Chris Paige for Congress Official Blog
The Healthcare Bill
Tragically, American exceptionalism died last night - that unique combination of ordered liberty that defined us as a nation is no more. Now, we're just another Parliamentary democracy (majority rule, Constitution - what Constitution?), and the "free market" is whatever industry the government hasn't taken over yet, not an actual vibrant force. [At this point, what does a private health insurance company control other than the color of its logo? What does a private hospital or doctor actually get to decide other than what pudding to serve in the cafeteria?]
Quite literally, Congressional Democrats argued that they had the power to impose their mandates and regulations by comparing the federal government to a state government, completely ignoring two hundred years of precedent that held the federal government does NOT have police powers and completely eviscerating the 9th and 10th Amendments. At this point, state government is little more than an appendage of the federal government; state government has become the governmental equivalent of a franchise - an "independent" entity that controls virtually nothing of significance. [Ever been to McDonald's? They're all pretty much the same, no? Welcome to state government, Obama-style.]
Not surprisingly, President Obama instigated the death of American exceptionalism. Remember, he spent many of his formative years in a foreign land, and when asked about American exceptionalism, he replied that he thought of America as just another country, like Greece.
Was it worth it? I suppose we'll be debating that for decades, but you know where I stand: we could have provided health insurance to everyone without sacrificing our liberty; President Obama and Cong. Kanjorski simply CHOSE to transform this bill into a power grab. Do noble purposes excuse an ignoble bill? Apparently for some people they do, but not for me. I desperately want to protect the sick, but I am not willing to forfeit our freedom to do it merely because the powers that be would prefer to sacrifice our freedom. It's not just what you "try" to do that matters; it's what you actually do that counts too.
Every great moral wrong was justified by expedience - no tyrant ever claimed he would make the trains run late, but our Founding Fathers knew that immorality is never expedient.
Already, the bond market is telling you that Obamacare will bankrupt us, whatever the CBO says. Can you believe that private companies are borrowing at less than the U.S. Treasury? Literally, people who make their living knowing who will pay them back and who won't think that the U.S. government isn't safe anymore, so they're lending to private companies instead! The federal government isn't the risk free rate anymore; what else do you need to know about the budgetary impact of Obamacare?
And the Democrats tell us that their "jobs" bills will create jobs by cutting taxes? Ok, so why won't Obamacare cost jobs by raising taxes? You can't have it both ways: if tax cuts create jobs, then tax hikes must destroy them, and Obamacare is chock full of taxes. Taxes on savings and investments, taxes on wages, taxes on medical devices, taxes on health insurance plans...the list goes on and on. Each and every one of those tax hikes will cost someone their job.
Finally, there's abortion. By Executive Order, President Obama has "fixed" the abortion issue. Anybody believe that "fix" will last? We all know that Obama will rescind that Order as soon as politically feasible. Maybe day 1 of his second term, maybe on the last day of his first, but he'll rescind it, and Cong. Kanjorski will say he's "shocked" and "surprised." Heck, Ed Mitchell's probably drafted Kanjorski's statement already. This will be the most widely anticipated and most frequently forecast "betrayal" in political history, but Kanjorski thinks you're dumb enough to fall for it. The tragic truth of tyranny is that tyrants always kill somebody - they want to set the precedent, they want to establish their power over life and death, so they've got to kill somebody. These tyrants will start with the unborn, but they won't stop there. Pretty soon, you'll hear Obama follow-up on his interviews with the foreign press about how we need fewer sick elderly people who cost so much to care for and don't "benefit." Remember there's public employee pensions to pay for! Then, we'll decide that the disabled would be better off dead, so we'll cheerfully pay for the genetic testing and abortion, but we won't pay for "unnecessary" interventions to save them. The list will grow, and, by the time you're on it, it'll be too late. Oh, that could never happen, the press will cry. It already has happened in Oregon, where the government-run program told patients they'd pay for euthanasia, but not life-saving medicine.
During the bailouts, we learned that everything we own is ours only until Goldman Sachs needs it. Last night, we learned that even our very lives are ours only until the government decides we aren't "cost effective" to treat.
While they "celebrate" their victory, I will mourn everything we've lost.
Quite literally, Congressional Democrats argued that they had the power to impose their mandates and regulations by comparing the federal government to a state government, completely ignoring two hundred years of precedent that held the federal government does NOT have police powers and completely eviscerating the 9th and 10th Amendments. At this point, state government is little more than an appendage of the federal government; state government has become the governmental equivalent of a franchise - an "independent" entity that controls virtually nothing of significance. [Ever been to McDonald's? They're all pretty much the same, no? Welcome to state government, Obama-style.]
Not surprisingly, President Obama instigated the death of American exceptionalism. Remember, he spent many of his formative years in a foreign land, and when asked about American exceptionalism, he replied that he thought of America as just another country, like Greece.
Was it worth it? I suppose we'll be debating that for decades, but you know where I stand: we could have provided health insurance to everyone without sacrificing our liberty; President Obama and Cong. Kanjorski simply CHOSE to transform this bill into a power grab. Do noble purposes excuse an ignoble bill? Apparently for some people they do, but not for me. I desperately want to protect the sick, but I am not willing to forfeit our freedom to do it merely because the powers that be would prefer to sacrifice our freedom. It's not just what you "try" to do that matters; it's what you actually do that counts too.
Every great moral wrong was justified by expedience - no tyrant ever claimed he would make the trains run late, but our Founding Fathers knew that immorality is never expedient.
Already, the bond market is telling you that Obamacare will bankrupt us, whatever the CBO says. Can you believe that private companies are borrowing at less than the U.S. Treasury? Literally, people who make their living knowing who will pay them back and who won't think that the U.S. government isn't safe anymore, so they're lending to private companies instead! The federal government isn't the risk free rate anymore; what else do you need to know about the budgetary impact of Obamacare?
And the Democrats tell us that their "jobs" bills will create jobs by cutting taxes? Ok, so why won't Obamacare cost jobs by raising taxes? You can't have it both ways: if tax cuts create jobs, then tax hikes must destroy them, and Obamacare is chock full of taxes. Taxes on savings and investments, taxes on wages, taxes on medical devices, taxes on health insurance plans...the list goes on and on. Each and every one of those tax hikes will cost someone their job.
Finally, there's abortion. By Executive Order, President Obama has "fixed" the abortion issue. Anybody believe that "fix" will last? We all know that Obama will rescind that Order as soon as politically feasible. Maybe day 1 of his second term, maybe on the last day of his first, but he'll rescind it, and Cong. Kanjorski will say he's "shocked" and "surprised." Heck, Ed Mitchell's probably drafted Kanjorski's statement already. This will be the most widely anticipated and most frequently forecast "betrayal" in political history, but Kanjorski thinks you're dumb enough to fall for it. The tragic truth of tyranny is that tyrants always kill somebody - they want to set the precedent, they want to establish their power over life and death, so they've got to kill somebody. These tyrants will start with the unborn, but they won't stop there. Pretty soon, you'll hear Obama follow-up on his interviews with the foreign press about how we need fewer sick elderly people who cost so much to care for and don't "benefit." Remember there's public employee pensions to pay for! Then, we'll decide that the disabled would be better off dead, so we'll cheerfully pay for the genetic testing and abortion, but we won't pay for "unnecessary" interventions to save them. The list will grow, and, by the time you're on it, it'll be too late. Oh, that could never happen, the press will cry. It already has happened in Oregon, where the government-run program told patients they'd pay for euthanasia, but not life-saving medicine.
During the bailouts, we learned that everything we own is ours only until Goldman Sachs needs it. Last night, we learned that even our very lives are ours only until the government decides we aren't "cost effective" to treat.
While they "celebrate" their victory, I will mourn everything we've lost.
Goodbye & Farewell
Recently, Mayor Lou Barletta decided to transform our primary fight into a legal dispute. Although I am confident that I would prevail, I am equally confident that a protracted legal battle would not advance the causes I believe in, and - ultimately - those issues are more important than my personal political fortunes.
I began this race because I had something important to say about the bailouts and their moral, economic and political costs to our society and because I was alarmed by the dangerous ongoing transformation in our country and its politics, and I sincerely regret that I won't have an opportunity to continue fighting for you and for the ideals we share. Realistically, I knew the forces in favor of plundering our wealth and subverting our democracy were likely to prevail in the end, but I believed that I had been called to try, and I tried with everything I had. Mother Theresa said it best, "God doesn't require that you succeed; He only requires that you try." And, by that standard, we won - we kept the faith, and we fought for what we know is true.
While I was campaigning, I met a great many people in desperate need of help, and I tried my best to represent them and their needs. I am profoundly sorry that I failed them and you, but the fight must go on. The continuing assaults on our liberties and our prosperity has claimed and will claim millions of victims, and those victims and their families deserve our support. Short of illness, nothing inflicts more damage upon a person and his or her family than job loss, so I always remembered that the fight against job-killing big-government policies was a fight to defend people, not economic abstractions. To me, this was not an intellectual debate; it was a fight to save my friends' jobs and my neighbors' homes and our society's freedom, and I only regret that I could not do more.
And to all of my friends and supporters, let me thank you again from the bottom of my heart. I am truly humbled and deeply honored by your friendship, and I profoundly regret that I was unable to justify the faith you placed in me. My wife and I need some time alone to grieve the loss of our child, but when that time has passed, we will organize a small party as a token of our appreciation for your hard work and sacrifice. No man is a failure who has won friends like you!
Again, I thank you all for your support and friendship, and I wish you all the best!
Goodbye and farewell,
Chris Paige
I began this race because I had something important to say about the bailouts and their moral, economic and political costs to our society and because I was alarmed by the dangerous ongoing transformation in our country and its politics, and I sincerely regret that I won't have an opportunity to continue fighting for you and for the ideals we share. Realistically, I knew the forces in favor of plundering our wealth and subverting our democracy were likely to prevail in the end, but I believed that I had been called to try, and I tried with everything I had. Mother Theresa said it best, "God doesn't require that you succeed; He only requires that you try." And, by that standard, we won - we kept the faith, and we fought for what we know is true.
While I was campaigning, I met a great many people in desperate need of help, and I tried my best to represent them and their needs. I am profoundly sorry that I failed them and you, but the fight must go on. The continuing assaults on our liberties and our prosperity has claimed and will claim millions of victims, and those victims and their families deserve our support. Short of illness, nothing inflicts more damage upon a person and his or her family than job loss, so I always remembered that the fight against job-killing big-government policies was a fight to defend people, not economic abstractions. To me, this was not an intellectual debate; it was a fight to save my friends' jobs and my neighbors' homes and our society's freedom, and I only regret that I could not do more.
And to all of my friends and supporters, let me thank you again from the bottom of my heart. I am truly humbled and deeply honored by your friendship, and I profoundly regret that I was unable to justify the faith you placed in me. My wife and I need some time alone to grieve the loss of our child, but when that time has passed, we will organize a small party as a token of our appreciation for your hard work and sacrifice. No man is a failure who has won friends like you!
Again, I thank you all for your support and friendship, and I wish you all the best!
Goodbye and farewell,
Chris Paige
Good News - Democrats Pass Jobs Bill
Good news, everybody! The Democrats have finally passed a bill that will actually create jobs. Granted, it will create 16,500 new IRS auditor jobs, but a job's a job. Think how much fun it will be to prove that you have "acceptable" health insurance every time one of these newly-hired agents knocks on your door. But I'm exaggerating. IRS agents don't knock.
Obamacare finally puts your healthcare decisions where they belong - at the IRS. And why stop at healthcare? Why not let the IRS verify that you have "acceptable" food in your frig or an "acceptable" car in your garage? As long as we're making people buy stuff, why not make them buy "carbon constrained" cars from GM or Chrysler? Why not make them buy "acceptable" insurance from government-owned AIG - that's the public option we all can support!
Look, when are you people going to learn that all of Obama's programs fit into an integrated whole? The healthcare bill makes everyone a criminal, which creates lots of jobs in law enforcement, so - really - he's fixing the economy too. And spending is the best way to reduce the deficit...you'd know that if you had Ivy-league degrees like Obama.
Obama's really losing his patience with you people. Stop clining to your guns and religion and start realizing that War is Peace, Freedom is Slavery, and Government Control is Prosperity. Once the government runs healtcare, everything will be great. Look what they've done for banking & automobiles!
Obamacare finally puts your healthcare decisions where they belong - at the IRS. And why stop at healthcare? Why not let the IRS verify that you have "acceptable" food in your frig or an "acceptable" car in your garage? As long as we're making people buy stuff, why not make them buy "carbon constrained" cars from GM or Chrysler? Why not make them buy "acceptable" insurance from government-owned AIG - that's the public option we all can support!
Look, when are you people going to learn that all of Obama's programs fit into an integrated whole? The healthcare bill makes everyone a criminal, which creates lots of jobs in law enforcement, so - really - he's fixing the economy too. And spending is the best way to reduce the deficit...you'd know that if you had Ivy-league degrees like Obama.
Obama's really losing his patience with you people. Stop clining to your guns and religion and start realizing that War is Peace, Freedom is Slavery, and Government Control is Prosperity. Once the government runs healtcare, everything will be great. Look what they've done for banking & automobiles!
The Impending Betrayal on Life
In the next few days, Cong. Kanjorski and his fellow Congressional Democrats intend to vote the Senate's version of Obamacare into law. Granted, they're still futzing about the details, but they intend to make a vote that would allow the President to sign the Senate's version into law. Later, they plan to "amend" the Senate's version; again, the details remain to be determined later.
For those of us who care about life, we must stop the first vote because the second won't matter. Either the Democrats will "fail" to include the Stupak language in their "amendment," or the President will veto the "amendment," but - either way - the President will sign a bill that forces all of us to subsidize abortion. Is that what you want?
Granted, Cong. Kanjorski will condemn his betrayal. He'll claim to have been shocked and offended by what happened, but it will happen anyway. The undisputed and indisputable reality is that once the President has the power to sign a pro-abortion bill into law, he won't have any reason whatsoever to allow Congress to insert the Stupak language (which prohibits taxpayer subsidies of abortion) - language he opposes - into the "amendment." One way or the other, he'll find a way to block the Stupak language. That's why the pro-life community is outraged, and that's why we can't trust Cong. Kanjorski.
In a very real sense, this week's vote on the Senate's version of Obamacare is the only vote that counts: demand that Cong. Kanjorski votes no.
For those of us who care about life, we must stop the first vote because the second won't matter. Either the Democrats will "fail" to include the Stupak language in their "amendment," or the President will veto the "amendment," but - either way - the President will sign a bill that forces all of us to subsidize abortion. Is that what you want?
Granted, Cong. Kanjorski will condemn his betrayal. He'll claim to have been shocked and offended by what happened, but it will happen anyway. The undisputed and indisputable reality is that once the President has the power to sign a pro-abortion bill into law, he won't have any reason whatsoever to allow Congress to insert the Stupak language (which prohibits taxpayer subsidies of abortion) - language he opposes - into the "amendment." One way or the other, he'll find a way to block the Stupak language. That's why the pro-life community is outraged, and that's why we can't trust Cong. Kanjorski.
In a very real sense, this week's vote on the Senate's version of Obamacare is the only vote that counts: demand that Cong. Kanjorski votes no.
Who Needs China?
Dean Baker and Paul Krugman say we don't need China to buy our bonds. Allegedly, the Fed controls short-term interest rates, and it can just buy long-term bonds to control our long-term rates too, so who needs China? If that's true, why not prohibit China from buying our bonds? Or, better yet, why not prohibit everyone from buying our bonds? Heck, who needs customers when you've got the Fed controlling interest rates?
The Baker/Krugman hypothesis illustrates the fundamental problem with "theoretical" economics: life in the real world is different than life as it appears in economic equations. In the real world, China's bond purchases drive the bond market. (Let me assure you that every bond trader in the world would give their eye teeth to know what China's planning to do at the next Treasury auction.) Even if China isn't capable of affecting our interest rates on its own, it's certainly capable of making everyone else react to its policies, and - collectively - everyone can drive our interest rates. To put it another way, do you want to be the guy buying our bonds when the market learns that China's selling them? Granted, the Fed might be able to restore order pretty quickly, but traders make their profits (and suffer their losses) on trades that transpire BEFORE the Fed can restore order. Indeed, everyone would change their assessment of our bonds once China stopped buying them if only because they believe that everyone else believes China's policies matter. (Fear moves markets, and people would be very afraid if China stopped buying.)
Besides, the Fed can "set" rates, but it can't actually make people borrow or lend at those rates, so the real economy might be devastated even if "rates" don't move. If the Fed sets rates too low, then nobody will make loans. The Fed might, for example, set rates at 0% when the market is demanding higher rates to compensate for the additional risks created by an economic downturn; in that scenario, banks would have lots of money, but they wouldn't make any loans. Sounds familiar, no? And that's the problem with price controls; government can set the price at which people transact, but it can't make people transact at the price. For instance, the Fed has set rates at 0%, but does anybody out there have a 0% loan? Alternatively, the Fed can "control" interest rates through bond purchases, but how exactly can it pay for its purchases? Granted, it can print money, but wouldn't that be inflationary? Quite literally, Baker/Krugman are arguing that we shouldn't care about China's impact on our interest rates because we can always opt for hyper-inflation instead.
In theory, we can borrow whatever we want as long as we want, and that's precisely what Bear Stearns and every other Wall Street bank thought when they decided to rely so heavily on short-term liquidity. The problem with theories is that theories cannot capture the full complexity of reality. Maybe nobody should care if China stops buying our bonds, but they will - and their reactions will devastate us. The Baker/Krugman thesis is that we've given China an empty water pistol; maybe so, but you know how many people have been robbed by someone who later turned out to be carrying a water pistol? Happens all the time, and they're just as robbed as someone who handed over their money to a robber with a real gun. (In a stick up, very few people are willing to demand proof that their robber has a real gun.)
So, whatever the theoretical truth, the reality is that our government has sold us out to the Chinese, and that's why we can't continue to borrow like drunken sailors on a twenty-four hour pass unless we plan to wind-up like drunken sailors on a twenty-four hour pass, Shanghaied by our Chinese creditors.
Kanjo's Reform Bill is Bunk
Cong. Kanjorski's "Too Big to Fail" Amendment is bunk. Here's why: Cong. Kanjorski's plan establishes a permanent TARP bailout program, financed by taxes on financial firms, but backstopped by the U.S. Treasury. So, why won't his plan work?
If you remember, Wall Street managed to get a bailout the last time by saying the world was going to end if they didn't get bailed out. You may remember Cong. Kanjorski's story: supposedly, we had 72 hours before we'd have to eat our pets, sell our children to a Nike factory, and abandon indoor plumbing, or some such nonsense. Having successfully extorted trillions from us, why would Wall Street think they won't be able to do the same thing again?
Cong. Kanjorski's "plan" is a tad like saying, "Gee, paying ransom to my daughter's kidnappers really stinks. Why don't I establish a 'ransom' savings account, so they can never do that to me again?" I mean, come on! We're already "saving up" for the next bailout?
If this is such a great idea, let's tax everybody and put the money into a "bailout" fund, so nobody will ever have to go bankrupt again! Honestly, this plan is so dumb that it's difficult to imagine how anyone could think it might work. If you're worried about extortionists trying to blackmail you again, the last thing you want to do is start a special fund dedicated to paying extortionists!
Here's what Wall Street really needs: a Sherman Act for banks. You want to make your institution too big to fail? Fine, but when your bank does fail, expect to spend the next 5 to 10 years of your life in a federal prison. Oh, and expect to lose everything you have to treble damages. And your shareholders and bondholders will be wiped out or take a severe hit. (Maybe that means they won't let you grow so big, but that's scarcely a shortcoming to my plan.)
We don't need bailouts and regulatory schemes; we need real punishments and real deterrence.
If Kanjorski's plan becomes law, let me tell you what's going to happen:
1. The money in the "bailout fund" will be spent on other priorities. (Kanjorski Center II here we come!)
2. The "taxes" will be reduced far below any actuarial reality. (Who says Kanjo doesn't cut taxes?)
3. The resulting shortfall will be covered by taxpayers. (We'll get it back. No, really, this time we'll get it back.)
4. The rules on bailouts will become progressively more generous. (Once the heat is off & nobody's watching anymore.)
5. Banks will discover loopholes to avoid the already-reduced taxes and to exploit the progressively more-generous bailout rules. (A bank? I'm not a bank; I'm an international financial cooperative specializing in reverse hybrid CDS LBOs. Own a hedge fund? Not me, I simply have a put/call derivative synthetic reverse CDO3 for which a hedge fund is reference security.)
6. We'll have another crisis, and Cong. Kanjorski will announce that he had to "bend" the rules because [INSERT SOME FIRM'S NAME] was still too big to fail, but don't worry, he'll investigate why these reforms didn't work this time either. (In the meantime, could you please send money to his campaign?)
7. Executives from [INSERT SOME FIRM'S NAME] and [INSERT SOME FIRM'S NAME]'s PAC will have donated millions to Cong. Kanjorski. (Hey, somebody's got to pay for his campaign while he's busy investigating why these reforms failed.)
I've got a news flash for you: Washington never fails; it does exactly what it intends to do, which is to gather more power and prestige onto itself. If Washington has to pretend that it's cracking down on too big to fail in order to achieve its goals, so be it. This "reform" bill is like one of those Hollywood flops that everybody knows is going to be a disaster, but - heck - Jessica Simpson wanted to direct, and who doesn't want to make Jessica Simpson happy?
Anyone with two IQ points to rub together knows that this bill won't work; they just don't care because they're going to be able to extract a whole lot of campaign contributions from people who are trying to navigate this brave new world of "reform." Kanjo doesn't want to solve this problem because Kanjo's power depends upon his INABILITY to solve this problem. Solve it, and who needs Kanjo? I mean who's going to give millions of dollars in contributions to Kanjo if he can't bail them out when they need bailing out? Anybody can file for bankruptcy, but it takes real clout to persuade Kanjo to throw a few trillion your way.
In that sense, Congressmen are like predators: they want to eat antelope, not exterminate them. Cong. Kanjorski plans to feast on Wall Street's campaign contributions for many years to come, so he's not about to exterminate them. This bill might as well be called the Kanjo Re-Election Act. Can you imagine how much they'll pay him once he's setting their "tax" rate and deciding whether or not they can get access to that $50B slush fund? With that kind of power, Kanjo could ask them for their first born child, and they'd offer to throw in their second as well. (Of course, Goldman Sachs will offer your second born to Kanjo, but that's another story.)
This bill is a joke. It won't just fail; it's designed to fail. Look at Kanjo's record. He sat there for years as expert after expert came before his committee to warn that Freddie and Fannie were doomed. Did he care? Nope, because he got the only thing he ever really cared about (his own re-election). Once this bill passes, he'll sit there as expert after expert comes before his committee to warn that another crisis is coming, and he still won't care because he'll be getting the only thing he really cares about, re-elected.
Folks, Kanjo's bill is a sorry joke. Don't be fooled, be angry.
Cong. Kanjorski's "plan" is a tad like saying, "Gee, paying ransom to my daughter's kidnappers really stinks. Why don't I establish a 'ransom' savings account, so they can never do that to me again?" I mean, come on! We're already "saving up" for the next bailout?
If this is such a great idea, let's tax everybody and put the money into a "bailout" fund, so nobody will ever have to go bankrupt again! Honestly, this plan is so dumb that it's difficult to imagine how anyone could think it might work. If you're worried about extortionists trying to blackmail you again, the last thing you want to do is start a special fund dedicated to paying extortionists!
Here's what Wall Street really needs: a Sherman Act for banks. You want to make your institution too big to fail? Fine, but when your bank does fail, expect to spend the next 5 to 10 years of your life in a federal prison. Oh, and expect to lose everything you have to treble damages. And your shareholders and bondholders will be wiped out or take a severe hit. (Maybe that means they won't let you grow so big, but that's scarcely a shortcoming to my plan.)
We don't need bailouts and regulatory schemes; we need real punishments and real deterrence.
If Kanjorski's plan becomes law, let me tell you what's going to happen:
1. The money in the "bailout fund" will be spent on other priorities. (Kanjorski Center II here we come!)
2. The "taxes" will be reduced far below any actuarial reality. (Who says Kanjo doesn't cut taxes?)
3. The resulting shortfall will be covered by taxpayers. (We'll get it back. No, really, this time we'll get it back.)
4. The rules on bailouts will become progressively more generous. (Once the heat is off & nobody's watching anymore.)
5. Banks will discover loopholes to avoid the already-reduced taxes and to exploit the progressively more-generous bailout rules. (A bank? I'm not a bank; I'm an international financial cooperative specializing in reverse hybrid CDS LBOs. Own a hedge fund? Not me, I simply have a put/call derivative synthetic reverse CDO3 for which a hedge fund is reference security.)
6. We'll have another crisis, and Cong. Kanjorski will announce that he had to "bend" the rules because [INSERT SOME FIRM'S NAME] was still too big to fail, but don't worry, he'll investigate why these reforms didn't work this time either. (In the meantime, could you please send money to his campaign?)
7. Executives from [INSERT SOME FIRM'S NAME] and [INSERT SOME FIRM'S NAME]'s PAC will have donated millions to Cong. Kanjorski. (Hey, somebody's got to pay for his campaign while he's busy investigating why these reforms failed.)
I've got a news flash for you: Washington never fails; it does exactly what it intends to do, which is to gather more power and prestige onto itself. If Washington has to pretend that it's cracking down on too big to fail in order to achieve its goals, so be it. This "reform" bill is like one of those Hollywood flops that everybody knows is going to be a disaster, but - heck - Jessica Simpson wanted to direct, and who doesn't want to make Jessica Simpson happy?
Anyone with two IQ points to rub together knows that this bill won't work; they just don't care because they're going to be able to extract a whole lot of campaign contributions from people who are trying to navigate this brave new world of "reform." Kanjo doesn't want to solve this problem because Kanjo's power depends upon his INABILITY to solve this problem. Solve it, and who needs Kanjo? I mean who's going to give millions of dollars in contributions to Kanjo if he can't bail them out when they need bailing out? Anybody can file for bankruptcy, but it takes real clout to persuade Kanjo to throw a few trillion your way.
In that sense, Congressmen are like predators: they want to eat antelope, not exterminate them. Cong. Kanjorski plans to feast on Wall Street's campaign contributions for many years to come, so he's not about to exterminate them. This bill might as well be called the Kanjo Re-Election Act. Can you imagine how much they'll pay him once he's setting their "tax" rate and deciding whether or not they can get access to that $50B slush fund? With that kind of power, Kanjo could ask them for their first born child, and they'd offer to throw in their second as well. (Of course, Goldman Sachs will offer your second born to Kanjo, but that's another story.)
This bill is a joke. It won't just fail; it's designed to fail. Look at Kanjo's record. He sat there for years as expert after expert came before his committee to warn that Freddie and Fannie were doomed. Did he care? Nope, because he got the only thing he ever really cared about (his own re-election). Once this bill passes, he'll sit there as expert after expert comes before his committee to warn that another crisis is coming, and he still won't care because he'll be getting the only thing he really cares about, re-elected.
Folks, Kanjo's bill is a sorry joke. Don't be fooled, be angry.
The Ethics of Abortion
Tragically, Dred Scott is still good law. Granted, the 13th Amendment renders Dred Scott moot, but it's still the law of the land that Congress cannot prohibit the expansion of slavery.
Unbeknownst to most Americans, however, there is still one class of person who has no rights a white man, or woman, is bound to respect: the unborn. Frankly, I struggle to comprehend how anyone can believe that the courts, rather than Congress, decide who is and who is not a human being. Granted, I can understand why the courts might need to expand the Congressional definition to encompass groups whom Congress has unfairly excluded, but it's impossible to understand why the courts should contract it. (Aren't courts supposed to protect powerless minorities?)
Reading Roe v. Wade is shocking. Quite literally, the Court held that the Romans never considered the unborn (or even infants) to be people, so Congress couldn't consider them people either. I wasn't aware of the part of the U.S. Constitution which states that we are governed by Roman law, but maybe I slept through that class in law school.
But let's ignore the legal arguments for a moment and consider only the ethical, philosophical arguments. If an unborn child isn't a human being, what is it? Can I assume that we all agree it isn't a vegetable or a mineral? Can we agree that it isn't a cat or a robot?
Okay, so if it's only "potential" human life, when does it become a human? Traditionally, courts have argued that the unborn become humans when they become viable outside of the womb. What's the problem with that? Well, it means that you BECOME a human being whenever society's technology enables you to live outside the womb. Catch the problem with that? Becoming a human being isn't innate to you; it's entirely dependent on variables that are EXTERNAL to you. That's like saying a cat is a cat because its owners set out kitty litter and established a scratching post.
Listen very carefully to "choice" arguments, and you quickly realize that they just don't have a coherent theory to the contrary. They'll talk on and on about "privacy" and "rights" and so on, but they can't explain why the unborn aren't human beings.
Since the unborn are human beings, they should have the right to life - it's really that simple.
Unbeknownst to most Americans, however, there is still one class of person who has no rights a white man, or woman, is bound to respect: the unborn. Frankly, I struggle to comprehend how anyone can believe that the courts, rather than Congress, decide who is and who is not a human being. Granted, I can understand why the courts might need to expand the Congressional definition to encompass groups whom Congress has unfairly excluded, but it's impossible to understand why the courts should contract it. (Aren't courts supposed to protect powerless minorities?)
Reading Roe v. Wade is shocking. Quite literally, the Court held that the Romans never considered the unborn (or even infants) to be people, so Congress couldn't consider them people either. I wasn't aware of the part of the U.S. Constitution which states that we are governed by Roman law, but maybe I slept through that class in law school.
But let's ignore the legal arguments for a moment and consider only the ethical, philosophical arguments. If an unborn child isn't a human being, what is it? Can I assume that we all agree it isn't a vegetable or a mineral? Can we agree that it isn't a cat or a robot?
Okay, so if it's only "potential" human life, when does it become a human? Traditionally, courts have argued that the unborn become humans when they become viable outside of the womb. What's the problem with that? Well, it means that you BECOME a human being whenever society's technology enables you to live outside the womb. Catch the problem with that? Becoming a human being isn't innate to you; it's entirely dependent on variables that are EXTERNAL to you. That's like saying a cat is a cat because its owners set out kitty litter and established a scratching post.
Listen very carefully to "choice" arguments, and you quickly realize that they just don't have a coherent theory to the contrary. They'll talk on and on about "privacy" and "rights" and so on, but they can't explain why the unborn aren't human beings.
Since the unborn are human beings, they should have the right to life - it's really that simple.
Some issues are too important for politics
Some issues are too important for politics. Ultimately, whatever you think of me or Cong. Kanjorski, all of us should agree that we can't allow government-subsidized abortions. So, please call Cong. Kanjorski and demand that he vote against the Senate's version of the healthcare reform bill. Once the government starts subsidizing abortions, it will be impossible to reverse course, whatever Kanjorski promises. This may be our last chance. Please call him at 202.225.6511, and tell him that we don't want our tax dollars use to finance abortions.
| Washington, DC Office 2188 Rayburn HOB Washington, DC 20515 ph: 202-225-6511 fx: 202-225-0764 |
Luzerne County Office The Stegmaier Building 7 North Wilkes-Barre Boulevard Suite 400 M Wilkes-Barre, PA 18702-5283 ph: 570-825-2200 fx: 570-825-8685 |
Lackawanna Office 546 Spruce Street Scranton, PA 18503 ph: 570-496-1011 fx: 570-496-6439 |
Monroe County Office 102 Pocono Boulevard Mount Pocono, PA 18344-1412 ph: 570-895-4176 By Appointment Only Toll-Free Help Line: 800-222-2346 |
| Washington, DC Office 2188 Rayburn HOB Washington, DC 20515 ph: 202-225-6511 fx: 202-225-0764 |
Luzerne County Office The Stegmaier Building 7 North Wilkes-Barre Boulevard Suite 400 M Wilkes-Barre, PA 18702-5283 ph: 570-825-2200 fx: 570-825-8685 |
Lackawanna Office 546 Spruce Street Scranton, PA 18503 ph: 570-496-1011 fx: 570-496-6439 |
Monroe County Office 102 Pocono Boulevard Mount Pocono, PA 18344-1412 ph: 570-895-4176 By Appointment Only Toll-Free Help Line: 800-222-2346 |
| Washington, DC Office 2188 Rayburn HOB Washington, DC 20515 ph: 202-225-6511 fx: 202-225-0764 |
Luzerne County Office The Stegmaier Building 7 North Wilkes-Barre Boulevard Suite 400 M Wilkes-Barre, PA 18702-5283 ph: 570-825-2200 fx: 570-825-8685 |
Lackawanna Office 546 Spruce Street Scranton, PA 18503 ph: 570-496-1011 fx: 570-496-6439 |
Monroe County Office 102 Pocono Boulevard Mount Pocono, PA 18344-1412 ph: 570-895-4176 By Appointment Only Toll-Free Help Line: 800-222-2346 |
Through the Looking Glass
Occasionally, I marvel at our decline into debauchery.
Thomas Friedman, a New York Times columnist, quite literally lamented the fact that we are not a communist dictatorship. Perhaps that must wait for the second term.
Countless other "mainstream" commentators complain that our government can't "function" because Congress can't pass an unpopular healthcare reform bill over the public's furious opposition. (If only we were a dictatorship...)
We now know that Lehman Brothers was a massive accounting fraud facilitated by the Federal Reserve. And what do our "leaders" think about Lehman? That we didn't do enough to save them! Imagine that - criminals & scoundrels are going broke, and the government doesn't have enough power to save them! And how does our "leadership" want to remedy that "problem"? They want to create a permanent TARP program so that future criminals and scoundrels will never need to worry that they'll suffer for their crimes.
Our "leaders" routinely inform us that we can't afford Medicare and Social Security. Indeed, they routinely lecture us on the need to accept the "reality" that some people are just too sick to save because we can't "afford" to give everyone all the medical care they need. But you know what's strange about that argument? You won't find a single member of our "leadership" who thinks that we can't "afford" to save Wall Street. Heck, we had $700 billion to save Wall Street, but we don't have $500 billion to save seniors? What can you say about "leaders" who think we can "afford" to save every bank, but that we can't "afford" to save every senior? Is it just me or is that epitome of moral depravity?
Our "leaders" declare that terrorists who attack civilians should be tried in civilian courts, but terrorists who attack soldiers should be tried in military tribunals? How on earth can anyone justify that distinction? Are we supposed to believe that "civilian" courts are worse than military courts? If so, then shouldn't ordinary American criminals get military courts? Why are civilian courts reserved for you and I when we get speeding tickets and for the terrorists who murder us? Can't we go before those defendant-friendly military courts too? I mean some arguments are so transparently stupid that they're not even wrong, and the decision to try terrorists who attack civilians (and only terrorists who attack civilians) in civilian courts is one of those arguments that's so stupid it isn't even wrong.
Our "leaders" tell us that we need to set a price on carbon, which means that we need to let them run virtually every aspect of our lives. [Ok, that's an exaggeration: other than the economy, global trade, energy production, family planning, travel and our diets, they'll control virtually nothing, unless they already control it under some other theory (ie. healthcare).] Yet, NASA now admits that it's "independent" data set is nothing more than an expanded version of CRU's data set, which CRU's own scientists admit they can't recreate and which its scientists ILLEGALLY refused to show to outside reviewers. I mean who could doubt the case for global warming based solely on the fact that the data doesn't actually exist in a form that anyone can verify? Who needs data, right? And what about the fact that Phil Jones and other leading "global warming experts" admit that there is NO SCIENTIFIC CONSENSUS on global warming. Phil Jones went so far as to admit that he doesn't even understand what people are talking about when they make such claims. And who cares that we now know much of the "science" behind global warming consists of little more than anecdotes from activists? And why should anyone be alarmed by the fact that the models didn't actually predict anything correctly? Sure, they may have missed the prolonged cooling trend we've been living through for the last decade, but that's no reason to doubt the accuracy of their predictions for 50 years from now, right? I mean, you wouldn't fly in an airplane or drive in a car that had only been tested on a computer, but - what the heck? - let's reorganize the world's economy on nothing more than computer models - models, which depending on which model you use, produce a result that varies about 16 degrees or so. Look, doubters, the models are very clear: global temperatures will rise, fall, or stay the same over the next few decades, and the only question is what are you going to do about it?
I mean who could doubt "experts." It's not like "experts" ever make mistakes. Sure, there was that little problem with mortgages, which defaulted despite the fact that "experts" said they would never default. And, sure, there was that little problem with all those prescription drugs that killed or injured people after the FDA decided they were safe, but - let's get real here - it's much, much easier to predict the global climate 50 years from now than it is to decide whether or not a diet drug will kill you. And don't you remember when the environmental experts said that DDT was a killer? Thankfully, we stopped using DDT & the millions who died from the malaria we could have prevented by using DDT are better for it. Granted, they're dead, but who would want to live in a world that doesn't ban a chemical that may, but doesn't actually, harm the environment? Much better to let millions of men, women and children die from malaria than waste time verifying the experts' claims that DDT is dangerous.
And let's not get into eugenics or any of the other monstrous fallacies propagated by experts - those experts may have been wrong, but our experts are so much better than previous experts! I mean we have actual peer-reviewed scholarship! If peer-reviewed scholarship can't settle a dispute, then nothing can. I think the world would be much, much better if we eliminated government entirely, basing everything instead on peer-reviewed scholarship. They could call it The Journal of Governance, and we could read it to discover what new laws the experts had given us. Oh, it would be a very wonderful form of government - every scholar would say so! We'd be noble savages, waiting in our carbon-constrained huts for our leaders' next pronouncements. And we'd never have to worry about politics again because every dispute would be settled just like disputes are settled at Harvard: with cool, cool reason and lots of peer-reviewed scholarship. (Because if there's one thing that never plays a role at Harvard, it's politics. You want a model for dispute resolution? Look no further than the Harvard faculty.)
If human history teaches us anything, it's that people are best served when they blindly obey the experts without bothering to subject the experts' conclusions to any serious inquiry. The Aztecs didn't collapse because they sacrificed virgins; they collapsed because too many people doubted that sacrificing virgins was an effective response to their problems. If only the Aztec government hadn't listened to the anti-virgin sacrificing lobby, they would have killed enough virgins and everything would have been ok. That's the lesson we need to learn too! Our experts have degrees; their experts had bloody knives, but the principle is the same: blind obedience to self-proclaimed experts is the way to go, man. If the Founding Fathers believed in anything, it was the idea that anything a plurality of the Harvard faculty thinks is true is true and should be written into law immediately.
Forgive my sarcasm, but we're living through a terrible, terrible nightmare. We have to laugh or cry because our "leaders" are so thoroughly corrupt that they aren't even ashamed of their corruption. Cong. Paul Kanjorski literally brags about stealing trillions from us, so that Wall Street's scoundrels and thieves would not have to suffer any consequences for their actions. Sure, previous Congressmen stole money from us to give to their friends, but they at least had the decency to lie about it. Cong. Kanjorski has to be the first person in human history to actually run on his corruption as if it were some sort of achievement. If stealing our money was the opening act of his re-election bid, what's his encore?
Enough is enough. We need to send all the politicians packing.
Thomas Friedman, a New York Times columnist, quite literally lamented the fact that we are not a communist dictatorship. Perhaps that must wait for the second term.
Countless other "mainstream" commentators complain that our government can't "function" because Congress can't pass an unpopular healthcare reform bill over the public's furious opposition. (If only we were a dictatorship...)
We now know that Lehman Brothers was a massive accounting fraud facilitated by the Federal Reserve. And what do our "leaders" think about Lehman? That we didn't do enough to save them! Imagine that - criminals & scoundrels are going broke, and the government doesn't have enough power to save them! And how does our "leadership" want to remedy that "problem"? They want to create a permanent TARP program so that future criminals and scoundrels will never need to worry that they'll suffer for their crimes.
Our "leaders" routinely inform us that we can't afford Medicare and Social Security. Indeed, they routinely lecture us on the need to accept the "reality" that some people are just too sick to save because we can't "afford" to give everyone all the medical care they need. But you know what's strange about that argument? You won't find a single member of our "leadership" who thinks that we can't "afford" to save Wall Street. Heck, we had $700 billion to save Wall Street, but we don't have $500 billion to save seniors? What can you say about "leaders" who think we can "afford" to save every bank, but that we can't "afford" to save every senior? Is it just me or is that epitome of moral depravity?
Our "leaders" declare that terrorists who attack civilians should be tried in civilian courts, but terrorists who attack soldiers should be tried in military tribunals? How on earth can anyone justify that distinction? Are we supposed to believe that "civilian" courts are worse than military courts? If so, then shouldn't ordinary American criminals get military courts? Why are civilian courts reserved for you and I when we get speeding tickets and for the terrorists who murder us? Can't we go before those defendant-friendly military courts too? I mean some arguments are so transparently stupid that they're not even wrong, and the decision to try terrorists who attack civilians (and only terrorists who attack civilians) in civilian courts is one of those arguments that's so stupid it isn't even wrong.
Our "leaders" tell us that we need to set a price on carbon, which means that we need to let them run virtually every aspect of our lives. [Ok, that's an exaggeration: other than the economy, global trade, energy production, family planning, travel and our diets, they'll control virtually nothing, unless they already control it under some other theory (ie. healthcare).] Yet, NASA now admits that it's "independent" data set is nothing more than an expanded version of CRU's data set, which CRU's own scientists admit they can't recreate and which its scientists ILLEGALLY refused to show to outside reviewers. I mean who could doubt the case for global warming based solely on the fact that the data doesn't actually exist in a form that anyone can verify? Who needs data, right? And what about the fact that Phil Jones and other leading "global warming experts" admit that there is NO SCIENTIFIC CONSENSUS on global warming. Phil Jones went so far as to admit that he doesn't even understand what people are talking about when they make such claims. And who cares that we now know much of the "science" behind global warming consists of little more than anecdotes from activists? And why should anyone be alarmed by the fact that the models didn't actually predict anything correctly? Sure, they may have missed the prolonged cooling trend we've been living through for the last decade, but that's no reason to doubt the accuracy of their predictions for 50 years from now, right? I mean, you wouldn't fly in an airplane or drive in a car that had only been tested on a computer, but - what the heck? - let's reorganize the world's economy on nothing more than computer models - models, which depending on which model you use, produce a result that varies about 16 degrees or so. Look, doubters, the models are very clear: global temperatures will rise, fall, or stay the same over the next few decades, and the only question is what are you going to do about it?
I mean who could doubt "experts." It's not like "experts" ever make mistakes. Sure, there was that little problem with mortgages, which defaulted despite the fact that "experts" said they would never default. And, sure, there was that little problem with all those prescription drugs that killed or injured people after the FDA decided they were safe, but - let's get real here - it's much, much easier to predict the global climate 50 years from now than it is to decide whether or not a diet drug will kill you. And don't you remember when the environmental experts said that DDT was a killer? Thankfully, we stopped using DDT & the millions who died from the malaria we could have prevented by using DDT are better for it. Granted, they're dead, but who would want to live in a world that doesn't ban a chemical that may, but doesn't actually, harm the environment? Much better to let millions of men, women and children die from malaria than waste time verifying the experts' claims that DDT is dangerous.
And let's not get into eugenics or any of the other monstrous fallacies propagated by experts - those experts may have been wrong, but our experts are so much better than previous experts! I mean we have actual peer-reviewed scholarship! If peer-reviewed scholarship can't settle a dispute, then nothing can. I think the world would be much, much better if we eliminated government entirely, basing everything instead on peer-reviewed scholarship. They could call it The Journal of Governance, and we could read it to discover what new laws the experts had given us. Oh, it would be a very wonderful form of government - every scholar would say so! We'd be noble savages, waiting in our carbon-constrained huts for our leaders' next pronouncements. And we'd never have to worry about politics again because every dispute would be settled just like disputes are settled at Harvard: with cool, cool reason and lots of peer-reviewed scholarship. (Because if there's one thing that never plays a role at Harvard, it's politics. You want a model for dispute resolution? Look no further than the Harvard faculty.)
If human history teaches us anything, it's that people are best served when they blindly obey the experts without bothering to subject the experts' conclusions to any serious inquiry. The Aztecs didn't collapse because they sacrificed virgins; they collapsed because too many people doubted that sacrificing virgins was an effective response to their problems. If only the Aztec government hadn't listened to the anti-virgin sacrificing lobby, they would have killed enough virgins and everything would have been ok. That's the lesson we need to learn too! Our experts have degrees; their experts had bloody knives, but the principle is the same: blind obedience to self-proclaimed experts is the way to go, man. If the Founding Fathers believed in anything, it was the idea that anything a plurality of the Harvard faculty thinks is true is true and should be written into law immediately.
Forgive my sarcasm, but we're living through a terrible, terrible nightmare. We have to laugh or cry because our "leaders" are so thoroughly corrupt that they aren't even ashamed of their corruption. Cong. Paul Kanjorski literally brags about stealing trillions from us, so that Wall Street's scoundrels and thieves would not have to suffer any consequences for their actions. Sure, previous Congressmen stole money from us to give to their friends, but they at least had the decency to lie about it. Cong. Kanjorski has to be the first person in human history to actually run on his corruption as if it were some sort of achievement. If stealing our money was the opening act of his re-election bid, what's his encore?
Enough is enough. We need to send all the politicians packing.
A Brief Personal Note
As you may have noticed, I have not been particularly active for the last week or so, and I wanted to explain why. After many years of struggling with infertility, my wife and I finally conceived. Unfortunately, we lost the baby last week. Our doctors are not optimistic about our chances for trying again. As a family, we deeply appreciate your understanding and prayers.
