Blurt Daily

Obama is set to announce $1.5 billion in aid to underwater homeowners.  Nevada stands to reap a large portion of the money, so why not announce it in Vegas with Harry Reid at your side.  What’s $1.5 billion if it helps get Harry re-elected?

What happened to fiscal responsibility?

When will they end the TARP and why is it being used to bail out homeowners?  Are there any restrictions on how they can use TARP money?

According to the formula for obtaining money in the program, only five states qualify: Nevada, California, Michigan, Arizona and Florida.  Why aren’t the other 45 states furious about this?

I’m beginning to think Obama is bi-polar or addicted to spending.  Spend, don’t spend, spend, don’t spend.  Next week he’ll probably announce another commission to study the deficit.

If you haven’t watched this yet, you need to:

The climate change consensus is melting away before our eyes.  Even the scientist implicated by the climategate emails is starting to crack.

Meanwhile, one of the scientists at the center of the climategate fiasco has called into question other issues that the climate lobby has claimed are indisputable. Phil Jones, who stepped down as head of the University of East Anglia’s Climatic Research Unit amid the climate email scandal, told the BBC that the world may well have been warmer during medieval times than it is now.

This raises doubts about how much our current warming is man-made as opposed to merely another of the natural climate shifts that have taken place over the centuries. Mr. Jones also told the BBC there has been no “statistically significant” warming over the past 15 years, though he considers this to be temporary.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703630404575053781465774008.html?mod=WSJ_hp_mostpop_read

It seems a natural feeling whether you are Republican or Democrat or Independent to be annoyed at the lack of ability to get anything done in Washington DC.  One could argue, its particularly disappointing that Obama hasn’t been able to accomplish anything despite a super majority in the House and Senate.  It often makes me wonder how Bush got so much done when he had less of a majority than Obama does.  You can make lots of arguments about the fractured nature of the Democratic party, but that is not the point of this post.

My point is that the Founding Fathers intended gridlock in Washington.  Massive sweeping changes like socialized healthcare, cap and trade, etc, were meant to be difficult to pass.  That way, even with huge majorities, you still usually come up with a better solution that requires bipartisanship than what the majority party could do on its own.  I think it’s great.  While we may still get a healthcare plan passed, it should be much less liberal than what Obama and many Dems would prefer.  Thank goodness.  On the opposite side of the coin, Bush probably would have done more conservative things had it not been for the Dems.  It leads to a centrist government where change is difficult and takes a long time.

This post from Keith Hennessey is a bit long, but worth reading.  He dissects Obama’s blame game regarding our deficit.  http://keithhennessey.com/2010/02/04/need-future-focus/

“It is strange for a President to complain repeatedly about ten-year old policies and then not propose to change them.”

This was an interesting and scary article I just read on Yahoo! Finance.  It says that social security is finally bringing in less money than it’s paying out.  And to add to that, because people’s homes and stock portfolios have depreciated so much, social security has become a much more critical piece of elderly people’s livelihood.  So, the inevitable social security problem that was always said to be in the future is finally here apparently.  Here is the whole article:

http://finance.yahoo.com/focus-retirement/article/108747/next-in-line-for-a-bailout-social-security?mod=fidelity-readytoretire

A lot has been made of the exchange between Obama and Alito during the SOTU.  Obama is dead wrong in saying that the court overturned 100 years of precedent.  It is interesting to note that the only reason media outlets, such as newspapers and such, can endorse candidates and make independent political contributions is because McCain-Feingold exempted them.  Since when does Congress have the power to endow others with the right to political speech.  If Congress could grant them an exemption, Congress could also take it away.

If Congress really wanted to stop the influence of corporations in the political process (and unions for that matter), Congress would stop meddling in every aspect of the economy.  McCain-Feingold wasn’t about protecting the political process.  It was about protecting Congressmen who want to harass businesses without dealing with the backlash.

I was walking yesterday and overheard a single sentence of a conversation between three guys.  The first guy said, “They don’t understand that the only way to restore freedom is to temporarily take away all their rights.” The other two guys agreed.  I have no idea of the context of this sentence, but I would guess they were discussing the issue of freedom vs security (i.e. Do you give up rights for the purpose of being kept safe?).  Well, it got me thinking about whether or not this was true in any context.

I look at laws as restrictions of freedom, some necessary and some are not.  In deciding which of them are most useful and needed, I always end up thinking of a hose analogy:  If you turn on the water, it comes rushing out of the hose and onto the ground.  If you put a nozzle on it, the water becomes focused and sprays 10 to 20 times farther.  The nozzle can also be tightened to a point where the water is cut off.

If the water is society’s potential, laws are like the nozzle that can be used to restrict certain behaviors of society and focus the efforts of the rest toward prosperity.  An example is a law against fraud which, when enforced, promote investment.    On the other hand, if there are too many laws, or they are designed/enforced improperly, this cuts off the potential.  An example would be the “one-time bonus taxes” proposed on employees of companies that received TARP funds.

So back to the question… are there situations where either an individual or society should give up their rights in order to have freedom restored at a later time?  Here are a couple of my quick thoughts:

1. A does not always equal B.  The guy’s comment assumes two things: the only way to get freedom is to give up rights, and that once the rights are given up that they will be restored.  I don’t think either of those are true.
2. I’ve always liked a quote attributed to Benjamin Franklin, “They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.” Maybe its a little disingenuous to apply a quote from the days of war and where people dueled for honor, to circumstances today, but I think the principle is the same.
3. I don’t agree with the comment even in an financial sense.  The comparison would be someone, who in exchange for financial security, temporarily gives up their ability to produce.  The guy’s comment might be true if this led to greater production in the future, but I think that it has the opposite affect as seen by our welfare system.  People are compelled to give up their ability to produce, in exchange for financial security (a set financial payment).  This payment does not encourage one to step out and take risks, but breeds dependence.