Paul Ryan The Fiscal Warrior

Looks like Mitt Romney has chosen a conservative that is going to fight to massively reduce the size of government and tackle entitlement reform. The election is now about the big issue of reducing the size of government. This is big news. The coming economic crisis has been avoided thanks to a bold move by Mitt Romney to pick a radical small government politician that is going to make things happen.

Of course there is always more than the shiny facade pimped by party loyalists and for those that have bothered to investigate Ryan's record the picture becomes a bit murkier.
For starters there is the very pressing and disturbing votes of the Bush legacy. Specifically Ryan's support of: TARP, Medicare Part D and No Child Left Behind (NCLB). All three are wonderful examples of how the Republican party only fights for fiscal sanity when they are a minority party, the second they become the majority they expand Government programs at an alarming rate. NCLB is a monstrosity that gave the Department of Education teeth, Medicare Part D tacked on hundreds of billions (half a trillion as of today per year) to the debt and was passed in the House in a manner very reminiscent to ObamaCare and TARP is an egregious disregard of the free market system and should make any citizen sick to their stomach.[...]

In order to understand that Ryan's budget is nothing more than smoke and mirrors we turn to a detailed analysis of the budget. This interactive analysis lets you compare and contrast the Ryan and Obama budgets side by side and examine the projects for spending. [...]

First we got Medicaid. Clearly the difference is notable and appreciable. In fact based on this image alone it would almost invalidate all my criticism of the Ryan budget. [...]

Next we have Medicare. What's this? Apparently Grandma is not going off a cliff, instead it would appear that she is being pushed up a hill! Ryan's plan spends MORE on Medicare than Obama.[...]

Next up is Social Security. No, it is not a graphical glitch. Ryan's plan does absolutely nothing for Social Security. Yet conservative websites and pundits swoon over Ryan like he is the next coming of Barry Goldwater, more on that later.[...]

Lastly, the national debt. This is probably not surprising, but after all the hoopla and all the bravado the end result is that the speed at which our fiscal apocalypse arrives is merely slowed down by a teeny weeny bit. [...]
The answer is quite simple. Romney and Ryan represent exactly the same problem even if one appears to be a moderate and the other appears to be an epic fiscal warrior. The Republican party fights for and pushes through the status-quo. The images you see up above and the Ryan record is the status-quo. No doubt about it.
Yet Romney is counting on the ignorance of Republican base to run with the facade of Ryan's conservatism. If that illusion holds then Ryan's image will invariably boost Romney's own image as many will view Romney's decision as courageous and bold despite Obama's willingness to distort Ryan's budget. In other words, you are witnessing a most fantastic and glamorous circus. A bad Hollywood movie, except that ending will be quite real and not something you can pause or turn off.[...]

However we all know what happens when politicians threaten the sacred cows of entitlement spending. They get destroyed. Barry Goldwater was America's last libertarian-Republican candidate and he was obliterated because he dared to speak up against Social Security. Barry's loss paved the way for the great society and the invention of Medicare and Medicaid. How ironic. Poll after poll shows that Americans refuse to accept changes to entitlement programs, despite their clamoring for someone to fix our debt.

 They had me fooled for a little bit in thinking Paul Ryan was a small government conservative that is going to reduce the debt and reign in big government. 

222,000,000,000,000

 The actual U.S debt is 222 trillion dollars:

Republicans and Democrats spent last summer battling how best to save $2.1 trillion over the next decade. They are spending this summer battling how best to not save $2.1 trillion over the next decade.
In the course of that year, the U.S. government’s fiscal gap -- the true measure of the nation’s indebtedness -- rose by $11 trillion. [...]

The U.S. fiscal gap, calculated (by us) using theCongressional Budget Office’s realistic long-term budget forecast -- the Alternative Fiscal Scenario -- is now $222 trillion. Last year, it was $211 trillion. The $11 trillion difference -- this year’s true federal deficit -- is 10 times larger than the official deficit and roughly as large as the entire stock of official debt in public hands.  

The fiscal gap is the present value difference between projected future spending and revenue. It captures all government liabilities, whether they are official obligations to service Treasury bonds or unofficial commitments, such as paying for food stamps or buying drones.[...] 

Part of the fiscal gap’s growth reflects changes in policy, such as the Bush and Obama tax cuts, the introduction of Medicare Part D, and the expansion of defense spending. Part reflects “natural” growth of existing programs, including growth in Medicare and Medicaid reimbursement rates. And part reflects the demographic time bomb U.S. politicians are blithely ignoring.

When fully retired, 78 million baby boomers will collect, on average, more than 85 percent of per-capita gross domestic product ($40,000 in today’s dollars) in Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid benefits. Each passing year brings these outlays one year closer, which raises their present value.

 According to the CBO:

 Many budget analysts believe that the alternative fiscal scenario presents a more realistic picture of the nation's underlying fiscal policies than the extended-baseline scenario does. The explosive path of federal debt under the alternative fiscal scenario underscores the need for large and rapid policy changes to put the nation on a sustainable fiscal course.

Hotair notes that, "We’ve been talking about the 'fiscal cliff' or 'Taxmageddon' coming at the end of the year, but this is the real fiscal cliff we face. And yet, no one in this general-election cycle has even acknowledged it, let alone proposed a solution to it." 

Here is a more optimistic view of the situation.

The Enemy

Most people think that communism has fallen and is no longer a threat to the free world: the Soviet Union Collapsed and communism has been discredited by its obvious failure as an economic system. What most people don't know is that communism never collapsed, but it has transformed itself. And still yet that America has been defeated by this new communism. (By communism I don't mean the Soviet-Style- Communism, but instead a system which has more in common with fascism that with communism. If I wanted to be cleaver I would not even use the terms communism or fascism as these words tend to turn people away and cause them to dismiss what is said after these words.) After the world conquest of communism failed to take place in the 1900's. Key intellectuals and leaders of communism began to wonder why communist revolutions did not take place in the West. They then realized that it was the foundation of Western Culture that must be attacked if the West was to fall to communism:

Gramsci posited that because Christianity had been dominant in the West for over 2000 years, not only was it fused with Western civilization, but it had corrupted the workers class. The West would have to be de-Christianized, said Gramsci, by means of a "long march through the culture."

The new battleground, reasoned Gramsci, must become the culture, starting with the traditional family and completely engulfing churches, schools, media, entertainment, civic organizations, literature, science, and history. All of these things must be radically transformed and the social and cultural order gradually turned upside-down with the new proletariat placed in power at the top."

In 1919, Georg Lukacs became Deputy Commissar for Culture in the short-lived Bolshevik Bela Kun regime in Hungary. He immediately set plans in motion to de-Christianize Hungary. Reasoning that if Christian sexual ethics could be undermined among children, then both the hated patriarchal family and the Church would be dealt a crippling blow. Lukacs launched a radical sex education program in the schools. Sex lectures were organized and literature handed out which graphically instructed youth in free love (promiscuity) and sexual intercourse while simultaneously encouraging them to deride and reject Christian moral ethics, monogamy, and parental and church authority.

This is one of the reason that pop culture glorifies sexual promiscuity and the left supports gay rights and anything else that will destroy the foundation of our society. To see that America culture has transformed in the way that communist intellectuals knew was required for America to fall to communism all one has to do is  look at T.V shows, movies, pop culture, the crap that is taught in today's universities, and the beliefs held by the common American to see this. (I have heard people spout communist slogans and state that we don't know if communism is so bad. Even one of my favorite sitcoms Seinfeld has helped to chip away, with a smile, at the foundations of our society and has contributed to revolution.)

Communist leaders knew that the West would never outright accept communism:

In 1959 President Eisenhower asked Secretary of Agriculture, Ezra Taft Benson to teach Nikita Khrushchev about American Agriculture.

Sec. Benson recalled the following conversation……

'Your grandchildren will live under communism.' Khrushchev said.

'On the contrary,' Secretary Benson replied, 'My grandchildren will live in freedom as I hope that all people will.' 

Khrushchev then retorted: 'You Americans are so gullible. No, you won’t accept Communism outright; but we’ll keep feeding you small doses of Socialism until you will finally wake up and find that you already have Communism. We won’t have to fight you; we’ll so weaken your economy, until you fall like overripe fruit into our hands.

 Khrushchev was probably referring to the economic rivalry during the Cold Wart, but this weakening has come about through the adoption of economic policies modeled after socialism and central planning: the welfare state. The economic crisis of 2008 has done a lot to move America towards a command and control economy.

The six- time U.S presidential candidate for the socialist party Norman Thomas stated :

The American people will never knowingly adopt Socialism. But under the name of 'liberalism' they will adopt every fragment of the Socialist program, until one day America will be a Socialist nation, without knowing how it happened.

Khrushchev also stated:

We can't expect the American People to jump from Capitalism to Communism,
but we can assist their elected leaders in giving them small doses of Socialism,
until they awaken one day to find that they have Communism.

 It may be hard for us to accept or acknowledge, but the painful truth is that America has already been defeated by the new-communism and today "find that they have Communism".  Not the Soviet-Style Communism, but the softer-milder kind. It has happened so slowly and gradually without a major event to mark the turning point, that most people don't even know it and/or don't care enough to look. For one to see that America has been defeated, all they have to do is look at who the American people have elected to the highest office in our land. A man whose mentor was a communist with ties to Russia.

Imagine an American man so devout in his Communist beliefs, that during the Cold War the FBI placed him on its security index – meaning that if an armed conflict were to have erupted between the U.S. and the Soviet Union, Federal authorities would have looked to him as a prime suspect for treason.

Now imagine that man mentored the leader of the free world.

(Obama has admitted that this was the man that he mentioned in his autobiography. It is also interesting that a lot of what this man advocated we see our president doing today. You need to learn about this Frank Marshall Davis.)
A man whose parents were devoted socialist/communist. A man who has surrounded himself with communist while in office and/or people who profess their love for communist leaders. A man who has chosen for his 2012 campaign slogan Forward. (A classic communist slogan.) A man who has actively worked to "fundamentally transform" our nation. The American people have elected the enemy as our president, and after three years in office about half of them still support the man. Enemy is a strong word so it needs to be defined. I am using the word enemy to mean someone that stands against everything that made our nation great; someone that stands instead for communism; someone who wants to and actively works to "fundamentally transform" this nation. America fought against this ideology and way of life on the battlefield during the Korean War, the Vietnam War, and the Cold War. Many men have died to keep America and the world safe from this system. And now America has bowed down before this system and elected a leader who seeks to bring America under this system. The bottom line is that America has been defeated from within by socialism/communism/collectivism/fascism.

Some might say "that if this is defeat then it isn't so bad". "My life hasn't changed that much." The German of the 1930's would have said the same thing immediately after Hitler took over. (I am not trying to intimate that Obama is Hitler.) Only after their nation was destroyed and two million of their women rapped would they realize what had happened. The change/revolution is not completed. All that is left to complete the revolution is a major transformative event that will be upon us in the not-so-distant future when the economy collapses or some other major event. Of course when this happens it at first will appear much as Nazism appeared to the German people-- as a savior. Only then will people realize that this has happened.

Preimplantation Genetic Diagnosis

Preimplantation Genetic Diagnosis (PGD) is a technique that is used for finding abnormalities or disorders in fertilized or unfertilized eggs (ovum). It is usually done in vitro fertilization for parents who suspect that they have a hereditary disease that is linked to genes. Many eggs are fertilized and the chromosomes are analyzed. Once an ideal egg is singled out, it is implanted in the mother's uterus. The rest of the fertilized eggs are discarded or used for testing. They will not live.There are also ways to analyze an ovum before it is fertilized in cases where maternal mutations are the only concern. (Sharpe)

Benefits:

• Less disabled people could ease the burden on our health system. A study showed that annual health care costs for a someone with down syndrome is over $34000 (Boulet). This study was done in 2004. 
• If someone finds out that they are carrying a child with a sever disability, they are more likely to terminate the pregnancy. PGD can prevent these sort of abortions.

Drawbacks:

• It has been suggested that Bill Gates, Lewis Carroll, and Thomas Jefferson had/have Asperger Syndrome; a high functioning version of autism (Hensley). What if PGD prevents great thinkers from ever being born?
• Are we playing the hand of God? 

PGD can also be a way of picking traits for our offspring: height, IQ, hair color, etc. Although research is still being done on this. I saw a scientist on NOVA talking about the complexity of these issues because there are hundreds of genes that contribute to these traits and environmental issues that we have no control of.

Citations used:

Boulet, Sheree, and Noelle-Angelique Molinari, Scott Grosse, Margaret Honein, Adlolfo Correa-Villasenor. “Health Care Expenditures for Infants and Young Children with Down Syndrome in a Privately Insured Population.” The Journal of Pediatrics. Aug. 2008. Vol. 153, Issue 2, Pages 241-246. Web. 16 July 2012.

Hensley, Samuel. “Fetal Genetic Testing is Unethical.” Biomedical Ethics. Ed. Viqi Wagner. Detroit: Greenhaven, 2008. 208-213. Print

Sharpe, Neil, and Ron Carter. Genetic Testing: Care, Consent, and Liability. New Jersey: Wiley-Liss, 2006. Print.

ObamaCare Survives

The Supreme Court declared ObamaCare constitutional, in virtually its entirety, today in a 5-4 decision.  Conservatives had big hopes for a reversal to this horrible monstrosity, but the newest conservative on the Bench, Chief Justice Roberts, threw in his lot with the liberals on the court to form the majority.  Interestingly, the justice viewed as the perpetual swing vote on the Court, Justice Kennedy, voted with the conservatives on this decision and said the law is "invalid in its entirety".

But how the majority arrived at their decision is very interesting: basically, they rejected the Obama administration's argument that the Individual Mandate (requiring all citizens to purchase health insurance) was constitutional under the Commerce Clause and took it upon themselves to declare it was constitutional if it is considered a tax, which they (the majority on the Supreme Court) decided it was.  From Scotus Blog via Instapundit:

In Plain English: The Affordable Care Act, including its individual mandate that virtually all Americans buy health insurance, is constitutional. There were not five votes to uphold it on the ground that Congress could use its power to regulate commerce between the states to require everyone to buy health insurance. However, five Justices agreed that the penalty that someone must pay if he refuses to buy insurance is a kind of tax that Congress can impose using its taxing power. That is all that matters. Because the mandate survives, the Court did not need to decide what other parts of the statute were constitutional, except for a provision that required states to comply with new eligibility requirements for Medicaid or risk losing their funding. On that question, the Court held that the provision is constitutional as long as states would only lose new funds if they didn’t comply with the new requirements, rather than all of their funding. . . . Yes, to answer a common question, the whole ACA is constitutional, so the provision requiring insurers to cover young adults until they are 26 survives as well.

And here's the catch: when arguing for ObamaCare, the Obama administration and the Democrats in Congress who pushed this act swore up and down that it was not a tax.  In fact, they knew that if it were called a tax, there was no chance at all that it would be approved in Congress.  So, now we find out more about Nancy Pelosi's famous statement that "we've got to pass this bill to find out what's in it". 

Again via Instapundit and Reason, here is new conservative hero, Representative Darrell Issa (R-CA):

“In selling Obamacare, Congressional Democrats and President Obama assured the American people that it was not a tax. Today, the Supreme Court ruled it was, in fact, a tax. This tax was imposed on the American people amidst an extended recession and is one of the many reasons our economy remains stagnant under President Obama’s leadership."

But, my friends, all is not lost.  As Ace says regarding this case,

...but remember, it was only Plan B, and we had little confidence in it until this past March.

Plan A was always to win the Senate and the White House and flush this piece of shit down the toilet through reconciliation.

Let's do it.

A Revealing Episode

Micahael Burry predicted the 2008 financial crisis and made about 100 million dollars for himself and around 700 million dollars for his clients by shorting the market . He wrote an Op-Ed in the New York Times titled 'I Saw the Crisis Coming. Why Didn't the Fed?'. What happened to him as a result of writing this Op-Ed? See what happened starting from minute 14:00 to 15:40. This should tell you something.  

From Bad to Good to Bad

Washington state recently privatized liquor sales. Before June 1st the state government had a monopoly on liquor sales. The people of the state, evidently COSTCO helped the initiative, voted to give all liquor sales to private vendors.

This could have been a great thing. Privatizing any industry is almost always good. But of course there are a ton of hidden taxes and fees. (oregonlive.com)

Because of the complex nature of the new fees, and additional markups by distributors, it's unclear what the final cost of a fifth or a half-gallon will be until it gets rung up at the cash register. State analysts have predicted prices could go up by as much as 20 percent from what they were before the privatization initiative passed

A liquor store manager in Rainier Oregon said that sales had jumped 20 percent since the new legislation was passed. Many Washington residents are flocking to the government ran liquor stores in Oregon to get better prices.

So, what was supposed to be a great thing, got screwed up by the government. The link above stated that there is a 20.5% sales tax and a $3.77 per liter tax! What is this, New York City?

While we are on the liquor sales subject, I have been thinking about something. Why can't alcohol be delivered the same as pizza? It seems to me that it would be a healthy benefit to society. A lot of Americans drink a few beers, catch a buzz, run out of booze, and drive to the store. The fact that residential alcohol delivery is illegal will not stop me from getting alcohol if I want it. Why didn't we elect Ron Paul?