It’s not easy being red

The Republican Party once stood for limited government, a strong national defense, equal opportunity, faith in the Constitution, and personal and fiscal responsibility. All laudable  positions.

Then something happened.  The party went off the rails. Instead of being the party of shared American values and common sense, they became the party of radical “Christian” values that make a mockery of what Christianity – as I know it – teaches, and of extreme fundamentalists that deny science based on a literal reading of the Bible.    

Now I’m having an increasingly hard time liking the Republican Party.    

For the record, I am a Republican.  I am a mainstream Christian – a pretty generic Protestant.  No church I ever attended preached Armageddon, the Apocalypse or the handling of snakes to prove your faith.  Nor did they emphasize the scary, often vengeful Old Testament God who covered Job in boils, stuck Jonah in the whale, or asked Abraham to kill his son, just to test their fealty. 

Instead, they taught us to be compassionate to the plight of others, to help those in need, and to pave our way to salvation through doing good deeds on Earth.  To this day, I still believe that. 

I didn’t used to see a conflict between my faith and being a Republican.  I’m starting to.   

I simply can’t abide the religious fanatics and flat-earthers who seem to have a disproportionate influence on the Republican Party.  I don’t like the attacks on science and knowledge, or the general “meanness” and intolerance toward others. 

Maybe I expect too much from the Republican Party.  I’d like to see them show more dignity and also more respect for all their constituents.  Not everybody is a white, right-wing Pentecostal or extreme Catholic out here; just understand that and stop pandering.  Realize that far more Americans couldn’t care less about what their fellow citizens are doing as consenting adults.  Comprehend that you can’t legislate your own version of morality, or force people to accept your religion above all others. 

I suspect there a lot of other people like me; people who want the party to return to its core values and leave all the lunacy behind.  We’re educated, we know the difference between right and wrong, we understand economics, and we don’t necessarily hate our government or live in fear of it. 

We all know enough history and science, and religion, to understand that despite what some literalists believe scientists have proven the Earth is in fact more than a few thousand years old; evolution is not merely an “alternative” theory to the Creation story, either.   And also that many scriptural passages in the Bible reflect the time in which they were written, the living conditions back then, and the knowledge available at that time; we’ve learned a lot since.  The world today is not the same as a few millennia ago. 

So please step off that Creationist platform and stop taking the Bible so literally.  It makes the Republican Party appear small-minded, aggressively ignorant, and completely out of touch with reality.

But this moral absolutism and religious fundamentalist view seems to be coloring practically everything today’s Republican Party proposes.  Whatever happened to just trying to run the country efficiently and effectively and upholding the Constitution?  For a party that believed in limited government, why continue to propose legislation that increases the role of government in our private lives?

It’s insane.     

Overall, I’m finding it difficult to believe the Republican Party is really looking out for the interests of the country as a whole, which is now more diverse than ever before.  I don’t like their intolerance of anyone who doesn’t believe what they do.   I don’t like their views on many social issues.  I don’t like the constant bitching and moaning over every little thing that doesn’t go their way.  Then there are the venomous attacks instead of reasoned arguments and the dominance of emotion over substance.    

And I’m frankly weary of their almost psychotic obsession with Obama.   

Maybe the fundamentalists in their fold have convinced the Party leaders Obama’s the Antichrist.  Who knows … but I can tell you the general public isn’t buying that.  Most of the public believes he’s not the devil, he’s not a communist, nor does he want to destroy America.  I’m with them on that. 

He is, however, a ruthless demagogue who has tried to turn the Presidency into a virtual monarchy, and the Republican Party does have an obligation to ensure that Constitutional protections against that are enforced.  There’s no denying that he’s also a great politician; but way down deep he’s shallow.  You can only con people so long before you get caught overreaching – remember Nixon.  Obama’s doing that now with the sequester issue.  In a month or so, he’ll be up against the fiscal wall again. 

Despite the polls showing him riding high, he’s on a tightrope right now.  If he misses a step, or overreaches on his dire predictions of doom and gloom if he doesn’t get his way, he falls.  Republicans don’t need to be badgering him from below like hyenas; not only is that unseemly but he’s perfectly capable of falling on his own.  Stand back and let it happen.   

Gravity and hubris will bring him down.  Don’t get in the way. 

Despite the real issues that need to be resolved, the Republican Party keeps drifting more and more into extraneous crap that has absolutely nothing to do with efficiently running the country and protecting the rights and safety of its citizens.  They seem to be having an identity crisis – torn between continuing their trek to becoming the American Taliban, or becoming much more moderate – maybe like moderate Democrats but with a lot more fiscal discipline. 

Right now, they are leaning toward the Taliban. 

That’s too bad.  Because there are damn few moderate Democrats with the fiscal sense God gave a chicken anymore, there’s an open space for socially moderate Republicans with strong fiscal responsibility credentials.  Look at Christie in New Jersey – a popular Republican in a blue state.    

The problem is, most Republican Party primaries – held hostage by the extremists – chew these people up.  If they aren’t in favor of banning abortion, same-sex marriage, restrictions on prayer in public schools, and don’t support deporting all illegal immigrants, or any number of other red-meat issues that have absolutely nothing to do with running the country, they’ll be defeated.  They’ll never make it to a general election where more rational Republicans, independents and disaffected Democrats could easily elect them.  

I’m convinced that Jon Huntsman could have won easily over Obama in the last election; he had the government experience, the intelligence, and the financial wherewithal to win.  Except he wasn’t conservative enough on the red meat issues, and had supported legalizing pot in the past, so he couldn’t win the primaries. 

Mitt Romney should also have won, but by trying to brush up his conservative creds, he alienated independents, and extreme conservatives – the so-called “Evangelicals” – didn’t come out and vote for him anyway.   Which proved again you can’t please everybody. 

So we have Obama.    

Now, many might be wondering if my lack of enthusiasm for today’s Republican Party means I might switch and become a Democrat.

Quite simply, no way.  I’d rather have hot pokers stuck in my eyes. 

As off target as the Republican Party is today, and as disappointed as I am in them, the Democrats are far worse.  I think they must still be tripping on some bad acid from the 60s; there’s no other explanation for how disconnected from the reality of our current financial situation they are.  They must be sitting around at night munching on hash-laden brownies to dream up such incredibly stupid ideas.

So, no. 

But if a Constitution Party were to arise …

Oh, the humanity!

You expect someone to say that at any moment.

I am, of course, speaking of the sequester. 

In a John Kerry-like moment, Obama was in favor of it until he wasn’t.  Obama proposed the sequester as part of the 2011 debt-ceiling deal.  Now he uses firefighters and cops as wallpaper as he exhorts the Republicans to settle on his terms and avoid the sequester altogether.

And what are his terms?  Well, no serious cuts – except to Defense – and more tax increases.

If memory serves me, he got his tax increases on the rich in the most recent fiscal cliff settlement, but only with the promise that he’d also come up with cuts in spending.  When the Republicans gave him another pass by postponing the sequester, in return for him delivering a budget before the new deadline, there was brief glimmer of hope that he might do the right thing at last. 

Yet here we are again.  And again.  And again. 

First, he hasn’t submitted any Federal budget to Congress and won’t.  He has no intention of making any other cuts.  Never did.  He’s putting the entire blame for the sequester on the Republicans, when he was the one who put forth the “devastating” cuts in spending in the first place.  Go figure. 

I am constantly amazed at how and why the press lets him get away with stuff like this.  If this were anybody else, they’d be all over him like white on rice.  They’d be hounding him at every press conference, looking for leaked e-mails, and going through his trash at night. 

But no.  He gets a pass.  As always. 

If anything, the press is happy to promote this hyperbolic nonsense.

Right now you’re hearing stories about what the sequester means.  Thousands of civilian Defense Department employees forced to take furloughs.  Cancellation of repairs on submarines.  Cut backs on our military readiness.  Increased unemployment.  Cuts in TSA staffing, so longer lines and delays at airport security.  A drop in our GDP.  Maybe even a plunge back into the depths of recession.  

What’s really going to happen?

Practically nothing. 

First, the sequester was supposed to cut $1.2 trillion over 10 years.  It was also supposed to start at the beginning of this year.  But didn’t.  So at most the cuts only affect a portion of the year and are prorated.  What was once a goal of $120 billion in cuts per year will only be about $85 billion for the remaining seven months.  (That’s about what we borrow every month.  And  pretty close to the unfunded $60 billion in pork-laden legislation Congress just passed to aid Sandy “victims.” ) 

Next, in the greater scheme of things, even the full $120 billion is a drop in the bucket, especially when you consider that Federal spending in 2011 was about $3.7 trillion.  Let’s put this in perspective:  $120 billion is no more than 3.2% of total annual Federal spending.  Even under the most optimistic projections, that’s just slowing the growth of spending, not really cutting spending.  It’s not even a rounding error when you’re talking about multi-trillion-dollar budgets

As to the “devastating” effects of the sequester – that’s where the crap really flies.  In a normal year under the sequester terms, we’re talking about cuts of 8% in the Defense budget, and 5% in domestic agency budgets. And exempted from those cuts are Social Security, Medicare, and veterans’ programs. 

Honest to God, that’s what this is all about.  Relatively minor cuts to what most would agree are massively bloated operations.  It’s pocket change to the Feds. 

Even in the most extreme projections, we’d be going back to spending levels close to what they were a few years ago.  People didn’t starve in the streets then, we didn’t have foreign invaders storming our shores, entire cities didn’t burn down for lack of firefighters, airports didn’t shut down nor was there widespread anarchy. 

Spending has ballooned over the past six years, thanks in part to two wars and unconscionable spending by both Republicans and Democrats.  Not all of it has been justified; most was to curry favor with an ever-demanding voting public, and to reward political cronies.   We all know this. 

And now it’s nut-cutting time.  It’s not going to be that bad. 

There isn’t a business in the world that couldn’t cut its budget by 5% – it happens all the time; so why can’t domestic agencies?  As to the 8% Defense Department cuts … yes that’s going to take some work, and may close some superfluous bases here and abroad, and cancel some stupid Buck Rogers projects, but it is certainly do-able. 

For all the rabble-rousing about the sequester jeopardizing national security, border security, and airport safety, not to mention sacrificing the usual hostages – teachers, first responders, children and programs for the poor, elderly and disabled – most of it’s a bunch of BS. 

And most of it – as usual – is just politics.  Obama wants – at the last minute – to appear to be concerned about minimizing the “devastating” impact of the sequester as a means to get even more of his own agenda.

He’s now put forth a new plan to avoid the cuts – not a real budget, of course – just a “plan” that’s long on class warfare and overly optimistic on gains.  It includes a 30% minimum tax on millionaires – the so-called “Buffett Rule” – as well as  closing corporate loopholes, and changing the COLA formula for Federal benefits.  All told, Obama’s counting on $680 billion in new revenues over 10 years to offset the sequester.  His assumptions on spending savings are largely accounting legerdemain; look good on paper but somewhat unreal. 

As usual, the sequester is another in a long line of “crises” that really aren’t.  That’s not stopping the histrionics and public hand-wringing in the media, from Congress, from Governors and anyone else eager to see their face on TV for a 10-second sound bite. 

If you believe them all Hell’s going to break loose if the sequester isn’t averted.   

I’m just waiting for someone to say those three special words:

                “Oh, the humanity!”

I think both Republicans and Democrats want the sequester to go through for all the wrong reasons:  Republicans, because they think it might hurt Obama; Democrats, because they think it will hurt Republicans.  

They are both wrong.  It will hurt them both, not because the cuts are drastic, but because the American public is starting to understand the trouble we’re in and a majority support spending cuts.

And once again, the public is seeing how truly dysfunctional our government is.      

I only hope everyone remembers this in the next election cycle.  

Much of the country must be delusional

I once thought that the crazy factor in this country was only about 5% of the general population.

I’ve had to reconsider that assessment recently. 

If so many believe what they see on TV, online and in print, or the misinformation the POTUS spouts, it must be much higher.  How else can you explain so many people who now believe in an alternative reality unsupported by any rational thought or facts.

For example, a lot of people truly believe the economy is rapidly rebounding. Based on what?  Unemployment actually ticked up recently.  New jobs in the private sector are well behind what’s necessary for a recovery.  As many predicted, when the “stimulus” money ran out, state and local governments started laying off the folks whose jobs were once “saved.” 

Net/net we’re still in deep trouble on the job front. 

There are fewer Americans working now – as a percentage of the population – than at any time in recent history.  Meanwhile, the number of people claiming disability benefits -- often after exhausting their UC -- is soaring.  

Next, “Osama Bin Laden is dead, and GM is alive,” is a popular stump line for the current administration.  Well, Bin Laden is still dead – that’s true.  But GM is hardly is good shape.  To paraphrase Monty Python in the bring-out-your-dead scene, GM’s not dead, but it’s not well.  Not by a long shot.  It’s getting hammered in Europe, margins are way down here, and its costs are up. It’s on the rocks again. 

And yes, it still owes the government a boatload of money.  For us to break even on our investment in GM, we’d have to be able to sell the government’s shares for $53. Want to know how we’re doing?  Today, GM shares are selling at about $27.  Need I say more? 

Most people know that GM got billions from the government to “save” it, and they think that went to help GM the auto manufacturer.  Most don’t know that a lot of that money was used to bail out the financing arm of GM – GMAC – which, most people also don’t know, not only financed car purchases, but was also involved in a bunch of subprime mortgages. 

So do you know what happened to GMAC? 

Have you heard of Ally Bank?  Did you know that Ally Financial – the parent of Ally Bank – used to be GMAC?  That’s where part of the bail out of GM went; not to build cars and “save” the auto industry, but to bail out sketchy car loans and a bunch of subprime mortgages.  Ally Financial got $14.6 billion – the second largest of the TARP funds still owed to the government – and we still own 74% of it.   

And here’s another little tidbit:  Ally Financial is also in trouble, while the Feds are parking even more billions in it to try and make it look solvent.     

Here’s something else you also hear:  Obama saved GM from bankruptcy.  That’s simply not true.  GM went through bankruptcy under Obama’s watch, still got billions from the government, wiped out shareholder equity, and now apparently is struggling again.  I wonder how they’ll deal with the next bankruptcy for GM, since Obama supporters believe the most recent one never happened.   

Listen, it’s easy to blame the media for the glaring misconceptions now accepted as reality by so many.  But to be fair, it’s not entirely the media’s fault.  If you look hard enough, the facts are there – maybe buried at the very end of a long article, or glossed over dismissively – but the facts are usually there.

Too many people either don’t want to see anything that conflicts with their preconceived notions, or are too lazy to pursue anything more than a headline and first paragraph.

I suspect the biggest percentage is the former, and perhaps the most delusional.  (Although there are a lot of folks – especially the young – in the latter.)

In the former, you have people who have made up their minds that Obama’s the second coming, maybe the greatest President ever.  They think he’s doing a terrific job, anything bad is George Bush’s fault, all Republicans are inherently evil, all Democrats are inherently good, the national debt doesn’t matter, teachers don’t earn enough, unions built the middle class, and big government can solve any problem.  Oh, and the rich need to pay more in taxes or the middle class will have to. 

On the other side of that same group you have people who believe Obama’s the Antichrist.  They doubt his citizenship and think he’s a Muslim, a Communist, a leftist radical, a liar and someone who wants to be a dictator.  They also believe Obama wants to seize all guns, destroy western religions, abandon Israel, sell out to the Chinese and Russians, and open our borders to millions of illegal immigrants who he’ll immediately sign up as registered Democrats and put on our welfare rolls. 

(For the record, I don't believe Obama's the Antichrist.)

There’s nothing you can say or do to dissuade either faction from their beliefs.  And they view every bit of information they get through their warped perspective. 

They aren’t interested in facts.  They only listen to news sources that reinforce their views.  So you have those who only watch Fox and listen to Rush; others only watch MSNBC and listen to NPR. 

Their minds – and I use that term loosely – are made up for better or worse.  They are ideological bigots; they believe they are always right and everybody else is always wrong.  And it doesn’t end there: those who disagree with them are also evil and must be stopped by whatever means necessary. 

To some Democrats and liberals, George W. Bush could rescue a room full of babies, puppies and kittens from a burning building, bring peace to the Middle East, and cure AIDS and cancer and they would still find reasons to blame him for everything wrong with our country. If Obama did all the same things, it wouldn’t change the opinions of some Republicans and conservatives, either.          

That’s just crazy.  And that’s why I have to adjust my crazy factor – I fear the number might be over 50% of the country.      

Otherwise, despite all the evidence to the contrary, why do so many still believe:

• There’s never been  any voter fraud … 
• Al Gore won in Florida …
• Requiring a photo ID to vote is a violation of civil rights …
• The government can spend more than it takes in indefinitely …
• The national debt doesn’t matter …
• “Green energy” alternatives are being stifled by the oil companies …
• Insuring millions more people won’t cost anything …
• ObamaCare will reduce everybody’s insurance premiums …
• There’s very little waste in government …
• We’re not spending too much; we’re just not getting enough revenue in …
• Public workers’ pay and benefits are about the same as in the private sector …  
• Entitlements spending needs to be expanded, not reined in …
• There’s very little waste and fraud in entitlements and social programs …
• Illegal immigrants aren’t receiving Federal benefits …
• Changing the magazine size will cut down on gun violence …
• Banning certain types of guns will reduce gun violence …
• If we pay teachers more we’ll have a better education system …
• The 1st Amendment gives free speech protection only to people you agree with …
• GW Bush only invaded Iraq because GHW Bush wanted to get even …
• The Palestinians are freedom fighters …  
• 911 was engineered by Israel and the Bush Administration …

Honestly, to believe all that, you must be crazy. 

But that’s what a lot of Americans fervently believe.  Since there are proven facts to contradict all those beliefs, you can come to only one conclusion …

There are a lot of delusional people here. 

On raising the minimum wage …

In pitching an increase in the minimum wage the other night, Obama suggested that everyone who works deserves a “living wage.”

Well, raising the minimum wage alone isn’t going to do that.  If you want more money, you’re going to have to provide value to justify that to an employer.  That’s how it works.  If you have to depend on the government to give you a raise – because your employer won’t – you’re probably not all that valuable to your employer.   That’s most likely why they’re paying you the absolute minimum by law.   And minimum wage is that – the absolute legal minimum.   

Sorry, but that’s the truth. 

Now, the current minimum wage sucks.  Nobody disputes that. 

But it should suck. 

Otherwise, why should anybody try to work harder, get a better education, improve their skills, or do anything to make more than minimum wage? 

Now, some folks will say it’s cruel to have that attitude.  People deserve to make a living wage.  How can anyone raise a family or afford the nicer things in life on the current $7.25 an hour? 

They don’t.  They can’t.  Moreover, they shouldn’t.  And that’s my point. 

So what about those people who have no skills, no education, no discipline and no serious work ethic – why should they have to try to survive on minimum wage?

The answer is in the question.  They have very little to offer.  If they had those things, they’d likely be making more than minimum wage.  But if they are content with being little more than a glorified monkey in a paper hat pushing buttons at a burger joint on the night shift, minimum wage is probably too generous.  If they don’t want to face any bigger challenges than refilling the cups below the Slurpee machine on a regular basis, they’re more than fairly paid.  

Let’s be honest.  Most of the people you encounter probably making minimum wage right now – especially in the fast-food franchises, C-stores, and gas stations – are actually overpaid.  Robots, vending machines, and self-service could replace them and nobody would notice.

Except customers wouldn’t get the snotty attitude you often get now.  Like they’re doing you a big favor just by being there in person.  They are clearly annoyed that you showed up in the first place.  God help you if you interrupt their busy social life by asking them to do their job.   Or expect them to understand, much less speak, English. 

If they worked for you, would you pay them more than the legally mandated minimum wage?  You wouldn’t unless you had to because of market conditions. 

That’s actually what’s happened in a lot of areas; employers have to pay more than minimum wage just to get a warm body to stand behind a counter and push buttons with pictures on them so customers have a better chance of getting close to what they order. 

Even then, with higher pay, it’s getting harder and harder to fill those slots.  Not entirely because the pay sucks or the working conditions are bad, but simply because the people uniquely qualified for those mindless positions – particularly teens – don’t want them.  They consider those jobs demeaning. 

And definitely not cool.  

Plus, households with the unskilled and otherwise unemployable often make out better with no job at all.  So why bother to go through the effort when you can make more and get better benefits through public assistance, and enjoy a life of relative leisure.  Sure, you won’t be able to have all the things others might, but pretty much all your basic needs will be met.   

Think I’m kidding? 

Not long ago, someone calculated what a family of four with no other sources of income got in government benefits.  It came to about $44,000 a year.  At minimum wage only, after taxes, a single person would make about $11,000 a year; double that for two people working at minimum wage.

Let’s see … the equivalent of an HHI of $44,000 a year by not working, or half that for working.  Do the math.  And the public wonders why so many people prefer receiving government benefits rather than having a regular job …  

So who is really paid no more than minimum wage right now?  The answer is almost nobody, except teens, probably illegal immigrants, part-time workers and people with very limited education.  Only 9.2% of those are single adult head of household; most are either living with parents or a relative, or with a primary wage-earner who makes a lot more. 

Frankly, who is surprised at that …

Then why are many people making such a big deal out of the need to raise the minimum wage?   

It’s politics, plain and simple.  

Since most Americans remain severely math-challenged – and politicians like Obama realize that – increasing the minimum wage sounds to most like a nice idea.  A way of giving a whole lot of hard-working poor people a big raise.  And who doesn’t want to help the working poor? 

However, raising the minimum wage from the current $7.25 an hour to $9 an hour – as Obama recently proposed – won’t really do much of anything to lift anyone out of poverty.  Or suddenly make these people more valuable to their employers.  But what it might do is eliminate new jobs, because employers already cutting employee hours to stay below the ObamaCare standards will now have another reason not to hire. 

It may sound good in a speech; however it’s always the unintended consequences that bite you in the butt.  Those happen when politicians don’t think through the logical outcomes.  Or choose to ignore the probabilities. 

That’s what this is all about.  Ostensibly helping the poor, but actually doing nothing significant to change why they’re technically in poverty in the first place.  I use the word “technically” because the Feds think poverty here is any family of four making less than $47,000 as year, which in many parts of the country wouldn’t be poverty at all.  Most of us would consider poverty to be something different; perhaps a tad more extreme. 

This will seem unduly harsh, yet in this country there’s a huge pool of unskilled, barely literate, poorly educated people with no discernible social skills. 

Here’s the kicker: They weren’t born that way; they had to make a conscious effort to avoid education, developing any worthwhile skills, and learning how to interact with others in a civilized society.  Somehow – despite the efforts of schools, massive social programs, and billions upon billions of government spending – they were able to claw their way to the bottom. 

And there they remain.  They are America’s permanent underclass. Many are damned proud of that status, and reap benefits that make many working Americans seem foolish. 

They aren’t working for minimum wage.  In fact, most aren’t working at all.  Nor do they want to.  They are already making a “living wage” by doing nothing.  Why would they take a cut to take a minimum-wage job? 

The bigger issue is does everyone “deserve” to make a living wage?  Not really.  You should get paid for what you’re worth; if that’s not enough it’s not the employer’s fault.  It’s all yours. 

You’d hope people would want to make a living wage and take the steps necessary to make a living wage.  Like learning to speak English.  Like getting at least a real high school diploma by the time they’re 18.  Like learning how to deal with others.  Like not having a lengthy arrest record before they are out of their teens.  And like having a positive work ethic and showing up for the job every day, and trying to do their best.  

Those people deserve to make a living wage.  The others?  No. 

Most of us have worked for minimum wage at one time in our lives.  Maybe it was a crappy summer job in high school or some other dead-end job between semesters in college. 

Yes the pay sucked, but was probably commensurate with the value we added at the time, if we’re really honest with ourselves. 

Still, as awful as minimum wage was it was better than zero.   And you knew you wanted to do something better than work for minimum wage the rest of your freaking days.   So you developed skills, got an education and moved on.

That’s what usually happens.  At least for most people.  You want more, you make yourself more valuable so some employer pays you more. 

Raising the minimum wage doesn’t do anything except sound good.  Hardly anyone is working for minimum wage now. 

The only thing raising it might do is reduce jobs for those at the very, very bottom.  And only for those who haven’t figured out how to work the system yet.

It’s time to end corporate welfare

It’s time to come clean about corporate welfare.

There’s a lot of it, and most of it is completely unnecessary.  We waste billions of dollars on it every year bailing out companies that should go under, financing pie-in-the -sky projects that don’t make sense, incenting companies to do what they’d do anyway,  and propping up industries that shouldn’t exist here anyway.   

If you’re not familiar with corporate welfare by that name, realize that it comes in a variety of forms.  There are subsidies, grants, tax credits, special tax treatment of certain things, loan guarantees, ear marks and more, to name just a few.

But they are all welfare by another name.  Your money is being given to – or not collected from – favored businesses usually for purely political reasons. 

Corporate welfare is also something that unites both Republicans and Democrats – a rarity in this day and age.  Neither party wants changes there.   That’s because removing corporate welfare would seriously undercut every legislator’s power to deliver pork in exchange for votes, or the money to buy votes.  

In our new economic reality, much will have to change.  We have to withdraw or seriously scale back benefits or special treatment some have grown to accept as a part of their business or personal lives.  It’s inevitable; anyone who tells you otherwise is wrong.     

We simply can’t afford to support everything and everyone anymore.  Industries, businesses, a lot of interest groups and significant portions of the American population will just have to learn to adapt.  The unreasonable addiction to, and reliance on, government money has to end.  

While most of the public’s and media’s attention will be focused on social programs facing the chopping block, the real backroom battles will be on cutting or eliminating corporate welfare. 

Congress will be hammered by lobbyists and home-state interest groups to keep corporate welfare just the way it is.  The pitch to provide subsidies, grants or special tax treatment to one industry or another, or one company or another, will ultimately always be the same: 

It’s about jobs.  If so and so business doesn’t get this, they’ll cut jobs or maybe even have to shut down altogether. 

Sure, there will be smoke and mirrors about the need to “support” American businesses, and “building” 21^st century technology expertise, but the end emotional argument is always about “creating or saving jobs.”

And not just any jobs – but usually jobs in a legislator’s home state or Congressional district, and/or in companies that have powerful lobbyists who can channel money into that legislator’s next campaign.    

It really needs to end.  It’s an outrageous use of our money. It smacks of crony capitalism at its worst.  It poisons the democratic process.  And most of it is unnecessary. 

Despite what a number of industries and businesses claim, stopping corporate welfare won’t destroy them, nor devastate consumers.  Most times, these subsidies, special tax treatments and other handouts are anti-competitive and distort the marketplace to benefit a few at the expense of the many. 

So you would think they’d be an easy target in this era of unbridled class warfare. 

However, if the Feds are pouring money into a craptastic, never-gonna-work project in your home town to turn cow pies into hybrid batteries, and it employs your friends and neighbors, that’s not corporate welfare to you – it’s a God send.  You’ll be thanking – and probably voting for – whatever Senator or House member made it happen and brought home the bacon. 

Your community may benefit, but it’s still corporate welfare.  A waste of our money; money down a rat hole that will never pay off, which only encourages more rats to invent their own rat holes for our money. 

And those rats are lobbyists.  They feed on government money.  They exist primarily to work the edges, get special treatment for their clients, and enrich themselves at the same time.  All at our expense. 

Sometimes it’s hard to spot corporate welfare, and social welfare, when they’re wrapped up together in a more pleasing package. 

A classic example is the annual “Farm Bill.”  Like Defense Authorization bills, these set off a lobbyist feeding frenzy, so they are always packed with billions of dollars in subsidies and special treatments so loved by farm state and other legislators.  And after a lot of backroom wheeling and dealing they always pass overwhelmingly. 

You may think these bills are about the “family farmer” and wonder how anyone could question them.  Aren’t farmers the bedrock of America?  These are the people who produce our food, for God’s sake, so we should do everything we can to help them, right?  If we help farmers won’t that keep food prices down? 

Except most of that is a big ol’ steaming pile of manure. 

Most of the “farm” bill has absolutely nothing to do with your image of Ma and Pa standing with pitchfork outside their barn.   

The real farm bill is all about funding food stamps (78%), plus subsidies to support big-time agribusiness conglomerates like ADM, and farming operations here that make little or no economic sense (16%).  The rest is for “agricultural conservation,” whatever that is.  All told, the farm bill routinely costs about $100 billion a year. 

So forget about Ma and Pa and the family farm.  Think food stamps and corporate jets

Yes, we’re still paying some farm operation NOT to produce certain things, and punish them if they do.  And yes, we also still pay other operations to produce crops they would otherwise lose their shirts on if it weren’t for subsidies.  The Feds manipulate everything through subsidies.   

Common sense tells you that if farmers can’t make a living growing and then selling a certain crop, then they should plant something else that’s more profitable.  But farmers – not the government – should decide what that is in the total absence of government subsidies.  If that creates a shortage and drives prices up, then someone else will start planting and selling that other crop again.  The same goes for milk, cheese, eggs, butter, soybeans or whatever.  Everything will balance out once you take government’s heavy hand out of it.

It’s called supply and demand.  Government intervention upsets the balance.   

The ethanol fiasco is what you get when government gets involved.  Through subsidies and government mandates to refiners, farmers moved food crops into a waste-of-time and woefully inefficient fuel that causes more environmental damage than the gasoline it’s supposed to replace.  Oh, and by shifting food crops to this boondoggle, most basic food prices spiked. 

This subsidy stupidity is not limited to the Farm Bill.   

Take the ever-popular wind-energy subsidies which are about $12.1 billion a year.  We’re giving money to support foreign companies to build wind turbines here.  Yes, there’s a short-term job gain, but it’s still short term.  And now that natural gas is so cheap – thanks to supply and demand – orders for big wind turbines are drying up. 

So there go the jobs we subsidize for about $142,000 each, per year.  You can bet the average Joe on the factory floor building those turbines isn’t seeing an annual paycheck that big, so your money is flowing to foreign companies, not workers here, thanks to Uncle Sam. 

Then there are subsidies for electric cars nobody wants, domestically-produced solar panels we can buy much more cheaply from China, about $200 million annually in subsidies for tobacco production while we are trying to cut tobacco consumption, and a host of other silly things.  You name it – whether it’s fly-fishing tackle or lamp finials – if some or all of it is still made in the USA there’s probably some subsidy or special tax treatment associated with it. 

So what would actually happen if we decided to end corporate welfare altogether? 

You could knock out practically every industry subsidy and handout today and it wouldn’t make a damn bit of difference, except to accountants and lobbyists.  Loser companies would go out of business, which is what should happen anyway.  Remaining companies would get stronger and hire more people from the losers.  Everything would even out in short order. 

Everybody – including Obama – always talks about a “level playing field.”  If you take away all the corporate welfare, that’s what you’d get.

Companies would have to make business decisions based on real market dynamics, instead of how this might affect their tax position.  Companies would have to compete fairly for business, which is something big corporations don’t like to do, not just against other domestic firms, but also foreign firms.  With no safety net, they’d have to become more nimble, more efficient and more productive or fail and go under.  There would be no rich uncle to bail them out if they made stupid business decisions.    

Plus, if you took away all the subsidies, handouts and tax breaks that make up the majority of corporate welfare, you could probably lower the corporate tax rate to zero.  Honestly, most big corporations here aren’t paying much if any taxes anyway, so where’s the harm in just recognizing that?   Plus, that would make the U.S. one of the most attractive business environments in the world.  Companies would flock here.  Hiring would go up. 

Stopping corporate welfare now, and forbidding the arbitrary awarding of corporate and industry subsides and bail outs in the future would also have other beneficial effects.  We’d never have to hear about “too big to fail” ever again.   Or see our tax dollars squandered on nit-wit “investments in our future” schemes like Solyndra and the Chevy Volt. 

Oh yeah, there would suddenly be a lot of vacant office space on K Street.  A very good thing. 

Frankly, if something doesn’t make economic sense unless it gets government subsidies – aside from defense development stuff -- then it probably never will.  Conversely, if it does make economic sense over time, private investors will pony up and government money isn’t needed. 

All government money usually does is support businesses and industries that aren’t ready for prime time, may never be, and will now be dependent of government money until Hell freezes over.  There’s no incentive for these companies to become more economically competitive and efficient as long as Uncle Sam’s providing a safety net. 

It’s time.    

The Coronation of the Candy Man

Oh, who can take tomorrow, dip it in a dream
Separate the sorrow and collect up all the cream
The Candy Man, oh the Candy Man can
The Candy Man can 'cause he mixes it with love and makes the world taste good

The recent coronation – and that’s the right word for it – of Obama as the king of the United States, and the Candy Man in chief, held few surprises. 

The media gushed over Michelle’s new look, the cuteness of the kids, and Obama’s “bold” call for a second-term agenda, pretty much in that order.  They noted that he forcefully defended spending and entitlements, and claimed we are in fact not becoming a nation of “takers,” despite all evidence to the contrary. 

Oh, and they went positively gaga over the first time any President used the word “gay” in an inaugural address.  Once again, symbolism triumphs substance – it will be interesting to see how many gay Americans remember that this is the same guy who was opposed to same-sex marriage when he was running the first time.  Now he’s okay with it, so never mind …

Meanwhile, most in the media made no mention that he never once brought up the debt or the ballooning deficits, or the state of the economy.  Maybe the three biggest issues you’d expect him to address.  Go figure.

This should give you a clue to how far in the tank they are for this guy.   As if you didn’t know. 

Get ready for four more years of the same. 

So expect them to continue to cultivate a cult of personality for Obama.  That’s more palatable than objectively covering what he’s actually accomplished so far, which, except for squandering billions on bad ideas and crony payoffs, and ObamaCare, is not particularly noteworthy. 

Now there have been transformative giants among our past Presidents – like Washington, Jefferson, Lincoln, FDR, and Reagan. 

As much as he and his supporters would like you to believe, Obama’s not in this league.  Not by a long shot. 

Despite his promise of hope and change, he’s turned out to be just another in a long line of callous politicians willing to do – and say – anything to maintain power.  There’s no crisis he won’t exploit to his advantage.  No situation he won’t manipulate to put himself in a better light.    

And regardless of how he’s routinely portrayed in the general press – kind, caring, compassionate – there’s also an incredibly nasty and vindictive side to Obama.   It seems to emerge more frequently these days, especially since his re-election.     

This is in sharp contrast to his favored role of Candy Man – the giver of everything you ever wished for, paid for by someone else.  It’s a way for him to appear magnanimous and concerned about helping the less fortunate, when all he’s really doing is buying votes with other peoples’ money.  Most of the beneficiaries of his largesse are not the less fortunate, but those he can count on to turn out reliably for every election. 

Honestly, right now, there’s no one to stop him from continuing to do this. 

Every time someone tries, they get hammered by the press, pounded on the Sunday news shows by hacks like Axelrod and Plouffe, and ridiculed by Obama.  It’s a very effective strategy – make cutting benefits or entitlements akin to taking food from the mouths of starving children while also pushing granny over the cliff.  The reality is quite different:  none of that would happen by making food stamps a tad more restrictive and pushing up the full retirement age a little at a time over decades. 

Nonetheless, that’s never going to get reported.  So proponents of reining in programs even in a reasonable way end up skulking away from the fray, tails between their legs. 

In his inauguration speech Obama implied that cutting spending was essentially off the table.  I’m sure that was music to the ears of his supporters who want the gravy train to just keep rolling along and expanding.  Based on the last election, that group is continually growing.

Sadly, Obama is merely giving a large portion of the public what they want.  Higher taxes on everybody but them.  More free stuff.  Less personal responsibility.  Reduced consequences for making bad decisions. 

What’s not to like? 

However, reality is starting to set in.  The Obama Administration and its spokespuppets like Reid have finally realized there isn’t enough money to pay for everything.  Geez, that took a while.  Most everybody else figured that out long, long ago.

Awkward.

So now they are talking about raising taxes again.  Granted, they are still donning their class-warfare regalia and focusing on higher taxes on the rich again, this time by closing loopholes in the tax code that favor the wealthy. 

If that sounds vaguely familiar, it’s because that’s what the Republicans proposed instead of raising tax rates on the well-off. 

Now it’s Obama’s idea.  He’s shooting to get both – higher tax rates AND closing loopholes.  But of course, only on the greedy pigs at the top. 

Anyone with the good sense God gave a sweet potato knows just about everybody’s taxes are going to go up, one way or another. The only question is who pays them and how much. 

But it’s a shell game:  while Obama raises taxes, he’ll give breaks to favored classes at the same time to avoid those higher taxes.   

If you want an example, look at ObamaCare.  “Mandatory” stuff in there that would raise costs for practically everyone isn’t really mandatory at all, or heavily subsidized with government dollars if you happen to be among his favored classes.  The same rules and penalties don’t apply equally. 

Remember Animal Farm by Orwell?  Where all animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others?  You’re seeing that in action. 

He does this time and again, so his constituency will remain loyal.  And they love him for it. 

Give the guy credit – he knows how to play the game. 

And now we face four more years of this.