Rebels Without a Clue

Apologies to Tom Petty, and maybe even Richard Petty. In any event, I'm getting a little tired of the Occupy [Whatever] "movement" that is currently afflicting the nation. As best as can be discerned (it doesn't appear that the protesters quite know what they are protesting) the primary complaint is against corporate greed. I'm not entirely sure there is anyone in favor of greed, it being one of the seven deadly sins and all. I've yet to hear any specifics, either in terms of what they are protesting, or what solutions they may have to these apparently pressing problems, with one exception. They want college to be free and all student loans forgiven. Wonder if they'll make the forgiveness retroactive so I can get re-paid for the money I sent in every month until my student loans were paid off. This protest appears to be just another example of one group wanting the rest of us to pay for their demands. I paid my bills now I get to pay yours. On the other hand my daughter is starting college soon and free might not be too bad.

Democrats hate democracy

Just read an article about how Jessie Jackson, Jr. is suggesting that President Obama declare Congress to be "in rebellion" and take "extra-constitutional" (does that mean illegal?) action to deal with the economy. It should first be noted that the President is head of the executive branch of government and not head of the entire government. Congress is a co-equal branch of government and the President can no more declare them to be in rebellion than Congress can declare the President to be in rebellion (although they can impeach him). President Obama told Boehner that elections have consequences, and so they do. The democrats can't simply ignore the consequences to them and their programs of the last election. Congress is not obligated to pass whatever bills the President sends to them and the President can't simply ignore those results and govern as an absolute monarch. The extra-constitutional action that the good Congressperson suggests is the government employing all of the unemployed (I'm not sure doing what) and a cost of around 600 billion and provide another 100 billion to bail out the states (I think it would take more to bail out California) and 100 billion to bail out the cities. He doesn't say where this money is coming from, I'm sure he doesn't care, or how long we would continue to "employ" all of these people. Presumably forever. I was going to say he hadn't thought through the inflationary effect this would have but it's obvious he hasn't put any real thought into this at all.

The Jobs Bill

Since the address before the joint session of Congress I've been trying to decide what the President hoped to accomplish by the "jobs bill" he proposed. My initial reaction was that he couldn't possibly think it was going to pass so he must have had something else in mind. Ignoring the better angels of my nature I'm forced to concluded that it was pretty much a ploy to give him an issue for next year's campaign. Pres. Obama desperately doe not want to be blamed for the continued bad economic news but can't keep blaming GWB, although he will contiue to do so. This bill gives him the opportunity to blame the Republicans arguing that if they'd have passed his bill everything would be hunky and dorey. This may help with moderate and independent voters who just want things to get better. At the same time he can go to his base and argue that he wanted to tax the rich and give to the unions (let's face it, the money was going to the States to hire or retain public employees who also happen to be members of public employee unions) and thereby generate an us versus them mentatlity which may carry over to the election. Good plan but it probably won't work.

Defending Obamacare

There's been a lot of speculation recently about why the Obama administration has decided to forgo en banc review in the 11th Circuit. I think it only necessary to look at the actions of this administration to determine the reason. Specifically, the decision to no longer defend DOMA and DADT. The President is smart enough to realize that his chances of re-election aren't looking too good right now (although he may yet be re-elected) and he wants the weight of the government on the side of this law. He knows full well that a Republican president may, and probably will, refuse to defend the law. Given that his administration's has set the precedent of refusing to defend laws with which they don't agree he would have no grounds to complain. He also knows that Obamacare probably can't be revoked by a Republican Congress, absent a fulibuster-proof Senate, which isn't likely to happen.

The Jobs Bill

If Keynsian economics had any basis in fact we wouldn't be talking about a "jobs bill". Just sayin.

Proposition 13

In the days leading up to the 1994 baseball strike I remember watching several players being interviewed about the issues involved. The interviewer, I think it was Bob Costas, asked about the owners who were losing money and shouldn't that be taken into consideration. The players response was that those owners who couldn't afford to take the losses should sell the team to someone who could.

So what does this have to do with Prop 13 you may ask. Well, prior to the passage of Prop 13 several efforts had been made to get the legislature to enact some type of property tax relief. A combination of a rising home prices, stagnant economy and inflation was forcing people from their homes, especially the elderly and others on a fixed income. These pleas fell on deaf ears because the government didn't think there was a problem. The increase in home values meant more money every year; why would they want to do anything about that. The government's solution was the same as the players. If you can't afford to pay you need to sell to someone who can.

The Crusades

In the wake of the Holy Father's recent talk I would offer the following points to be meditated upon by those in the Muslim world still upset over the Crusades. First of all, the last crusade ended in 1204. That's right 802 years ago. I think it's time to get over it. Second, you won! Nobody likes a sore winner. Last, you really don't have the moral high ground on this. There's no question but that Muslim armies were a threat to the Christian world. After all, Muslim armies had destroyed Christian North Africa, including Hippo where St Augustine was Bishop and well as the churches founded by St Paul in Asia Minor and the great monastic communities in Egypt. Muslim armies also invaded and occupied Spain for quite a while and tried to attack the rest of Europe but were stopped. Attacks from the east continiued thereafter. If Muslims were the victim of lthe Crusades Christians were victims of the Muslim armies.