"Children Just Aren't Going to Know What Snow Is!"

Global warming fanatics and proponents of political cap and trade regulation just can't catch a break.  Unfortunately, neither can European travelers, it seems.


Just when Iceland thought global warming was destroying their glaciers, a surprise eruption earlier in the year from the glacial Eyjafjallajökull volcano grounded airplanes for weeks, stranded hundreds of thousands of travelers, and reminded the world that liquid magma and scorching steam generally has a greater impact on frozen water than high concentrations of atmospheric gases.


Now, as world leaders return home from their annual global warming summit in Cancun to educate the world about how winter and snow are climate conditions of the past, northern Europe is blasted with the worst blizzard in 100 years, leaving a half a million passengers once again trapped at airports and train stations, bringing England's rail systems to a freezing halt, and even forcing German airports to hire clowns to keep stranded passengers entertained.


The storm is yet another chilling reminder that weather patterns tend to be cyclical by nature, regardless of the regulatory feel-good political efforts to change climate...change.


Question: Does Dr. David Viner, the senior research scientist of the University of East Anglia's climatic research unit still have a job after his claims from ten years ago that by now, thanks to man-made global warming, "children just aren't going to know what snow is" and winter snowfalls will have become "rare and exciting" events?  As Europe struggles to de-ice their vehicles, rebook their holiday travel plans, and in general just keep their heads above the snow drifts, I certainly hope someone from his department has clued him in that, surprise, it tends to snow during winters.


For that matter, at which ski resort is Al Gore roasting chestnuts by an open fire?


Old Man Winter once again is showing the international community that it needn't be concerned --especially during this particularly frigid holiday season-- about snowfalls being a thing of the past.


~Gee

Andy Rooney Trots Behind Gallup

Andy Rooney, during his November, 14, 2010 episode of 60 Minutes, claimed:

A Gallup poll said that President Obama's approval rating was at an all-time low. Gallup said that they surveyed over 90,000 Americans for this one poll. I mean, where was I when they were calling people about President Obama? 

The survey said that only 44 percent of us approve of President Obama's performance. 

Well, I surveyed nine of my friends and eight of them said they liked Obama but didn't trust a Gallup Polls. As far as I'm concerned, Obama's doing the best job he knows how and it's good enough for me. 

Something called the 2010 Mercer Quality of Living Survey chose the top 221 best cities to live in, in the whole world. According to this survey, the three best cities were Vienna, Zurich, and Geneva; New York City came in 49th out of the 221 cities that they rated. 

I was born in Albany, New York. I've lived in London, Cologne, Paris and Beverly Hills. I've lived in New York City for a long time now. And I'll take New York. I forget whether I've ever been to Zurich or not. I wouldn't want to live in a city I forget whether I've ever been to or not. You can't forget New York. 

Another survey about the reliability of 2011 model cars showed that General Motors cars - Chevy, Buick, Cadillac and GMC - have improved and are now ranked higher in reliability than Mercedes Benz, BMW, and Audi. Bad for the German car makers but good for the Americans. 

Despite all the surveys I read, I've never been asked what I think about anything. My answers would be a lot different than the answers they say people give. They should survey people about what they think of surveys.

Rooney’s comments gave his viewers yet another example of what the declining standards of journalism now looks like and likewise proves three very troubling facts about this so-called reporter: 

• 1.       A failure to understand the basics of journalism and statistical sampling
• 2.       Display of an attitude of a pompous superior intelligence over the general population
• 3.       An overall denial of reality and intolerance for dissenting opinions

Gallop Polls have long been accepted as an objective organization that conducts mass public opinion polls concerning practically every current political, social, and economic subject imaginable.  Their surveys span across 140 nations, according to Wikipedia’s estimate, such that nearly 95% of the world’s adult population is represented. Clearly, the Gallup Organization has quite a large grasp on providing objective public opinion results.  

Yet, Andy Rooney prefers instead to question the organization's validity and opts instead to draw conclusions based off an informal survey of nine of his friends as though his buddies’ views have the same merit and carry the same weight of a statistical sampling conducted by Gallup. 

Andy Rooney challenged the validity of Gallup's polls with the opinions of nine buddies.  Even first year college students studying Communications, Marketing, or Economics, no doubt know that one must obtain at least 32 points of data in order to have an accurate representation for a study. Thirty-two points of data, you say? Bah! Eight out of nine of Andy Rooney’s friends agree with Andy Rooney and approve of President Obama’s performance! Now those are reliable “statistics” we can count on!

I did appreciate Rooney’s pompous narcissism in insinuating that, had he been questioned for the survey, the results would have somehow been altered to show that the majority of Americans approve of Obama…regardless of the sheer number (90,000+) of other Americans who were surveyed and upon whom the survey results were based.  After all, everyone must know that tens of thousands of opinions coming from lowly peons, er, citizens is hardly equivalent to the magnanimous and utterly priceless perspective of Andy Rooney. 

Oh well, as far as Rooney is concerned, “Obama's doing the best job he knows how and it's good enough” for him.

Translation:  ‘My opinion is much more important than everyone else, so what’s good enough for me should be more than good enough for the rest of you. You want my opinion. You need my opinion. And if Gallup didn’t ask for my opinion, it clearly is not a reliable source of information.’

Perhaps his skepticism to believe the Gallup results stems from his own network’s tenancy to distort facts or conveniently revise poll results to push a certain agenda.  Ironic how, while Obama’s ratings were higher during his campaign, the polls were somehow a dead-on indication of how “out of touch with reality” the GOP and Tea Party were with the majority of Americans.  Yet now as the majority of Americans have clearly lost their excitement for the President and his destined-to-fail policies, the polls are somehow untrustworthy, questionable, and probably wrong, in the eyes of Rooney. 

Somehow, it makes more sense to Rooney to question the integrity of an internationally-recognized organization that provides objective, statistical results of public opinion rather than to resign to the fact that his opinion isn’t important, isn’t revered and repeated by his viewers, and is only marginally accepted and agreed with by the majority of the American population. 

Oh, and could someone PLEASE tell me where Rooney was during the Bush administration, if a measure of “doing the best job he knows how” is equivalent to a successful and acceptable rating of the presidency?

Rooney’s intolerance for dissenting opinions not only gives evidence to his general denial of reality and lack of journalism standards, but it also highlights a few glaring logical fallacies (Appeal to Popularity and Biased Sampling, to name a few) through is continued implication that if more of his friends agree with his opinion, his opinion somehow has more truth and validity.

~Gee

Election Day! (Finally, change We The People can believe in!)

This is perhaps one of the funniest summaries I've seen from the Stewart / Colbert rally...clearly this crowd hasn't heard of Keynesian economics.

Alas, the one guy who very nearly distinguished himself as the lone intellect amongst the group (by recognizing the interviewer's obvious linguistic play on the words "Keynesian" vs. "Kenyan") then stuck his foot in his mouth with his follow-up answer, acknowledging he didn't know anything about Obama's economic principles.  Yikes.

For the record, let's recap a few of Obama's economic principles:

        'equality of outcome' mentality

  +    gov't-run & publicly-owned health insurance, housing market, etc. 

  +    'mandatory volunteering' principles and social reform initiatives

  =    _________

Answer: 

    a.)  Keynesian theory

    b.)  Austrian school economics

    c.)  Free market democracy

    d.)  Socialism

P.S. - Your predictions are in!  Thank you for your November Nonsense submissions!  Don't forget to vote!

~Gee

November Nonsense Has Begun!

IT...IS...TIME! 

The submission spreadsheet is completed for all those who want to play….Please, please, please share the fun by spreading the word….the more people who play, the merrier!

Directions: 

Just download the form here or simply email novembernonsense@gmail.com and we'll send the file to you.

Then, simply pick your winning candidates for each race by entering "R", "D", or "I" into the column "Your Prediction" on the "Senate" and "House" tabs.

We picked:

House - Lean Dem, Toss Up, and Lean Republican, but NOT Likely Dem/Rep or Safe
Senate - everything but Safe or Not Up for Re-election

Also, you automatically get credit for any election you can vote in to avoid any conflicts.

Be sure to fill in and submit the spreadsheet to novembernonsense@gmail.com by October 31^st, 2010.

Most importantly, DON'T FORGET TO VOTE THIS NOVEMBER!  

November Nonsense Update

"What do you get when you cross the college basketball March Madness tournament with politicians?"

November Nonsense!

Thanks to our special contributor, Andy, you now have the opportunity to take part in the first political / March Madness hybrid contest of its kind.


Want to participate?  
Here's what you need to do:


Read the directions from Andy below (Note: the predictions options for the race will be posted at a later date), be sure to send us an email at NovemberNonsense@gmail.com letting us know you want to join the fun, and SPREAD THE WORD!


November Nonsense Introduction, Instructions, and Rules:

Andy said...

November Nonsense is for political junkies. It’s for those of you who follow politics closely and think they have a good idea of what the results are going to be. It’s for nutcases who look at Election Night the same way some people view Oscar night, Super Bowl Sunday or New Year’s Eve. It’s for the people who plan on taking Wednesday, November 3rd off so they can stay up late Tuesday night to watch the results roll in from Hawaii.


November Nonsense is THE contest for pitting your political insight against others. Contestants will submit their predictions on the 2010 US House and Senate elections and the winner will be crowned the 2010 Political Prediction God (or some other silly title that I haven’t come up with yet) and be entitled to all the boasting and bragging that comes with that honor.


I haven’t finalized the details and am interested in feedback. However, here’s the basic process:
1) Select your predictions for each race in the MS-Excel sheet I will post at a later date
2) Submit your entry by October 31st
3) I’ll collect the entries and publish the results
4) To avoid any conflict of interest issues, you are not allowed to submit predictions for any election you can actually vote in. When submitting your entries, identify which (if any) races you are eligible to vote in and you will automatically be given credit for predicting the correct winner (no prediction necessary for those races)
5) One entry per person
6) Should there be a tie-breaker?


March Madness normally has 64 predictions total. This could have close to 500 if all the Congressional and Senate races are included. Then there are the state governor races… In order to keep it manageable and not become so huge no one plays, I’ve decided to limit the number of races to just the Senate races and the “in play” House races. In other words, Nancy Pelosi’s and John Boehner’s races are not included. I would appreciate input for how large to make this. I’ve come up with 3 options:
A) About 153 races consisting of the 131 “in play” House and 22 “in play” Senate races. In Scenario A, “in play” is defined as spanning from “Likely Dem” to “Likely GOP” but not including “Solid Dem/GOP”.
B) About 103 races consisting of 89 “in play” House and 14 “in play” Senate races. In Scenario B, “in play” is defined as spanning from “Leans Dem” to “Leans GOP” but not including “Likely/Solid Dem/GOP”.
C) 41 races consisting of 35 “toss-up” House races and 6 “toss-up” Senate races.
I’m leaning towards Scenario B because that opens up a lot of close races that could have upsets without making November Nonsense too huge.


Like I said, I would like some input, thoughts and commentary on whether anyone is interested in participating. As long as the number of contestants is not outrageous, I’ll leave it an open contest. I’m not planning on having an entry fee or awarding any prizes other than bragging rights.


Lastly, I’ve got most of Scenario B complete. All the primaries finished up this past weekend. I’ll target posting the beginning of October for posting the final rules, spreadsheet and directions.

November Nonsense Announcement

Details to follow... stay tuned!

Picture of the Week

Geithner-omics 101 (A Lesson on How to Economically Kill A Nation)

It's often said that the only things in life we can be certain of are death and taxes.  When it comes to Tim Geithner and the federal government, the only thing of which we can be certain is that Geithner's tax plan will certainly be the death of this great nation. 

In his latest arguments favoring the creation of more federal stimulus in an attempt to boost the economy, Tim Geithner’s general ineptitude and vast ignorance of basic economic principles has once again shown its true colors.  According to today’s article from the Wall Street Journal, Mr. Geithner is quoted as saying, “the U.S. can no longer rely on consumer spending, which has long powered the economy.” However, competitive free market economies succeed precisely because of supply and demand, and yes, consumer spending is one such measure of demand.

What exactly does Mr. Geithner think our economy will rely on to stay as prosperous as we are, if it’s not consumer spending?  What will fuel our economy if it’s not the purchase of tangible, necessary products procured by the general population? Happy thoughts? Fairy dust? Carbon credits?

Maybe we should backtrack and DEFINE consumer spending, to see what sort of consumer items Mr. Geithner thinks the U.S. can’t rely on anymore.  Consumer spending, according to the National Bureau of Economic Research, is essentially is any type of public goods consumption that falls into one of approx. 60 categories, including:

·         Clothing

·         Hospitals

·         Physicians, Dentist, Other Medical Professionals

·         Higher Education

·         Nursery, Elementary and Secondary Education

·         Telephone and Telegraph

·         Books and Maps

·         Taxicab, Railway, Bus, and Other Travel Expenses

·         Electricity

·         Water and Other Sanitary Services

·         Furniture and Durable Household Equipment

·         Drug Preparations

·         Scholarships / Foster Children

If we can’t rely on our country to provide an adequate supply of the above-mentioned items to support the free market demand for these necessities, what alternatives do we have as a nation?  I wonder, which of these “luxury” consumer items must the U.S. sacrifice moving forward, according to Mr. Geithner’s vision of a prosperous U.S. nation.  

~Gee

Fact or Fiction: The Truth Behind Bush's 'Deregulation'

One of the most commonly repeated liberal talking points attempting to explain our country’s current financial mess points the finger at former President Bush, claiming his deregulation policies are the direct cause of collapsed our economy. If President Bush hadn’t deregulated the financial sector, they claim, it would not have systematically failed. If Bush weren’t a greedy capitalist making dirty deals with big corporations, they accuse, this would have never happened. If Bush never allowed drilling in the gulf, the Gulf oil spill would have been prevented. The list goes on.

The “more regulation = safer country” theory creates this false sense of security in the idea that more government control translates to more success for the common man. Yet, as corrupt politicians figuratively turn our heads with one hand toward smoke screen emergencies while emptying our pockets and shackling our lives through increased federal control with their other, we are left wondering who oversees these overseers in this realm of increased regulations.

I’ve discussed the logical fallacies of the “more regulation = safer country” argument before (see my posting from June 16, 2010), so I won’t repeat myself now. However, I will add some statistical data to support and prove what logic and historical precedent have already proved false.

Regardless, liberals still claim that Bush’s deregulation policies and lax government control caused our current economic, social, and ecological problems. President Obama even directly addressed the issue during a presidential debate in 2008, claiming, “[Regulation] is a fundamental difference that I have with Senator McCain. He believes in deregulation in every circumstance. That’s what we’ve been going through for the last eight years. It hasn’t worked, and we need fundamental change.”

The then-presidential candidate claimed that we had our opportunity for deregulation – we tried it, it failed, and now the only option is increased government control. The problem is, we didn’t have a deregulated society (and haven’t had one since before the 1920’s).

We didn’t even have LESS regulation under G.W. Bush compared to when his predecessor was in office. According to the graph (shown below), which is taken from a study done by Susan Dudley & Melinda Warren and published by the Murray Weinbaum Center, the number of federal regulators actually increased under G.W. Bush. (Note: the graph shown is taken directly from Figure 2 on Page 7 of the study, only I’ve highlighted the years under former President Bush in red.)

Therefore, President Obama’s statement and the “failed deregulation” argument is factually incorrect. True, some of the increase in federal regulation under George W. Bush was a result of increased homeland security personnel, however, even if we disregard the increase resulting from that particular group, the number of regulators on staff increased during his tenure by 4,000. In fact, the overall federal regulation has been on a steady increase since for the past 50 years. To further debunk President Obama’s errant yet widely-publicized talking point, according to Melinda Warren, one of the study’s co-authors, “the dollar growth in spending over the last decade was more than double that of any previous decade.”

He can blame Bush all he wants, but Obama’s statements simply aren’t true.

Mr. Obama has one thing right, at least: Something isn't working. We do need change. However, increasing the regulatory work force is not the answer, and this study certainly proves that our country hasn't been given the opportunity to try otherwise.

~Gee

Black Panthers Threaten Glenn Beck's August 28 Restoring Honor Rally

11 Reasons to Vote for Democrats in November

Time to Clean Up the Byrd Droppings

Vladimir Lenin, the Russian communist politician, led the Bolsheviks for 27 years.

Dictator Joseph Stalin controlled the Soviet Union for 29 years.

Henry III reigned over England for 38 years.

Fidel Castro’s Communist ideologies ruled Cubans for 49 years.

Robert Byrd’s tenure in Congress, however, outlived them all and lasted 58 years.

Working in both the House of Representatives and Senate for over a half a century, what legacy does Robert Byrd leave this country after his death early yesterday morning? Despite claiming that “intolerance has no place in America,” he joined the Ku Klux Klan in his early 20’s and even unyieldingly opposed the Civil Rights Act as late as 1964, which he filibustered for over 14 hours. His countless apologies for numerous bigoted statements over the years, however, are sure to be overshadowed by this professional politician’s perpetual push for pork.

Although Byrd occasionally claimed to favor fiscal restraint, his relentless bartering of his vote on bills in exchange for pet project funding proved otherwise. As we mark the end of his clamped hold of the public coffers, no fewer than 30 taxpayer-funded public services projects currently named after him have been left behind. The self-anointed “Big Daddy” of West Virginia cast nearly 19,000 votes during his tenure and brought over $1 billion of pork projects to his state at the expense of taxpayers around the nation from 1995-2006 alone.  Thanks to the Citizens Against Government Waste (CAGW), we the taxpayers have an extensive list tallying Byrd’s pork projects (a.k.a. “Byrd Droppings”) that accumulated over the years. He proudly burned holes in our pockets, claiming: “They call me 'The Pork King,' they don't know how much I enjoy it.” Clearly. Why else would he have erected a bronze statue of himself in his state’s Capitol Rotunda?

Senator Byrd leaves behind a classic example of the fiscal recklessness our Congress continues to force upon the working private sector by funding every personal pet project they can dream up for their individual states.  During a Senate floor debate in 2001, Byrd stated that "one man's pork is another man's job... You can look around and see what I've done." For professional politicians like Byrd, they believe their roles are less about protecting individual liberty and limiting their responsibilities to those within the scope of the Constitution and more about creating personal accomplishments, building a name for themselves, and making history.

Combined with a lack of term limits and a tangled web of gerrymandered congressional districts, politicians conveniently find themselves reelected and continually in a position to redistribute the wealth of the nation at their flawed discretion.  

Ironically, Congress’ approval rating has been on a slow, steady decline over the past few years.  How then, when less than 20% of the population approve of how Congress does its job, do our politicians still have the nerve to pat themselves on the back? How is it, that when their phone lines are perpetually flooded with the begging requests of constituents to oppose bills or at least read the legislation they intend to enforce before casting a vote, that they feel as though they’ve fulfilled their sworn obligation to the public and earned their $174,000 annual salary?

ABC News Contributor Cokie Roberts claimed that Byrd will be remembered “as the guardian of the Senate, as an institution.” If this is true, then our nation can only hope that Senator Byrd’s disgraceful legacy of fiscal irresponsibility will swiftly follow and die with him, so his death can mark the turning point in our history when future Congressmen and women will act as guardians of the Constitution and protectors of the people instead of defenders of their reelection careers.

~Gee

I'm From the Government, and I'm Here to Propose...More Government

As oil steadily spreads east, and newscasters lead nightly with heartrending pictures of silk-coated pelicans struggling to free themselves and stretching now useless wings, it is painfully evident the Obama administration’s policy of finger-pointing and maligning big oil has not saved our marshlands.  Though full of machismo, President Obama’s “declaration of war” on the spill in his June 15 address was short on substance and failed to inspire confidence.  His self-described “battle plan” offered no concrete solutions or immediate answers for a weary Gulf coast and a crestfallen nation.  The speech was rife with platitudes and empty militaristic imagery, which is ironic given that the months since the spill have manifested Obama’s inexperience, even to his staunchest of allies.  The birds, seemingly frozen in oil and in time, have become a symbol of this presidency, while this tragedy has showcased the follies of liberals’ belief in the unbridled expansion of the power and size of government.

To be sure, the Obama administration and Congress have followed their leader into battle.  Over the past two weeks, Congress has conducted trial-like hearings with BP CEO Tony Hayward and BP America President Lamar McKay.  Rep. Cliff Stearns (R-Fla.) called for McKay to resign.  Rep. Anh “Joseph” Cao, a Republican who represents New Orleans, suggested McKay’s pound of flesh could be exacted more harshly.  “Mr. Stearns asked Mr. McKay to resign,” Cao said. “Well, in the Asian culture we do things differently.  During the Samurai days, we just give you a knife and ask you to commit harakiri.”  Following Hayward’s robotic stream of responses that investigations must be completed before he could testify as to BP’s negligence, Rep. Edward Markey (D-PA), chided, “Is today Thursday, yes or no?”  Though later retracted, Rep. Joe Barton (R-Tex.) termed the hearings a “shakedown.” 

Many prominent conservatives have spoken out against the hearings as premature and gratuitously aggressive and have recognized that all efforts should converge on the single objective of stopping the spill.  Other right-wing figureheads such as Mark Levin, Michael Savage, and Rush Limbaugh have done more than criticize the hearings and have gone so far as to liken the hearings to Stalinist Russia.  Though President Obama is certainly no friend to big oil, and his vision for capitalizing on this crisis through the blitzkrieg passage of cap and trade is steadily surfacing, the iron fist that implemented the Great Purge and forced collectivization bears no likeness to President Obama or his administration; to suggest otherwise is to diminish the suffering of true victims. 

Though President Obama cried he would “not settle for inaction,” these hearings are paradoxically the ultimate act of inaction.  Mere pomp and circumstance, they are an empty show put on by a puerile government that believes the answers to what ails this country—even the oil drenched Gulf—can be found in sterile Washington offices and closed-door meetings.  Neither the parading of BP executives before Congress nor the demonization of big oil contributes to the goal of saving the Gulf.  There is most certainly a time for investigation, accountability, and reckoning, but that time is not now. 

If the hearings have taught us anything, it is that government, with all its impenetrable red tape and crippling bureaucracy, is not the panacea the far left would have us believe.  Federal relief efforts in the Gulf have been sluggish due in large part to that same bureaucracy, which not only appointed a commission to explore criminal charges against BP, but has also created the position of an “oil czar,” who will undoubtedly consult with the same environmentalists who pushed for deep sea drilling as he or she formulates a recovery plan.  If this administration has been on top of the crisis since “day one,” as it has repeatedly attempted to convince the public, there should be no confusion regarding the chain of command, but that’s precisely what “big government” does.

Ronald Reagan once quipped, “The nine most terrifying words in the English language are: ‘I’m from the government and I’m here to help,’ ” and those fighting this disaster on the front lines such as Governor Bobby Jindal have pleaded with the federal government to either lead, follow, or get out of the way.  Governor Jindal has expressed his outrage and frustration not only with the federal government’s seeming lack of urgency, but also with its bureaucracy, which is both stymieing and even aborting the relief efforts his state has implemented.  Jindal described the hoops through which he was forced to jump to clear barges for siphoning surface oil:  “Twenty-four hours were lost unnecessarily,” he said. “That's thousands of gallons of oil that could have been sucked up if they had been allowed to do their jobs.”  Sixteen barges were ready or had already been deployed from the Delta Marina, but the Coast Guard halted them, because they did not have proof of certified inspections for fire extinguishers and life vests. “It’s the most frustrating thing,” Jindal said.  “Literally, yesterday morning we found out that they were halting all of these barges.  They promised us they were going to get it done as quickly as possible,” but “every time you talk to someone different at the Coast Guard, you get a different answer” the Republican Governor complained.  Thanks to Governor Jindal’s public and tireless remonstrations, the barges are operational, but other governors are now facing red tape as thick as the sludge in the Gulf.

Had the Bush administration or FEMA insisted on inspecting every helicopter airlifting evacuees from New Orleans or the firefighters sifting through the wreckage World Trade Center for survivors, there would have been countless more deaths.  President Obama’s “battle plan” for the Gulf, comprised of clean up by committee and hearings by commission, is only obstructing real progress.  For those countless legions who in chorus chanted “Yes We Can” and looked to Obama as their savior and great hope for change—one who would smite evil bankers, speak credit into existence, and restore America through burning bush revelations—the President has failed to fulfill prophecy with regard to the oil spill.  Rather than looking to our elected officials, we should turn to the true Hope of the world, the one whose very voice spoke the oceans into existence, and pray for divine guidance as we deal with the consequences of failing to protect this earth and its precious resources with which we have been entrusted. 

~ elf

Freedom (Caution: Do Not Use Without Government Supervision!)

”You never want a serious crisis to go to waste, and what I mean by that is an opportunity to do things that you didn’t think you could do before.”

Those are the words from President Obama’s Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel back in 2008 during the presidential campaign. Emanuel broadly applied this idea to a wide range of problems, implying that had the federal government simply stepped in to supervise the situation, each crisis could have been avoided.  From health care to energy reform, education to regulatory reform, and even in the fiscal and tax areas – “the solution,” as Emanuel claims, always leads back increased government control.  This morning, in the wake of President Obama’s newly-appointed oil spill commission and energy Czar, we see another example of this government fix-it mentality implying that government can and will fix all of the nation’s problems.

We’ve got an unstoppable oil leak? No worries, the government will swoop in and ensure it never happens again.  We don’t have health insurance?  No worries, the government will step in and ensure we never have to pay a high premium again.

Our politicians preach on responsibility – corporate responsibility, environmental responsibility, and social responsibility, always with the subtle suggestion that the current problems of our country somehow link back to being the direct result of Bush-era greed that could have conveniently been avoided if only we had a controlling body to referee the rules and lifeguard the economic pool. The magic ingredient needed to fix each of this country’s problems, according to this administration, is control. Just add government intervention.

Are we listening to their rhetoric? Are we paying attention to what they are implying?

Our politicians insinuate that if those countless masses of irresponsible CEOs and greedy individuals had simply exercised a bit more fiscal responsibility, if they just cared a little more about the future generations, if they had only showed concern for the environment instead of their corporate profits, if they simply controlled their excess, if only they had someone to watch over them and make sure they behaved – none of this would have happened.  In other words, our politicians want us to believe that if only we had let the government control the situation from the beginning, the risk of failure would have been removed.  In Emanuel’s own words: a crisis requires immediate government intervention and provides “the opportunity to do things that [government] could not do before.”  I.e., if we had only given the government the power it needed to control the situation, we wouldn’t be in the mess we’re in now.  

Federal government intervention under the banner of national emergencies is not a new idea to the American public.  Teddy Roosevelt once gave a speech at the turn of the last century on “The New Nationalism” in which he claimed that our money and property only belongs to us if there isn’t a better government-determined use for it.  He stated that personal property is “subject to the general right of the community to regulate its use to whatever degree the public welfare may require it.”  Nationalism, as Roosevelt stated, “puts the national need before sectional or personal advantage.”  However, because our country is founded on principles equal opportunities, which grant us free access to life, liberty and the use of our personal property (with minimal government intervention) but does not necessarily guarantee equal outcomes, this call to Nationalism has been rejected over time.

Yet, with all the political lecturing as though our government were a nurturing parent desperate for more opportunities to monitor its reckless  and unruly children, er, constituents, who simply can’t fend for themselves, our politicians continue to push their controlling agenda on this country with no regard for their own call to responsibility, moderation, and self-control.

Who oversees the overseers?  Who regulates the regulators?

The recent housing collapse is largely attributed to the federal government’s meddling involvement with bank loans via the Community Reinvestment Act, which was enacted over 30 years ago. Our country is teetering at the grand canyon of national debt, we’re on the verge of losing our triple-A lending status (which basically means that our interest rates used to pay back our federal government’s debt could skyrocket if we continue along this path), and our national debt is on the verge of being unsustainable, also because our federal government for years has overstepped its fiscal boundaries.

Do our politicians have room to lecture on self-control and responsibility?

No, they do not. 

When has our government proved that it is above the vices of the common man? Does the government stop its reckless spending that will inevitably bankrupt our country?  No, our Congress continues to sneak in additional spending that we simply cannot afford. However, the American public is catching on – we are aware that we cannot control and sustain our debt, so our politicians have found a way around the minor inconvenience of the public calling for less spending by citing each plea for additional funding as a national emergency. The checks may bounce, but what does it matter to our politicians if the bill had “good intentions” of fixing a national emergency?  What does it matter if our hard-earned money is used for a national cause determined not by populous vote but by self-regulating politicians?

Take H. R. 4899, for example, a bill currently on the table in the House of Representatives and marketed as an act proposing “emergency supplemental appropriations for disaster relief and summer jobs for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2010, and for other purposes.” Despite the bill’s blatantly broad description projecting an image of good-natured responsibility and assistance in the wake of current economic issues, it’s a prime example of how our government never lets a good crisis go to waste.  Slyly tucked forty pages into H.R. 4899 is a proposed $174,000 paycheck to Representative John Murtha’s family, because apparently, according to our politicians, entitlement funds for the family members of dead politicians qualify under the “for other purposes” emergency category.

Where in the Constitution have the states granted the federal government the right to take up mandatory tax collections at the expense of the public to fund their “charitable” causes?  How does this $174,000, for example – which happens to be the equivalent of an additional one-year Congressional salary payment – qualify as an emergency fund in the eyes of our politicians? The current spending habits of our elected officials and their blatant disregard and reckless spending proves that they would rather burden the American family for generations with debt through taxes for money they think they’ve earned a right to freely distribute. I highly doubt that when Teddy Roosevelt shaped his definition of Nationalism, that taxpayer-funded collections for families of deceased politicians qualified as the new “national need.” 

It’s always easy for politicians to spend someone else’s money, but the redistribution of our money and property at the expense of self-appointed political perks does not fall into the same category as emergency funds either, which is why Nationalism will always be rejected.  The people inherently know that regardless of how bad a problem is or how big a crisis gets, there can never be an end-all government solution for everything. The public also inherently knows that not every problem is an emergency nor will increased government control ever remove a nation from the risk of a future crisis, because the individuals making up our collective government body will always be subject to the exact same vices and flaws that the government seeks to villainize and control in the private sector. 

~Gee