BEFORE You Pass the Unemployment Extension!

Unemployment is the new-old hot button issue that is all over the news again since we finally corked the oil spill in the Gulf for the time being. This is also a topic that affects far more Americans directly, so naturally, it is back on the front burner before Congress takes their August recess.  Today it is looking like we are going to get the extension passed without any consideration for how it will be paid for, or what it will even accomplish.

There is one talking point I would like clarified by our friends on the left: has the stimulus been successful, or are we in a dire situation? We cannot have it both ways, and yet, President Obama and his cabinet would like you to believe that the stimulus was successful while at the same time lecturing the Republicans on the reasonableness of passing the unemployment extension because we are in a crisis (and God knows, this Administration won’t let any crisis go to waste!). You can’t have your cake and eat it too, although, we are supposed to eat ours.

So which is it? Those of us with a more Conservative (or rugged individualism) proclivity are likely to say, “a year for unemployment benefits is ample time! Suck it up and get a job!” Those of us who may be more mindful of taking care of our fellow man (or, at least forcing others to do so through government so we don’t have to do the dirty work ourselves) might argue, “there are no jobs, what are they supposed to do?”

Taking only one side of this issue leaves one without a complete understanding of our present crisis’ gestalt. There are certainly a number of situations where people have been using unemployment benefits to subsidize their sloth; while one cannot take away from the fact that some areas of a state simply have no infrastructure for job growth. You cannot deny that the job situation has gotten worse, the New York Times has an interactive map that shows the growing unemployment rates state by state and how they climbed over time. Furthermore, the Bureau of Labor Statistics does not show a particularly peachy picture of jobs to come, considering at the present moment there are five Americans competing for every one job.

I know it won’t happen, but there are two things I would like to see done if Congress and the President are to pass the Emergency Unemployment Benefits Extension:

First, I cannot imagine why we can’t find a way to pay for it. Emergency unemployment benefits are not paid by the employer during the worker’s tenure, it comes straight out of thin air thanks to the Federal government’s Nietzschean ability to posit something from nothing; in this case, create money and with it, value. The Federal government sets aside a block grant to the state, whose Department of Labor hands out the benefits accordingly. Our Federal deficit stands at a paltry $1.6 Trillion dollars this year, as projected by the administration. The Unemployment bill that is set to pass today will add yet another $36 Billion to our gluttonous budget, and all the Republicans and a few Blue-Dogs ask for is a means to pay for it… part of it? Half of it? Any of it? Somebody please go to YouCut and find one of those programs that Representative Cantor’s office has bulls-eyed and we could have this extension paid for.

Secondly, I’ve already hinted to it earlier in the piece, but the Wall Street Journal has an article about stimulating unemployment where a crazy correlation was made: “A 2006 NBER study by Raj Chetty of UC Berkeley on a related subject begins, ‘It is well known that unemployment benefits raise unemployment durations.’” Imagine that: incentivizing people to not get jobs, and then telling them “well instead of getting a job call your Congressman and ask him or her to extend unemployment benefits” would lead people to strive for nothing. That’s as stupid as setting time-tables in a war. Nevertheless, if we are going to do this last emergency extension, why the hell would we not get something out of it in return? Why not ask of people (and I say ask now, but rather, I’d be much more willing to demand it as part of the prerequisite for receiving such benefits) to help out their community? I would make it mandatory for people to volunteer at least 20 hours of their week towards their community, state or nation in exchange for their free benefits (because we must remember, that they did not pay into this unemployment pool). This would allow people to create at least some value from their benefits outside of paying for the bare necessities that had to be paid for already. Giving money away doesn’t add value; but giving money to people in exchange for something does.

When I mentioned this on my Twitter account (follow me, rcaster – we are not afraid of shameless self promotion here) I was accosted by some #P2 fellow, which means he is a “Progressive” in Twitter lexicon. He claimed my idea was unfair because “the unemployed are not criminals!” I would have re-posted the conversation for you, but BlackJedi”somethingorother” was embarrassed enough to just erase his entire end of the conversation, and my tweets went as well (I guess that means I was blocked).

Imagine that, doing something for your community is an activity that should be relegated to those people who are being punished. Perhaps this is the truth about the soul of our communities, and why liberal areas tend to lack it. Doing community service is a punishment? Well I would rather bestow benefits upon people willing to contribute to their community, than give it to those who do not. And besides, who can take away the fact that people will feel better once they get into a productive groove; perhaps they will put their rear-into-gear afterward and go look for that next job with some new skills; perhaps they won’t sit around and feel sorry for themselves, but feel a sense of accomplishment for having achieved something, and that may just be the push they need to go out the door and apply. I used to get into arguments with my high school history teacher, Mr. Lubenetski, about FDR’s New Deal and whether or not it ended the Great Depression. He would say to me, looking exactly like Teddy Roosevelt (he did, red hair, mustache, glasses and all) and explode with his booming voice, “it may not have brought people all the way up to their feet, but it kept them off their knees!” If we are going to pay people who lost work, I say we put them back to work, because you may not be able to measure the benefit of doing so, but a man’s pride can carry him further than his pouting ever will.

-rj

The Principled Pragmatist-Palin’s Advice to The Tea Party

In an interview with Fox News, Sarah Palin suggested that the Tea Party “take over the Republican Party … Get them to see the light.”  While such a statement carries a certain air of hypocrisy considering Palin’s endorsement of Senator John Mc’Cain over his far more conservative rivals, its inherent wisdom should not be overlooked.

The two-party division that dominates our political world was born only years after the ratification of The Constitution.  The Federalist Party, led by Alexander Hamilton, propounded a larger Federal Government that took a more expansive role in the lives of its citizens.  Ironically, it was the Democratic Party, led by Thomas Jefferson, that opposed the expansion of the Federal Government, and insisted, rather, that social programs and regulations be left to the control of state governments.  While the modern political parties have swapped ideologies, the classical alignment still exists, though, perhaps, somewhat muddled in the minds of individual americans.  It is that confusion–the ignorance of fundamental principles–that is to blame for today’s bloated expansion of the Federal Government.  Unable to articulate what they believe, modern conservatives, or those who would have allied themselves with the Democrats (or classical liberals) of Jefferson’s day, have, for over eighty years, found themselves voting into office leaders who have actually succeeded in increasing, rather than decreasing the size of the Federal Government.  The claim that there exists little difference between Democrats and Republicans is far more axiomatic than many realize.  The ideology of Jefferson’s Democratic party–the belief that the Federal Government should be limited to the express powers dictated by the Constitution and that social programs and regulations should be left to state governments–has all but disappeared from the political arena.  However, in an age were information is readily accessible, where the average american, by and through the aid of libraries and the internet, can obtain an education far superior to that offered by the university, Jefferson’s voice is heard once more in the mouth of the Tea Party.

As the Tea Party seeks to restore the principles of limited government, it has found its closest allies within the Republican Party.  And while many Republicans still believe in the expansion of the Federal Government, the movement would be wise to stay the course, and focus on reforming the party from within, rather than rejecting it from without.  Of course, when forced to decide between loyalty to party or loyalty to principle, the movement must remain true, even if it requires voting Democrat or Independent over Republican.

Standing For Something-Why Bipartisan Politics Are Bad For America

Bloomberg reports that “President Barack Obama began yesterday’s health-care summit saying he wanted to find bipartisan ways to fix the health-care system.”  But, “By the end, he said he might be left with a partisan path forward.”  In other words, President Obama and the Democratic Party may be ready to concede bipartisan defeat, as increasing pressure from Conservatives forces Republican leaders to, once and for all, declare their ideological allegiance.  It seems that it is no longer enough to simply smile and kiss babies.  The modern politician must believe in something, and vote accordingly.  As Glenn Greenwald, a columnist for Salon explains, “[o]ne of the strangest prongs of conventional Beltway wisdom is the lament that there is not enough bipartisanship.  The opposite is true:  many of the most damaging acts inflicted on the country by Washington are enacted on a fully bipartisan basis.”  Politicians must accept that they will disagree with their colleagues.  Oftentimes, such disagreements will be irreconcilable, as differences in principle are bound to produce differences in opinion.  However, disagreement is not destructive.  Rather, it encourages intellectual discussion and debate, and, by forcing politicians to stand firm in their convictions, provides an opportunity for true leaders to prove themselves worthy of their elected office.

National Journal’s Ideological Rankings

See them here.

The 10 Most Liberal Senate Dems   Most Conservative Senate GOPers

1. Sherrod Brown (D-OH)           1. Jim Inhofe (R-OK)

1. Roland Burris (D-IL)           2. Jim DeMint (R-SC)

1. Ben Cardin (D-MD)              3. Jim Bunning (R-KY)

1. Jack Reed (D-RI)               4. Tom Coburn (R-OK)

1. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI)      5. Jim Risch (R-ID)

6. John Kerry (D-MA)              6. John Thune (R-SD)

6. Frank Lautenberg (D-NJ)        7. John Ensign (R-NV)

8. Barbara Mikulski (D-MD)        8. Mitch McConnell (R-KY)

9. Chris Dodd (D-CT)              9. Richard Burr (R-NC)

9. Dick Durbin (D-IL)             10. Jeff Sessions (R-AL)

The 10 Most Liberal House Dems    Most Conservative House GOPers

1. Rush Holt (D-NJ)               1. Trent Franks (R-AZ)

1. Gwen Moore (D-WI)              1. Doug Lamborn (R-CO)

1. John Olver (D-MA)              1. Randy Neugebaurer (R-TX)

1. Linda Sanchez (D-CA)           1. Pete Olson (R-TX)

1. Jan Schakowsky (D-IL)          1. John Shadegg (R-AZ)

1. Louise Slaughter (D-NY)        1. Mac Thornberry (R-TX)

1. Mel Watt (D-NC)                7. Marsha Blackburn (R-TN)

1. Henry Waxman (D-CA)            8. Mike Pence (R-IN)

9. Kathy Castor (D-FL)            9. Steve King (R-IA)

10. Jesse Jackson Jr. (D-IL)      9. Tom McClintock (R-CA)

The 10 In The Middle              In The Middle Of The House

(Most liberal to Most conserv.)   (Most liberal to Most conserv.)

46. Claire McCaskill (D-MO)       213. Henry Cuellar (D-TX)

47. Robert Byrd (D-WV)            214. Suzanne Kosmas (D-FL)

48. Bob Casey (D-PA)              215. John Adler (D-NJ)

49. Amy Klobuchar (D-MN)          216. Bill Foster (D-IL)

50. Mark Pryor (D-AR)             217. Michael McMahon (D-NY)

51. Byron Dorgan (D-ND)           218. Michael Arcuri (D-NY)

52. Blanche Lincoln (D-AR)        219. John Tanner (D-TN)

53. Joe Lieberman (I-CT)          220. Scott Murphy (D-NY)

54. Jim Webb (D-VA)               221. Tim Holden (D-PA)

55. Russ Feingold (D-WI)          222. Zack Space (D-OH)

Most Liberal House Delegations    Most Conservative Delegations

1. MA                             1. ID

2. HI                             2. KY

3. VT                             3. SC

4. CT                             4. TX

5. RI                             5. GA

For complete results, methodologies and more lists — including the 2 members of the Senate from different parties who have the exact same score — check out the vote rankings at NationalJournal.com.

Update II: Many comments wonder where Rep. Ron Paul (R-TX) is on our list of most conservative House members. Paul has conservative vote rankings in the economic category (85%) and the social category (73%), but his votes on foreign policy are much more centrist (53% conservative). That makes him the 140th-most conservative member in the House.

I’m surprised Coburn is so far back, and that Feingold is almost exactly in the middle, but other than that the rankings make sense.

I was told by a guy on the Hill that Feinstein is the only senator pulled to the left by his/her constituents- that she’s actually a moderate. I found that interesting, but it explains her support for the president’s decision to send troops to Afghanistan.

Channeling Reagan

Obama Seeks to Channel Reagan as Democrats Prepare for Election, reads a headline on this morning’s Bloomberg.com. Meanwhile, Governor Crist of Florida is quoted in Politico as saying “If I’m a RINO, then so is Ronald Reagan.” It appears that Channeling Reagan is, or is at least perceived to be, a good way to bait conservatives. The hope is that by associating oneself with the political ideologies of the 40th President, one may safely appeal to those pesky fundamentalists that still believe in things without coming across as too over-the top. This is unfortunate, because it distracts from the actual issues by allowing politicians to focus on abstract policies (I.E. ‘fiscal responsibility,’ ‘responsible spending,’ etc.), rather than articulate the means intended to accomplish such goals and enact such policies.

In short, association with public figures is nothing more than another cheap way to dodge substantive questions about what one truly believes and desires.

Rahm Emanuel Follows In Obama’s Gaffes

White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel has followed in President Obama’s footsteps regarding sensitivity towards handicapped Americans. According to The Wall Street Journal:

“F—ing retarded,” Mr. Emanuel scolded the group [of liberal lawmakers], according to several participants. He warned them not to alienate lawmakers whose votes would be needed on health care and other top legislative items.

This happened back in August, but according to Politico Emanuel just apologized to handicapped activist Tim Shriver last week after the Journal reported the incident.

I’m not going to harp on about this- it’s the most minor of incidents. Nevertheless, our public officials and their subordinates should not be making insulting references to handicapped people. It’s not appropriate, no matter what the setting. Emanuel’s apology is exceedingly appropriate, if very belated.

Punishing the Guilty- Unless We Don’t

The Heritage Foundation nailed it in their Morning Bell yesterday:

The TARP program has so far distributed $247 billion to more than 700 banks. Of that, $162 billion in principal and $11 billion in interest and dividends have already been repaid. Except for AIG, almost all banks that received taxpayer money are expected to pay back the American taxpayers in full. As The New York Times reports: “The losses from the bailout fund are expected from money paid to rescue Chrysler and General Motors and the insurance giant American International Group, and from a program to help homeowners avert foreclosures.”

So the real deadbeats that are not giving us “our money back” are not the banks, but the union-backed car companies and failed government mortgage modification programs. But guess what? The White House has chosen not to include the car companies among the institutions that will pay this so called “Financial Crisis Responsibility Fee.” Also exempted are Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the government-sponsored entities that helped create the crisis.

It’s time we told our elected officials to stop picking winners and losers, and voted in people who are in favor of term limits and in favor of a separation of business from government. Beyond liberal or conservative, these are the issues that are so important to America. After all, when Howard Dean, Markos Moulitas and Arianna Huffington agree with The Heritage Foundation…perhaps it’s time for- and I dislike using this word- change to how our system works. Of course, it’s up to us, the voters and citizens of America, to make said change.

Operation: Just Cause

In December of 1989, George H.W. Bush (or Bush Senior for the liberals who do not know the proper application of a generational?suffix) sent the XVII Airborne Corps, Joint Special Operations Command and numerous other Army, Marine, Navy and Air Force units into the country of Panama.? The operation was launched in an effort by then-President Bush to depose of Manuel Noriega (the de facto leader of the Panamanian government at the time) and rescue Americans who had been trapped in the country during those turbulent times.? The operation was named Operation Just Cause, leaving some critics of the engagement to quip that the operation’s name was the only argument H.W. Bush had to justify the action (I will leave the conspiracy theories about Skulls and Bones, Mena Airport, Bush, the CIA and aliens out for the sake of time, much to the chagrin of Alex Jones supporters).

What makes a war “just”?? Surely this is a topic that has been debated and mulled over for as long as men have been around on this earth (because women do not go to war, of course; war is a bi-product if irrational manliness).? Can anyone truly justify a war to every one’s liking?? Is the nature of the state to do what is right for the population of that state, no matter what that means for other states (as the term state is understood post-Machiavelli) as we see with the realists?? Or can a state only be justified in going to war if such an engagement is for the benefit of humanity as a whole (by asking “pretty please” from the UN)?? Then again, it was once said that “those who invoke humanity on their side mean to cheat” (Carl Schmitt, The Concept of the Political).?

Apparently, Americans are having a sort of crisis of conscience.? According to a recent Rasmussen Poll, only 50% percent of our fellow countrymen and women feel that the War in Afghanistan is a “Just” war.? This goes along with the Quinnipiac University poll that came out about a week and a half ago, which nearly reaches the exact same conclusion.? Support for the war in the first year preceding the September 11th attacks of 2001 was close to near unanimous approval, with Gallup showing 89-93% stating that Afghanistan was not a mistake in January of 2002.? So it appears that Americans (Democrats and Republicans mind you) are waning on their support for a war that they felt was necessary in 2001 and 2002.? What has changed?

If the Afghan War was justified then, what makes it less so now?? Surely we are there for the same reason, since we did not go over and overthrow the Taliban and then leave only to return as “occupiers”.? What is it that makes this war “unjust” then?? What is “justice” to these people who?have decided that it is no more than a mere term to be thrown around in the height of passion following an attack on 3,000 innocent people?? Was it only then just because we went in and overthrew a tyrannical regime that was directly tied to forces responsible for bloodshed on our own soil?? Now is it “unjust” solely for the reason that we are being told by the news and liberal (and libertarian and some conservative) influences that we have overstayed our welcome?? Which is the more justified action: going in and sacking the regime of a country to leave it in anarchy and decay; or staying and building it up to the point that their government can run effectively and more justly than before?? Who are the 21% of voters that have obtained this retroactive prescience? and decided they are against it after they were for it?? I can understand those people who were against it from the beginning, and that is because they feel that no war is ever justified.? They should be acknowledged and applauded for their principled stand, but let us not forget the ignorance that must be evident in such a dogmatic stance.?

I must admit that it is polls like these that create a feeling of futility in the pit of my stomach.? Perhaps a majority of Americans should not be asked a question about wars and their relation to justice until they better understand what justice is.? The slow decay of support for this necessary war is a sad barometer of the fortitude possessed by the American people to support the men and women overseas, their families at home, and the mission we sent them to do eight years ago.? In the end, those 50% of Americans who now question the mission and its necessity, are not doing those soldiers or their families justice.?

-rj

Democrat Wants Abortion In Health Care Bill

“Question Authority”

“Question Authority” is a popular slogan often pasted on bumper stickers that came out of the late 1970′s famous protests around the United States. The phrase is a statement refuting the logical fallacy of “because I said so.” In other words, statements made by “authority figures” are not necessarily factual just because the individual making the statements have rank over others.

“You will always find that those are most apt to boast of national merit, who have little or not merit of their own to depend on…” -Oliver Goldsmith

From Vietnam to George W. Bush, questioning authority has been the policy of the left, especially when Republicans have been in office. And to be fair, there has always been an assumption that it is the duty of citizenry not to blindly accept what they are being told by a government. Especially when that government was appointment by the very people it assumes it has authority over.

“It is the first responsibility of every citizen to question authority.” -Benjamin Franklin

But for the Left, this mantra of sorts has quickly come to a close with the election of a Progressive administration. Questioning authority is unacceptable. And it is confusing to the Left why conservatives would ever question the policies of the administration. Furthermore, the generation that invented the “Question Authority” movement, now the authorities themselves, have entered into numerous double standards.

Mark Lloyd was brought into the administration as the Chief Diversity Officer. A position that is designed to verify that a strategy of diversity and inclusion policy is taking place across the nation. Yet the administration has attempted to shut down and shut out Fox News as of late. A very diverse move.

I for one was never taught in school that asking questions was a thing of ignorance.

-nick

Next Page »