Why not call them the Washington Reds

With an eye to what’s important, the controversy that has reached even into the White House and drawn in the President has revolved around the name of the Washington football club, hitherto known as the Washington Redskins. This now offends people who would like to see a name change and we now find this suggestion from Charles Krauthammer, the leading political commentator of the Washington Post:

How about Skins, a contraction already applied to the Washington football team? And that carries a sports connotation, as in skins vs. shirts in pickup basketball.

Well my suggestion is that they call them the Washington Reds, the perfect name for a team representing the governance and regulatory capital of the United States. It is a name that fits perfectly into the ethos of the city, will be a permanent reminder of the centralised control exercised from Washington and will offend no one other than the rest of the country, but who cares about them anyway?

Washington Reds, it’s just perfect.

Far less than many of us hoped for but far better than what some had sought

So where are we now? The President and his Democrat cohort have been put on notice so that negotiations must now take place. Since default was never an option there was going to be an agreement of sorts to get us into the new year when the process can begin again. The sequester cuts, which really burn the Democrats up, have not been reversed and are not going to be reversed under any circumstances. The air space is now clear so that more attention can be focused on the many other screw ups of the Obama administration, most particularly the Affordable Care Act which will burn its way into community consciousness as it burns its way through the incomes of many an American. How to fix it from here is their problem but there will be a lot more sick Americans unable to find medical care at affordable prices as time goes on. Bulk stupidity but if it can’t be stopped it can’t be stopped.

What seems to have been agreed looks in many ways like the maximal position the Republicans might ever have realistically hoped to achieve given that the presidency and the Senate are in the hands of others and the media are like one great big ABC of leftist bias. Big win to the Democrats. I don’t think so, and certainly not if you are thinking about the long-term future of the American economy.

This is from The New York Times relayed via Drudge who of course describe the ongoing economic mismanagement of the American economy as a great victory for those responsible for these disasters:

Speaker John A. Boehner, the leader of conservative House Republicans whose push to strip money for the health law led to the shuttering of much of the government on Oct. 1, said that the House would not block a bipartisan agreement reached in the Senate that yielded virtually no concessions to the Republicans.

‘We fought the good fight,’ Mr. Boehner said in an interview with the radio station WLW-AM in Cincinnati. ‘We just didn’t win.’

In a statement issued as the Senate and the House prepared to vote on the proposal, Mr. Boehner said: ‘The fight will continue. But blocking the bipartisan agreement reached today by members of the Senate will not be a tactic for us.’

The decision came about 24 hours before the Treasury was due to exhaust its borrowing authority, putting the nation on the brink of a default. Mr. Boehner had earlier told colleagues privately that he would not allow the nation to default.

These are the details as reported:

Under the agreement, the government would be funded through Jan. 15, and the debt ceiling would be raised until Feb. 7. The Senate will take up a separate motion to instruct House and Senate negotiators to reach accord by Dec. 13 on a long-term blueprint for tax and spending policies over the next decade.

Senator Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, the Republican leader, stressed that under the deal, which he negotiated with Senator Harry Reid of Nevada, the majority leader, budget cuts extracted in the 2011 fiscal showdown were not reversed, as some Democrats had wanted, a slim reed that not even he claimed as a significant victory.

The deal, Mr. McConnell said, ‘is far less than many of us hoped for, quite frankly, but far better than what some had sought.’

That the American economy will continue its rapid decline is just one of those things.

UPDATE: An interesting take by Tim Stanley in the UK’s Telegraph. But what is particularly interesting is the comment thread that follows. Here, however, is his core point.

What has Obama really won? He keeps his precious healthcare reform and he gets government open again – but tomorrow morning he’ll still have the same gridlocked political system that he had the night before. The shutdown is a rare example of him winning, but remember that this lame duck president has not only had a very simple (and, frankly, inoffensive) gun control bill killed in the Senate but was so spooked by bad poll numbers that he tried to dump responsibility for military action in Syria onto the Congress – before quietly dropping the idea altogether. Any thought that the shutdown payoff will be that he can sail an immigration reform package comfortably through Congress is pure fantasy. This is a broken presidency living out its last few years either holding off Republican attacks or lazily cruising the country on some pointless, endless, fatuous campaign trail. Obama’s administration is politically bankrupt.

Will the US default? What will happen if it does?

I don’t know if these continuing episodes of the Perils of Pauline are just there to sell newspapers or whether there is more to it and the US might really default on its debt but this is where we are right now. From The Washington Post:

A campaign to persuade House Republicans to lift the federal debt limit collapsed in humiliating failure Tuesday, leaving Washington careering toward a critical deadline just two days away, with no clear plan for avoiding a government default.

Senate leaders quickly moved to pick up the pieces, saying they were “optimistic” that they could reach agreement to advance an alternative proposal that would raise the debt limit through Feb. 7 and end a government shutdown, now in its third week.

But it was unclear whether a deal struck by Senate Majority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.) and Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) could pass the Senate before the Treasury Department exhausts its borrowing power Thursday.

So far as principle goes, the imperative of getting the US budget under control seems straightforward enough. But the politics for the President and the Democrats, looking forward to the elections 12 months from now, are much less certain. And with the possibility that the President – being a Bill Ayres protege and all – would actually prefer to harm the US than help it to prosper, what will happen and how it will unfold remains a mystery.

But at some stage either spending is going to start tapering off or the debt limit will not be increased is a certainty. Whether this is the moment is the question, and with the President adament about maintaining the level of spending – and therefore allowing debt to keep on rising – who knows? This may be the moment we find out what happens if the US is even technically able to default on its debt and then what happens if it does. Stay tuned.

It’s not your country any more

voting by sex and race 2012 us election

All the World War II vets out on the mall at the memorial or trying to keep Mt Rushmore open or visit a national park. Listen, it’s not your country any more so just shut up, keep working and pay your taxes.

Hold the line

Well it’s not a lot but it is something. Obama has knocked back the Republican proposals for ending the supposed government shut down which at least shows there actually had been some proposals. This is from Politico:

There is no agreement, Boehner said in a room in the Capitol Saturday, and there are no negotiations between House Republicans and the White House, since Obama rejected the speaker’s effort to lift the debt ceiling for six weeks and reopen government while setting up a budget negotiating process.

The Obama position is that there is nothing to negotiate. There is nothing to negotiate about debt, deficits, spending, the abusive use of the IRS, the domestic spying program, the stonewalling on Benghazi, the Obama-initiated wars and drone attacks, and on it goes. There is nothing that needs to be said to the Republicans because there is no need for compromise of any kind on any issue.

So now a crisis has been reached and it is not just who’s going to blink as if it’s nothing but a test of wills but how will the US be governed and its economy managed. Obama at best is a gross incompetent, and that’s the best alternative. I can only hope the Republicans hold the line and do not relent.

The prospect of a one-party state in the US

I am like David Horowitz in having had communist parents and having grown up in a household in which plotting against the state with other subversives was second nature. In many ways it provides for us who have turned against the left a form of understanding that gives clarity for what to others are arguable perspectives. In this article Horowitz is trying to say something that should frighten you about the totalitarian world that is forming right before our eyes at a speed that is totally beyond any expectation.

His article is titled “The Threat We Face” and this is the central point about the direction in which the US is right now, right this minute, heading and taking us with it.

Today the Obama juggernaut is systematically bankrupting our country, and undoing our constitutional arrangements. Its contempt for consultative and representative government is relentlessly on display. This week Senate Majority leader Harry Reid defended his refusal to negotiate with Republicans over Obamacare and the debt in these words: ‘We are here to support the federal government. That’s our job.’ End quote. Forget about representing the people whom our Founders made sovereign. Forget what America is about.

The fact that I had a radical past allowed me to see much of this coming. But even I never thought we would be looking so soon at the prospect of a one-party state. Those words may sound hyperbolic, but take a moment to think about it. If you have transformed the taxing agency of the state into a political weapon – and Obama has; if you are setting up a massive government program to gather the financial and health information of every citizen, and control their access to care; and if you have a spy agency that can read the mail and listen to the communications of every individual in the country, you don’t really need a secret police to destroy your political opponents. Once you have silenced them, you can proceed with your plans to remake the world in your image.

I have written much the same recently myself over here. This was my final para in that post:

The full resources of the American government are being used in a punitive way against individuals and groups, against American citizens who disagree with the President. In reading not just the American media but even the right side blogs, the most astonishing part is the absence of expressions of genuine outrage. Maybe with the American media as latently totalitarian as it is there is nothing that can be done, and maybe no one writing a blog wants to be done over by the tax office, but if it doesn’t make you seriously angry, and not just a little frightened, I don’t know what would.

What can be done about anything I cannot at this stage imagine. The media in the United States are corrupted by their own grossly superficial and far left-oriented understanding of every issue of importance, from foreign policy through economics and down to the Constitutional protections of individual rights. That the use of the IRS to persecute individuals is not seen as an absolute abuse of power intolerable in anyone’s hands and is not portrayed loudly and regularly in this way by the media is the final proof that the notion of the fourth estate as a guarantor and protector of our freedoms is hollow. They are a major part of the problem for which solutions evade me.

Recognition of Obama for who he is and what he wants is the first place to start but how will the alarm be sent? How will anyone beyond a handful find out? Who will actually be the Paul Revere who will bring the message that the red press is perverting your freedoms? Where are the constituencies that can turn that concern into a policy of action? It’s not even all that obvious to most on this side of politics. To the other side, they are more than content because they are winning on the politics because they have virtually every means of communication in their hands. The national socialists are in charge in the US and if you don’t like it and try to say or do anything about it, they will soon see how much you like being done over by the IRS and that’s just for a start.

The new head of the Fed

janet yellen in star wars

They’ve made Janet Yellen the new Chairperson of the Federal Reserve in the US and the quantitative easing crowd are in ecstasy. It will be a flood money until recovery sets in which means it will be a flood of money for near on ever. As it happens, I met Janet (why not first names, as we were then) when she worked for the OECD and I was representing Australian employers at an OECD meeting in Paris, this one if my memory serves me right, on some aspect of the business cycle – I think it was on consumer and business confidence surveys. I remember the meeting well for a lot of reasons but one that stands out was that the OECD wanted us to agree with them that the economics profession had conquered the business cycle and that recessions were a thing of the past. So I led the rebellion against such idiocy (true) in the person of Janet Yellen who was the OECD person responsible for trying to get us all to agree. It was her bad luck that she had to deal with me because the probability that I then or now would have agreed to such a thing would be in the vicinity of zero-point-zero. She was just another specimen of that same macro menace that continues to lead us from one disaster to another. At the OECD her potential for damage was generally limited. Now, however, there is no end to the harm she might yet do.

This is from one of her big supporters although I suspect her detractors would say exactly the same thing:

The Fed will be looser for longer. The FOMC will continue to print money until the US economy creates enough jobs to reignite wage pressures and inflation, regardless of asset bubbles, or collateral damage along the way.

On past performance there is little doubt she will do exactly that because that was the mentality I met up with all those years ago. But if you would like to see the other side of this same question, you could do worse thanto read this article from The American Thinker. Many fascinating paras to choose from but let me just jump to the section outlining a sketch of the kind of world Janet Yellen and her approach may be laying out for the US as everything finally falls apart, “the perfect storm” as he calls it. Not at all my own forecast; I provide it merely as a contrast to the belief that all will be well as long as we keep flooding the market with money and distorting factor markets for as long as it takes until Janet Yellen finally realises that things are not working out.

As the perfect storm approaches, the regime will address it the only way it knows how — as a revenue, rather than a spending, problem.

And, as the regime becomes more desperate, unwilling to make cuts to anything other than the military, it will look for opportunities to increase revenue, all the while being indifferent to, or ignorant of the negative economic impact of taking more money out of the private sector and transferring it to the government. Like throwing gas on a fire to put it out, it has the opposite effect.

Here are prototypical examples, not literal predictions, of an increasingly desperate regime:

One-time tax on all IRA account balances as though they are current income, without deleting future taxes on gains from the remaining balance, but removing tax credits for subsequent losses;

Reduce the face value on all short-term (2-3 years) Treasuries if redeemed at maturation, plus subtract interest gained from the pay-out, unless, that is, the holder renews their T-bill at the same rate of interest as at the last renewal, or purchase, whichever is lowest;

Forgive student loans to placate young voters disaffected by the unexpected – to them -high cost of their health insurance under the ACA;
Offer federally-subsidized, reduced-interest loans for first-time “poor” home buyers;

Remove tax-exemption on debt incurred by major municipalities (over 500,000 residents);

Remove interest deductions on all mortgages over $300,000;
Require 401Ks, IRAs and Pension Funds to have a certain portfolio percentage in Treasuries;

Accelerate the schedule of required minimum withdrawals from IRAs to kill the stretch IRA concept and boost tax revenues;

Install a national federal sales tax at 1% on all goods and services (soon rising to 2%, and then up);

Remove the tax-exempt status of all non-profit organizations, including churches and charities;

Collect a yearly tax on the endowments of religious and educational institutions (For example, Harvard University received $650 million from the federal government during their last fiscal year. At the end of 2012, Harvard’s endowment was $30,745,534,000 – #1 among universities. It’s time to tax Harvard. It’s only fair.);

Eliminate deductions for state income tax payments;

Install a yearly tax on vehicles based on miles driven (a 2011 CBO suggestion);

Install a minimum tax rate of 50% on all former members of Congress for five years after leaving federal service and joining think, lobbying firms, and PACs.

Gruesome, of course, but by no means impossible. We live in dangerous times.

UPDATE: A trimmer version of the above article may now be found at Quadrant Online under the perfect title, “On Planet Janet the Spending Never Ends“. Comes with the above picture as well.

Plausible denial getting less plausible

Plausible denial is the name of the game in criminal activity. But so far as the President and the IRS are concerned, the denials are getting less plausible as the days go by. This is where we are as of today:

Top Internal Revenue Service Obamacare official Sarah Hall Ingram discussed confidential taxpayer information with senior Obama White House officials, according to 2012 emails obtained by the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee and provided to The Daily Caller.

Lois Lerner, then head of the IRS Tax Exempt Organizations division, also received an email alongside White House officials that contained confidential information.

We’re dumb and we vote

This is a story from the Associated Press picked up at Drudge and this is their title, not mine: “US adults are dumber than the average human“. And the point is made in the second para:

In math, reading and problem-solving using technology – all skills considered critical for global competitiveness and economic strength – American adults scored below the international average on a global test, according to results released Tuesday.

The test included questions like how many states are there in the US and what language do they speak in Austria, that kind of thing. You can see an outline of the test here which is not all that easy.

The story is also told in USA Today with the article titled, “U.S. adults lag behind counterparts overseas in skill“.

AP thinks the problem is average intelligence while USA Today sees the problem in the education system. Since we know as an established fact that all human groups are identical in their potential, there is no other reason for this result other than the underfunded and poorly resourced education system in the US.