Health Summit/Law Class

President/Professor Obama called on senators and representatives alike giving input as to what he thought were good ideas, what were bad ideas, what was relevant, what was not relevant, and cut people off if he thought they were going too far...just like a professor. When counting how much time alotted he did not count himself because he is the President/professor. If you do add his talk time in, the Democrats talked for over 4 hours, Republicans talked for barely 2 hours. Obama spoke for well over two hours, more than all the other democrats combined, and more than all the republicans combined.

There were sob stories about women sharing dentures, Jesus the restaurant owner, there were jabs at silly alarmists talking about this whole reconciliation thing, and there was anger at bringing the actual bill (a giant 2300 page pile) to the Summit. God forbid you actually bring the fucking Healthcare Plan to the Healthcare Summit.

It was contentious but Republicans stayed respectful (I was hoping they would express more frustration and ask what as the point?), did not get rude by talking over anyone and did not make any direct attacks on the President. The President took a shot at McCain, Alexander, and Paul Ryan. Democrats angerly invoked all the right-wing nut jobs that think this is socialism and all other sort of random things.

To summarize: Republicans came to talk about their problems with the bill and make their talking points for the 5000th time. Democrats wanted to slam the Republicans for not voting for the bill and for being so knit-picky about portions of the bill. Obama won the election, the democrats won the election, so you should do what we want because we won! The election is over John, I won, so stop getting in my way. People don't care about process John, when the election is over, the loser should shutup and just go away.

It was a massive waste of time with no negotiation, it ran like a law class for bad lawyers, it was incredibly boring so much so that networks dumped it quickly, even the news networks started to bring in guests and commentators rather than actually hear what was being said.

And in the end, Obama stated they are going forward anyway, that Reconciliation is on the table and that really they don't need any Republican input...so why did we have a Summit? What was the point of all this? How can we conclude anything other than it was just a political gimmick?

This is the Hope and Change 53% of the country voted for. I hope your happy with your change.

America from the perspective of a twenty-something

The 21st century is going to see some changes in the world and in this country. A period of prosperity unrivaled in history and our role as the dominant superpower was not going to last. The rest of the world was bound to catch up a little. Inside the United States we also knew things were going to change. The baby boomers were going to retire in mass, and the overall age distribution was going to shift from a very old population in the first half of the century to a much younger one in the second half. The ethnic composition was going to change as well, there would be no more majority race. It was expected that whites would still be the biggest group but no longer more than 50%. Things were going to be different probably as soon as 2025 (when first baby boomers hit the average life expectancy). There were also going to be flying cars, colonies on the moon, and new intelligent robots that we would one day have to fight in a great war.

But there is something more now. Thanks to the reckless and irresponsible policies of the current generations in power, we will inevitably see a sharp fall in the relative wealth and prosperity of this country. The great prosperity of the second part of the 20th century will not extend far into this century. As someone who is part of the generation that will be taking the reigns of leadership in the next 10-20 years, it has made me very angry.

Lets start with the most recent. The Federal Stimulus Package went to "save" jobs of union workers, middle management, and experienced government employees. It went to help States pay their bills so they could honor their bloated pension programs. It is not clear how many jobs it actually created, but we know for damn sure it did not create 3 million jobs as promised. Even more importantly, if you were to divide up among the age groups who got the real benefits of it, I guarantee you that the 18-29 age group got a very small piece of that pie. Almost no new jobs have been created, and millions have been lost. So when there are openings at businesses, they can choose from one of the millions of experienced workers available pushing my newly graduated generation to the bottom of the list. New jobs and new businesses are essential for my generation because the older generations seem unwilling to give up the current ones.

What about Cap and Trade and Healthcare? Cap and Trade puts off the real strict carbon emission controls for 10-20 years down the line and the nasty ones for 30-40 years down the line. The current government is hoping we can figure it out and if not, we can pay for it. The Healthcare plan would almost assuredly freeze innovation in its place, increase cost, and force rationing of care. Not exactly something one wants to inherit.

The massive debt currently in place will take so long to pay down, that there will be no money left for discretionary programs like defense, homeland security, and others. Instead it will be toward the mandatory spending programs of Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid. Draining wealth at a big rate from the younger generations.

What are your solutions? Currently there are no serious attempts to reform these mandatory spending programs because God forbid older generations have to make tough choices. Deficits are massive and all those that have been in government for the past 8 years are responsible. From the federal government straight down to the States. Many states will have to raise taxes to pay for their cadillac pension funds for public employees. Good to see they were all looking so far ahead to the future. Guess how many job openings there are for new graduates in government? The same as before the Stimulus, very few.

So, we have an economy where very few new jobs will be created in the next year or two, the relative wealth of the country is declining, we have done nothing about the trillions we owe the older generations, but hey at least we "saved" jobs for older people.

This country has been shortsighted for too long. From my perspective it seems they have done an excellent job of putting off big problems and delaying doomsday for another 10 years here and 15 years there. It seems as if the plan is to hold things together until 2025 or 2030 and then let us figure it out.

You will have to excuse me if I have little faith in the status quo. For my part, I am actively supporting candidates in three races in hopes of kicking out three incumbents. I suggest to others my age they find the right kind of people to run and do the same.

Avatar: Dances with Wolves in Space

Avatar is an awesome movie with special effects that are way beyond any other movie. The creatures, plants, and visuals are all very imaginative and definitely worth seeing in 3D. It is a movie made for everyone, kids can understand it, adults will enjoy it, its made so that everyone will want to see it.

Now, since it is made for a wide-audience, it can't afford to be too deep, subtle, or have some divisive or controversial political message. There are a lot of groups out there arguing it is a typical liberal movie that is anti-military, pro-environment etc. But I really don't think that was the intent.

In many hollywood movies there are the typical bad guys, the abusive prison warden, ruthless druglord or mob boss, a crazy rogue general, mad scientist, greedy corporate executive, corrupt official, machines, or just humanity as a whole (like in apocalyptic movies). None of them are politically motivated, they are just using stereotypical film characters and storylines. They are unoriginal and generic.

Take Avatar, there are two generic "bad guys". There is the greedy capitalist pig corporate exec and a bloodthirsty ruthless military guy. Both are so stereotypical, it borders on comical. Then there are the good guys. There is Sigourney Weaver, Jacob Sully, and the Navi aliens. All are compassionate, environment-loving, and have strong principles. Also oversimplified.

Want to know the plot? It is Dances with Wolves in space. It is Ferngully. Pocahontas.

It is an unoriginal story, it is irrelevant to modern day events, and it has just enough depth for middle school students.

If it does have a politically-motivated message, it is so juvenile, generic, and transparent it has no real impact at all. There are no more Native Americans for us to abuse or kill, rain forest destruction is not really relevant today, we are a culture that supports the troops and honors them whenever possible, this is not Vietnam where we view them as inhuman baby-killers that deserve to be spat on. In fact, the whole movie is really from another time. And as you know, James Cameron came up with over 15 years ago when...oh yeah! Dances with Wolves, Ferngully, and Pocahontas came out.

So, if you go to see it. See it for what it is, an extremely entertaining special-effects movie with average acting, a generic plot. Nothing wrong with that. But people should stop assigning causes or political agendas to movies like this.

Did Transformers have an agenda? Did 300? Did Die Hard 4? Did Fast and Furious? What about Saw? Showgirls? Superman?

Obama Healthcare Proposal: Potentially a Massive Disaster

Obama proposes new Healthcare Plan
Obama tries to show some sort of renewed focus on Healthcare with his own actual plan. Can you believe it? An actual Obama plan with pages, words, and ideas. It is not a Democratic Party plan, House plan, or Senate plan, it is actually HIS plan. Unfortunately he still has not learned to provide details on anything. The CBO reports it cannot score the President's plan because vital details are missing. Quite the surprise.

The plan is reported to be a hybrid of the House and Senate bills with more spending and control. It includes a provision limiting premium increases by private insurers. It has loose abortion language, more similar to the Senate plan. In other words, its the same crap with a new name.

It is a plan designed to be a consensus among Democrats. Reid has stated that he will use reconciliation to get past the filibuster in the Senate to avoid a possible Republican block. Obama has indicated he supports the plan. So here we are. Another Democratic plan, that will bypass any bipartisanship. It is unpopular among the people and among the experts. It is a disaster for the country.

Here is the part I think will be the political disaster. He is holding a Summit with Republicans that is televised which focuses on his Healthcare Plan. Couple problems with that. First, he promised to make jobs priority one this year. So far that has not been the case. Second, Obama and the democrats fully intend to use legislative manuevering so that they don't need a single Republican vote. So what is the Summit for? Obama doesn't need their support or their votes. How can he look bipartisan when he uses a shortcut so he only needs 51 votes instead of 60 in the Senate? Third, there is a provision limiting a rise in insurance cost. By adding this provision, Obama is admitting that his healthcare plan will result in higher premiums, higher costs, and that the only way he can control it is through the force of law.

This will hurt Obama's popularity and certainly hurt Democrats in November. Americans consider healthcare maybe the third or fourth priority of the country. They consider gaps in coverage the second biggest problem with healthcare, second to COST! The bill is not bipartisan, they will not pursue it in a bipartisan way. None of this is really in dispute. And yet, Obama is going on television with Republicans to talk about this.

How exactly does this all turn out well for Obama? It cannot. It will damage him further, make him look dictatorial, arrogant, and superifical. The Summit is a gimmick and everyone will see it for what it is.

And as an added bonus for Republican strategists, odds are that Obama's plan will pass the Senate but odds are strongly against it passing in the House. In the end, it will probably fail yet again on this part of his agenda, effectively wasting 14 months of his Presidency on a single agenda item.

I would've never guessed back in 2008 that Obama would be this incompetent and his party this bad at governing. Odds on Republicans retaking Congress are improving by the day.

The Main Stream Media: don't kick them when they're down

CBS, NBC, ABC News
The big three use to dominate the news. Since cable news and the internet, less and less Americans get their news from these sources. Their ratings are in decline and there are numerous criticisms regarding the bias and their decision to ignore major stories of the past three years. These criticisms are all justified.

How does any news station ignore the Tea Party protests? How do they decide not to cover a demonstration in Washington D.C. that was estimated to include hundreds of thousands of people? How can they be so condescending and vicious in their coverage of Sarah Palin yet did nothing but throw softballs at Barack Obama during the campaign?

I could go on.

But really what are we doing? These news dinosuars are slowly dying. They are out of touch with the conservative parts of the country (which is over 40% of the country by the way), and they can no longer get away with their biases and internal agendas. And then we can look at the laughable Katie Couric and her pitiful intellect. I think we can conclude they are not as important as they think they are. Not anymore.

Cable News
What about CNN, MSNBC, and CNBC? Their ratings have been low for nearly a decade now. Their top anchors are consistently beaten by Fox News shows. Here again, we have big names with no low ratings. They use clever advertising and marketing to look important, groundbreaking, and in-depth but they are anything but. They are generic, unoriginal, and superficial.

Why is Fox News so successful? It is not because they are "groundbreaking" or particularly "in depth". It is because no other news station has opinion-based journalism from the right, and traditional journalism that is more objective and responsive to what is of interest to the non-ideological middle. In fact, Fox News has successfully found the top of the bell curve in this country, which is to the right of center. This country is more conservative than it is liberal. Is Fox News "fair and balanced"? Yes, but not in the way they mean. Are they particularly fair? Not really. Are they balanced? Probably a bit more than other stations but not perfectly balanced. But owhen you add Fox News to the spectrum of cable news stations and the big three (all center-left, and unobjective), it provides balance and a sense of fairness that was missing before. The country is better off having a Fox News.

I hear O'Reilly, Beck, Hannity, and others on Fox News continue to slam the main-stream media, but really, why waste so much time on the problems and inaccuracies of other stations? It is like criticizing the Detroit Lions for being an awful football team year after year. It is time we move on because Americans have been persuaded over the past ten years that traditional news is indeed bias, regardless of what they may purport to be. We know that now, and we know the Lions suck. Its not news anymore and not really interesting.

And what about the bias of Fox News? O'Reilly, Hannity, and Beck tell you exactly what they think. They don't pretend that they are objective "journalists" simply reporting the news. So when one accuses them of being right-wing ideologues its not really a shock to their fans. We know who they are and what they believe. Try finding bias on the reporter side of Fox. Does anyone accuse Chris Wallace or Brett Baier of bias? What about Britt Hume? Megyn Kelly? Nope. All they can do is go after the easy targets.

It is bad for a free country to be so suspicious of the press. It is also not good for press organizations to expend time and effort toward criticizing one another. It should not be so divisive. It is my hope that the Fox News competitors adapt to the change in media rather than following the same path into ratings oblivion. It is also my hope Fox News personalities move on from their usual attacks on the main-stream media. They are easy targets.

International Security and Obama's Folly

"It is undeniable that if everyone really desired a "world-state" or "collective security". . . it would easily be attained; and the student of international politics may be forgiven if he begins by supposing that his task is to make everyone desire it. It takes him some time to understand that no progress is likely to be made along this path and that no political utopia will achieve even the most limited success unless it grows out of political reality."

-Edward Carr


There is a naivety prevalent in the Obama administration in regard to its foreign policy. The U.S. approach has seen little structural or substantive change in the past year, instead Obama has appeared centrally focused on changing the subjective posture to one of more empathy and soft persuasion. His speeches have promised to change our foreign policy to a more egalitarian, fair, and accommodating approach that will help persuade the world of our pure intentions and the virtues of our vision of international peace & security. So far, this resulted in the U.S. withdrawal of the missile defense shield from Eastern Europe, a re-run of pointless diplomatic discussions with Iran that have again led to nothing.

What are the positives for the United States? The people of Latin America, Europe, and the Middle East now have a more favorable opinion of the United States. This is exactly what Obama and the liberal democrats wanted to achieve with the new administration. What has it achieved substantively? Absolutely nothing, in fact it is giving aggressive and tyrannical states more room to manuever. The public opinions in foreign countries have almost no impact on international relations.

Obama has made the primary mistake described by Carr: he believes it is his role to make everyone desire a world state or collective security system. The problem is obvious: he can't and a good part of the world still doesn't want it. Iran is still working towards enriched uranium and eventually nuclear weapons. Russia still is doing business with them and China has indicated a lack of interest in sanctions; the most popular bullet of the current collective security regime. Venezuela still openly anti-American. Al Qaeda is still trying to attack the United States. China is still in the midst of a major defense spending spree. Ukraine has switched from pro-NATO to pro-Russia.

The United States is getting weaker relative to our closest rivals: China, India, and to a lesser extent Russia. They are all adjusting their policies in preparation for a world where the U.S. is not the lone superpower. Given the events of the past two years, this is probably prudent. But as Americans this should cause a healthy level of alarm.

But what will happen in 2012? When American troops are mostly out of Iraq and drawing down in Afghanistan, should any other problems arise, do you think Obama will meet the challenge or seize the opportunity to get out of both countries? What if there is another flashpoint in the world where we currently have no troops? Will Obama actually use military force if necessary? Or will he continue the U.S. pullback from the world and continue to cut into defense spending.

Obama is ignoring the political reality of the world today, replaced with the Jeffersonian notion that the U.S. should not be active abroad and should set a "good example" of popular government, human rights, and peace. He is also irritated at the fact that his extreme domestic agenda of shifting us toward a more socialist system is being hampered by foreign wars and the associated costs.

The United States can only afford this naive and misguided approach for so long.

What the Tea Party Movement is, and what it is not

What it is
It is a grassroots movement of conseratives in the United States, normally uninvolved in politics and current affairs, that are now becoming active. About 40% of the country regards themselves as Conservative, only 29% as liberal, and yet the Democrats are in control. Why? A significant portion of the conservatives in this country are frustrated, apathetic, cynical, and see no difference in the parties. They rarely vote, and do not contribute to any candidate.

They are angry and upset at the political class, at both parties, and the President for their mismanagement and deviation from the founding principles of this country. Their stated principles are limited government, low taxes and spending, and free market principles. The Movement endeavors to become more effective in politics and not just a big protest that ends up doing nothing to change policy in Washington.

What it is not
It is not a political party. It is not a clearly-definable organization or political action committee (PAC). It has no central authority. Bill O'Reilly seems concerned that regular media outlets have focused on the extreme and unrepresentative groups that are part of the Tea Parties. He includes the birthers, a couple truthers, and separatists who want to rebel against the government. He thinks there should be some sort of clearly defined platform and centralized public relations authority. He is wrong.

The Tea Party Movement does not have a defined interest in protecting its image or becoming a public relations titan of any kind. How many protesters do you think care what the New York Times, Newsweek, or any other media outlet says about them? How many people do you think will not show up or support the Tea Party Movement simply because a single woman at one of these events put a swastika on her poster with a cross through it?

A political party or organization will always endeavor to control its image, its message, and have a potent public relations department. A movement does not. It is not a distinct organization and it is more in fact a criticism of the institutions that DO spend so much time on perfecting public imagery and message. They are an attack on the status quo in all of its forms. They have proven successful at recruitment, retention, and in energizing their membership without O'Reilly's help or any other national figure whether media or political.

Going Forward
The Tea Party Movement is learning, or at the very least portions of it are. They have chosen the Republican Party as their vehicle toward influencing national policy. They are now running to become precinct captains, committee leaders, and county chairmen within the State Republican Parties. This is EXACTLY what they should be doing. Start with popular support and sentiment, change the leadership at the lower levels and work your way up within one of the parties. Change out the weak and corrupt portions of the party that still exist. The LA Times recently had a story on this trend. It is beginning to work.

The Movement should also do their homework on candidates and policies before showing up to protest, support, or contribute. In many respects they are doing this. It is important they discern the career politicians so skilled at message and image control - from true principled men and women who will carry out the agenda they support. So far they have shown considerable ability in this area. In Illinois, for example, Ethan Hastert, the party favorite, was defeated by Randy Hultgren, a lesser known and less party-backed name that had the support of grassroots groups and the Tea Party. Hultgren won and now has a chance to unseat democrat Bill Foster.

That is how you change a party. Find new candidates, recruits, and support them in challenging the existing party leadership. Criticizing or voting against the leadership is not enough and leads to what we have now. A weak Republican Party and a dominant Democratic Party. You don't like your choice of Congressman, Senator, Governor, President or other - find a challenger. Don't just sit there and NOT vote, essentially handing a democrat the victory.

That is what the Tea Party is about. Political action rather than apathy and frustration. It is channeling long dormant but powerful sentiment among the conservatives in the country toward activities that will have a more substantial impact on national and local politics. Kudos to them. All they need to do is to continue learning new methods and teach their grassroots group how best to succeed in influence. I think they are doing that. Don't listen to Bill O'Reilly, Sean Hannity or these national media types and also do not listen to hacks that are only trying to take advantage of the change in public opinion by calling themself a candidate of the Tea Party.

State of the Republic I

Current Status
The status of our republic is barely adequate and weakening. The federal government has expanded its role far beyond the intent of the founders. It is currently governing a country of 300 million from a small city on the east coast. It is inefficient, wasteful, and on the verge of bankruptcy. The States have held a substantial role in the daily lives of its citizens but relies heavily on federal funds and some states have gotten so large and inefficient, they too are on the verge of bankruptcy. It seems to be the destiny of an over-sized Republic to become far too fat, too centralized, and bankrupt. Meanwhile the private sphere, something that dominated for most of the first 120 years of this country, has become steadily weaker, and in its own way, cooperative in the concentration of power and wealth. It is not capitalism but a hybrid of large corporations establishing oligopolies and protecting it through cooperation with the national government. This "Too Big to Fail" phenomena.

What Should be Done?
Walter Russell Mead, a well-known expert on politics and international relations, makes five recommendations, some of which I agree. I highly recommend reading his blog at http://www.the-american-interest.com. Anyway his recommendations were (1) federalism, (2) Congressional Term Limits, (3) Grow the House, (4) Go Nebraska, and (5) add stars to the flag.

Federalism
Federalism is the system the Constitution setup, the national government and states have distinct jurisdictions and share power. The purpose is to allow more government institutions to be "closer to the people" because the best government is closest to the people (local rather than state, state rather than national, etc.). Mead argues that individuals have near zero impact on federal politics but can influential state and local affairs. Therefore, more tasks should be done at the state and local level. I agree entirely. The national government in Washington must be reduced in size in absolute terms but also in the number of tasks it does. These must be left to the states and local governments. It will also include the federal government shutting off the money tap and eliminating the strings they attach to federal money. It gives states greater flexibility, more power, and more independence.

Purposes of Federalism: (1) prevent federal tyranny through specifying distinct jurisdiction for the states, (2) enhance democratic rule with government closer to the people, (3) allow states to be laboratories for new political ideas. The first two have been discussed. The third has eroded since the Civil War. States are routinely limited through reliance on federal money and federal debt to do it only one way, rather than experimenting with new ideas of governance, political power, and administration. This third purpose needs to reinvigorated and we need to take the handcuffs off the states.

Term Limits
Congressional Term Limits is a good idea, somewhere between 8-14 years perhaps.

Increase size of the House
To grow the House would make each district small, rather than each Congressman representing 700,000 people it would be lower perhaps 500,000. In the past a House member represented far less than that. Making the U.S. Congress closer to the people in this manner seems far too minimal in its effectiveness. I don't see any reason to change the size of the House in any dramatic fashion.

Go Nebraska
The Nebraska idea I think is a no-brainer. Nebraska is the only state with only one chamber in the legislature. The rest of the states have two. It is not clear why. The U.S. Legislature has two chambers (Senate and House) to give smaller states greater influence and also to provide a similar pattern as Britain, a lower house to be more reactive to popular sentiment with two year terms, and a higher house of statesmen able to think long term and represent the interests of a larger constituency. This doesn't really apply to the states since there are no "sub-states" that need greater influence. More states should adopt a unicameral (one chamber) system.

Stars to the flag
Mead argues that states like California, New York, Michigan, and Illinois have simply become ungovernable due to their size. Their budget troubles appear to be case and point. Further partitioning of the United States, however, I feel is not necessary. The problems in these states are often symptoms of the erosion of federalism and states rights. If states were left to be more independent and less reliant on federal funds, some of these problems would not be present. They could not wait for a bailout. Despite that plenty of large states do just fine without being partitioned: Texas & Florida. The problem is not size just bad governance.

Additional Thoughts
My top addition to Meads recommendations would be to end the practice of gerrymandering. Gerrymandering allows political parties in control of state legislatures to draw districts to protect incumbents with bizarre looking districts that add supporters while getting rid of areas that are more in opposition. It minimizes the number of competitive districts, strengthening incumbency, and making it near impossible for the people to get what they vote for. Some states use independent panels, bipartisan panels, or a mathematical formula to draw their districts. I think a Constitutional Amendment should be introduced to adopt one of these practices for all the States that have multiple districts.

National Elections should be on a Saturday and not Tuesday in order to encourage turnout and participation.

Increase contribution limits for individuals. We should encourage individual contributions rather than PAC or organizational contributions. It would also make it slightly easier for candidates to raise funds for elections. Making Congressmen less reliant on a handful of wealthy organizations and donors will decrease their special interest focus. A rich individual cannot buy a Congressman with a $2600 contribution (the current maximum). The maximum for an election should be doubled to $5000 or $6000 per election per candidate.

See? I just solved all the country's problems. No need to thank me, this is what I do.

Sen. Evan Bayh retires

Centrist Democrats running for the exits

Add another centrist or pragmatic democrat to the list of members running for the exits. The Democratic Party has been able to keep retirements fairly low (14 House members, 3 Senators), but the type of members leaving is interesting. Blue Dog Democrats in Kansas, Tennessee, Alabama, and Arkansas are choosing not to run again or are switching parties. The conservative Democrat, a member that is fiscally conservative, socially moderate, is becoming an endangered species.

Senator Evan Bayh (D-IN) was a respectable democrat, a centrist, and someone many thought was going to run for President in 2008 and still might in 2012. He states that the partisan fighting in Washington has worn him out and that he would rather do public service in some other capacity. Ironic considering his party dominated both Houses and actually has little need for bipartisanship of any kind to get things done. He is, in effect, stating that his party has become hyperpartisan, refusing to negotiate with moderates or conservatives, and has pushed such a radical agenda that the Republicans only real move is to filibuster. Massachusetts also changed things. The people there spoke clearly to Washington, yet none of the Democratic leadership has heard. The people WANT the minority party to have the power to block legislation if it is repugnant. If they were frustrated at the paralysis from the filibuster, they would've voted in the heavily favored Martha Coakley.

In the end, bipartisanship is an empty concept. In one instance it is passing a mixed law with ideas from both parties with minimal controversy. In a second instance it involves compromise between the party leaderships, forcing tough decisions on controversial issues. In another instance it may involve simply listening to leaders of the other party, the appearance of pragmatism. But in the end it is more about accomplishment then actual procedure.

Bipartisan approval of bills is reliant on the nature of the legislation itself, the political strength/weakness of either party, the popularity of the legislation, and the negotiation skills of the players. There is no "acting" in a bipartisan manner, it is results based. Legislation is only bipartisan if members from both parties actually vote for it in significant numbers. Until then it is just another bill and the Congress is acting as "business as usual".

Politicians are also notorious for using bipartisanship and compromise against each other. Democrats in particular have used it on the deficit. They cite the expensive Prescription Drug Benefit Plan of Bush, No Child Left Behind, and the big deficits of 2008 and 2009. They fail to mention a number of democrats voted for the Drug Benefit Plan (including the liberal lion Kennedy) and that many liberals wanted a BIGGER and more expensive plan. The NCLB was also supported by some democrats (Kennedy again), but dems love to smack it as an underfunded failure. They also neglect to mention that democrats controlled Congress from 2007 until now, meaning they voted for and approved the Bush deficits of 2008 and 2009. Keep in mind, the House writes the budget in reality, not the President.

Bush and Republicans acted in bipartisan fashion, working compromises that went against conservative values in these instances but democrats actually use it AGAINST THEM in rhetorical exchanges on the Floor of Congress and on television. The lesson here is clear. Do not compromise with the opposing party for the purpose of bipartisanship (getting a few of them to support legislation) or the appearance of bipartisanship. It is bad policy and bad politics.

Sen. Bayh was skilled at working deals with Republicans on numerous issues, as well as joining with them on legislation. I am willing to bet he was more successful in getting his legislation through prior to 2008 than he is now. His party has shown a disinterest in non-controversial mixed legislation, in negotiation, or in listening to the other party let alone dissension within its own. Bad governance, bad politics.

The Democratic Party is in deep trouble. If it cannot change course, we may very well witness a miraculous comeback by the Republicans, retaking the House and moving to within a vote or two of a majority in the Senate.

The Commerce Clause: Expansion of Federal Power

The Commerce Clause
Congress shall have the power...to regulate Commerce with foreign nations, and among the several States, and with Indian tribes...

Up until 1937, this clause was used only in narrow respects, in terms of actual commerce that crossed state lines. It prohibited government intervention in contracts and property rights. FDR changed it with his Court packing and was able to get a more expansive interpretation of this clause. It allowed for more application to civil liberties and other non-commercial subject-matter. It covered minimum wages, labor standards, civil rights, prosecution of sex offenders, and gun control laws. As long as the government could prove some element of the statute involved something that crossed state lines or involved more than one state, the Court got out of its way.

It was not until 1995 in United States v. Lopez that the Supreme Court restores some of the limitations of government power in terms of this clause of the Constitution. However, most of it is still in place. Through this clause the federal government has been able to increase its power beyond its enumerated powers and the original intent of the Constitution.

In civics class, it is taught that the federal government has specific enumerated powers in the Constitution, while the States have plenary powers restricted only by the provisions of the Constitution. In other words, the Constitution states specifically what the federal government CAN do, but for the states, it states specifically what they CANNOT do. The purpose was to give states greater jurisdiction while limiting the role of the federal government.

Today the federal government has flexibiltiy in extending its authority and the states have been manipulated to where they willingly defer to the central government. Walter Russell Mead provided an interesting take. He argues that the United States changed in the mid-20th century to a new "Blue Model" with large and stable entities in the public, private, and mixed sectors of the economy. These large entities provided lifetime employment and substantial resources to better education and other public services. Costs were expected to go down making these services affordable. It was progressive and was considered an achievement in reconciling capitalism with social and economic security, according to Mead.

As we all know it is going in the opposite direction. Costs are going up and the services offered are seen as inadequate or flawed. Investments in a centralized government bureaucracy often gets chopped up with administrative costs, pensions, and high salaries for public sector workers, which are now all unionized and bargain for these funds. They are interested in self-preservation and power not quality services. We can no longer afford this "Blue Model" and it is failing to provide the services offered.

The power and reach of the federal government is overstretched. It is time the blue model is dismantled and we begin a breaking down in the major oligopolies of public services, devolving it to the states or the private sector. It will also require that the Constitution begin to be applied as if it means what it says. The Commerce Clause must be pulled back. This all began with a stretching of that clause and can be solved by returning to first principles.

It will involve tough choices. These giant entities will have to be reduced in size, cut costs, or be eliminated completely. States must be given more leeway to actually try new policies and ideas rather than being "directed" by federal agencies and statutes to follow a single path. States must also move towards greater independence from the federal government in terms of money and institutional capability.

Conservatives love this idea. Conservatism has a lot to do with going with what got us here, which involves greatly the U.S. Constitution and the principles of the founders. The Commerce Clause and its expansion is a demonstration of the battle between conservatives and liberals. Liberals wanted the blue model, and they still want it. However, we can't afford it and it is provided sub-standard results. Conservatives want to begin working towards a new model, or rather adoption of something that better resembles the pre-1937 system.

Political Parties

Neither political party in the United States is popular, and for good reason. The Republicans failed to keep themselves under control when it came to spending, the size of government, and corruption. In 2008, they got scared and suppored a group of centrist Republicans (Romney, Giuliani, Huckabee) and one moderate conservative McCain. Conservatives were frustrated and did not come with the energy as they did in 2004. Moderates swung strongly for the charismatic Obama and his promise of change. Most believed the country was going in the wrong direction, so why not vote for change?

Well now moderates realize they don't like the change. Conservatives are infuriated at the radical Obama agenda and have come with energy less than a year after getting crushed. Instead of supporting the alternative Republican Party, they formed a grassroots movement, known as the Tea Party in relation to the tossing of British Tea off ships in Boston Harbor way back when. At that time, Americans despised the fact they could only buy British Tea, choice was taken away. They were angry at taxation without representation. Finally, they were angry that the British Government was so distant and out of touch, they could not represent their interests.

Today's Tea Party is not quite the same but some similarities are there. It is anti-centralized government. It is about economic freedom in terms of choice when it comes to Healthcare and other sectors controlled by the government. GM and Chrysler are beginning to resemble the East India Trading Company. Government involvement in commerce is in direct contradiction to the beliefs of our Founding Fathers. It is one of the reasons they rebelled. They were angry at taxes, something that is going to rise under Obama and perhaps even more so in the future to pay off the debt. Obama has not used military force or police power but instead uses the softer left-leaning media, journalists, and hollywood to shame conservatives into thinking they are racist, sexist, stupid, radical, knuckle-dragging idiots who hate the poor. Not to mention they are all white, rich, and Evangelicals. At last, Washington D.C. is clearly out of touch. The Congress demographically does not resemble the U.S. as a whole. The people living in that area certainly do not (90% voted for Obama). The media elite do not. In fact, Washington D.C. is basically a fish bowl. How can a fish bowl on the east coast govern a country of 310 million people?

The people are angry. In this atmosphere they might actually protest, contribute time and money to the cause, and God forbid VOTE against the incumbents.

Tea Partiers still don't like the Republican Party and for good reason. I have found numerous examples of the national party getting involved in local elections, trying to find the candidate they think is "most electable" and "friendly to the agenda of the party". That is not what Tea Partiers want. They want independent-minded candidates, conservative, and yes a little extreme in their ideas. Extreme because the status quo has shifted so far in the other extreme (socialism) that only a extreme response will return us to any kind of equilibrium or better yet, an actual free market. Party-backed candidates are just well-known, well-financed, and experienced politicians. Most have no relation to the ideas and sentiment of the Tea Party movement and only want to take advantage of the momentum to gain office.

A good goal for Tea Partiers is to go head-to-head with party-backed candidates in all primaries and blow them out of the water. It won't be long before the Tea Party Movement has a major voice in the party, and the establishment politicians are forced out. The new guard must be brought in and the old guard retired. It is hard to win back independents and lost conservatives when you have the same leaders from 2004-2006. People like Michael Steele, John Boehner, and Mitch McConnell need to be replaced.

If the Republicans nominate a moderate candidate, it should not be discouraging or press people to find a third candidate. Better a spineless centrist Republican for one term then a socialist democrat. Vote for him in November but make sure you find a real conservative to challenge him in the next primary. In my opinion, incumbents should be challenged in primaries as much as possible. Primaries should be very competitive and active. This strong lean toward incumbents needs to stop. The American political system needs to change its approach, from centralized partisan establishment to decentralized popular systems. When Congress performs poorly, we should not become apathetic and refuse to vote as some form of protest. That is like quitting your job instantly because you didn't get a raise. Now your not making any money. You don't show up for work, you won't get paid. You want a higher salary, look for a new job.

There are many Republicans I wish were not in office right now and wish they would be challenged by better candidates. The political party is a mechanism used to better represent our interests in the federal government. We should not take the perspective of the political party and hope the Republicans "absorb" the Tea Party Movement so they can succeed. I don't care so much that the Republican Party is successful, I care more that the right policies are implemented.

American Realism

Realism Defined
Realism has a number of meanings, the one I am referring to is the political theory of realism. It has a couple key principles. First, Politics, like society in general, is governed by objective laws that have their roots in human nature. Second, all interest is defined in terms of power. Interest can mean variety of things as well, there is no fixed thing such as money, guns, etc. Third, moral principles cannot be applied to the actions of states in abstract or relativistic form. Finally, the political sphere is different from all other spheres, any attempt to apply concepts from other areas to politics is a waste of time. So trying to apply sociological theories is pointless.

Machiavelli was a realist along with famous people like Julius Caesar, Augustus, and more recently Alexander Hamilton. Even FDR was part-realist. Moral principles are irrelevant in judging the wisdom of particular policies in politics. Just because you mean well does not guarantee a good result. When you take moral judgment out, you become objective and dispassionate, the traits of a knuckle-dragging, greedy and racist republican. Unfortunately for the left, history strongly supports the effectiveness of realism and the problematic record of liberal theories. Liberalism tends to envision the world as it ought to be then begins to act as if that world already exists. The problem is that it does not and may never come to be. Realists act based on what "is" now.

American Style
American realism is very distinct. American statesmen have usually judged economic interests and international trade as top interests for the country. The U.S. military and its diplomacy were fairly isolationist and weak until World War 1. We have never desired the largest military, established colonies, or the brutal use of force to subjugate our enemies. The American populace do not value these things as in their interest. Commerce is king.

What is in our commercial interest?
Free trade has certainly been very beneficial. For partisan reasons Obama and others stand in the way of free trade with South Korea, Columbia, and other countries - all negotiated and approved by Bush. The current international regime built around the World Trade Organization (WTO), International Monetary Fund (IMF), and World Bank have successfully promoted open trade in most of the world. It has also given the U.S. dollar supremacy. That is rapidly coming to an end and our big credit card might soon be maxed out. There is also serious concerns that the WTO may fall.

Many states have reason to doubt that having close economic ties with us will pay off. Many countries that export to the United States are harmed severely by the economic recession here. No one there buys their goods. A small group of rogue states are arguing that doing business with the U.S. is against national interests and that we are just like any other empire, securing our propserity at the expense of others.

China and India are steadily moving themselves toward economic independence and trying to slowly move away from dependence on trade with us or on our political influence. Russia has been doing this for a long time anyway but now has more incentive to do business in areas that we do not (Venezuela, Iran, North Korea). In short, everyone is trying to find new business opportunities because they are not so sure the United States, Japan, and the EU will come out of this.

We are losing power and influence in the world. This provides opportunity for ambitious powers to move in. China and India are already trying. It doesn't matter that the U.S. is now more popular with the people of the world (Obama-mania), it won't make them do things that will hurt their bottom line. They will do what is in their interest in the end. It doesn't matter how charismatic, eloquent and smooth Obama is. He has changed course so that it is now a more attractive option for countries to seek their own means of prosperity and security.

Iran
Iran is only the beginning. Even now Russia, China, and other countries are doing plenty of business with Iran and allowing them to work around U.S. sanctions. They believe that they are far better equipped to persuade Iran to not actually build nuclear weapons but won't interefere with their efforts to enrich uranium and have the capacity to build nuclear weapons.

How do we convince other countries to NOT do business with Iran? That is a big question. Also, will economic sanctions alone get Iran to stop? How can we make it in the interest of Iran to not build nuclear weapons?

Here are some of my crackpot ideas

• Military Option for precision strikes must be on the table.
• Give an ultimatum regarding negotiations. If no deal is reached, all negotiations cease and aggressively pursue new sanctions. No extensions, no more stalling.
• Openly support anti-government forces in Iran under the guise of political freedom and liberty.
• Negotiate directly with Russia and China on sanctions, appeal to their self-interest. No more arguments about international security and proliferation. Clearly they don't care enough about that.
• Drop hints that the U.S. would not condemn Israel should it decide to strike Iran, try to gather support for it in the Arab World, allow them to publicly condemn the attack but privately applaud it.
• Extend missile shield and nuclear deterrent to Israel. Openly announce that any missile attack on Israel will be met with retaliation from the United States, without specifying whether it would be conventional or nuclear.
• Begin large scale military exercises in the Gulf and Indian Ocean, keep moving resources in and out to make them nervous. Start air exercises. Move stealth bombers if they are not already there.

National Debt: The weakness of US Power

How are we able to borrow $12 trillion in the first place?
Nearly all countries borrow money to finance deficit spending. It is a fact of the modern world economy. Some countries borrow more than others. For example, Japan's debt is 120% of their GDP. Ours after 2010 will be 90% of GDP. The United States, Japan, and European Countries are able to borrow because they are considered excellent credit risks. In our case, the world believes the U.S. dollar is the most stable and reliable investment in the world. For most of the past 60 years that has been true. The dollar is stable because the United States is stable.

Banks, countries, and international institutions will continue to finance our deficits as long as the US dollar has primacy. To continue on our present course, the dollar must remain strong. So the issue is whether the US dollar will remain a good investment for the forseeable future given the President's budget proposal. To be stable the U.S. economy must remain strong, vibrant, and its government must be able to repay the treasury bonds and pay the interest on time. Conversely, should the US economy weaken, contract, and the government becomes unable to meet its loan obligations, it is a problem. The risk is higher than it has ever been. So much so that credit rating companies are considering lowering the "AAA" rating on US treasuries, something that has never been discussed before.

Another problem. Many world powers are considering creating a new world currency, or re-evaluating their investments in the US dollar. China has already decided it will start diversifying its holdings because it believes the US dollar is more risky and may threaten them. They are worried, so much of their assets are in US dollars, and therefore, to avoid massive losses they must diversify. Russia and others have talked about establishing a new currency unattached to the US. Should a lower risk alternative present itself, US debt will become even less attractive and will likely have to start paying higher interest rates to compensate for the increase in risk.

We cannot fund Social Security, Medicare, and our deficits are massive. So in short, we are getting closer to being unable to pay interest on our debt. Our credit risk is increasing and the primacy of the dollar is being called into question. The answer is clear, on the current track our debt presents more risk than ever before, and the US dollar, although secure for the next 5-10 years, will fall after that. Especially if a new currency replaces it.

In the scenario where a new currency replaces the US dollar, a couple things happen. First, we will not be able to run deficits like we do now, and we would likely have great difficulty borrowing at the level of 90% GDP. We will have to pay higher interest rates, increasing its share of the federal budget crowding out spending on defense, healthcare, education, social security, etc. In short, we will have a much lower credit limit. Basically a death sentence for our economy and our way of life. There are numerous examples of empires of the past, and countries in the modern era falling deep and hard in this situation.

No more aircraft carriers, no more troops abroad, and no more subsidized healthcare for anyone at home. Everything else that we want to do as a nation to protect life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness would be difficult or impossible to do. It would take years to recover and by then who knows what the world will look like. China and Russia may be running the show by then. Countries that have relied on our protection will start arming themselves, possibly with nuclear weapons to deter aggression. Dictators and other authoritarian regimes would seize the opportunity and gain power and influence in the world. The power vacuum would be immense and it will put the entire world in great danger.

This is not an economic issue. It is a national security issue and an existential threat to our way of life. My generation does not want to pay for your mistakes. And the great nation we became after World War 2 will be squandered thanks to the ineptitude and cowardice of the American government, and the inability of the American people to do their civic duty and elect officials with the capacity to make the hard choices.

2009-2010 Remembered

Here is a nice list of all the things that have been disappointing, embarassing, and outright infuriating:

• New Responsible and ethically pure government: Obama nominates three cabinet members who did not pay all their taxes (Daschle, Geithner, forgetting the other). Does not release visitor log for White House. Lobbyists make billions in 2009, best year ever!
• New Age of International Relations: Secretary of State Hillary Clinton uses "reset button" to symbolize change in relations with Russia. Problem is button is mislabeled and thus far relations have not changed. Obama and Clinton fail to get new Strategic Arms Agreement done by deadline at end of 2009. No new sanctions on Iran, North Korea. No progress on Israel-Palestinian conflict. Venezuelan President still hates US. Snubs Great Britain, France, Israel, Ukraine, Poland, Czech Republic and Georgia. All allies.
• Jobs: Federal Stimulus includes programs to protect habitat of frogs in San Francisco (real job creator). Stimulus website touts new jobs that do not exist in Congressional districts and ZIP codes that do not exist. Most of Stimulus not spent in 2009 and yet it was jammed through Congress so quickly because of some sort of sense of urgency ???
• The Czars: Green Jobs Czar Van Jones cannot define what a green job is, as well as numerous public statements that eventually get him fired. No one undestands why there are dozens of czars how much authority they have and why they are not vetted.
• Fiscal Discipline: Trillion dollar deficits, National Debt exploding, and solution to all is more spending.
• Post-Racial President: Obama makes statement of "police acting stupidly" regarding arrest of black professor. Facts later come out that is was not racially motivated and professor was being disorderly and profane. Obama later has "Beer Summit" where he and professor refuse to apologize or admit fault in any way.
• Supporting the Troops: Homeland Security Report warns of possible "right-wing extremists" plotting against government and include returning veterans as possible threats. Believes Fort Hood was act of single maniac, does not visit wounded troops. Somehow gun control becomes issue. Agrees to send 30,000 troops to Afghanistan, announces it at West Point and basically apologizes for doing it and makes excuses for why he has to do it.
• Will of the people: Democratic Healthcare Plan is challenged for costing $1 trillion, including death panels, cutting billions from Medicare. During Town Halls people protest strongly, Democrats dismiss the protests as "Un-American", "astroturf", and financed by the insurance companies, Republican Party, Darth Vader, etc.
• Demagoguery: Obama insinuates that doctors perform unnecessary procedures to get paid, insurance companies don't cover patients because of their love of profits, then goes onto blame Republicans for obstructing the bill even though he can't get his own party to approve it.
• Tea Parties are quickly dismissed by the media, the President, and Democrats as astroturf, Un-American, a bunch of right-wing nut jobs, and "Tea Baggers"...protests turn out to massive and widespread.
• No more Politics as usual: Democrats buy off Sen. Landrieu (LA) and Sen. Nelson (NE) with millions in government handouts for their states in order to get their vote on the Senate Healthcare Plan. Negotiations are closed door and bill is not posted online. Negotiations between House and Senate Democrats with President are also closed to public.
• Special Interests: Healthcare Plan to include tax on "cadillac" health insurance plans that many labor unions get for their members. Obama bends and exempts them from the tax to get their support.
• Embrassing America: Obama bows to King of Saudi Arabia, Emperor of Japan, and few other heads of state
• Global Warming: Obama claims evidence of Global Warming is vast and overwhelming just months after evidence comes up that Environmental studies have been manipulated to show significant changes in temperature. Democrats want investigation into the leaks, not the actual allegations of the leak itself. Cap and Trade passes House with NO Republican input.
• Bipartisanship: Republicans shut out of legislative negotiations and work on Healthcare, Cap and Trade, Immigration, Jobs Bill (Stimulus), and just about every other important bill.
• State of the Union: Obama lectures Democrats on their inability to get his agenda passed, lectures Republicans on being more agreeable and less obstructionist, lectures Supreme Court on their recent decision, lectures the people on not understanding his ideas, lectures the media and pundits for being too partisan, he is above blame. Says "I" and "me" more than any other words. Claims he has created 2 million jobs (where?). Its not his fault its Bush's fault, but we need to get past partisan politics and look ahead. Hmmm.

Studies show Obama is the most divisive President of the modern era. His approval ratings have dropped steadily from 65% to 45% in one year, the biggest drop among recent Presidents. He has had more conferences, speeches, and interviews than any President of recent memory. He has done more political fundraising than any recent President.

And people wonder where this Tea Party movement came from... It was inevitable. Anyone as divisive as this man is will generate a large and potent opposition, especially in a center-right country. Obama has splintered this country, made it weaker, and put us in such a fiscal crisis, that it may take years to undo the damage.

Obama = McClellan?

In the book Team of Rivals (a book I highly recommend), I learned about Abraham Lincoln's interactions with the Union Army during the Civil War. One of the most famous or infamous generals of the early part of the war was General George B. McClellan. He is known for accomplishing almost nothing. General Lee and the Army of Northern Virginia defeated McClellan's far larger army several times during in the Peninsula Campaign of 1862. He would be replaced in the Fall of 1862.

During President Obama's speech I began to see some similarities between the two men. First, a little more about McClellan:

George B. McClellan was well-known prior to the beginning of the war. He was a popular commander and known as a sort of non-controversial pick to head the new Army of the Potomac. He had never led an army or unit of that size, but to be fair no one had. The Army of the Potomac around late 1861, was probably around 100,000 to 150,000 troops. The Rebel Forces were probably no more than 60,000 or 70,000. The Union Army was better-armed and probably better-trained. And yet, McClellan remained in Maryland and Washington DC for months.

McClellan refused to move because he believed the army was not ready and that the enemy was far more potent than everyone else believed. He became angry at Lincoln, his secretary of war, and demanded they stop meddling in military affairs. He became irritated that he was not getting the supplies or the troops he wanted. Until he was "ready" he was not going to move. Lincoln, remained patient and withstood the disrespectful and clearly insubordinate attitude of his new general. McClellan would often ignore letters from Lincoln and show up late for meetings with the President. In one instance, he did not come down from his chamber at all with Lincoln, the secretary of war, and others waiting for him downstairs at his headquarters. Many screamed for Lincoln to fire him for insubordination but Lincoln refused, seeing no benefit in replacing his top general so quickly. Lincoln was a truly patient man, his humility far beyond the egos of those around him. Again, read the book, I recommend it to all!

Lincoln learned as much as he could about military affairs and continued to pressure McClellan. McClellan became more shrill in his insults, believing that Lincoln was an idiot and that his whole cabinet had no idea what they were doing, he complained many of the other Union generals and leaders were also reckless and stupid. He believed he was not being given what he needed to defeat the Rebels in Virginia. Finally, in the Spring of 1862, McClellan finally decided to put a plan together to invade Virginia and take Richmond via the sea. It failed miserably with thousands dead. McClellan advanced so slowly that the Rebels were able to prepare for the attack and even counterattack in several instances, which froze McClellan. Within a couple months McClellan was chased out of Virginia despite outnumbering Lee and the Rebels more than 2:1.

Fast forward to the State of the Union Address of 2010. President Obama lectures Congress on failing to move past politics to pass Healthcare for him, he lectures them on how to properly pass it along with his Cap and Trade, and other initiatives. How can he do his job and be great if they don't get it together? He argues he has saved or created 2 million jobs. He complains that this horrible economy was given to him and that without him, we would be a third world country. He argues the problems with the budget are all Bush's fault for handing him such deficits (a blatant lie). He even lectures the Supreme Court for giving a bad decision on campaign ads and funding(another blatant lie).

Obama-McClellan are confident in their own abilities, their intellect, and their destiny of becoming great leaders. Obama-McClellan faced problems early on and quickly blamed those around them for the problems, even their predecessor-superior. Every defeat and humiliation was met with outrage and disdain for those who actually failed, which was never Obama-McClellan. Obama-McClellan never took risks, moved so slowly and deliberately that all could see what they were doing and it surprised no one. And both had SUBSTANTIAL resources to accomplish their mission. One has a dominant majority in Congress, the other had a massive and well-armed and trained army.

Now this is just an observation and Obama may turn out to be more adaptable than McClellan. I have my doubts. The first year of Obama is looking a lot like the first period of McClellan's command of the Army of the Potomac. A leader, with vast resources, superiority in power and influence, managed to accomplish nothing, waste a lot of time, while the opponent gathered strength and pushed back.

Remember what Obama said about 1994 and Clinton's loss of the Congress. In 1994, Clinton lost his Democratic Congress because Republicans won 70 seats in the House and 6-7 seats in the Senate. Obama claims that the difference now is that the Democrats "didn't have me in 1994". Another glimpse into his arrogance. Yet another, at a prayer breakfast he speaks about himself and I believe mentions a person who decides to be buried in an Obama T-shirt. Nice prayer. He says "I" and "me" more than any President in recent memory. And yet he defers to his Congress, his Attorney General, and others so that it is not his fault for these failures. Some leader...

He could turn it around. Clinton's first two years did not go well but he managed to turn it around with a Republican Congress no less. Will Obama do the same? I see some similarities in the personalities of Clinton and Obama but not in their political skill. Clinton was far more experienced (oddly enough) and skilled in triangulating between the Congress and the people. He could alter course when polls weren't going his way.

If things go on as they did in 2009, there is a chance Republicans retake the House and gain significant ground in the Senate. Either way, Obama's powerful edge will be gone and his agenda shattered.

National Debt

The Problem
The government intends to spend $3.83 trillion in 2011, that would have a deficit over $1.3 trillion. About $2.4 trillion comes from mandatory spending programs (Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, Unemployment benefits, and interest on the debt. That rises about 5-15% every year. So about half of our spending is on old people.

The discretionary spending, what everyone likes to talk about, is $1.4 trillion ($650 billion is defense). It increased 13% in 2010 and will increase again in 2011. Obama proposes freezing part of that amount AFTER 2011. It is not even a drop in the bucket, it is a drop in the dolphin tank.

Past few years the feds have had between $2.4 and $2.6 trillion in revenue. To balance the budget we would need to cut spending (from Obama's plan) by $1.3 trillion. Not easy.

How do we balance the budget?
Well if it was just out discretionary spending alone, all we really need to do is cut around $1.1 or $1.3 trillion from that to get down to the revenue level. Wait, that would mean cutting defense by 90%. Not a good idea. What if we raise more revenue? Overall tax revenues would have to be increased by 40%. Does that sound like a good idea to you? What kind of tax hikes would be required for that? We would turn into Sweden or France with their 50% tax rates, and not just for rich people mind you.

What about economic growth to push up revenues? That has always been done through tax cuts, but even then the economy would have to expand dramatically for a while for us to catch up to what we owe. We will never be able to catch up to the skyrocketing costs of social security and medicare alone in the next twenty years.

What if we get rid of the old people? Euthanasia would certainly solve the problem but its not really a popular option. Wait, raising the retirement age is probably a better option, more humane, and cheaper than the roving death squads needed for the first option. Life Expectancy in 1945 was 60, retirement age was 63. Now its around 80 years, but retirement is 65 or 67 I believe. So really Social Security was never meant to provide income for people for more than 5-10 years really. If only all that smoking, red meat, and dangerous toys had thinned the heard.

As someone who will be paying into Social Security for the next thirty to forty years, and will likely have to be part of the generation that pays off the $12 trillion debt, these aren't policy choices, they are necessary.

Forget what Republicans and Democrats say about discretionary spending cuts and economic growth to push up tax revenue. Until we can make the really hard decisions we are fixing for a FALL in probably 10-20 years. A Great Depression and a likely fall of us as a Global Power. Without us there will be war in numerous places across the globe. Tyrants will seize the opportunity of a now fallen US.

This country will have to accept the fact that the federal government was not meant to be involved in education, housing, banks, healthcare, and unemployment payouts. In the past sixty years we have gone far beyond the original intent of the founders, stretching the Constitution to the breaking point. It has had its consequences.

As a country we are getting weaker every year while potential rivals China and India appear to be growing. The power gap between us and other world powers is shrinking. We need to accept the fact that we will not be the dominating superpower we have been over the past twenty years. We should aim to be #1 for as long as possible, but to do that we need to get our own house in order first. Until then, I believe our time at the top is very short.

Title Explained

My name is Jacob. I am a lawyer with a background in international politics, philosophy, history, and national security. In my years in school and also on vacation, I have watched too much news but also read a lot of books from various sources and have learned a lot about this world. Being of such a young and tender age, I endeavor to learn as much from history as possible since I myself have experienced so little.

Throughout my education, several famous philosophers have become very influential. The first and most relevant to this blog is Niccolo Machiavelli. Today his ideas are misinterpreted, his name has been associated with evil and ambition but that ignores the real lessons in his writings. Machiavelli favored a republican government, freedom of speech, rule of law, and strong defense. He is most remembered for his question posed by a hypothetical prince, "is it better to be loved or feared?".

But that one anecdote missed the rest. Machiavelli shared many of the same ideals as John Adams, Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, and others. A popular government is preferable over a prince. A well-ordered state with a respect for the rule of law will be a prosperous state. A leader must not overly tax the people nor be overly liberal in handing out benefits. The law should be administered in full view of the public. And finally, a leader should seek the faith of the people and not the aristocracy.

Having princples and ideas are nice and all but opponents will always stand in your way. There are those who seek power, control, and benefits for themselves and their allies. They care little for principle, only political power. There are some who have opposing principles and stand in opposition on grounded beliefs. To bring about change against such opponents with great political skills, you need to be cunning in these skills as well, as cunning as a Fox. There is a reason why the smartest and most effective people are NOT politicians. If only we were so lucky.

Machiavelli also recognize the importance of individual and collective strength, as did our Founding Fathers. Washington himself stated that to secure peace one must be prepared for war. Deterrence is a powerful influence on potential enemies and usurpers. As the global superpower we have enemies and potential rivals. Show humility and you show weakness. Show neutrality and you arouse suspicion. Show strength, and others will be hesitant and cautious. Cunning can allow you to outmaneuver their traps but does not deter them from resorting to blunt force. You need the strength of a Lion.

And with that you see the important two elements in Machiavelli's political philosophy: the cunning of the Fox, and the Strength of the Lion. To be successful, you need both. A lion can be ensnared in clever traps. A fox is vulnerable to large predators. In cooperation, they are most effective. Even better than a shark riding the back of an elephant (Jack Handey).

Machiavelli was a realist, and so were many of my other favorite philosophers and writers: Lao Tzu, Sun Tzu, Han Fei Tzu, Edward Carr, Hans Morgenthau, and others. You don't need to know who any of these people are, I justed wanted to name-drop and sound smart. A realist is concerned with what is, not what ought to be. A realist does not concern himself with rhetoric, norms, or artifical restraints, he understands that the world is filled with states seeking security and prosperity. They gain these through the pursuit of power. Nice eloquent words will never dissuade them otherwise.

Today, Machiavelli would likely be a shrewd conservative. And oddly enough so am I. I believe in limited government, the free market, and individual freedom. At this point, I see neither party fulfilling these ideals. I am not a partisan, I don't care much for political parties in general. Anything that seeks its own independent empowerment and survival is not likely to care much for the good of the people. Therefore, the empowerment and survival of the party must somehow be DIRECTLY linked to the good of the people. We must punish the party that fails and reward the party that succeeds. In some cases we need to encourage and support factions within a party to the detriment of another faction within the same party. As the people and voters, we need to be shrewd, realistic, and prepared to move against the political class when necessary. This does not mean violent revolution, but the simple act of voting those unfit out and finding individuals of virtue and ability. The responsibility is on us. Cynicism gets you nowhere, so simply not voting does not voice your discontent to anyone. It just makes you lazy and irrelevant to the political class. It is one sure way a republic can fall.

American Conservatives believe that the government that is best is one that is closest to the people, that government causes far more problem than it solves, that all individuals have great potential and ability if given the opportunity to succeed, that the free market is the best generator of wealth, and that respect for the rule of law is essential. The Constitution should be interpreted based on its text and the intent of the framers, it is not some flexible or living document that can be bent to serve the fashionable trends of a certain period.

I am writing this blog to express my own thoughts and ideas on politics, international affairs, philosophy, religion, sports, and movies. Some are unique and novel, and others probably aren't. To warn you, I have a dry and sometimes dark sense of humor. I usually don't care who I offend with my jokes or statements. There is a difference between serious discussion and banter. I hope that you will keep that in mind before falling off your chair in a fit of anger at my words.

Of course this assumes anyone will bother reading this blog. Either way, I am going to write it because currently I am an unemployed law school graduate with plenty of time on my hands.