unopposed.

We Are All Immigrants Now

June 24, 2013

Today, June, 24, 2013, late this afternoon, the US Senate is scheduled to vote on an immigration bill without reading itChuck Schumer. The slightest bit of research shows that this abomination is a fraud from beginning to end including the so-called border security amendment that weakens our existing law and provides for less security not more.

The details can be found in an excellent article by Sen. Ted Cruz on Redstate.com. Here are a few of the paragraph headings from that article “Latest ‘Deal’ from the Senate: Pass Amnesty First, Read the Bill Later“:

Grants Immediate Amnesty with Empty Promise of Border Security

Provides No Real Border Security at All

Weakens Fencing Requirement

Weakens Current Law on Entry-Exit System

Avoids any Metric for Measuring True Border Security

Assumes Future Significant Illegal Entry

Fails to Measure Up to Alternatives

Requires American People to Stand up and say No

More information from the Washington Examiner by way of @Flap on Twitter: http://washingtonexaminer.com/article/2532295

In an interview with Mark Levin, Senator Jeff Sessions said the bill had no relation to the talking points about the bill which were poll tested before the bill was even written.

The problem is not just with Democrats, as sleazy and despicable as Chuck Schumer is. Republicans, including Senator, and Gang of 8 member, Marco Rubio, Congressman Paul Ryan Chambers of Commerce, the Cato Institute, the Wall Street Journal and Reason Magazine all tell us that a “comprehensive solution” meaning amnesty first is the only way.

What this shameful, cynical attempt to bamboozle the American People has emphasized for me is that our legislators can not be trusted. If they were serious they could have broken this 1200 page monstrosity into separate pieces of legislation, starting with security on the border and inside the country before considering amnesty, guest worker programs etc.

Let there be no mistake, treacherous Democrats want amnesty because it will guarantee a permanent Democrat majority for the rest of our lives and beyond. This isn’t about immigration. This is about politics. And this isn’t a new strategy. In the 1950s and ’60s liberal welfare programs in cities created a mass migration of the underclass and created our modern “inner city” that we have come to take for granted as the way the world is supposed to be. See, for example, Detroit. Later, welfare-seeking illegals, migrated to California changing it from the Red State that voted for Reagan to a Blue State with one party, radical Democrat rule.

What may have started as an unintended consequence of the Welfare State has become a Democrat Party strategy to finally turn our country into the socialist utopia that has been the Leftist goal since Woodrow Wilson. It’s a beautiful strategy, if you admire treachery. It allows Democrats to massively increase the Welfare State and, at the same time, register uncountable numbers of new Democrat voters while simultaneously destroying the very concept of national sovereignty for the US. Don’t tell me that the illegals are banned from voting for a decade. That can be changed with another law and even if it can’t the Left has been working on this for 100 years. Another 10 is nothing.

Republicans support amnesty because their corporate and agribusiness donors want cheap labor. That is contrary to the assertion by Cato that data shows immigration does not depress wages. Wow, how did the labor market escape the immutable law of supply and demand?

Cato, Reason, the Wall Street Journal among other normally conservative organizations, argue that “We are all immigrants.” They have produced research and statistics to show that amnesty isn’t so bad and will help the economy. I’m unpersuaded.

Although I haven’t studied their research in depth, a cursory examination shows that they often combine illegal with legal immigration for their statistical analysis. Legal immigrants, who consist of Ph.D.s, entrepreneurs, physicians and other highly educated individuals, are a great boon to economic growth and don’t depress wages but, in fact, increase wages through their entrepreneurial activities. (But even the debate about high-skilled workers is filled with fraud. More on that another time and all my unemployed engineer friends.)

Illegal immigrants, who are mostly poor and uneducated, use welfare programs at much higher rates than the native population, use hospital emergency rooms as free clinics, have high crime rates because their numbers include gang members, and vote Democrat, are a net loss for society. And the negative effects go on for generations.

When you combine the two groups, statistically, you get a wash or even a net gain in jobs and economic growth. I have argued over and over here that it isn’t correct, in my view, to use collectivist arguments when determining policy, particularly when it comes to health care. But, in this case, we are talking about a law that puts the interests of illegals and the political parties ahead of the interests of the American People, particularly the unemployed underclass and the tax payers who foot the bill for all this social engineering.

I have come to believe that our politicians, both Republicans and especially Democrats, have become a wicked, elite, ruling class who could not care less about the citizens of this country beyond our ability to work as slaves to their life-styles. While we struggle to keep our jobs and live on decreasing incomes, we are forced to send half our earnings to government at all levels so our politicians can live like kings.

It’s ok with me if we want to increase our number of guest workers. I don’t care if people learn English. I knew many old Polish ladies who never did. I’m ok with adding more unskilled workers to the immigration quota, within reason. But, I do care about terrorist and gang infiltration and I do care about destroying job opportunities for our own poor during the wost economic environment in my memory.

But changing the system in sensible or compassionate ways is NOT what this immigration bill is about. It’s about political advantage and corporate donors. Destroying our ability to control our borders is the political class solution to guaranteeing permanent rule over us and a king’s lifestyle for them.

The Sequester Blues

May 1, 2013

The news over the weekend was about how air traffic controllers have been furloughed due to the Federal sequestration causing delays and cancellations in flights. But, as Breitbart points out, the whole thing was a fraud and another attempt by the White House to punish the American Public. Remember, too, that sequestration was Obama’s idea in the first place and he fought to implement it.

In a previous post about  Sequestration, a Disaster of Biblical Proportions, I pointed out what a lie, in general, sequestration is and showed a chart highlighting that the hysteria was political theater. For your continued enjoyment, here is another chart, originally done by Veronique de Rugy of the Mercatus Center at George Mason University last November.

Sequestration-2013-2021
You can see a bigger image by clicking on the chart. As I pointed out in my first post about sequestration, the fraud is that THERE ARE NO CUTS. The alleged cuts are only a one time 2.5% reduction in the growth.  The advantage of this chart is the detail about the growth rate for defense, Medicare and the rest.

The good news it the American public seems, finally,to be skeptical about the Administration and media hype. We instinctively know that, given the massive Federal budget, cancelling White House tours and messing with air traffic are temper tantrums by spoiled political elites.  We can only hope that skepticism grows to include the rest of the big government agenda.