Category Archives: Politics

It’s not a First Amendment issue

Posted on by

Anybody who tells you that the two indictments of Donald Trump (one Federal and one in Georgia, see below for links) concerning his unsuccessful attempt to defraud the American people by overturning the results of a free and fair election are in any way, shape, or form First Amendment issues is lying to you. They’re either ignorant of what’s actually in the indictments or they know but they don’t want you to know.

Neither indictment is about punishing the Bumbling Buffoon for his well-documented tendency to lie through his teeth. Nobody’s saying that spouting bullshit is against the law, even if you know what you’re saying is false. What the indictments are saying is that the sitting President of the United States entered into a criminal conspiracy to illegally change the results of an election.

“But he really believed that the election was corrupt.”

I don’t believe that. But let’s say it’s true: that Donald Trump at the time really was (and, what the hell, still is) dumb enough or stubborn enough to believe, despite all evidence to the contrary, that there was, as the Federal indictment puts it, “outcome determinative fraud.”

That doesn’t justify entering into a criminal conspiracy to violate the law. It doesn’t excuse filing official documents that contain false statements or opinions asserted as fact, especially when those statements are not backed up by anything approaching solid evidence. It doesn’t excuse the use of intimidation to influence witnesses. It doesn’t exonerate the attempts to convince officials to violate their oaths of office. It doesn’t excuse the President of the United States for suggesting to his subordinates that they violate the law. Those actions are crimes–felonies–regardless of whether one believes that in committing them he is somehow “righting a wrong.”

This isn’t new territory. We don’t let somebody off the hook for murder because they thought the victim deserved it: “The court found him not guilty, but I know he did it.” We call that vigilantism and as far as I know it’s illegal everywhere in the country.

Trump and his defenders will have you believe that he’s being persecuted because he’s a threat to Democrats in the 2024 election. They want you to believe that these criminal indictments are products of a handful of overzealous anti-Trump prosecutors who’ll use any excuse to prevent him from being on the 2024 ballot. They want you to conveniently forget that both indictments are brought, not by the prosecutors, but rather by ordinary citizens–a grand jury that’s selected from qualified citizens in the jurisdictions that the indictments are brought. The prosecutors present evidence to the grand jury and the citizens vote to determine whether the evidence presented is sufficient to charge the persons in question with crimes. They’ve decided that, yes, there is sufficient evidence to accuse Donald Trump and his cabal of co-conspirators with crimes: that there should be a trial.

The Trump apologists, the “what about” crowd, and those who seek to minimize the gravity of the alleged offenses are not being honest with you. These indictments have nothing to do with First Amendment rights. The Federal indictment explicitly asserts the defendant’s rights to say what they please, regardless of the veracity of their statements.

Do yourself a favor: read the indictments yourself.

Federal Indictment

Georgia Indictment

Trump apologists are lying to you

Posted on by

Prominent Republicans, whether they’re Trump supporters, apologists, or announced candidates for the Republican nomination are speaking out against Tuesday’s indictment of former President Trump. In doing so, they’re deliberately missing the point, trying to couch it as a First Amendment issue, or saying things like, “If Trump is guilty of incitement for the Jan 6 riot, then Schumer and Sanders should be held accountable for incidents, too.” See, for example, Scott Walker’s comments. Or Marco Rubio’s tweet:

“Apparently it is now a crime to make statements challenging election results if a prosecutor decides those statements aren’t true.

“So when should we expect indictments of the democrat politicians who falsely claimed Russia hacked the 2016 election?”

I have two points to make.

First, not one of the four charges in the indictment has anything to do with incitement to riot or violence of any kind. The argument made by Scott Walker and others of his ilk is a red herring. Whether Trump, Schumer, or Sanders is guilty of incitement or similar is a separate issue that should not be conflated with the subject of this indictment.

Second, this is not a First Amendment issue. Item 3 in the introduction to the indictment (the second page) says:

“The Defendant had a right, like every American, to speak publicly about the election and even to claim, falsely, that there had been outcome-determinative fraud during the election and that he had won. He was also entitled to formally challenge the results of the election through lawful and appropriate means, such as by seeking recounts or audits of the popular vote in states or filing lawsuits challenging ballots and procedures. Indeed, in many cases, the Defendant did pursue these methods of contesting the election results. His efforts to change the outcome in any state through recounts, audits, or legal challenges were uniformly unsuccessful.”

If you read the indictment (and if you’re forming an opinion on it without first reading it, how can you have any confidence that your opinion is at all realistic?), you’ll see that the charges are for conspiracy, obstructing and impeding an official proceeding, and interfering with citizens’ right to vote and to have their votes counted. Specifically:

Count 1: From on or about November 14, 2020, through on or about January 20, 2021, in the District of Columbia and elsewhere, the Defendant, DONALD J. TRUMP, did knowingly combine, conspire, confederate, and agree with co-conspirators, known and unknown to the Grand Jury, to defraud the United States by using dishonesty, fraud, and deceit to impair, obstruct, and defeat the lawful federal government function by which the results of the presidential election are collected, counted, and certified by the federal government.

Count 2: From on or about November 14, 2020, through on or about January 7, 2021, in the District of Columbia and elsewhere, the Defendant, DONALD J. TRUMP, did knowingly combine, conspire, confederate, and agree with co-conspirators, known and unknown to the Grand Jury, to corruptly obstruct and impede an official proceeding, that is, the certification of the electoral vote, in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 1512(c)(2)

Count 3: From on or about November 14, 2020, through on or about January 7, 2021, in the District of Columbia and elsewhere, the Defendant, DONALD J. TRUMP, attempted to, and did, corruptly obstruct and impede an official proceeding, that is, the certification of the electoral vote.

Count 4: From on or about November 14, 2020, through on or about January 20, 2021, in the District of Columbia and elsewhere, the Defendant, DONALD J . TRUMP, did knowingly combine, conspire, confederate, and agree with co-conspirators, known and unknown to the Grand Jury, to injure, oppress, threaten, and intimidate one or more persons in the free exercise and enjoyment of a right and privilege secured to them by the Constitution and laws of the United States—that is, the right to vote, and to have one’s vote counted.

The indictment clearly lays out evidence of those conspiracies, detailing how the defendant was instrumental in organizing and putting in place an illegal scheme to create fraudulent electors in an attempt to change the election result in his favor. An election that he knew, as shown by his own words, that he had lost. This indictment is not about the President lying. No, this indictment is about the President’s participation in a conspiracy to overthrow the U.S. government using lies, false accusations, and intimidation to enlist others and justify his illegal actions.

The key point here is that the President of the United States attempted to seize power for himself after losing an election that he knew full well was free and fair. Anybody who calls himself a patriot, who believes in the rule of law and the principles on which this country was founded, should be demanding that he stand trial and, if convicted, be imprisoned. Donald Trump, in his attempt to retain power after losing the election, acted like any other thug ruler in history. He does not deserve your, or anybody’s, support.

Initial thoughts on Trump indictment #3

Posted on by

I spent a large part of the day reading the latest indictment of Donald Trump, this one for his role in the fake electors scheme following the 2020 election, and then letting it marinate in my brain for a while. These are initial thoughts, subject to revision after another reading and more cogitation.

Donald Trump, while President of the United States, used his band of paid intimidators (Elite Strike Force Legal Team) in an attempt to convince or coerce ordinary citizens, state officials, state legislators, federal government officials, and even the Vice President of the United States to fraudulently overturn the results of an election. An election result that, by his own admission, he knew was legitimate. In almost every case, those whom he attempted to enlist in his fraudulent scheme refused, often incurring the President’s wrath. The President fired some and publicly called out others, resulting in many of them receiving death threats and other abuse from Trump’s supporters.

I find it quite interesting that the indictment focuses almost exclusively on Trump’s words: opinions he expressed. You can expect sympathetic individuals to latch onto that and make a big deal of it, especially in light of Monday’s court ruling that, read broadly, essentially says that the President’s words, even if they’re knowingly false statements intended to deceive, are protected by Presidential immunity. But the ruling does not assert blanket immunity. Judge Erdos, who issued the ruling, said:

Other legal proceedings may examine the propriety of his statements and actions while he was the President and whether, as the plaintiffs in this and other cases contend, it was this conduct which served as the actual threat to our democracy. But this case is not the proper place to do so. Here, Trump is entitled to Presidential immunity.

In my opinion, Jack Smith would not have issued the indictment on Tuesday if all he had was Donald Trump’s words. The almost complete absence in the indictment of evidence showing or even hinting at Trump explicitly directing his subordinates or hired thugs to break the law is a red herring. I suspect Jack Smith is holding that back for now and will dribble it out as necessary. I think if he didn’t have clear evidence of Donald Trump breaking the law or directing others to break the law, he would not have released this indictment.

In my mind, there are two separate issues here. The key issue, of course, and the only one relevant to the legal proceedings is whether Donald Trump broke the law. That’s something we won’t know until trial. The second issue, and the one that’s more important in my mind, is whether Donald Trump’s statements and behavior described in the indictment are true. A trial could very well reveal that, as the indictment alleges, Trump knowingly lied in order to retain his office. And yet the jury could find him not guilty of committing a crime.

Imagine that were to happen. Would people still support him? Despite knowing that Donald Trump is, as I have maintained, a liar, cheat, grifter, con man, etc. who consistently made false statements about non-existent election irregularities, made knowingly false accusations of misconduct against innocent Americans, tried to convince his subordinates and personal staff to fraudulently overturn an election result, ultimately culminating in a riot on January 6, 2021 by those who believed his lies. All while standing behind his alleged “immunity,” knowing that if his scheme failed, somebody else would take the fall for it.

I think every American, even those who would support Trump, should read that indictment and subject their beliefs to some serious consideration. I find it inconceivable that the breadth of evidence revealed in that indictment could be fabricated, that every witness who testified could be convinced to lie under oath. I hope that any honest thinking person, regardless of how dedicated they are to the fraud that is Donald J. Trump, would come away with some serious questions about the former president. Regardless of your political beliefs, is that really the kind of person you want at the head of our government?

The Trump-McConnell shutdown

Posted on by

As the current government shutdown approaches a month, little has changed. Democrats blame President Trump for the impasse, Trump and his supporters like to blame Democrats even though the president himself said, “I will shut it down,” and pretty much everybody else blames general government dysfunction.

The truth, though, is that there’s a third party involved:  Senate Majority Leader and oathbreaker extraordinaire, Mitch McConnell, who is once more derelict in his duty.

Our system of passing legislation is supposed to be pretty simple. For legislation that involves funding the government, the House passes a bill and sends it to the Senate. The Senate debates that bill and either passes or rejects it. If it’s rejected, typically there is a conference committee in which members of the House and Senate work out disagreements. Eventually, either the bill passes or is finally rejected. If the bill passes both houses of Congress then it goes to the president, who has two choices: 1) Sign the bill, making it law; 2) Veto the bill. In the case of #2, Congress can elect to override the president’s action by a two-thirds vote. If two-thirds of both houses of Congress vote for the bill after the president has vetoed it, the bill becomes law.

If Congress were to pass a spending bill and send it to the president, Donald Trump will have to take action: sign the bill or veto it. Neither of those actions would be beneficial to the president.

If President Trump were to veto the bill, then he would have to take full responsibility for the shutdown. He could no longer blame the situation on Democrats. It would be the same as standing up and saying, “I believe that it is more important to fund my wall than it is for government to function normally.” Plus, there’s a slight possibility that two-thirds of Congress would vote to override his veto, making him look like a fool. Whereas many people think that ship has sailed, if Congress were to override his veto even Trump would see himself as a fool. And weak.

If the president were to sign the bill, something I can’t see happening, all his bluster over the last month or so would look foolish. He’d be excoriated for “caving,” his detractors would ridicule him to no end, and his base would probably condemn him as a traitor.

In short, there is no way President Trump comes out looking good if Congress presents him with legislation that doesn’t fund his border wall.

Make no mistake, Trump painted himself into this corner. He made an ultimatum, fully expecting Congressional Democrats to cave. They didn’t, and now he’s in a tough spot. The only way he can win is if the Democrat-controlled House agrees to fund his wall, and there is almost no incentive for them to do so. As much as he tries, Trump can’t deflect responsibility for the shutdown that he instigated, and the longer it drags on, the more people blame the current situation on him.

So what does this have to do with Mitch McConnell? As Senate Majority Leader, Mitch McConnel has absolute control over what legislation is debated in the Senate. Nothing gets heard without his approval. And for reasons I cannot fathom, Mitch McConnell has made himself Donald Trump’s protector. In 2016, McConnell prevented the Senate from holding hearings on President Obama’s Supreme Court nominee. In doing so, McConnell violated his Oath of Office which says, in part, “and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter.” McConnell very publicly refused to do his duty. There is no interpretation of that Oath that allows him to refuse just because it would be politically inconvenient.

In the current situation, McConnell knows that the Senate might just pass a bill that does not fund the wall, putting the president in a no-win situation. So he just doesn’t allow the Senate to debate the bill. I guess it doesn’t cost McConnell anything to do this: he’s already shredded his integrity. My only question here is why the rest of the senators don’t kick him to the curb. Allowing Mitch McConnell, a man who wouldn’t know integrity if it jumped up and slapped him across the face, to represent the United States Senate makes them all look bad.

I suppose I do have one other question: What power does Donald Trump hold over Mitch McConnell to make him act this way?

The president would have you believe that he’s fighting the good fight in the name of National Security. It’s all a smoke screen to hide the fact that he is vulnerable and fully dependent on an unscrupulous Senate Majority Leader. Trump’s supporters, even the few who know the truth of his powerlessness, eat it up and will continue to do so as long as he keeps up the bluster. Democrats are going to hate him regardless, and independents have long ago dismissed him as a fool. It costs the president nothing unless the Senate replaces McConnell with somebody worthy of the title so that Congress can get back to doing its job. Or unless McConnell somehow gets a better offer. Expecting him to find the shreds of his discarded integrity is laughably naive.

The shutdown will go on until one of these things happens, in order by increasing likelihood:

  1. Trump gives up.
  2. McConnell allows the Senate to debate a spending bill that does not fund Trump’s wall.
  3. The Senate kicks McConnell to the curb.
  4. The House passes a bill that partially funds Trump’s border wall.
  5. Trump, like he’s done so many times in the past with other things, conveniently forgets about the shutdown and finds some way to spin things for his supporters.

I consider the last two to be almost equally likely.

Whatever the case, Trump doesn’t win here. With the first three options, he’s revealed as a weak fool. With the fourth, he retains some dignity, but will have to swallow some pride because he didn’t get exactly what he wanted. The fifth option is a defeat and he loses some supporters, but his inability to admit defeat protects his fragile ego. To him, it’ll be as though the shutdown never happened.

Welcome to the cesspool

Posted on by

Today President Trump signed an executive order titled REDUCING REGULATION AND CONTROLLING REGULATORY COSTS. This fulfills a campaign pledge to reduce burdensome regulation. On the face of it, I applaud the measure, especially the provision that says, “whenever an executive department or agency publicly proposes for notice and comment or otherwise promulgates a new regulation, it shall identify at least two existing regulations to be repealed.”

I suspect that the net effect of this order will be approximately zero, as far as business is concerned. In the first place, there are so many exceptions listed, it’s likely that any department head with a modicum of intelligence will get his proposals exempted from the new rules. And in the unlikely event that they do have to identify regulations to be repealed, they have a plethora of idiotic rules that are on the books and no longer enforced. It’ll take them years to clear that cruft from the books. So at best what we’ll see is large numbers of unenforced or unenforceable regulations being repealed. A Good Thing, no doubt, but not something that businesses will notice.

The Director of the Office of Management and Budget is tasked with specifying

“… processes for standardizing the measurement and estimation of regulatory costs; standards for determining what qualifies as new and offsetting regulations; standards for determining the costs of existing regulations that are considered for elimination; processes for accounting for costs in different fiscal years; methods to oversee the issuance of rules with costs offset by savings at different times or different agencies; and emergencies and other circumstances that might justify individual waivers of the requirements …”

It looks to me like the president’s order creates more regulations and more work, which probably will require increased expenses. I wonder if his order is subject to the new 1-for-2 rule.

I mentioned exceptions above. The order exempts:

  • regulations issued with respect to a military, national security, or foreign affairs function of the United States
  • regulations related to agency organization, management, or personnel
  • any other category of regulations exempted by the Director (of the OMB)

A savvy department head can probably make a good argument that any new regulation fits one of the first two. Failing that, being “in” with the Director of OMB will likely get you a pass.

Also, Section 5 states that the order will not “impair or otherwise affect”

  • the authority granted by law to an executive department or agency, or the head thereof
  • the functions of the Director relating to budgetary, administrative, or legislative proposals

Oh, and the last part, Section 5(c) says:

“This order is not intended to, and does not, create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by any party against the United States, its departments, agencies, or entities, its officers, employees, or agents, or any other person.”

In other words, this isn’t Law, but rather the president’s instructions to his subordinates.

The dog can’t bite; it can hardly growl. But the president can say that he “did something about the problem,” and thus get marks for keeping a campaign pledge.

So much for draining the swamp. This is the way things have been done in Washington for decades. Make a big deal signing a regulation with a feel-good title, but that does nothing (or, worse, does exactly the opposite of what you would expect), bask in the praise of your supporters, and then go about business as usual.

Welcome to the cesspool, Mr. President.

What’s all the fuss about?

Posted on by

The Supreme Court ruled Friday that states may not discriminate against same-sex couples when issuing marriage licenses. There are many people who are up in arms about this, but their arguments don’t make sense to me. In addition, it seems that persons on both sides of the issue mischaracterize it.

In everything that I’ve read for or against same-sex marriage, the authors seem to be missing the most important point: marriage is actually two related, but definitely different things. Traditionally, marriage is a social and religious institution: a vow made by two people, involving a promise to love, honor, cherish, be faithful to, etc. in accordance with the rules and customs of their particular religion or social group.

But marriage is also a legal contract, with defined rights and responsibilities that vary from state to state.

The two, as I said, are related but definitely separate. For example, legal marriage doesn’t require a commitment to love, honor, cherish, etc. All it takes is two consenting adults to sign a paper in front of witnesses. Done and done. You are now legally married, with all of the rights and responsibilities that come with it. Granted, those rights and responsibilities are rather ill-defined, and they’re not spelled out in the marriage license or any other document that you’re required to sign, but that’s an entirely different matter.

That other type of marriage, the one recognized by churches or other social or cultural groups, typically requires some type of ceremony that takes place in front of the group invoking the blessing of the group or whatever deity they worship. That marriage is recognized by those members of the group, but without a properly signed state-issued marriage license it is not recognized as a binding legal contract.

In short, states can refuse to recognize church marriages that aren’t accompanied by a state-issued marriage license, and churches can refuse to recognize as married two people who have a state-approved marriage that doesn’t conform to the church’s teachings.

The Supreme Court’s decision applies only to the legal contract. All it says is that states can’t discriminate based on gender when it comes to issuing a marriage license and that based on the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, no state may fail to recognize a marriage that was performed legally in another state.

That’s a no-brainer. There’s no Constitutionally justifiable reason for denying same-sex couples the right to enter into a legal contract. And there is long precedent establishing that legally binding contracts executed in one state are recognized as legally binding in all other states.

Note that the ruling doesn’t force religious or other non-government organizations to recognize those unions as meeting the rules for marriages as defined by the group. Nor does it force your church or club or whatever to perform a marriage that doesn’t conform to your group’s rules.

I know that many people reading this will argue that this ruling is the first step on a slippery slope of group marriages, incestuous marriages, unions between an adult and a child, a woman and her cat, etc. In truth, I don’t see a Constitutionally justifiable reason for denying group marriages. But then, I don’t have a particular problem with multiple people entering into a legal contract. As for the others, neither a child nor a cat is a consenting adult, so the argument is idiotic. And in the matter of incestuous unions the appearance of coercion is enough for the state to dispute the claim of “consenting adult.”

Many of those who dispute the ruling bring up the matter of sex, saying that by allowing same-sex marriage, the state is officially condoning homosexuality. That’s not true at all. The legal contract says nothing about sex. It’s not like the marriage license is a license to have sex. People have sex out of wedlock on a regular basis. Some states might still have laws on the books prohibiting sex out of wedlock or certain sexual practices between two consenting adults, but none of them are enforceable. The state is officially indifferent to sex between consenting adults.

Supporters of the Court’s ruling have mischaracterized it. The ruling is not “a victory for love.” It’s a victory for equality, no doubt, but it has nothing at all to do with love. It was purely a Constitutional question, and the ruling addressed just that. The Court’s opinion written by Justice Kennedy, however, is a different thing, and I will address that in a future post.

Members of both groups have acted badly in the wake of Friday’s ruling. Granted, those opposed to the ruling have been by far the more vocal and vitriolic, but supporters have spewed a fair amount of invective themselves, even when confronted by reasoned and polite disagreement.

I will happily accept your comments on this post, including opinions that differ from mine. All I ask is that you keep it civil. Discussion, not argument. Also, if you’re going to discuss the Constitution, I suggest that you read it. In addition, you can save yourself some embarrassment if you read the Supreme Court’s decision. It’s helpful to read the entire thing, but the first five pages contain what really matters.

I am the sole arbiter of what is considered civil, and I will delete any post that I deem to be objectionable. You’re free to say whatever you like, and I’m free to choose what appears in the comments section of my blog. My page, my rules. If you want to act badly, find somewhere else to play.

Thoughts after the election

Posted on by

If you believe the after-election commentary, the American people have “repudiated the policies of this administration and embraced conservative ideals.” Republicans are saying that gaining control of the Senate and increasing their control of the House is “a mandate” from the American people. In a sense it is, but almost certainly not in the way that they apparently believe and, more importantly, want you to believe.

For the president’s opposing party to take control of Congress during midterm elections is nothing new. Republicans did it in 1994, and Democrats did it in 2006. Historically, it’s unusual for the opposing party not to gain seats during the midterm. The media pundits and party propaganda twits will come up with all kinds of complicated reasons, often based on the belief that the winning party lied or cheated, but I think the real reason is much simpler: voters are expressing their discontent by throwing the bums out.

Throwing the bums out is a good thing as far as I’m concerned. Unfortunately, they just elect a new crop of bums and it’s business as usual.

The American electorate has an incredibly short memory and an even more limited imagination. They’re smart enough to see that things aren’t working well, and know that we need a change in Congress. But their imagination is limited to one of two flavors: Democrat or Republican. They’ll happily throw out the Democrats in favor of the Republicans, despite having been burned by the Republicans eight or ten years ago. And at some time in the near future they’ll throw the Republicans out in favor of the Democrats, forgetting that things weren’t any better the last time Democrats controlled Congress.

For some unfathomable reason, Americans lack the imagination to throw out Democrats and Republicans. That would send the right message. As it stands, all we’re doing is swapping one crowd of blood sucking parasites for another.

I liken it to being given the choice of having your face slapped repeatedly or getting punched in the gut repeatedly. We get tired of slaps after a while and switch to the gut punchers, but then our stomachs start to hurt and we go for the face slapping again. But what we really want is for people to stop hitting us. And yet we don’t have the imagination or the will to do anything about it.

In part, that’s because we long ago allowed Congress to make rules that enforce a very strict two-party system. The party that has the most seats in the House or Senate gets to make rules and control what legislation is presented. That in itself encourages an adversarial relationship, which is especially bad when the President’s party controls one house and the opposing party controls the other. In that case, the opposing party is forced to do whatever it can to block the president’s every move. To do otherwise would alienate their base and anybody else who might be discontented enough to vote for them during the next election cycle.

When the president’s party controls both houses of Congress, we’re in real trouble. Especially when they hold a super majority that can completely block every move of the opposing party. In that case, there is no opposition to whatever grandiose scheme the president’s party can dream up. We usually regret such laws that are enacted without careful consideration and lively debate. Giving a single party full control of two of our three branches of government is dangerous. So far we’ve been fortunate that the parties aren’t quite as tightly controlled as they could be. It’s a good thing that sometimes a party member will vote against the wishes of the party leaders.

We’re best off when one party controls the Executive branch and the other party controls the Legislative. In that case, the two parties are forced to work together. When one party controls both houses of Congress, the people who elected them expect them to Get Things Done. Sure, some of the party faithful think Congress should adopt an adversarial posture towards the president, but that leads to idiocy like the Clinton impeachment trial. Most of the people will want Congress to work with the president and enact meaningful legislation. Or, one would hope, repeal stupid legislation that was imposed on us when one party had a little too much power.

If Republicans can work with the president over the next two years (one year, really, because the second year will be dedicated to the mud slinging and political posturing we call campaigning), Republicans have a chance of gaining the White House again, and perhaps can keep from losing too much ground in the Congressional elections. If, however, they adopt an adversarial role and refuse to work with the president, the 2016 elections will be a repeat of 2008.

What I’d really like to see, though, is a meaningful third party or, preferably, a serious independent (i.e. no party affiliation) movement. Our system of party politics, especially the artificial two party system, is a serious impediment. It just encourages tribalism and perpetuates the dysfunctional governance we’ve experienced for the last 25 years or more.

Was the ACA designed to fail?

Posted on by

One of the things that worries me about the Affordable Care Act (Obamacare) is that it depends on a large number of young, healthy people signing up on the exchanges. The idea is that their premiums will more than pay for the care that they use, and the excess will go to pay for the older people who consume more health care dollars. It’s a big Ponzi Scheme. I explained almost four years ago why I think it won’t work. If the young and healthy don’t sign up on the exchanges, or if people consume more health care resources than the planners projected, then the whole scheme falls apart.

There are plenty of other things wrong with the ACA as well. It’s just bad legislation that was pushed through Congress in a hurry and in a somewhat irregular fashion because Democrats knew that they couldn’t get it to pass the normal way and time was running out. The ACA is something like 1,000 pages of text, and it’s doubtful that any one person understands everything in it. It’s a certainty that none of our Representatives or Senators fully understood what they were agreeing to when they voted for the thing.

It’s no secret that many of those who pushed for the ACA are unhappy that they couldn’t push through a single payer system: fully government-paid health care. I’ve heard Democrats say, in private conversations, that when the insurance companies fail to live up to the provisions of the ACA, we can finally move to a single payer system. And I begin to wonder.

I’ve long held that bad government is the result of incompetence and unintended consequences; that nobody could purposely create the inefficient, ineffective, and idiotic government bureaucracies, programs, departments, rules, regulations, commissions, etc. that we see every day. But in my more cynical moments I wonder . . .

Was the ACA crafted to fail? Was the plan all along to create a system that can’t possibly work, knowing that when it does there will be so many people dependent on the health care subsidies that it will be politically impossible to cancel the law and the only way forward will be to go to a single payer system? Because I think that’s what will eventually happen. Perhaps even in my lifetime.

It’s a frightening thought: that inefficient and ineffective government is created on purpose, slowly becoming larger and more intrusive. Much like the metaphorical boiling frog, we wouldn’t stand for the government we have if it had been sprung on us all at once, but we accept (with protest) continually more expensive and intrusive government if our taxes increase and our liberties erode a little at a time.

The problem, though, is that the metaphorical frog eventually dies.

The Fiscal Cliff

Posted on by

I think this is the first cartoon I’ve ever attempted to draw. It’s certainly the first one I’ve ever published in any form. And, yes, I do need to improve my drawing ability. I’m working on it . . .

Tax cut madness

Posted on by

President Obama today asked Congress to extend the Bush era tax cuts for those who make less than $250,000 per year, but let the cuts expire for those making $250K or more. This is no surprise, but his arguments just don’t bear scrutiny.

A couple of quotes from his speech:

I disagree on extending tax cuts for the wealthy because we just can’t afford them.

The money we are spending on these tax cuts for the wealthy is a major driver of our deficit. We can’t afford to keep that up.

CBO estimates show that the total of all the tax cuts is on the order of about 4.5 trillion dollars over 10 years, or about $450 billion per year. The tax cuts for those evil 2% who make over $250,000 per year amount to about $80 billion per year. The total tax cut package represents 45% of the annual deficit of $1 trillion. The “major driver of our deficit” that the president is talking about represents 8% of the deficit.

Not to put too fine a point on it, but the president is full of shit on this issue.

I like how he’s positioning this:

Let’s not hold the vast majority of Americans and our economy hostage while we debate the merits of another tax cut for the wealthy.

And, acknowledging that he and all of Congress agree on extending the tax cuts for “the other 98%,” he says:

Let’s agree to do what we agree on.

He’s trying to come across as a reasonable guy, but even a brief look at the numbers shows that he’s playing the same old game of demonizing the wealthy that’s worked for (and backfired on) politicians for decades.

In discussing the effect of the tax increase on small businesses, he states that 97% of small businesses won’t be affected. He says:

This isn’t about taxing job creators, this is about helping job creators.

He employs a common fallacy here: the idea that by not harming somebody, he’s helping them. It’s like a thug who expects me to thank him for not breaking my arm.

Republicans, too, are full of crap on this issue. They’ll have you believe that raising taxes on the wealthy will result in all manner of financial disasters. That’s just not true. There will be lots of grumbling, and likely a flight to tax-free or tax-sheltered investments the likes of which we saw in the 1980s. People do all manner of stupid things in order to avoid taxes, many of which end up costing more than just paying the tax. Congress and the president make these things possible by passing legislation that provides incentives for certain “investments,” and little industries grow up around those boondoggles. It’s all a huge scam.

The major driver of our deficit, Mr. President, is spending. You and Congress have proven that, given more money, you just spend more. When you and Congress show me that you can get spending under control, I might consider supporting a tax increase. But then, if you could get spending under control you wouldn’t need a tax increase.