Wednesday, November 18, 2009
Why Mobocra... er... Democracy... Ultimately Fails
The Peoples representatives can't seem to help themselves from from attempting to ingratiate themselves with the voters - adding injury to insult... using the voters own money and "credit line" to do so!
Perfect example... H.R. 3548 - the so-called "Worker, Homeownership and Business Assistance Act.
Basically, the bill extends unemployment insurance benefits for up to 20 weeks - extending jobless benefits in all states by 14 weeks and allowing beneficiaries residing in states where the official unemployment rate is above 8.5% an additional six weeks of unemployment checks - thus coverage for another 20 weeks in total.
(And of course nothing stands in the way of the House, Senate and President Obama "providing" additional add-on benefits - perhaps an additional additional 14 or 20 weeks worth of payments - once the current add-on benefits expire. According to the news article I'm relying upon, our free spending politicians have already twice lengthened the time people can receive checks to as much as 79 weeks, depending upon the state.)
In addition to the new unemployment spending (at a time when the national debt stands at more than $12 trillion dollars with the 2009 national deficit alone weighing in at $1.4 trillion), H.R. 3548 also extends the "emergency economic stimulus" $8,000 tax credit for first time homebuyers into the middle of next year and creates a brand new $6,500 tax credit for those who buy a home after living in their previous home for at least five years.
Oh yeah... and by "home" the President, Nancy Pelosi and 402 of her fellow House Members and Harry Reid and 97 of his fellow Senators mean not just that small starter house or roomier family home; nope, our elected representatives in Washington were "kind" enough to legislate that if you have the kind of money it takes to move into a McMansion (as the owner, not the cleaning lady or nanny) - say a $799,999.99 Westchester NY "estate" - you too get a kickback courtesy of... well... the rest of us.
Proposed Bumper Sticker: Schmucks Unite!
Folks... we're the schmucks.
Just as with the ill thought out and ultimately regressive "Cash For Clunkers" program, the "have nots" and even those one might refer to as the "have less" silent majority are being forced to subsidize "the haves" and the just plain "right place, right time" contingent with their personal spending and lifestyle choices.
To everyone who isn't planning on "taking advantage" of the government's "free money" - tough noogies.
(*SNORT*)
To those of you who scrimped and saved to buy a home prior to this latest example of fiscal irresponsibility coming out of Washington - too bad; you lose! (But, hey... the government will happily raise your taxes to fund someone else's McMansion tax break!)
As to the unemployment payments extension...
(*SIGH*)
I've been unemployed. It sucks.
I've collected unemployment insurance - which I paid premiums towards - in the past. I was happy to get the money.
In fact... if memory serves... I was once unemployed during a time where my benefits were extended.
And you know what... full disclosure: Those benefits acted as a cushion for me to avoid considering the more unpalatable employment options which are always open to people when and if they're truly desperate for work - any work.
Listen. Long story short, political reality acknowledged, Republicans couldn't have stood in the way of this legislation had they wanted to. There aren't enough Republicans and there certainly aren't enough conservatives. That said, here's the proposal I would have made:
If Congress is going to borrow the money (and ultimately as long as the federal government runs deficits and as long as there's a federal debt we'll always be referring to borrowed money) to extend unemployment benefits for up to 20 weeks, they should do so in such a way as to discourage beneficiaries from being either too "picky" or too sanguine concerning the possibility of further extensions.
Let's say you've been receiving $500/week in unemployment. You've now exhausted your 20 weeks worth of benefits; you've received $10,000 in cash benefits total.
Now let's say the government decides to extend your benefits for another 20 weeks. Should we be talking another $10,000? I say no.
What I propose in this situation is that your first "new" check - drawn on "extension funding" - should remain $500. However... your next check would be for only $475.
The check after that... $450.
The check after that... $425.
Do you see what I'm doing; what I'm getting at?
After the first week, each additional week you lose 5% of your original unemployment "compensation." The extension itself is the carrot; this weekly diminishment is the stick.
Cruel? Well... if you believe my proposal is "cruel" then certainly - logically - you must believe in unlimited unemployment eligibility. I mean... if it's "cruel" to ween recipients slowly off of what our British cousins call "the dole" then how much crueler is it to envision ultimately removing the "safety net" of unemployment compensation cold turkey?!
Folks... our elected representatives are spending us into oblivion. It must stop! But as I've just demonstrated... it's not stopping. Deficits spending has been accelerating. Debt is increasing at previously unheard of rates! And folks... whether the politicians voting for these irresponsible and destructive policies are turned out of office at the next election or the one after than or whether they retire years from now at a time of their choosing, they will proper and live happily ever after in luxury. Their pensions will be secure - secure and generous.
Are you as confident that your golden years will be lived out in similar comfort..???
Anyway... something to think about.
Here's one more thing - a shout out to the twelve courageous and principled Members of the House who dared to vote "no" on H.R. 3548:
John Shadegg (R-AR); Steve Scalise (R-LA); George Radanovich (R-CA); Tom Price (R-GA); Ron Paul (R-TX); Tom McClintock (R-CA); John Linder (R-GA); Scott Garrrett (R-NJ); Trent Franks (R-AZ); Jeff Flake (R-AZ); Michael Burgess (R-TX); and finally - last but not least - Paul Broun (R-GA).
What I want to know is where were the rest of the self-described "conservatives?"
Michelle Bachmann...??? I'm very disappointed in you.
* Note --
I just called Congresswoman Bachmann's office to try and get a straight answer as to why she voted "yea" on the final bill - the bill as passed by both Senate and House and signed into law by President Obama on November 6, 2009. I was told by a staffer (sorry, I didn't get the young lady's name) that Ms. Bachmann hadn't voted "aye," that in fact she had voted "nay."
Unfortunately... that young staffer was a bit... umm... confused.
While Bachmann did in fact vote against the House bill on September 22, which is all well and good, (82 of her House colleagues joined her in fact) as the young staffer should have known, the vote that mattered was the vote on November 6, 2009 on the House-Senate conference "melded" bill which passed 403-12. Bachmann's was not one of the "nay" votes.
Republicans...
Members of the RSC...
I expect you to walk the walk, not just talk the talk.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
10 comments:
A good friend of mine just emailed me the following:
QUOTING --
I wonder about this one. If government sachs is going to take down the economy, maybe part of the burden of that is paying unemployment on the wrecked middle class. Deficits and unfunded liabilities are out of control and unsustainable anyway, so it's now a matter of forward-looking damage containment. Paying out extended unemployment may be a pacifier or delay against increasing social unrest. If you are going to run a bazillion dollar deficit, you might as well apportion part of
that towards preventing rioting. Remember the investment in non-
lethal weapons and stateside deployeds? I see extended unemployment bennies as coming from the same place.
I am serious - we are getting there. Unemployment is and will be
going up, not down. The masses need to be controlled. I think "they" see that and I think this is one means of controlling the unrest. The trick is to maintain the power to print the money.
I'm still betting on a crisis of population reducing proportions, but that's just me. In that regard, look what the gubbmint did to this guy - I will never, ever drive my red car through west L.A.!!!!!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3OYVws9uJbk&feature=player_embedded
Welcome to "bread and circuses", the American version! Now we just need the circuses. Maybe Obama can provide government funding to "American Idol" next year?
Never happen. Americans don't have the balls to mount revolution. They just take their drugs, watch TV, and feed their faces. That can be done on very little money, actually. You'd be surprised.
The police have no trouble handling the few brave ones.
Remember the 'sixties?
Americans are too fat and soft to mount insurrection; but primarily, they're too selfish. You'd never get a dozen or so Americans to pull off a stunt like 9/11--nobody would go on the planes.
Wow. Read the following and then re-read the second to last sentence of the piece:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/11/19/AR2009111900904_pf.html
Folks... forget the "photo op" comment. Focus on the meat, don't be distracted by the gravy.
(Hey, Ed... you're from Georgia... how was that meat/gravy crack as a folksy witticism?)
(*WINK*) (*GRIN*)
Seriously...
I'm certainly not making a direct connection between Obama and how the Caesars controlled the Praetorian Guard, but...
Again... this is right in line with my original post. The Treasury is being misused for political purposes.
Are raises for the military, police, firefighters, et al something most of us in the abstract, in a vacuum, applaud? Sure. But that's my point; the financial crisis this nation faces calls for turning away from "business as usual" and "playing to the audience" in order to win political and even popular applause.
Being elected officials means - or at least it SHOULD mean - being willing to do the unpopular because it's the right thing to do.
We all have our heroes and those we especially applaud. For me the military is definitely one of these segments of our society. For others... it may be teachers.
Should ALL who "serve" government, community, and by extension society get a raise this year?
I say no. I say no raises is part of getting the deficit and debt under control. I say no raises sends a signal that we're serious about tackling this nation's fiscal crisis.
Obama and the Dems obviously say otherwise... and in line with the largely non-partisan nature of my original post, allow me to note that I'm absolutely sure that if I were to track down the vote for a military pay raise the tally would should most Republicans right behind the Democrats in cheering it and voting for it.
Folks. We're screwed. Our government is largely corrupt, incompetent, and... well... let's just stick to corrupt and incompetent.
BILL
Rob,
You're basically correct.
(*SHRUG*)
And thus... why I insist we're doomed.
BILL
They just take their drugs, watch TV, and feed their faces.
Congrats Rodak! You just named the "circuses": It's the new health care bill!
Sometimes, the comparisons to Ancient Rome are frighteningly scary.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704335904574497692260915588.html
EXCERPTS --
A few weeks ago, President Barack Obama signed legislation extending an $8,000 tax credit for first-time home buyers. The refundable tax credit, available even if a family has no taxable income, will enable many more buyers to close on a home. But it also could bankrupt the Federal Housing Administration (FHA) and, by doing so, damage an already weak housing market.
The tax credit was put in place as part of the stimulus package signed into law earlier this year. Initially, it was available only to first-time buyers with a combined income of $150,000 or less ($75,000 for individuals). Approximately 40% of all first-time buyers used the credit in 2009, so extending it was strongly supported by real estate brokers, home builders and their congressional allies.
The extension the president signed makes the credit available to first-time buyers, but also to people who have owned a home for at least five years. In addition, it raises the maximum income for a qualified buyer to $225,000 a year for couples and makes the credit available until mid-2010. (It had been set to expire at the end of this month.)
The problem is that the FHA insures mortgages of homes below certain price levels with such a low down payment that it can be funded solely by the refundable tax credit. And, as we've seen in the recent housing crisis, buyers with no skin in the game are more likely than others to default on their mortgages when the value of their home falls below their mortgage balance.
Here's how the credit allows buyers to avoid putting their own money at risk. Suppose a couple making $60,000 annually buys a home worth $200,000. They can get an FHA-insured loan if they put down 3.5% of the purchase price, about $7,000. The couple will also need to come up with another $1,000 in closing costs, for a total of $8,000. The couple can either dip into savings or borrow that money from relatives or somewhere else on a temporary basis.
After closing, the couple can quickly obtain the $8,000 refundable tax credit to pay off their temporary loan (or replenish their savings). In effect, they will have bought a home without putting any of their own money at risk. Owners who don't sink their own money into a house are much more likely to default on the mortgage.
But it also could bankrupt the Federal Housing Administration (FHA) and, by doing so, damage an already weak housing market.
When that happens, the feds will just pump more money into the FHA. (see Fannie and Freddie for historical reference)
The extension the president signed makes the credit available to first-time buyers, but also to people who have owned a home for at least five years.
That's an important addition to the existing program which should be highlighted. I'm sure the real estate pros LOVED this one!
And, as we've seen in the recent housing crisis, buyers with no skin in the game are more likely than others to default on their mortgages when the value of their home falls below their mortgage balance.
Kind of like politicians are more likely to spend money they don't have, since they have nothing to lose...
"...politicians are more likely to spend money they don't have, since they have nothing to lose..."
Exactly, Ed, which bring us to...
http://www.amazon.com/Term-Limits-Vince-Flynn/dp/0671023187
Now of course I would never... er... espouse violence or illegality in real life...
(*SINCERE CHOIR BOY EXPRESSION*)
...but if I WERE to "theorize" on our options...
"Democracy" is NOT going to remove the likes of Charlie Rangel and Barney Frank from power.
Hey... if anyone would bet their retirement nest egg that "one day" Charlie Rangel will end up in jail after being indicted, tried, and found guilty of his many crimes (even just the one's we're all aware of) please forward me your contact info: I've got some swamp land in Florida I'm interested in selling.
Again... HYPOTHETICALLY... with the inmates largely running the asylum the only way to redress the only viable THEORETICAL way of leveling the playing field seems to me to be violence.
While I do appreciate your proposal of secession as being less extreme, history tells us that the inmates running the asylum wouldn't ALLOW secession to take place - so that's out.
Of course I would never, never, NEVER pray for nor encourage any individual or group of individuals with the proper skill set and resources to fight for what I would consider justice and sanity...
(*BOWING MY HEAD; THE VERY PICTURE OF SOLEMNITY*)
,,,but again... in theory... I don't see the system changing (for the better at least) absent putting the literal fear of God in the politicians.
(*SHRUG*)
Ed. The game is rigged. The gerrymander alone ensures that there's never going to be a truly level TRULY Democratic playing field where "one person, one vote" is a functioning truism.
Ed. The system is SET UP to ENCOURAGE bloated and every growing government with more and more power flowing to Washington day in and day out.
Anyway... enough, er... "theory" and enough, er... "hypotheticals."
In all seriousness I *must* be on the government's radar - but no need to actually invite that knock on the door from the FBI, ATF, Secret Service, or Homeland Security.
(*CHUCKLE*)
BILL
Post a Comment