Income Disparity

I don't begrudge anybody's wealth.  Having had the privilege of making large dollars once upon a time, I know for a cold fact that not everybody earns every dollar they get, so ya gotta try not to be too much of an asshole about it - but mostly, it doesn't matter how you get it; if it's legal and within an ethical framework, then OK.

The problems come from the tendency for wealth (and the power that goes with it) to accumulate and be concentrated in the hands of an ever-decreasing number of people/families/businesses.  And the concentration always comes at the expense of the "middle and lower" classes.  BTW: it's hard to believe we still have to argue about, and worry over the separation and distinctions between "classes of people", but hey - there it is.

Anyway over time, more and more wealth belongs to fewer and fewer people in the "upper classes"; while more and more people in the "lower classes" get less and less.  And this is what that looks like in the US as of 2007:

I will never support efforts to impose artificial limits on anybody's income, but we have to make sure that we're governing ourselves in a way that at least tries to ensure that everybody has a legitimate shot at making his life better.

Atta Boy, Nicky

We Are So Fucked

So WellPoint in California decided to postpone their 30+% increase in premiums because there was quite a bit of backlash (ie:outrage across the land), but guess what?  The Blues of Michigan are planning to announce an increase of up to 56%, and Anthem in Maine is asking the insurance regulators for a 23% pop.

Timing is everything - these guys are pushing up the premiums for what I think are probably some logical "business" reasons.
1) They believe they've beaten back the parts of the reform effort that push them into "competing" harder against one another - or against the government.

2) They figure that whatever piece-of-crap makes it outa the US Congress, it'll carry an  Individual Mandate, and in return, they'll have to accept all comers so they're trying to boost the revenue now in order to deal with the losses later.  (Ya gotta remember; the mandate carries the guaranty that tax dollars will be available to help buy insurance for people who can't afford the premiums that are being jacked up right now)

3) They're asking for big increases now so they can give a little on the price later, which makes 'em look a little more like the good guys they need us to think they are, and still turn a nice profit.  This is every used car manager's favorite gimmick - a day before the "Big Blowout Sale", they boost the price by $2500, and then allow the prospect to beat 'em out of a $1200 discount.

BTW: If any of Our Esteemed Representatives get outa line, the big money on K Street now has the hammer - SCOTUS took care of that one a little while back.

In the end, we're gonna pay the cost of healthcare insurance for everybody (almost everybody) one way or another.  "Conservatives" want us to pay for insurance plus profit margin plus administrative costs plus shareholder equity plus management bonuses and perks.  "Liberals" wanna pay for insurance plus administration costs.  I wonder which approach makes more sense from a Smart-Business-Practice perspective.

The Mount Vernon Statement

I was watching the live feed from CPAC yesterday and a bunch of the speakers mentioned The Mount Vernon Statement as if it was some kind of amazing document imbued with magical properties; capable of transforming the US into some kind of glittering utopia.

Here it is (see it in all it's splendor):

The Mount Vernon Statement

Constitutional Conservatism: A Statement for the 21st Century

We recommit ourselves to the ideas of the American Founding. Through the Constitution, the Founders created an enduring framework of limited government based on the rule of law. They sought to secure national independence, provide for economic opportunity, establish true religious liberty and maintain a flourishing society of republican self-government.

These principles define us as a country and inspire us as a people. They are responsible for a prosperous, just nation unlike any other in the world. They are our highest achievements, serving not only as powerful beacons to all who strive for freedom and seek self-government, but as warnings to tyrants and despots everywhere.

Each one of these founding ideas is presently under sustained attack. In recent decades, America’s principles have been undermined and redefined in our culture, our universities and our politics. The selfevident truths of 1776 have been supplanted by the notion that no such truths exist. The federal government today ignores the limits of the Constitution, which is increasingly dismissed as obsolete and irrelevant.

Some insist that America must change, cast off the old and put on the new. But where would this lead — forward or backward, up or down? Isn’t this idea of change an empty promise or even a dangerous deception?

The change we urgently need, a change consistent with the American ideal, is not movement away from but toward our founding principles. At this important time, we need a restatement of Constitutional conservatism grounded in the priceless principle of ordered liberty articulated in the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution.

The conservatism of the Declaration asserts self-evident truths based on the laws of nature and nature’s God. It defends life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. It traces authority to the consent of the governed. It recognizes man’s self-interest but also his capacity for virtue.

The conservatism of the Constitution limits government’s powers but ensures that government performs its proper job effectively. It refines popular will through the filter of representation. It provides checks and balances through the several branches of government and a federal republic.

A Constitutional conservatism unites all conservatives through the natural fusion provided by American principles. It reminds economic conservatives that morality is essential to limited government, social conservatives that unlimited government is a threat to moral self-government, and national security conservatives that energetic but responsible government is the key to America’s safety and leadership role in the world.

A Constitutional conservatism based on first principles provides the framework for a consistent and meaningful policy agenda.

• It applies the principle of limited government based on the
  rule of law to every proposal.
• It honors the central place of individual liberty in American
  politics and life.
• It encourages free enterprise, the individual entrepreneur, and
  economic reforms grounded in market solutions.
• It supports America’s national interest in advancing freedom
  and opposing tyranny in the world and prudently considers what we can and should do to that
  end.
• It informs conservatism’s firm defense of family, neighborhood,
  community, and faith.

If we are to succeed in the critical political and policy battles ahead, we must be certain of our purpose.

We must begin by retaking and resolutely defending the high ground of America’s founding principles.

February 17, 2010

Edwin Meese, former U.S. Attorney General under President Reagan

Wendy Wright, president of Concerned Women for America

Edwin Feulner, Jr., president of the Heritage Foundation

Lee Edwards, Distinguished Fellow in Conservative Thought at the Heritage Foundation, was present at the Sharon Statement signing.

Tony Perkins, president of the Family Research Council

Becky Norton Dunlop, president of the Council for National Policy

Brent Bozell, president of the Media Research Center

Alfred Regnery, publisher of the American Spectator

David Keene, president of the American Conservative Union

David McIntosh, co-founder of the Federalist Society

T. Kenneth Cribb, former domestic policy adviser to President Reagan

Grover Norquist, president of Americans for Tax Reform

William Wilson, President, Americans for Limited Government

Elaine Donnelly, Center for Military Readiness

Richard Viguerie, Chairman, ConservativeHQ.com

Kenneth Blackwell, Coalition for a Conservative Majority

Colin Hanna, President, Let Freedom Ring

Kathryn J. Lopez, National Review

I gotta wonder - this is your credo?  Guys, your manifesto is a blog post, dressed up to look all 18th century-ish. Maybe you should have burnt the edges a little - that always makes things look old and venerable.

Try A Little Tenderness

We Are So Fucked

News outa California has Well Point ready to raise their rates by as much as 39%. They say the cost of healthcare is jumping up big - it takes a lot to keep somebody in a hospital bed; younger people choose to spend their paychecks on something other than health insurance; people who get laid off can't afford insurance; so the pool of insured people shrinks, and on average, gets older and sicker and cost the insurer more (duh).

So what do we need to do? Let's raise taxes on the middle class. That's what's happening, guys. Say it any way you wanna say it, but the system of mostly private; under-regulated mini-monopolies behaves like any unelected bureaucracy behaves when it's not really accountable to anybody. The Executive Committee takes a look at the marketing numbers, and they decide you've got a few extra bucks that you're currently spending on movies or weekend hobbies or whatever; and they decide you'll prob'ly sit still for an increase in your premiums of about x%. They're taxing you, plain and simple, and you've got nothin' to say about it.

And let's not kid ourselves about how the virtues of the free market will balance things out for us because if one company goes overboard, another will rise to challenge it. Bullshit. Markets in this country are anything but free. They've long since been captured by a few very giant conglomerates. And since SCOTUS decided companies are the same as people, the path is clear for them now to finish the job of taking us back to the good old days of aristocracy and noble entitlement - everything and everywhere is owned by some private entity, with a ruling class making all the laws and all the decisions; and handing down the power and the wealth to their semi-literate offspring.

Welcome back to the 18th century.

Celebrating Religious Differences

Taoism: Shit happens

Hinduism: This shit happened before.

Islam: If shit happens, take a hostage.

Buddhism: When shit happens, is it really shit?

7th Day Adventist: Shit happens on Saturday.

Protestantism: Shit won't happen if I just work harder.

Catholicism: If shit happens, I deserve it.

Jehovah's Witness: Knock, knock,  "Shit happens".

Judaism: Why does this shit happen to me?

Hare Krishna: Shit happens, Rama Rama Ding Dong - here, have a flower.

Atheism: No shit.

Televangelism: Send more shit.

Rastafarian: We should smoke this shit.

Dodge Charger Commercial & Response

If the Opposition Party in Congress could make their SOTU responses like this, we might have a chance to get somewhere.
First the ad that ran during Super Bowl, then the response:

A Quickie

Off the top of my head.  Looking at some polling numbers that have Repub Voters ranking their "Leaders" for 2012 (Romney-14%, Palin-11%, McCain-7%, Brown-4%), and wondering if it means anything.  Here's what I came up with:

The first thing that popped into my brain was, how the hell did Scott Brown get in there!?!  But then, I remembered the narrative built up around their successes in special elections - Governors in VA & NJ, and then the race for Teddy's Senate seat.  The repubs were all running around trying to convince us that they were "sweeping towards a Republican resurgence of epic proportion!".  Remember that?  Now, kinda outa the blue, we get Repub Voters tagging Scott Brown as a major force?  I'm thinking the whole 'resurgence' is hollow.  There's a feeling of wishful thinking about it - like they really don't have anything but the rhetoric to hold onto - hoping against hope that somebody will ride in and rescue them from the evil clutches of the Democrats.

The danger - if I'm right - is that the Dems will actually wake up, find their balls, and start acting like a ruling party instead of the public servants they're supposed to be.  But then, that's usually how it works, so I shouldn't be too surprised.

The Big Storm III

Some of my posts about this last round of snow storms have been out of order.  Here's one that's no exception to that.

The big storm started fairly early Thursday Feb 4, and continued thru about midnite Friday Feb 5.  On Saturday the 6th, a plow had managed to make one pass on our road, so we dug out the Durango, thinking we'd do a little sightseeing and bop into town for something to eat.

Fifty yards from our driveway:

Using a couple of bow saws, we hacked thru this one and two others blocking the road.

We did make it into town, but the only places open were a 7-11 and a McDonalds.  More than happy to score a couple of cheese burgers at the time.