I like the way Herman Cain type of people think. Most people actually start with a conclusion before they examine the facts and logic, then fit the data to their belief. It’s human. I’m not sure why. But business professionals like him have to learn to do it the other way. Instead of taking a side and dispensing the talking points, he actually admits he can’t say right now what he would do as President specifically for certain things, like Afghanistan, but as President he would systematically examine the data, discuss options with the experts, develop a strategy, and make the decision from there – or something similar to that.

We’ve had enough political religion forced upon us. We need a leader who will sit down with the instructions, gather up the nuts and bolts we’ve been playing with, and finally put shit together, and not upside-down.

All the news I’ve gotten today has been NPR, and they’ve been busy analyzing the shameless trickery of political phrases, you know, ever since the “class warfare” has been bantered about. My theory is confirmed. The more trouble Obama is in, the harder public radio shills for him.

Maybe if Cain is elected, there’ll be an asterisk by Obama’s name. “Obama was the first  sort of black president. Cain was the first  black  president.

I hope Cain at least makes VP. That would be cool.

I have a pessimistic feeling about the upcoming election. I worry the Republicans will put up a Kerry. One thing is for sure, there will be nothing rational or honest about either side’s campaign. It’s going to be a mud-slinging brawl. Few people in Washington have character, and the ones that do are crazy. Example: Rand Paul, honest, has solid character, tried to amend the Patriot Act by following Congressional rules, without slinging dirt. Harry Reid, zero character, miss-characterizes Rand’s efforts as - trying to arm terrorists – regardless of the fact that if it were a Republican administration renewing the Patriot act, he’d be making the same types of ingenuous arguments against it. 

Wow!!! Michigan went for some RED! Snyder took 59%! How did that happen? And we elected two Republican Congressmen.

I really like these results. The Republicans have the house, so that puts a stop to the angry onslaught of crazy Liberal haphazard legislation. I feel safe now. But they don’t have the Senate, so that gives Obama one less thing upon which to blame his problems and failures.

Strategically, long term, this was the best result. A HUGE sweep wasn’t possible because only a few conservative Democratic districts were up for election. Had the Republicans taken both houses, it wouldn’t have been to their advantage because of the Presidential veto. They wouldn’t have been able to pass anything, or repeal anything. Now a sanity filter is on the legislative branch, which will due until 2012, when more gains might be made, specifically the Presidency, and likewise 2014, gathering back many of the star-struck “Yes We Can!” conservative districts. And the House can pass some good-sounding stuff and let the Democrats be the opposition. All-in-all, this sets up the Republicans best for 2012.

My biggest disappointments were that Frank, Boxer, and Reid all got away. It was unlikely, but I was hoping for a joyous surprise. And California – well – good luck California, Brown will certainly lead you to victory in your war on business.

You guys watch. US business is breathing a collective sigh of relief, and over the next few months we’ll see more investment. Someone essentially called Mr. Business on the phone and informed him that he can adjust his outlook more optimistically, Obama can’t whip out any big new ideas – like taxing good ideas or math – which means figures will show more money for expansion.

I’m excited to hear from Obama later today. Hopefully he doesn’t hit us over the head with an irrational perspective and an arrogant condescending attitude, which is his habit under pressure. It would be cool if he would concede that the fanciful idea that we can borrow and spend our way out of this type of recession is no longer a feasible idea – this type of recession being one of permanent change; e.g. manufacturing leaving, over-inflated housing market popping, developing countries taking over technology, and mainly the US has no new economic driver, unless you count Green Energy, but you guys don’t, because you guys aren’t stupid.

***Update***
Did everyone catch Obama’s press conference today. He’s sounding like campaign Obama. I swear, that man has two personalities. Just last week he was selling some nonsense on The Daily Show – that ending the filibuster would encourage compromise. Then today he’s talking about listening. Maybe now that Dad’s home Obama will actually behave in the way he was advocating during him masterful campaign and in his book? I’m tempted to have optimism. Maybe someone will write some rational legislation?

It would be cool if he were to concede that a different path must now be taken, and super cool if he would grasp the economic reality that the only possible way out of this recession is economic growth, which means we need to offer real relief to business in the only way government can: Cutting taxes. There’s no other way.

Spending cuts would be great, but there simply aren’t enough reasonable cuts to make a numeric difference in the budget, except for raising the retirement age, which needs to happen, incrementally. And raising taxes, or not continuing the Bush tax cuts, is a miserable idea for two really big reasons. 1. We’re in a recession and increasing those taxes will slow the economy! 2. Taxes are already so high, increasing them, or letting the Bush tax cuts expire, will not increase tax revenue by any helpful amount, and could very well decrease tax revenue by shrinking the economy, or driving business out of the country.

Maybe now Obama will have to act like the guy he campaigned as. You know, like how he said we have more upon which we agree than disagree. And how he said that when he disagrees with you, that’s when he’ll listen most closely to you. LOL People bought that. LOL.

Bush II’s book is almost out. I wonder how soon a paper copy will show up at Meijer? I’ve heard a few things about it. Bush apparently became sick to his stomach when it became apparent no WMDs were to be found.

This upset victory in the South Carolina senate primary is either a really funny democratic screwed up oversight, a physical electoral error, or an extensively sad commentary on voting and voters in our country.

Seriously, think about it, the dems would have never seen this guy coming, ever. No one knows him, he has no history, at least that anyone had time to dig up. There was either no reason to worry about him because of his obscurity or simply not knowing he existed. Either way, this was a HUGE oversight by the dems. They let this no name who’s also an apparent or alleged pervert walk in and take a huge and significant election with absolutely no contest. This is exactly like when people open credit cards in their dog’s, or even worse, their gerbils name. The dems ostensively let the “gerbil”, or in this case, horny rabbit, take the race without checking him out or even bothering to wonder why a fury rodent was on the ballot. No one should ever question or entertain the idea that the government knows best, lol. What a joke.

The other possibility, which I must say I rather hope to be shown to be true at some point in the near future, is that this was an issue with the physical elements of the electoral process. You know, like hanging chads, electoral computer programs problems, and the like. Why would this be preferable? Well, if the dems are dumb and dull enough to get their asses handed to them by horny-show-me-some-porn-rabbit Green, then I am even more afraid for our country than before. With the dems still in control, the only hope is they are not actually this stupid and incompetent. So I think I would welcome this scenario, which is not atypical or uncommon, and would explain a lot, taking the mystery out of it all and shinning light on the situation.

The only thing worse than either of the aforementioned possible explanations of this Green fellow winning this primary is that he won because an overwhelming number of voters, 59%, just picked the first name on the list or used some other arbitrary process to come to their voting decision. If this is what happened, holy shit, we’re screwed. The last great hope we have for change, making things right, and maintaining our freedom is the people. Even when politicians and the government start to go wayward, their is always the check and balance of the voting public. When this last and final safeguard fails, the whole ship sinks. If this wanker Green won because people just voted for the first name on the list, then they will get what they paid for. When you buy cheap crap made in China or Taiwan and it falls apart after a couple days of use, you have only yourself to blame.

I guess the best possible explanation for all this is that Green is secretly a genius, masterminding his advance to the presidency in 2012.

The American people have fallen down on the job.  We complain about what we have and do not have and blame the politicians for everything and then…we re-elect them.  96% re-election rate.  Why?  Because we don’t do our homework.  We are “too busy” watching American Idol and doing other forms of entertainment, sitting on our butts instead of holding our leaders accountable for their decisions.  Most people can’t name their Representative or their 2 Senators, let alone how their congressmen voted on the last bill.

The reasons for this are probably innumerable, but I will point out two of them.  Technological advances throughout history are often a result of the desire to make things easier.  We want things to be easier because we tend toward laziness.  I would rather sleep in than go to work.  I would rather come home and play video games than go for a run and study some important topic.  But great men and women have shaken off the bonds of sloth and aspired to something greater than comfort and rest.  They are the ones who won WWI and WWII, founded the United States, and landed on a man on the moon (12 of them actually).  They are also the ones who had the character to do what was right instead of what would get them ahead.  In my opinion, a leader without character is no leader at all.  In case you haven’t noticed, we have very few leaders in this country.

The second problem is one of mathematical definition.  Intelligence Quotient, or IQ, is a measure of ones intelligence based on standardized tests.  The mean score is 100 with >160 being considered genius, and below 70 being cognitively impaired.  The scores of a population create a normal distribution, or bell curve, which shows that the majority of people fall within a certain range.  By definition, the mean is 100.  Psychologists and social workers will claim that the “average” is a range and the majority of people fall into that range. Regardless, the statistical mean is 100, and half the population falls below it, by definition.  Point being, half the population is below average intelligence.  You think your life is tough, imagine what it is like for stupid people!  Ok, that was insensitive, but the truth hurts.

The intelligence thing leads me to believe that many people are less able to fully understand the issues at hand and make a reasonable conclusion.  Studies have shown that people with a higher IQ tend to absorb more of the material being presented, although the relationship is only about 25%.  Still, it gives the geniuses and advantage right from the start.  Now if you do have a higher IQ and you distract yourself with garbage from the television every day, don’t exercise, don’t eat right, don’t sleep enough, etc. you have little capacity to learn what the hell is going on in the world.  All you have is your 25% to get you by.

My plea to smart people: The stupid people need you.  Get off your asses and learn something about the people who control how you live, how much in taxes you pay, and what type of future your children will have.

My plea to stupid people:  You are not stupid.  You have no excuse for not knowing things.  You may have to work harder than others to get by and understand things, but you are more than capable of it.  So do it.

I wish we would get rid of these career jackasses.

I was watching celebrity apprentice. Rod Blagojevich is on there – or was. He’s adorable, but so totally useless unless you need to talk a paper bag into being a plastic one. He can barely use a cell phone and can’t operate a computer. Another guy opened up Word for him, and Rod took a half hour to type a paragraph.

Don’t try to apply logic to the health care bill. It degraded down from a Leftist dream-bill to an Obama political make-or-break stack of paper labeled “Healthcare Reform”. That’s it. It was called “Healthcare Reform”. Everyone knows the bill is poorly constructed, complicated, contradictory, unspecific, full of random specific chunks of Santa Clause, uses phony math and budgetary widgets, and is bristling with dangerous taxes. That’s why they had to cheat it through on reconciliation.

They’re talking about immigration reform now. I hope like hell that bunch fools can come to some reasonableagreement. Let’s hope the first thing Pelosi or Reid lets out on the floor isn’t written by a wack-job amnesty enthusiast. And let’s hope if they do bring up a rational bill there will be more than Graham on the Republican’s side ready to support it – despite their butt-hurtedness form the health reform ass raping.

The poor are already paying that sales tax. It’s just hidden from them right now in the form of all kinds of corporate and income taxes passed on from producers of goods and services. The only difference under the fair tax is that you would KNOW how much you’re paying. And the majority would be less inclined to allow elected officials to make expensive promises and billing a minority.

It would be correct to assume the tax burden would be spread out equally based on use of services, so the more services you use the more taxes you pay. But for people below the poverty line, the truly needy, there would be a tax credit equal to their tax burden. So essentially the poor would continue to not pay taxes, but if they do find a path to prosperity, they won’t be penalized for it with taxes on their efforts.

If Billy-Bob earns under the poverty line and plans on staying right were he’s at the rest of his life, he shouldn’t care what the rich guy pays. Or, he might care because he’s interested in more Santa Clause. If he’s interested in prosperity he’s likely a prospect for supporting the Fairtax. If not, no use trying to convince him of anything. He’s the anchor voting block of the Democratic party.

I’m not interested in convincing welfare-check watchers to lose faith in Santa Clause. There are plenty of people interested in bettering themselves we can appeal to. Even the lowliest non-welfare hillbilly has his designs on that empty garage down the street he could start doing brakes out of – or that hippy-hole house across the street he could fix up and rent – or some goofy Shamwow idea. As of today, his first several years in those ventures would have any profits consumed by taxes based on his pursuit of prosperity.

Politics – I think – is just like sales. You have to go after qualified buyers. (On a side note, I think that might be a reason for my recent visceral contempt for Obama. He so reminds me of some of the arrogant and belligerent top-sales-guy speakers I’ve had to listen to as sales conferences. They’re so totally sold it’s a crazy religion/magic show.)

This is a good one. Pelosi is trying to sell the health reform bill as something helpful to the economy. lol She’s like that sales person who will swear to the patron dying on the sales floor that this juicer will fix the problem. lol Or the idiot on the radio talking about how calcium supplements will prevent cancer – but you have to take his special coral calcium, you can’t just take Tums. Oh what? You’re not worried about Cancer? Everyone in your family dies of heart disease? Well – it just so happens that my coral calcium will prevent heart disease – yes – it’s a heart-health supplement actually.

We all know, and it has been said over and over again, that our economy needs something new, a jolt.  And I believe that this legislation will unleash tremendous entrepreneurial power into our economy. — Pelosi

This reminds me of a skit by that Canadian comedy group – The Kids in the Hall:

The car won’t start, so the ‘husband’ gets out and kicks the tire. He looks to the ‘wife’, now in the driver’s seat. “Try it now.” Nothing. He opens the hood, “Try it now.” Nothing. He closes the hood. “Try it now.” Nothing.

He ends up changing the tire, and I forget what else, everything but fix the damn engine, but it’s about the same as Pelosi’s logic when it comes to economics. Nothing about passing a bill that forces companies to provide health insurance if they have more than 50 employees will stimulate entrepreneurship.

*sigh*

It’s just ridiculous. This is something around a 10% increase (probably more) in employee costs. That might not seem like much to a foolish congresswoman who’s never had to earn a living, but when you realize that a successful business is usually functioning on a profit margin of single percentage points, and that most entrepreneurial ventures fail, and that the ones that do succeed do so only after several years of losing money – you’ll understand how difficult these fancy new taxes will make it to do the things our economy needs us to do: innovate, risk, and invest.

The only entrepreneurial powers this will unleash are new solutions to keep your staff under 50 members.

Reconciliation

One of the jobs of the Senate is to keep Bad bills from getting through. Think about it. Think about all of the highly contentious, arbitrary, partisan issues we have and have had that basically split the country down the middle. And think about the other possibilities of a simple majority rule.

The Senate serves as the bad-bill-block by allowing endless debate on the issues. So really serious stuff might take years to hammer out, and unfair stuff won’t get through at all, because you can’t take a vote until everyone is done debating or there are 60 votes to proceed. Blocking a vote by purposely making an endless case is called the filibuster.

In the old days, the filibuster actually involved a guy speaking for hours and hours until enough supporters for the bill dwindled out the door – killing any successful vote for it. But later, a general agreement was made that a filibuster would just be called and you wouldn’t have to perform the bladder/bowel exhibition.

Certain bills can’t be mulled over for years though, like the yearly budget. And often painful cuts and other adjustments need to be made to keep the national debt under control. I mean, seriously – think what a simply majority would do to the deficit! So in 1974 they came up with reconciliation.

“A reconciliation instruction (Budget Reconciliation) is a provision in a budget resolution directing one or more committees to submit legislation changing existing law in order to bring spending, revenues, or the debt-limit into conformity with the budget resolution. The instructions specify the committees to which they apply, indicate the appropriate dollar changes to be achieved, and usually provide a deadline by which the legislation is to be reported or submitted.”

-         U.S. Senate: Reference Home > Glossary > Reconciliation instruction

And what reconciliation basically does is limit debate to 20 hours, eliminating the filibuster option for the minority. That way, despite screams from the minority, President Romney can eliminate gay marriage and welfare while President Palin makes abortion illegal and  institutes Manifest Destiny and subsequently military service to fulfill it.

So you might wonder how – how in the world can Pelosi pass healthcare reform with reconciliation –an obvious budget specific special exception? Well – simple: Congress includes reconciliation instructions in the budget directing certain committees – like the health, financial, or labor committees – to produce healthcare reform legislation that will hit certain spending targets by a certain deadline. This legislation is then stapled to the omnibus bill and sent to the floor for 20 hours of debate followed by a simple up or down vote.

This is crazy right? This is a huge nightmare waiting to happen. We aren’t the first to realize such a reasonable method to keep the cookie jar safe could be perverted into rationalizing that anything can be called a cookie.

That’s why in 1985 the Byrd rule was added, which imposed a set of rules for the reconciliation process, limiting what it can reconcile to legislation that principally affects federal revenues. A tax cut: yes. Some welfare reform: sure. A new Federal holiday: nope. But this leaves a bit of ambiguity – I guess; especially after Nancy Pelosi blows your record amount of political capital in your first six months in office and leaves you wrapped to a particularly nasty bill like Ahab to his wale.

The Byrd rule states that legislation is unfit for reconciliation if it “produce[s] changes in outlays or revenue which are merely incidental to the non-budgetary components of the provision.”  The trouble here though is that “merely incidental” and “provision” aren’t defined. So weather or not something’s affect on Federal revenues is “merely incidental” – like regulating insurers, creating a public plan, or funding abortions – is up to the Senate parliamentarian – an arbitrary referee.

Sen. Robert Byrd is now 92. He says the process was intended for deficit reduction and using it for health reform or cap and trade is an outrage that must be resisted.

But others make the nearsighted argument that health reform and cap n’ trade are deficit reducers. Or they make the argument that, if budget matters are too important to be constrained by normal Senate rules shouldn’t saving live and saving the planet also be exceptions?

Yeah – sure. Good thinking stupid.

The uniqueness of the summit was that it was on TV. Presidents have always gathered up congressmen and tried talking them into this or that.

It’s fairly obvious that the summit was a symbol. Obama knows that his only chance of passing this now infamous bill after Brown won is to abuse Reconciliation. The summit was a symbolic show of bipartisanship to try and make the Reconciliation effort look less dastardly.

I’m not sure Obama believe the bill will or won’t work. I think he just knows it’s his chance to stake a claim for government control of healthcare. He knows once they have a foot hold the ever expansive nature of bureaucracy will grow – and fix – its way into controlling that huge chunk of society.

This is terrifying to anyone who sees government for what it is: an inefficient monster whose energy is only suited for certain and unique jobs. But guys like Obama think government is pretty much the answer to every problem – and by that I mean government issued payments. I mean – that’s the base of his whole ideology: Gather wealth with taxes and spread it around in a way that is fair.

Again – all he’s looking for is the biggest foot hold he can get.