It is Better to Be Loved Than to Have People Hate Your Enemy

or Why the Election of Scott Brown is not as Good as it Seems

Before the Republican party breaks its arm patting itself on the back, they might want to ask why Scott Brown won the election. He won, not because he was loved but, because his opponent was hated. Hate is a powerful emotion, and should be used with care.

For the last two election cycles hate has been used as an effective weapon against the Republicnas, and has aided the Democrat's accidence. Dispite these successes, the Democrats have now lost what should have been the safest Senate seat in the country.

Understanding this is the key to understanding how the Republicans can continue their rise and avoid quick reversals. While hatred of George W. Bush fueled the fall of the Republicans, this did mean that people loved the Democrats or their agenda.

The quick reversals and public outrage should make it clear that the hatred of your opponents is not enough to govern or push through an agenda. To do these things you have to be loved by the people. Up to now, the Republicans have been very effective at channeling the anger of the people toward the Democrats, but up to know they have not been able to channel much love toward themselves.

If they fail to explain to the American people why they ought to love them, the Republicans are only a few successful election cycles away from scratching their heads and asking, "How could we have possibly lost that seat?"

Billions for Bailouts, but not a Cent for Children's Education

Does my title sound a bit extreme? Well it probably is both extreme and a little inaccurate. The Democrats in Congress have no problem funding education, so long as children have no choice in where they get it. So long as the government monopoly on K-12 education is maintained they are more than happy to waste millions if not billions.

You might ask:"Aren't you being a bit extreme? How can funding education be a waste?!", and I would answer, "The same way it is a waste when you pay twice as much for something half as good!"

What am I talking about? The Democrats pulling the plug the DC Opportunity Scholarship Program. This 14 million dollar program (yes that is million with an "M", not billions with a "B") allows about 1,900 students, trapped in one of the worst school systems in the country, to use a portion of the money that would be spent on them in the public school system to get a privet education.

For the past five years this program has given hope and opportunity to poor children trapped in the District failing schools. Parents and students are far happier to be in private schools, and there is some evidence that the children are performing better (even though five years is a short amount of time to see a noticeable difference).

Instead of expanding this program, so more families can feel the benefits, the Democrats have chosen to quietly axe it in the 410 billion dollar omnibus spending bill. Yes, in a 410 billion dollar spending bill, the Democrats have cut a 14 million dollar education program! With fiscal responsibility like this, we will "cut the deficit in half" in no time!

But you say, "Sending kids to private schools sounds expensive! These are hard times!" That is the beauty of this program. It costs about 7,500 dollars per student. Do you know what the District spends per student in the public schools?! $24,600 per student!!

Apparently, if the solution to a problem is not a massive government program backed by an even more massive budget the Democrats can't support it.

But don't listen to me, listen to these kids as they plead with Congress and the President not to cut their program.
http://www.voicesofschoolchoice.org/home.aspx

If you are interested, you can also check out these links for more information.
http://cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=10008
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/03/01/AR2009030101617.html?sub=AR
http://www.newsweek.com/id/186952/page/2

P.S. I am sorry for my poor grammar and overuse of explanation points, but this just pisses me off so much. If you want to crush our economy with new taxes, regulate businesses out of business, and centralize power in your hands and the hands of your allies, I can accept that. I do not like it, but I can accept it. Just don't pick on the kids, particularly the poor ones. I mean, have you no decency?! At long last have you no decency?!

I Feel Nauseous

I feel nauseous. Not just the normal physical nausea, but a strange new fiscal nausea.

Over the past month I have heard of so many trillion dollar spending plans that I am no longer shocked when I hear about them. On the contrary, when I hear about a million or billion dollar government plan I think: “That can't possibly be right. A government plan that tries to solve all our problems without the use of twelve zeros? Impossible! Someone must have forgotten to account for a layer of bureaucracy or add in a special 'stimulus' project for their home state."

Now that I have excepted the cost of these "stimulus" and "rescue" plans (though I still have not wrapped my head around them) I just need to figure out their purpose.

The purpose of the "stimulus" bill ostensibly is to stimulate the economy. I am less than sure how this is supposed to work. I understand the basic concept of spending money to create economic activity, though I am not sure I believe it works, I am prepared to suspend disbelief. My major problem with the "stimulus" bill is that I do not think it's spending qualifies as stimulus.

According to Keynesian Economics, for "pump priming" stimulus to work it needs to be done quickly. The problem with the stimulus bill, aside from the fact that large parts of it have little to nothing to do with stimulus, it's that the "shovel ready" infrastructure projects will take at least 6 months to a year to get off the ground. At the rate the resection is going is going I don't think that we have six months.

(Side note: How do you measure the number of jobs created by this bill?)

(Side note to the side note: How do you measure the number of jobs "saved" by this bill?)

Now we come to the bail out plan (under construction). We don't know what we are going to do, but we can all agree it is going to cost a lot of money.

(Another side note: Is it a good thing to announce a trillion dollar bail-out non-plan for a banking industry that is jittery in the middle of a recession? I mean, I know they don't want to "waist a crisis", but I think people are already scared enough to accept anything they purpose. I don't think they need to spook the markets and the citizenry any more.)

So, we don't know what we are going to do, but it's going to cost an arm and a leg. I'm just a little unsure as to how borrowing money helps us out of a credit crisis.

In an attempt to get banks lending again in these uncertain times, we are going to give them a massive infusion of cash (financed by borrowing). In an uncertain market, where there is limited credit, aren't people going to find the safest investment to hide their money in? Say, government bonds?

So we are borrowing money to spend and bail out companies to get us out of a crisis started by dangerous and unsustainable levels of debt. I have heard of spending to get yourself out of a recession (we can debate how effective this is later), but I have never heard of spending your way out of debt.

My biggest question is what is going to happen when the government can't get any one to lend it any more money? Who is going to bail out the government? I am not sure who this unlucky person is going to be, but I get the sinking suspicion that I see him in the mirror every morning. That thought makes me nauseous.

I'm Confused

Before the Senate adopted the new stimulus bill, Obama came out to try to convince people that, despite much of the bill having little to nothing to do with stimulus, the loose (at best) connection between government spending and economic recovery, and a huge price tag, we had to pass this bill or there would be dire consequences.

Referring to ongoing conflicts over the amount of spending in the bill, Obama said that spending was the whole point of stimulus. I guess I am confused, because I thought the whole point of stimulus was... stimulating the economy. I thought that whatever the bill did, be it spending, tax cuts, or both, that those things were to be the means to an end, not an end unto themselves.

I guess we have to expect things to be different in this new era of hope and change. As Obama reminded us, "People didn't vote for the false theories of the past" and that we don't "...want the same tired arguments and worn out dogmas." I guess when he said, "On this day[his inauguration], we come to proclaim an end to... recriminations and worn out dogmas.." he was only talking about conservative dogmas.

I guess I was confused. I thought he was talking about a new way of doing business, not calling for the complete and utter capitulation of his political opponents.

I must also be confused about the terms of the debate. I did not realize we only had a choice between this stimulus bill and nothing, but according to Obama if his opponents got their way that is exactly what would happen, nothing. No spending, no tax breaks, no nothing.

I was under the impression that the Republicans had put forth their own version of the stimulus bill, which focused more on tax cuts with some infrastructure projects. Granted their bill was about half of what was finally past, but I guess they must not have gotten the memo that said that spending was the whole point of the bill.

I thought this was a debate about methods, means, and money, but I guess I was confused.