Friday the 13th - Nothing Bad Whatsoever Happens Again

Friday the 13th carries a certain amount of weight in our culture as a superstition, but I have never experienced anything  bad on the 13th and yesterday was no exception. Why is this? Perhaps because I place no weight on superstition. I think some people effectively give themselves self-fulfilling prophecies about Friday the 13th with their fears and superstitions. To me, the 13th is just another day, no different from any other. Numbers carry the meaning we assign them.

Supreme Court Wars: The Democrats Started It! Really, they did.

Today's environment on the Supreme Court is a very partisan one, with people voting for and against nominees based on their decisions rather than qualifications or ethics. Qualifications and ethics used to be the only objections that would win a majority vote in rejecting a nominee. For instance, in 1968, Lyndon Johnson nominated Abe Fortas to be Chief Justice, but was denied because of ethics issues and the potentially disturbing implications for the separation of powers given his close connections to the Johnson White House. Nixon had two consecutive rejections, Clement Haynsworth and G. Harrold Carswell. Nixon had promised a Southern Justice and selected Haynsworth, a Southern Democrat. However, there were concerns over civil rights and allegations that he was anti-labor, but this wasn't enough for the Senate to reject his nomination. A Senate inquiry revealed ethics concerns (which didn't turn out to amount to anything) and he was rejected on a 45-55 vote. Nixon tried again with Florida's Republican G. Harrold Carswell. Although details emerged of Carswell advocating segregation in 1948 and reportedly being very rude to blacks as a judge, he had a 58% reversal rate as a judge and was regarded by a number of Senators as "mediocre". Carswell was rejected as well. His subsequent picks were easily confirmed.

However, everything changed in 1987. Ronald Reagan nominated Robert Bork, an ultra-conservative federal judge. Democrats threw everything they had at Bork even though he was rated "qualified" by the ABA with 10 out of the 15 members of the panel viewing him as "well qualified".  Senator Ted Kennedy claimed that Judge Bork would have us return to the time when women would have to get back alley abortions and when segregated lunch counters existed. Ultimately, Bork was rejected. Democrats tried again with ideological attacks on Clarence Thomas combined with a claim of sexual harassment, but this time Republicans were able to get a narrow majority to confirm him. Republicans did not initially respond in kind; both Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer were easily confirmed with less than ten Senators opposing in both cases even though they were known to be liberal.

The ideological sniping continued with Democrats, fighting against the nominations of both John Roberts and Samuel Alito, with the opposition more intense with Alito. Ultimately many Democrats yielded with Roberts and he was voted in 78-22. With Alito, the vote was 58-42. The opposition to Obama's nominees, Sotomayor and Kagan, faced Republican opposition. Sotomayor however made it with a 68-31 vote and Kagan made it with a 63-37 vote.

If Democrats bemoan the "litmus tests" that exist for the Supreme Court, all they need to do to find blame is look in a mirror. 

The Obamacare Fiasco

I have returned from my long absence and a lot has happened. I am in the process of writing a book about the people who opposed the New Deal from the right and I have made good headway so far. Anyway, I have been of the belief that if Obamacare is to be anywhere near as bad as Republicans claimed, Republicans need not worry about their electoral future. So far it looks like I'm right. Republicans now have an advantage in polling (although the American people still largely are viewing them under a "lesser of two evils" lens) and will be making probably some good gains in the 2014 midterms. Anyway, on to Obamacare!

Let's face it...Obamacare is a disaster. The botched website was only the tip of the iceberg and a bad omen for the law's implementation. The leftist pundits such as Krugman, Chait, and others have tried their best to spin it, but with premiums rising and plans being cancelled...this spells bad news for the President and the American people. After all, it is his signature law and in this sense it can be compared to Iraq. Yes, Iraq was a war and not a healthcare law, but the fate of Bush's legacy hinged on Iraq and Obama's legacy here hinges on Obamacare.

Many people now face higher premiums and an unfortunate number face cancellations of their plans because they were insufficient for Obamacare's minimum required plans. This is what happens when you game the market...unintended consequences.  Also, how could they not see that premiums would rise from this law? When insurance companies are forced to accept anyone who comes to their door and prohibit rate discrimination based on pre-existing conditions the costs for the insurance company rise and they need to make up the difference by charging higher premiums. I similarly don't see how this fiasco with cancellations couldn't be seen. People should be allowed to buy crappy plans that only cover emergency visits at low prices...not be forced to buy what the government thinks is a sufficient minimum plan. Any pundit who says otherwise is of the belief that government knows what's good for these people and that they do not.

I hope the next President is a Republican who repeals this law and replaces it with a better one that is more free market-oriented and focused on reducing premiums.

The Left's Blame Game is Shameful and Revealing

It's taken me some time to get down to write a full post about this. I've really thought enough about this whole thing already and hope that if I post this it will be the point in which I gradually think less about it until it becomes little more than an unpleasant memory that I think "Oh yeah," about. But for this one I throw no "you're to blame too" nonsense, because the initial blame charge is nonsense and makes my blood boil. Here are a few examples of postings that came out shortly after. There are much more of these and a few of them are ridiculous ranting and ravings about capitalism and gasp...CORPORATIONS.

"But this country does have a problem with right wing hate speech and extremism. And PACs should not use gunsights to target their opponents even in printed graphics."

"Conservatives always get violent. Jack Kennedy, Bobby Kennedy, MLK Jr.

Conservatives are always trying to kill democrats."

"I guess that's what the Republicans mean when they say their going to take back the country. One murdered female democrat at a time. Thanks Sarah Palin and the Tea Partiers for the inspiration."

"Looks like a mental patient influenced by the tea party rhetoric. Deeply distrubed obviously."

"All of those Tea Party officials can go to hell for encoraging freaks like this by whipping them up against people they dislike. I'm not saying that anyone encouraged people to shoot at their congress people, but the fact remains that their comments and (sometimes) lies have perpetuated the situation."

Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/gabrielle-giffords-shot-2011-1

This garbage got posted before anyone even knew the killer's motives. They just made the knee-jerk assumption. I am just taking this one website as an example and I know there were many more similar reactions. There were a few rightists posting blame on the left (and a few of these I suspect were retaliatory), but not as many as the left postings blaming the right.

Thanks in part to Sheriff Dupnik engaging in grandstanding for the media, the lefties in the media reacted less crudely in language yet sought to point blame to the right for inspiring a violent environment that would lead a nutcase like Loughner to target members of Congress. The media here included economist and columnist Paul Krugman who immediately unleashed an article that placed blame on the right wing for creating an environment that inspired the shooting, and the leftists at Huffington Post reproduced a picture of cross-hairs on top of districts for targeted incumbents that Palin's PAC had released for the 2010 election season as evidence of why Palin and the Tea Party somehow bear moral responsibility. This is simply not evidence, especially given what we now know about Loughner. The leftists in the media's response provoked a response from Sarah Palin which used a very appropriate term for the reaction: blood libel. This is an effort to smear the right with the blood of the victims of this horrible tragedy, but the blood remains exclusively on Loughner, the only blame-worthy subject in this sick event. The truth that is coming out about Jared Loughner is that he holds a view of the world that only Jared Loughner holds, one of conspiracies and some mysterious vendetta against Congresswoman Giffords (possibly because she's Jewish?). A friend of his stated that Loughner wasn't political and didn't care about left or right. Although he was a registered voter, he never bothered to vote. But this really doesn't matter to the vitriolic radical leftists.

This whole reaction on the left to blame right wing rhetoric for contributing to this horrific act before even knowing the facts tells me a few things. Firstly, the radical left believes the right is not just stupid and misinformed, but evil too. Why direct such vitriol if you don't think that? This is not rhetoric employed against someone you think has good motives, this is rhetoric you employ against someone you believe has evil motives. I also believe that quite a number of them on the left take Rahm Emanuel's "never let a good crisis go to waste" to heart on this matter. Secondly, the left that plays the blame game here is uninterested in the facts. It is the accusation that matters more than anything, as after all, one accusation is usually remembered more than its rebuttal. Thirdly, this tells me that that the right is always on trial for their humanity by the left, and this is just another accusation for the prosecution to add to their case. This "evil" assumption of the right makes civil political discourse impossible.

In conclusion, shame on the radical left for this blame game they are playing. Shame on them.

Carter Glass: The Democratic Conscience of the New Deal Era

Born on January 4, 1858, Carter Glass was one of Virginia's most important and influential politicians in its history. Growing up during the Civil War and Reconstruction, Glass was resolutely unreconstructed and remained so for life. In his youth, he was a newspaperman and had gotten involved in state politics, being elected to the Virginia Senate in 1898. In one of his least conscionable actions as a politician, he was one of the foremost advocates of the disenfranchisement of as many blacks as possible at the Virginia constitutional convention. As he stated himself: "Discrimination! Why that is exactly what we propose. To remove every negro voter who can be gotten ridden of, legally, without impairing the numerical strength of the white electorate." His view ultimately prevailed and most blacks were disenfranchised in the 1901-02 Virginia constitutional convention through poll taxes and discriminatory literacy tests. In 1902, he was elected to Congress and in 1913 became the Chairman of the House Banking and Currency Committee. He sponsored the Federal Reserve Act that was ultimately signed into law by Woodrow Wilson and created the Federal Reserve. In 1918, Wilson appointed Glass as William McAdoo's replacement for Secretary of the Treasury, and he served until 1920, when he was appointed to the Senate after Sen. Thomas Martin died.

In 1932, Glass supported FDR in his bid for the presidency and actually got out of his sickbed to defend him against Herbert Hoover's attacks. Thankful for the elder statesman's support, FDR offered Glass the position of Secretary of the Treasury. By this time, Glass was 74 years old and in generally poor health, so he declined. In 1933, Glass sponsored the Glass-Steagall Banking Act, but much of the content including the separation of investment and depository banks was the brainchild of Rep. Henry Steagall (D-Ala.), and Glass was said to have regretted the extent to which the act went. The Glass-Steagall Law was ultimately repealed in 1999. Glass was a strong proponent of the Economy Act, which sought to cut $500 million out of the budget by cutting the salaries of public employees and reducing veterans benefits by 50%. This measure ultimately cut $243 million and was overshadowed by massive New Deal spending. However, Glass found little he liked about the New Deal. He opposed the repeal of Prohibition, the Agricultural Adjustment Act, the National Industrial Recovery Act, and Social Security. He even voted against regional interests by opposing the Reciprocal Trade Act in 1934. His greatest act of conscience perhaps came out of his opposing the bill making enforcing gold clauses in contracts unenforceable, referring to the measure as an act of "dishonor". He would also be the only Democrat in the Senate to oppose confiscating gold (and giving back paper currency unredeemable in gold) from its private owners and raising the price afterwards to induce inflation, making those who held the gold before poorer. In 1938, he opposed the Fair Labor Standards Act, which established a minimum wage. Glass supported only a few New Deal measures, such as the Tennessee Valley Authority Act and the Securities and Exchange Act. He also frequently voted to uphold FDR's vetoes, including on veterans benefits. Glass also opposed anti-lynching legislation on states' rights grounds as did nearly all Southern Democrats of the time.

Although a strong opponent of FDR's tax and spend policies, he supported the President's foreign policy. In 1942, Glass's health took a plunge and he was unable to attend a Senate session for the rest of his career and seldom bothered to announce his stances on legislation after 1944. During this time of non-voting, he backed legislation to curb the power of unions and opposed GOP proposals to cut taxes. He finally died on May 28, 1946, of congestive heart failure at the ripe old age of 88.

GOP Must Show Courage and Conviction

The Obama Administration is already preparing the attack on the GOP House. Obama has prefaced this with admonishing the GOP not to play politics. Yeah, and that totally isn't what you've been doing for the past two years Mr. President. We all know your game of "reaching across the aisle" is nothing more than "follow me, GOP!" You've played politics alright, but you've played the game poorly by passing healthcare legislation that the majority of the people didn't want and want to see repealed, antagonizing Midwesterners by pushing "cap-and-trade", and emptying $787 billion on a stimulus that wasn't even close to worth its price tag. All this is why your party got creamed in the midterms.

The Republicans have set a goal of a $100 billion cut in the budget. Given the level of our national debt, this only constitutes a start, and doesn't include defense spending, which comes only second to entitlement spending in what is most responsible for raising debt. If the GOP can't meet this basic if harrowing goal, it might as well let the Dems spend the nation into bankruptcy. Tax cuts are not the only solution to this problem, in fact, tax cuts only lead to future tax increases unless coupled with decreases in spending. Real cuts in spending must come too, and the liberal sector of the media is coming out against these cuts and trying to scare Republicans out of it by claiming the voters will backlash once they realize what these cuts will mean. However, Dems made a similar claim that voters would come to their side on healthcare once they realized what it will mean, but so far this hasn't materialized. The voters voted Republican in 2010 because of Obama's big spending programs and to rein in spending. Do not heed the liberal media hubris and "conventional wisdom". Much of the voting population knows there is a spending problem, and the GOP must make real progress and let the voters know they made the right choice last November.

Even FDR Had a Conservative Side

Of all Presidents, none have surpassed Franklin D. Roosevelt in revolutionizing the role of the federal government. Even if you think about Barack Obama, remember that he had two predecessors in government expansion to look to: Lyndon Johnson and FDR. And FDR did not have a significant predecessor to look to for expanding the federal government for the long-term in peacetime. Yes, yes, Teddy Roosevelt expanded some, and under Wilson the Federal Reserve was created, but they weren't close to the scale of FDR.

In 1924, the World War Adjusted Compensation Act was passed by Congress over the veto of Calvin Coolidge. This legislation awarded bonuses in the form of certificates to veterans of the First World War they could not redeem until 1945. In 1932, in the midst of the Great Depression, the Bonus Army marched on Washington. Led by former Sgt. Walter W. Waters, this 43,000 man force demanded immediate cash-payment redemption of their service certificates and camped in front of the White House. This proposal had friends on both sides of the aisle, and its leading proponent was to be New Dealer Congressman Wright Patman (D-Tex.). President Herbert Hoover opposed the measure, since if veterans had immediate access to cash payment for their services it would total $2 Billion, a budget bomb in those times. President Hoover handled the situation with zero tact, sending Chief of Staff Douglas MacArthur and his troops to clear out the encampment. Two veterans died in the process as the property of the marchers and their families were burned.

That year, Franklin D. Roosevelt ousted Hoover in the Presidential election. Roosevelt opposed the Bonus Bill as well, as it would eat into the budget for his New Deal programs. When a second demonstration was organized, Roosevelt handled the situation with skill. He provided the Bonus Marchers with a campsite in Virginia and three meals a day. He also sent First Lady Eleanor Roosevelt to lunch with them and listen to their standpoint. However, the most she could promise were jobs through the Civilian Conservation Corps. As one veteran put it, “Hoover sent the army, Roosevelt sent his wife.”

Roosevelt’s opposition was joined by a number of particularly conservative Southern Democrats as well as conservative Republicans in the Northeast, with only a few staunch liberal New Dealers backing the President. Roosevelt vetoed the first measure brought to his desk in 1934. The efforts of New Dealer Congressman Fred Vinson (D-Ky.) to substitute a more moderate bill failed in 1935, as did an even more limited substitute by conservative opponents Senator Millard Tydings (D-Md.) and Congressman Walter G. Andrews (R-N.Y.). Roosevelt again vetoed the Patman Legislation. 1936, however, was the year of the veterans. The Bonus Bill managed to attract some Senators and Congressmen who had previously opposed the legislation, possibly out of their fear for reelection prospects, and this time Roosevelt’s veto was overridden. Although veterans organizations promised Roosevelt that they would recommend veterans not redeem their bonds immediately, many did, constituting a stimulus that did not require a public works program.

Roosevelt fought on the conservative side of political battles only a few times in his Presidency, and this is the most outstanding example of such a battle. I wonder if we'll see this kind of scenario again, in which a Democratic President defies a majority of Democrats AND Republicans in the conservative direction. I won't hold my breath for it.