We Are So Fucked

Our "representatives" aren't elected by voters - they're elected by contributors.

Now that Obama is talking about trying to push a little harder to get Wall Street and The Big Banks to play by the rules, they're aligning against him; and against anybody who speaks out in favor of re-regulating.

In a previous post, I wondered why Repubs were sounding so confident of a resurgence, and I said then that it all sounded hollow.  It isn't.  The big money contributions are running 2-1 in favor of the Repubs.

Here's the story at WaPo today.  Oh well; it was nice to dream of things getting better.

Bring The Stupid

Politicians say and do some pretty dumb things.  I think it's usually just a function of having to walk a really thin line in an attempt to keep some voting faction or another happy while at the same time trying not to cause some other faction to back away.  Maybe it's always been that way, and maybe we're just becoming more aware of it.  Anyway, Virginia Delegate Bob Marshall (R-Dumbass) is in a lot of trouble (petition demanding his resignation) for saying what was on his mind - (see story in Gainseville Times). He claims his comments were  "misconstrued", but reading the direct quotes, I'm thinkin' he really just let the truth about what he believes slip out.

And the truly unfortunate aspect is that the study he was citing may have had new info we should know about - but now it's all lost in the firestorm of protest.*  Don't get me wrong; I think the guy is at best borderline Taliban, and he oughta be thrown out on his ass.

I left a meesage for my delegate (Rob Bell) asking for comment - no reply as yet.
I tried to get somebody at VCU to comment and couldn't find anybody who's even heard about it.

*It doesn't appear to my highly untrained eye to make any real link to the kind of "Elective Abortion" the wingnuts love to rage about.  Here's the abstract for the VCU study.

CPAC Straw Poll

I dunno what it means.  I've watched CPAC for a coupla years now, and I'm still of the mind that it's really just a Wingnut Circle Jerk.  It does have some merit of course, in that the factions get a chance to float their ideas and get some feedback, but I'm not convinced it represents a good snapshot of the GOP as a whole.  Anyway, it seems to have come as quite a surprise that Ron Paul stomped everybody so big.

Texas Rep. Ron Paul - 31 percent
Former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney -- 22 percent
Former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin -- 7 percent
Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty - 6 percent
Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich - 4 percent
Former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee -- 4 percent
Indiana Rep. Mike Pence - 5 percent
South Dakota Sen. John Thune -- 2 percent
Indiana Gov. Mitch Daniels -- 2 percent
Former Pennsylvania Sen. Rick Santorum -- 2 percent
Mississippi Gov. Hailey Barbour - 1 percent
Other - 5 percent
Undecided - 6 percent

That Guy With The Glasses

CPAC

I'm listening to the Webcast of CPAC, and there's a panel on now pissin' and moanin' about how the conservative philosophy isn't properly represented on the US college campus today - that the conservative academic is an outcast; even an oppressed minority.

They use a lot a of rather belligerent rhetoric too.

I'm wondering a couple of things:
1) are you guys demanding a kind of Affirmative Action thing?
2) in the market place of ideas, over time, isn't the low number of conservative academics actually an indication that a majority of people aren't buying what you're peddling?

Just sayin'.

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