GMOs are Safer Than “Natural” Hybrids


Peppermint, a hybrid of Spearmint and WatermintPeople try to claim that Genetically Modified Organisms, for example corn with a gene spliced in that helps it resist a disease, are somehow more dangerous, because we don’t know what other changes the splicing may have wrought.

The claim is made that that they are somehow “unproven” and could contain some surprise risk, but this is the opposite of the truth. Whenever you pollinate a plant normally, the seeds you get have hundreds, or thousands, of unknown factors in them, as they’re a random mix of two parent plants. Hybrids, for example, are an extreme case of this.

But a GMO is a known cultivar with a SINGLE gene moved. Not tens of thousands of genes moved at random, just a single one (or set of similarly chosen ones). It is the most KNOWN kind of modified plant, with the fewest surprise protein combinations possible.

Now if you have some spearmint, and some watermint, you might cross-pollinate them, and then who knows…some people might be specifically allergic to the resulting, unique cultivar (which we call peppermint). But if you move ONE gene from the watermint to the spearmint, you can know exactly what the results will be.

Ron Paul is Right: Don’t Abandon What We’ve Achieved


“The truth is, if I would have tried, in the last several years, to do exactly what I have done, in a third party, I probably wouldn’t have gotten to your show.”

In his recent appearance on Jay Leno, Ron Paul made it clear that we should continue the fight to reclaim the Republican party from the socialist RiNOs…not abandon it for the ever-failed Libertarian party, right when we’ve achieved so much.

After the fiasco of blatant rule-violation and corruption at the Republican national convention, some Libertarian party members tried to convince us to abandon our efforts of six years, and join the LP.

In a bizarre parody of gradeschool rumor-mongering, they even created the impression that Paul was planning to announce a run third party run, or endorse the latest Libertarian candidate-of-convenience, Gary Johnson, in his coming appearance on The Tonight Show.

Many Paul supporters, myself included, pointed out that Ron had known what we faced from the start, and wouldn’t waste all we’d gained at the last minute.

Well, last night he did indeed appear on Jay Leno. Sure enough, he did NOT endorse (and even avoided mentioning) the LP, and specifically dismissed a third party run for legal/logistical reasons…

…and, most importantly, he pointed out:

“The truth is, if I would have tried, in the last several years, to do exactly what I have done, in a third party, I probably wouldn’t have gotten to your show.”

Paul understands this, because he did run third party, as a Libertarian in 1988, and got (literally) one tenth of the votes he did this year.

The Libertarian party candidates, in fact, never significantly increase their vote tally, from one election to the next. Part of this is because the system is rigged against them, but part of it is also because of the incompetence and corruption of the party, itself…note that the Green and Reform parties have gotten as much as 100 times as many votes as the LP.

We advocates of liberty have achieved more in the GOP, in just a handful of years, than the Libertarian Party did in four decades, by a factor of ten. We need to continue building on what we’ve accomplished, not abandon it for a tactic with a two generation history of failure.

“But the Republican party just proved itself so corrupt, at the convention”, one might object.

Yes, but we knew that going in…and, anyway, I experienced the exact same suppression of delegates, candidates, and floor efforts when I was a delegate to the 1996 Libertarian National Convention…so if you don’t like that kind of corruption, the LP is not an option.

Yes, the leadership is corrupt; but they’re also old. While they may not be as pure as Ron, there is a new generation of open Paul-supporters who are clearly the next generation of leadership, including Rand Paul, Jim DeMint, and Mike Lee, all of whom have expressed outrage at the anti-Paul tactics at the convention.

And don’t forget that Ron Paul’s goal, in running this time and in staying in to accumulate delegates, was always to change the party’s platform and attitude, and he accomplished this, despite the corrupt leadership.

For example, the platform has now been changed to include the gold standard, and auditing the Fed, two of the issues Paul considers most important.

Ron Paul never seriously expected to get nominated. He explicitly explained, all along, that he had changed his mind and entered the race because he realized how much good he could do by influencing the political debate and the party…and he, with our help, has succeeded.

I have warned, all along, that obsessing over somehow seizing the nomination was going to give people the impression — when it inevitably did not happen — that we lost, right when we have won exactly what Paul aimed for.

Don’t let that be what happens. Don’t throw away six years of enormous progress in taking back the party, because the RiNO leadership turned out to be exactly as disgusting as we always knew they were.

It’s Because OBAMA Didn’t Build Anything


Powerful politician Percy Sutton admitted to helping Obama get into Harvard. Harvard’s own publication describes the Affirmative Action system in place when Obama was promoted to president of the Law Review.

Obama made the headlines last week, giving a speech from which a quote has been plucked and repeated, “If you’ve got a business, you didn’t build that.”

This is yet another example of a quote missing the context of the speech around it. We need that context, in order to understand where Obama was coming from:

“I’m always struck by people who think, well, it must be because I was just so smart. There are a lot of smart people out there. It must be because I worked harder than everybody else. Let me tell you something — there are a whole bunch of hardworking people out there.

“If you were successful, somebody along the line gave you some help. There was a great teacher somewhere in your life. Somebody helped to create this unbelievable American system that we have that allowed you to thrive. Somebody invested in roads and bridges. If you’ve got a business, you didn’t build that. Somebody else made that happen”

What this shows, that people need to understand about him, is that Obama never built anything, in his own life. He never really accomplished anything, himself. There really was always someone giving him a hand up, a back door to sneak through, et cetera.

Even more than most of the Political Class, he has just been socially promoted throughout life, and has no idea what it is like to create wealth for society with your own hands, his own risk, his own ideas, or any other genuine effort.

Remember, Obama has bragged that he wouldn’t be where he is without Affirmative Action:

“As someone who has undoubtedly benefited from affirmative action programs during my academic career, and as someone who may have benefited from the Law Review’s affirmative action policy when I was selected to join the Review last year, I have not personally felt stigmatized.”

He had to worry about being stigmatized, because he didn’t accomplish entry into Harvard or Law Review. Affirmative Action gives people things they haven’t yet earned, robbing them of any opportunity to do so in the first place. So he feels impostor syndrome, but projects it on the rest of us.

Likewise, he didn’t fight his way to the presidency after a hard career, like some politicians. Even the better-informed among his supporters know he was the beneficiary of King-makers in the Chicago Machine and the national Democratic Party. So, even aside from the greater productivity of life in outside of government, he has no experience with creating his own success within government. Powerful men decided to make him their guy…and he want from unknown, to headline speech-giver at a presidential convention already touted as a future president, in one day. And it’s hard to imagine that his Senate seat wasn’t bought for him, the way it was to be sold to his successor.

And he projects that on you and me, on every productive-class American in the private sector.

Not only has he never created a business on his own, Barack Obama never even struggled to land a tough job he had to work hard to keep. Remember that job you hated, but still did well in order to make a living or gain experience? The one you tried so hard to land, based on your own merits? He doesn’t.

He has been socially promoted through life, and that’s all he can imagine for the rest of us. He knows his own intelligence had nothing to do with his success, and he never had a chance to work hard and see what came of that…so how could he imagine that these things matter?

I have accomplished things when I made smart decisions. I’ve failed when I made dumb mistakes. I’ve built things because I worked harder than anyone else, and lost things because I didn’t work hard enough. All of you who have lived outside the political class have, at some point in your life, done these things. Hell, many people in government have, at some point, in a lesser way.

But even the official Obama life story is one of being handed everything by a paternalistic collective.

So how can you expect him to understand anything else?

Martha Stewart Did Nothing Wrong


Martha Stewart, apparently headed to prison after her trial and conviction for the healthy practice of "insider trading"

Martha Stewart was arrested, convicted, and imprisoned for doing something that actually helps society more than all of her home-making advice, combined.

What makes something good, or bad, is not whether it’s legal or banned. Anyone who disagrees can go explain it to Mr. Schindler.

The difference between right and wrong, good and bad, is whether you violate another person’s property (including their body). This is the one universal “good versus evil” shared by all societies and religions. All of the rest is popular social habits turned into taboos over time, be it covering random body parts (faces in Afghanisan, breasts in America), burping (bad in America, good in Bahrain), or mullets (it’s not that they’re ugly, it’s that they now symbolize a now-unpopular subculture).

Martha Stewart was convicted for doing something illegal that is not bad, and should not be banned. In fact, using any information you consensually obtain, in order to help you make economic decisions, is a good thing. Our economy would be healthier if “inside” information were built into the price of stocks sooner, instead of implosions coming out of nowhere, or companies with a great future having to struggle for capital because it’s illegal to use a “stock tip”.

The whole point of a stock market is to help distribute investments and capital more efficiently than any “expert” or central planner ever could. This requires the participants to be not only responsible for their own risks, but free to make their decisions on any basis they choose.

“Insider trading” needs to be restored as a matter of pride, like having a hot tip on a sporting event, not wrongfully condemned as another arbitrary taboo, repressing society.

Bernie Madoff did something objectively wrong, claiming to be investing people’s money while he was actually just paying off previous investors. That’s evil even when the government makes it legal and calls it a retirement plan…

But what Martha Stewart did was objectively good, using knowledge she had to convey price information to society, even though the government says it’s illegal and calls it “insider trading”.

How Green Food Causes World Hunger — Eggs


Do those sociopathic EU bureaucrats really think farmers can meet 500,000,000 people's egg needs...this way?

“Organic” and other “Green” agriculture and food production is already widely understood to be causing food shortages, and skyrocketing food prices, worldwide, but it’s often too subtle and abstract an effect for regular people to really understand.

But now we have a very stark, clear example, a crisis caused by imposing “green” techniques on everyone:

Forcing ALL eggs in the EU to be Free Range has made keeping up with demand impossible.

Eggs are one of the least expensive sources of healthy protein. It’s easy for poorer people to get, and in many foods they eat…and right now, in Europe, eggs cost up to 250% more than usual for this time of year.

Why? Because the entire European Union has banned all normal, efficient means of egg production.

Instead of the very politically-incorrect rows of chicken cages, in which the eggs are laid above a conveyor belt, all European egg producers are now forced to deal with “free range” hens, tremendously increasing the cost and slowing down production of eggs, and even harming the “environment”, by requiring far more space to produce.

The result? Eggs that cost three times as much,  pricing themselves and food made with them out of the reach of many of the people who would benefit the most.

And the EU wonders why their economy is collapsing.

“Green” techniques divert food to other uses like biofuels, and because they’re so much less efficient, use more land and resources to produce less food. They are also more dangerous, with more chance of carrying pathogens to your dinner table. And, on top of everything else, they can even increase your carbon footprint.

But here we have a concrete example of how the wasted space, lower production, and riskier techniques of “green” agriculture harms everyone.

Today, Congress Will Kill 387 People


The arrogance of government is not only obvious and crazy, when it's ordering everyone to get up an hour earlier...it's also fatal.

No, I don’t mean Congress will order the execution of 387 people today. I’d almost respect that more, because it’d be direct and therefore, in a sense, far more honest.

But, according to a snowballing body of science, the sleep deprivation you’re suffering today because of Daylight Saving Time ends up killing hundreds of people, and causing thousands of additional accidents…and government, like everyone else, is responsible for the consequences of the force they impose.

What’s more, after all that, Daylight Saving Time actually ends up wasting energy, instead of saving it.

While even the obsessively pro-big-government Washington Post says Daylight Saving Time is a Scam, and various usually-statist news sources run more articles each year outlining the harm it causes, like The Baltimore Sun, NBC, or the local news, what’s unusual is to see the death toll in real, human terms:

Sticking to only relatively conservative surveys, the stress caused by forcing 300,000,000 people to get up an hour earlier adds up to (1) a 10% increase in heart attacks for the first few days, (2) a 17% increase in traffic accidents for the first week, and (3) a 6% increase in workplace injuries.

Given (1)  500,000 heart attacks per year, (2) 34,000 automotive deaths per year, and some (3) 7,000 workplace deaths, that adds up to Daylight Saving Time causing a minimum of nearly four hundred needless deaths each year.

Of course this number is a rough guess, and simplified, but other surveys say it’s even higher, for example a 6% increase in heart attacks, but spread over a full week. That’s nearly six hundred deaths caused by DST, just from heart attacks.

I couldn’t find a solid number for the increase in suicides for this week every year, but let’s not forget that (4) little bonus.

And, as you probably have heard on the news by now, the trivial amount of lightbulb electricity saved is far less than the extra air conditioning electricity that DST causes people to waste. So it doesn’t even have a real reason to exist, in the first place.

Of course some government apologists will try to say blow off the death toll, denying responsibility. They will cry “but we’re not responsible for what people choose to do, even if our laws set the conditions! We’re not really killing those people”. But the consequences of their actions fall under what is called, in the world of  justice, the Felony Murder Rule:

If you commit a felony, therefore a really inexcusable crime, and because of the situation action created someone dies, you can be charged for murder, even if it clearly wasn’t your intention that he died.

In other words, when you commit a wrong, you become responsible for all of that wrong’s unintended consequences. A concept that’s a no-brainer to anyone who doesn’t belong to the political class.

This was true when government banned the disabling of airbags by short people who would be killed by them, and is true of them needlessly forcing every single person to get up an hour earlier for reasons that, themselves, are false in the first place.

How Bush/Obama Create Terrorists


If we were not still meddling in Afghanistan, we wouldn't be giving our enemies access to corpses to piss on, helping recruit more terrorists by giving them actual reasons to hate America.

“Look, we are AGAINST the Taliban, but if this action is repeated, we will all join the Taliban, and then these [US] forces will not be able to stay one more minute in Afghanistan.

Next time some ridiculous neocon claims Muslims become terrorists simply because they hate our “way of life”, not because of what our own government does to them through its foreign policy, quote the Afghani man above (backed by a group of supporters), talking to journalists about the latest scandal caused by Bush/Obama’s foreign interventionism.

The people of Aghanistan have always hated the Taliban, because the Taliban essentially foreign puppets of our own Pakistani military “allies”…yet the Afghani people are actually being driven to support their Talibani enemies, by our own hypocrisy.

How Government Stimulus Caused the Great Depression


All through the Roaring Twenties, government spending declined, letting the economy grow. Immediately upon entering office, Hoover began increasing spending and regulation, stagnating the US economy, a pattern followed by the next two presidents. The economy did not truly recover until that behavior ended, with the revolt against Truman in 1946.

Worried about Bed Bugs? Thank the EPA


The bed bugs should thank the EPA, for restoring them as a threat to the well-being of Americans

Yes, we all know that the DDT ban has caused the deaths of millions by malaria. But there’s something far more important to us in the US:

The scourge of bed bugs has been spreading like wildfire, and they are really unpleasant.

Bed bugs were pretty-much extinct in the US, by the early 1970s, killed off by DDT. There was a steady trickle of new invasions, from foreign countries, but they never were able to gain a foothold…

…well, at least not until the Gingrich Congress of passed the deceptively-named Food Quality Protection Act, in 1996. What Speaker Gingrich and Senator Santorum supported, contrary to their current claims of opposing Big Brotherment regulation, was a law massively expanding the EPA’s power, resulting in a ban of almost every remaining, human-safe pesticide that was useful against bed bugs.

There was once a large pool of pesticides we could rotate between to keep bedbugs down, like DDT. Thanks to some unscientific hysteria in the 1960s, by the early seventies DDT was effectively banned, when bed bugs had, for that time, built up something of a resistance to it anyway. Perhaps years later it could have been used again it not for the ban, but at least that left us with other defenses, like malathion, pyrethroids, chlorpyrifos, propoxur, and diazinon, which kept the bugs at bay…until the powers of the EPA were so dangerous expanded.

This allowed it to essentially ban propoxur, chlorpyrifos, and diazinon, and other treatments on pure speculation, using the deadly Precautionary Principle, but no hard science, and make malathion illegal for indoor use. Left with nothing to rotate with, pyrethroids have become less effective — they never were particularly good to begin with — and, ironically, are particularly harmful to humans.

Our lives are flooded with misery that is the fault of coercive government, but that we tend to blame on other things. When you try to open the door to some small business and it is locked, for example, you can blame the local government’s insane regulations, requiring all businesses to have a door that can be unlocked in case of a fire; which results in doors being needlessly locked in the first place. Don’t even get me started on how similar regulations regarding shoes have caused a modern plague of foot fungus problems.

In this case, the “mysterious” resurgence of bedbugs is thanks to the EPA…and thanks to guys like Newt Gingrich and Rick Santorum, who give it destructive new powers.

Ron Paul in the General Election


When have the RiNOs not tended to blow Presidential elections?

There is this common myth that a “moderate” Republican — a big government interventionist — is the best choice for a general election. They are called the most “electable”…by the Big Government advocates in the media.

As proof of this, we can look to how well Bob Dole and John McCain did. Conservatives compromised their principles, and nominated a Liberal Republican, and then won the general election…

Oh…wait…they lost. In fact, “moderates” almost always do.

Yes, as FDR once pointed out, “me-too Republicans” like Dole, McCain, and Romney almost always lose, because you might as well vote for a Democrat as for someone who is imitating one. He used this argument against John Dewey, with great success.

In fact, the last three decisive turnouts for Republicans were all for “extremist Conservative” positions: 2010 with the TEA Party, 1994 for the Contract with America, and 1980 with the “unelectable” Ronald Reagan.

In fact, in 1980, the “moderate” Republicans ran a spoiler Republican in the general election, as an “Independent”. John Anderson, whom they would have preferred be nominated because he was an “electable moderate”, was supposed to split the vote, giving Carter the win.

Yes, the RiNOs actually preferred Carter over Reagan.

But what actually happened, of course, is that Reagan won in a landslide, even with a “moderate” Republican trying to steal his votes in the general election.

That shows just how much more electable a real Conservative is, than a “moderate”.

Americans still believe in the American principles that a Reagan/Goldwater sort of Conservative espouses, and will turn out in record numbers to support that, when it’s actually available in our false dichotomy of a two-party system.

And the only major candidate running for President today who has that form of American Conservatism — conserving the principles of liberty of the Founding Fathers — is Ron Paul. As Reagan put it:

"Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice...moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue" ~Barry Goldwater

If you analyze it I believe the very heart and soul of conservatism is libertarianism. I think conservatism is really a misnomer just as liberalism is a misnomer for the liberals — if we were back in the days of the Revolution, so-called conservatives today would be the Liberals and the liberals would be the Tories.

The basis of conservatism is a desire for less government interference or less centralized authority or more individual freedom and this is a pretty general description also of what libertarianism is.
— Ronald Reagan, interview with Reason Magazine (1975)

The claim is that Romney would win with independents (who are a plurality of the population, more numerous than Republicans or Democrats) and Democrats. But in both Iowa and New Hampshire, Ron Paul won among independents, and beat Romney among Democrats who crossed over to vote.

Paul would win a in landslide akin to the TEA Party, the Contract with America, and Ronald Reagan.

Romney will lose in a landslide akin to John McCain, and Bob Dole.

The Censorship Known as Campaign Finance Reform


“If the First Amendment has any force, it prohibits Congress from fining or jailing citizens, or associations of citizens, for simply engaging in political speech.” -- SCOTUS

We’ve had two major rounds of  “campaign finance reform” violating the first amendment in the past forty years. Each one has turned out to INCREASE the very bribery and corruption they were supposed to end, becoming the very means of filtering money to candidates or officials, and promoting causes out of proportion with their real support.

This is because:

  • The Law of Unintended Consequences. Imposing simplistic “order”, by force, on a complex system always produces unexpected results, usually the opposite of what you intended.
  • Each one increased the power of government, making bribery of government that much more profitable
  • As long as government has power that is profitable, the private sector will pay WHATEVER it takes to obtain it. If the “reforms” made bribery more difficult, then it simply raised the cost, which made accepting bribes more profitable to the GOVERNMENT, increasing the incentive for officials to be corrupt.
  • By “organizing” the thing in question, through imposing a government bureaucracy on it, the “reforms” just create an orderly, static way of bribing government officials and calling it “legal”.

Doing the same thing repeatedly and expecting different results is the definition of…stupidity.

It is stupid to expect future, censorship-oriented “Campaign finance reform” to do anything but increase corruption and abuse, the way all previous ones did…even if it targets the speech of people who are associated with corporations.

Killing the Economy to Create Jobs


Any job created for the sake of employment is as bad as having some people dig holes, while others fill those holes back in...no matter how pretty the description given.

Neither the government, nor any business in the private sector, should be specifically trying to “create jobs”.

That is like noticing that a healthy, fit man’s heartbeat is slower than a fat, sick man’s heartbeat, and therefore going around giving people drugs to slow their hearts: You are treating the symptom, but aggravating the problem.

Job creation must always be a natural symptom of a healthy economy.  Anyone trying to create a job for the sake of employing someone is only increasing inefficiency, leading to more lost jobs in the long run.

That is the sort of “stimulus” that got us into this mess in 2008, and exactly what is keeping us in it.

Makework jobs kill the economy the same way drugging fat, infected people to slow their hearts would kill human beings.

Occupation is Violation


You don't see this kind of mayhem at TEA Party rallies, because they want to protect your property rights and liberty, not violate them.

To “Occupy”, in the sense intended by the current hipster protest movement, means “to enter and take something, and refuse to stop”.

If one of these tantrum-throwing brats were to do the same thing to a date’s body, it’d be called rape.

The Occupiers are specifically trying, as they said they would, to interfere in the rights of other people, keeping them from being able to go where they want, to do what they choose, to use public or their own private property. To violate the choices of you and the rest of your community.

Hell, they object to the occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan…yet they want to occupy the community where you want to go about your daily life.

And that’s the most obvious problem with the Occupy Wall Street movement: They are, unlike the TEA Party, aggressors, in their methods and solutions.

They move into a neighborhood and try to violate your right to go about your business there.

It’s no wonder that actual rape is so much more common in the Occupied areas than elsewhere…it’s consistent with their overall philosophy.

Remember the Troops Who Defended American Soil


The last war unarguably fought in defense of American Freedom was the War of 1812

I am sympathetic with “support the troops”, and am adamantly in support of a Memorial Day to honor veterans who’ve actually defended the US from aggression.

But I have never, ever found anyone who can explain to me how the veterans of ANY foreign war but WWII ever “defended our freedom”.

Even if I believed in the Iraq or Afghanistan wars, I would like to know exactly how our freedoms are being defended by the troops there. Or were in the Vietnam, Korea, WWI, the Spanish-American War, the Mexican-American War, or the Civil War.

As far as I can see, these were all nothing more than foreign adventures for the esoteric agendas of politicians who valued their own power and advantage more than the lives of brave, loyal, but mortally exploited American boys. And the wars they drag us into are almost always used as an Appeal to Cowardice to actually abridge our liberty, back here in the States.

That’s not Defending American Freedom.

How the Deficit Depresses Our Economy


Our national debt, financed by treasury notes, bills, and bonds, depresses the economy by destroying private investment

The political class insists that we can’t cut our massive, $1,600,000,000,000 Federal deficit, because it would depress the economy and cost jobs. Their excuse is that the private economy is not creating jobs and wealth, so the government must take up the slack.

But what mysterious burden, on our economy, is preventing the basic private investment that creates wealth, allowing the economy to grow, jobs to be naturally created, all of us to prosper?

Ironically, it’s that very deficit.

How?

It’s because of the way the deficit must be financed:

The government has to raise every penny of the deficit it spends, by issuing treasury notes, bonds, and so on. Private people buy these, imagining they are “investing” by doing so. But real investment creates wealth, while government securities just finance deficit spending, as a debt that will be paid back by your grandchildren, as gigantic tax burdens.

This year, the Federal government will have to convince people to “invest” 1.6 trillion dollars in government notes and bonds, to pay for its deficit. Every single penny of that would, otherwise, have been invested in private enterprise, to create wealth.

Imagine if the private economy got an “extra” trillion-plus dollars of investment, next year. The massive growth in wealth and jobs is almost unimaginable.

Now imagine if, instead, the private economy had a trillion-plus in investment REMOVED from it by government. The massive loss in growth and jobs is entirely imaginable, because it’s what we’ve been suffering since the deficit increased almost one trillion dollars in 2009.

Every dollar the government spends steals one dollar from the private economy…either directly, by taking it through taxes, or indirectly, by financing it through a bond or note that steals that dollar from private investment.

The Fake Spending Cuts


If they're so interested in balancing the budget, why are they increasing spending and calling it a cut?

The Federal government has not had an actual, official budget for many months.

When it was time for a new budget last year, the one proposed had so much pork and needless spending hikes in it that even the Democrats who controlled both houses could not get it passed.

And neither they nor the Republicans have succeeded in passing a budget, to this day. They have instead, kept the government funded with “Continuing Resolutions”, temporary agreements to “continue” spending at current rates while the budget is debated.

In 1995, such continuing resolutions actually helped reduce the National Debt, because they held to current levels of spending for months, instead of the next year’s increases.

And people assumed that this is what was going on this year…but they underestimated just how corrupt the Congress has become. Last year the Democrats controlling Congress did not agree to traditional Continuing Resolutions, maintaining current spending…their “resolutions” were actually based on the proposed budget that most members of Congress were rejecting.

Flash forward to the last few weeks:

The Republican leadership has made a big deal about having made two billion dollars in “cuts” from the Continuing Resolution…and when that one ended, six more billion from the next CR.

They have been claiming credit for “ten billion dollars in cuts”. This would, if it were true, be the first time in something like 60 years that the budget was actually cut, instead of the rate of increase simply being adjusted.

Even the 1995 Republican Revolution only cut the amount spending was increased. This was called “cuts” by the most ridiculous Liberals of the time, because they seriously think that increasing spending the “planned” amount is not an increase, at all. So if you plan to increase spending 3%, and then increase it 2%, that is a “cut”.

This is what I had feared the “cuts” in the Continuing Resolution actually were; just reductions in the increase.

But it’s worse…as I noted above, the CRs were actually based on the rejected, larger budget. And the Republican leadership is corrupt enough to reduce only those proposed super-increases, leaving the temporary budget still higher than last year, then claim credit as if they’d actually cut spending.

This explains more clearly, to me, why 54 Republicans, mostly TEA Party types, refused to vote for the CR.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 834 other followers

%d bloggers like this: