What is the Goal?

Former Congressman Gabby Giffords testified before Congress today.  As a victim of gun violence, she looks to be an ideal person to call for gun control, much like Jim Brady in the wake of his injury during an assassination attempt against Reagan.  However, the big push is for a new assault weapon ban while Ms. Gifford was shot with a handgun.  So, she is testifying purely for the emotional optics, not because anything the Congress might do would have prevented what happened to her.

What of the proposed ban?  If it had been in place last year, would Adam Lanza have been prevented from taking his mother's guns and shooting children at the elementary school?  No.  If the law being proposed would not have stopped the crime that prompted its passage, what is the point?

The vast majority - over 90% - of gun-related murders are committed with handguns, not 'assault' rifles.  Imagine that 90% of car accidents were caused by drinking while 3% were caused by smoking and the Congress seeks to outlaw smoking while driving to address the carnage on the roadways.  Would that make sense?  So, wouldn't it make more sense to outlaw handguns?

Are these Senators and Congressmen stupid?  No, they know they can't get handguns at this time but they might be able to pick off 'assault' rifles.  Maybe next time they will press for a limit of 6 bullets in a clip or magazine.  It is a piecemeal approach.  If guns can be restricted bit by bit, eventually all guns will be illegal and the 2nd Amendment will cease to exist.

Would Women make Good Football Players?

Suppose you have a winning football team.  You win almost every game.  Your players dominate other teams.  There is no need to mess with success, right?  However, there are critics who say you don't have enough diversity among your players.  The critics want to replace some of your male players with female players.  Will that make the team better?  Maybe if you had a female kicker who was particularly talented.  But in just about any other position, a female player will be smaller, slower, and weaker.  Nothing sexist there, just biology speaking.  There is a reason that men and women do not directly compete in sports; the women would get trounced.

Now let's take that to combat.  Sure, a woman in an F-16 or an attack helicopter is mostly on even footing with a male counterpart.  We have had women in these positions.  However, trekking across the mountains of Afghanistan with 60 to 75 pounds of gear is an entirely different ball game.  Hefting a wounded comrade over your shoulder and taking him out of harm's way is something that is far easier for a man than woman.  Again, no intention to be sexist, merely stating physical facts.

 

There is talk that the standards will be unchanged so that it will take a truly exceptional woman to meet the requirements for frontline combat duty.  Well, the powers that be say that now but when women constitute a tiny fraction of such combatants, there will be calls for allowing more women by lowering the requirements.  This is what is happening with No Child Left Behind; the standard is being lowered so that a greater portion of students meet the standard.

 

Let us assume that the standard is not lowered and a number of women qualify and are deployed in forward infantry combat.  The team is on a Long Range Recon Patrol and camp in the wilds.  Might there be fraternizing?  I'd put money on it.  Again, this is going to complicate things while not providing any benefit.

 

Of course, it is a done deal.  The policy was announced with no warning, at least none that I read in the weeks leading up to this change.  This is social engineering that has been adopted not to improve the fighting capabilities of the military but to satisfy the constant calls for 'fairness' and 'equality.'  It is misguided.  Our football team may still win, but we'll have more injuries and closer margins.

Righteous Senator opposed Debt Limit increase

The President asked to raise the debt ceiling and the minority party in the Senate was obstreperous. One senator stood to address that august body thusly:

The fact that we are here today to debate raising America’s debt limit is a sign of leadership failure. It is a Sign that the US Government cannot pay its own bills. It is a sign that we now depend on ongoing financial assistance from foreign countries to finance our Government’s reckless fiscal policies. ...Increasing America’s debt weakens us domestically and internationally. Leadership means that 'the buck stops here'. Instead, Washington is shifting the burden of bad choices today onto the backs of our children and Grandchildren. America has a debt problem and a failure of leadership. Americans deserve better.

I could hardly put it better myself. Who is this wise senator who speaks out against reckless fiscal policies, a debt that weakens America and places a heavy burden on future generations? Why, that would be Senator Barack Obama in 2006. What a difference a few years make.

 

If Obama were Republican, this quote would be thrown at him or his Press Secretary every day. Instead, the media is blissfully unaware of it.

Welcome to the Ice Age

I recently read an article that discussed the departure of the Vikings from Greenland sometime in the 15th Century.  The last known record of Norse inhabitants in Greenland was a wedding that took place in 1408.  It is rather curious that the Norse had been living in North America for more than 400 years at that point but less than a century later, Columbus would 'discover' America.

Why did the Norse abandon what had been a settlement for centuries?  Because it was getting colder.  Whereas the inhabitants had begun their time in Greenland as farmers who raised cattle but supplemented their diet with fish, the increasing cold killed off the cattle and forced them to live mostly from the sea, not unlike the native peoples.  Moreover, the increasing cold made trips to and from Iceland and Scandinavia less common.  The culturally Norse folk chose to leave because their lifestyle was no longer possible in the increasingly frigid Greenland.

Now the interesting thing is that Greenland today is not as warm as it was during the Norse settlement Middle Ages.  How can that be?  With all the global warming, surely the world is vastly warmer than it was a thousand years ago.  No, not yet.  Maybe if a warms a bit more, we'll see a migration to the new temperate paradise of Greenland.  The Norse settlement took place during what is called the Medieval Warm Period (950 to 1250 AD).  It was followed by the Little Ice Age (1350 to 1850 AD).  Most interesting of all is that all of this, up to this very day, takes place in the current ice age.  Yes, geologically speaking, we are experiencing an interglacial period of a 2.6 million year ice age.  If there are ice sheets at both poles, then it is an ice age.  But that implies that there were times when there was not ice at the poles.  How could that be without fossil fuels being burned by mankind?

 

So what does this tell us?  The Earth has experienced vastly warmer periods that had nothing to do with mankind.  Global warming could be beneficial in opening vast territories in northern Canada, Greenland, and Siberia to farming and development.  The climate change panic is all about government pulling more power to itself.  Notice that all 'solutions' to climate change involve government taxation and regulation.  Government will always seek to empower itself and it will use whatever means are available to cajole the population into surrendering freedom and liberty.  If that means claiming the world is going to catch fire despite being in an ice age, then so be it.

Credit Card Mathematics

Let's suppose I have a credit card.  I have a $10,000 limit on my credit card.  Now, I make a minimum payment each month, which is a small fraction of what I have charged.  However, month after month, the amount I am carrying on the credit card is rising until it finally hits my $10,000 limit.  Now, if I try to charge anything else on that card, it will be refused.  Have I defaulted on my credit card?  Have I defaulted on all my bills unless I can somehow convince the credit card company to raise my limit?  No, obviously not.  I just can't continue to spend beyond my means any longer.

That is the same situation of the Federal Government.  The credit card limit has been reached.  It doesn't mean the country is defaulting on its debts.  It can still pay the minimum payment but charging beyond income must be curtailed.  However, President Obama is demanding the credit card company (in this case, the Congress) raise the spending limit.  Regardless of any current bluster, the Congress will do exactly that in return for nothing.  But it should not be viewed as 'responsible' to raise the Debt Ceiling.

 

Let's go back to the credit card example.  Let us suppose that I have an income $24,675 a year.  I spend $35,405 a year.  My credit card balance is currently $165,000.  Moreover, I have promised to pay $1,222,670 to friends and neighbors who have given me money over the years to invest for their retirement.  Luckily, I just got a raise of $600 a year.  Am I in a good financial position?  Take those same numbers and multiply by 100 million and you have the current position of the government.  The $600 raise is the tax hike from the Fiscal Cliff, which should give some indication that overspending is the problem.

 

These numbers aren't secret.  Anyone who cares to know can look them up.  President Obama didn't just pass a massive new entitlement so he could turn around and slash spending to meet income.  He will push the debt for the next four years and let the next president clean up the mess.

National Default

I am stunned by how many noted economist are reporting that a failure to raise the debt ceiling equals default on the debt.  Somehow, not incurring additional debt equals defaulting on the existing debt.  How does that work?  With the money coming in, the government can easily pay the interest on the $16 trillion debt, send out Social Security checks, pay Medicare, and maintain pensions.  Those would be the debts.  Everything else is just spending that can be cut without risk of default.

 

Stranger still, I read one fellow who said he was opposed to using the debt ceiling as a route to cut spending but was okay with the idea of shutting down the government to put a brake on spending.  Doesn't a failure to raise the debt ceiling do exactly that?  It will cause the government to shutdown all 'non-essential' functions so that it runs on incoming cash rather than the Credit Card of China.  The reason everyone uses 'default' is to instill panic in the populace so that the spending can go on and on.  The spending will stop eventually, on terms we won't like.  Better to stop it now while we still have some hope of digging out of the hole.

 

On a related point, big government tends to slow growth.  Our best hope in recovering is a high growth rate which is becoming more and more out of our reach as government expands.  Look at Europe: massive governments and sluggish economies.  Why go down that path?

Lexington and Concord

Though anyone who took American History or watched School House Rock on Saturday morning TV likely knows that the "Shot heard 'round the world" was fired at Lexington, few realize the cause.  An equal number likely recall that Paul Revere warned that the British were coming.  Hadn't the British already been here for many years?  What was happening that caused all the fuss?  General Thomas Gage, Military Governor of Massachusetts, had been given orders to disarm the militias.  Yes, the British were going to rove the countryside and disarm the people.  The plan didn't go over well.  The American Revolution started when the people resisted Gun Control!

Now, with that in mind, let's ponder the Second Amendment:

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed

The British (i.e. the government) wanted to disarm the people.  Why?  Because it is easier to rule people who don't have the means to resist.  All governments like to have a monopoly on guns.  Our government is no different.  Today it will be 'assault rifles' and tomorrow it will be automatic pistols, and then it will be shotguns and revolvers.  It is a long process and the government is patient.  At the end of the process lies tyranny.  The Framers of the Constitution knew this.  If we interpreted the 2nd Amendment the way they meant it, there would the latest military rifle over every mantle.

 

Now for some interesting facts:

 

All mass shootings have taken place at gun-free zones.

 

More people are bludgeoned to death with hammers or clubs than are killed with rifles.  Hammer control, anyone?

 

The murder rate in the US had fallen by 50% over the last 20 years.  Violent crime has likewise fallen by a similar amount.

 

The Assault Weapons Ban had no statistical impact on crime.

 

Crime rates dropped in Texas and Florida when they passed Concealed Carry laws.

 

Chicago and Washington DC, cities with strict gun control, have high murder rates and violent crime rates.

 

Though the US murder rate is higher than the UK, our violent crime rate is much lower.  Why doesn't that get reported?

 

The Second Amendment provides the people with the means to resist oppressive government; the Founders were familiar with oppressive government and wanted to prevent it in the future.  Not surprisingly, government isn't too keen on that.  By hook or by crook, government wants to disarm the people.  So, the government is telling us that it is disarming us for our own good, to protect us, to keep us safe.  It sells much better that way.  Even if the current government truly and honestly only wants to protect us, a future government will not be so benevolent when it sees a populace unable to resist its will.

The Trillion Dollar Coin

Now that the Fiscal Cliff has been 'successfully' overcome, the next thing on the docket is the impending Debt Ceiling disaster.  Government loves crises because people demand action without thinking things through.  This is why Rahm Emanuel said you 'should never let a crisis go to waste.'  The President had all the cards in the Fiscal Cliff since doing nothing would raise everyone's taxes; he was bound to get the taxes he wanted.  The Debt Ceiling gives the Republicans a better position.  First, taxes are supposedly off the table now that they have only just been raised.  Therefore, time to talk about the spending cuts that were not addressed in the Fiscal Cliff deal.

The president not only doesn't want to cut spending, he wants to increase it.  The Republicans can refuse to raise the debt ceiling and that instantly chokes off further borrowing.  The government would immediately have to moderate spending to equal current tax receipts.  The president, the Democrats, and much of the media claim that this is default.  That sounds ominous and may sway the uninformed.  Default would mean failure to send out Social Security checks and pay the interest on our $16 trillion debt but failure to keep the EPA open is not default.  Nor is closing National Parks or various non-essential government agencies.  We will have plenty of money to avoid default even if the debt ceiling isn't raised.  Now, I fully expect the Republicans to cave and raise the debt ceiling in exchange for more never-to-be-implemented cuts.

That aside, let's consider the argument that it would be a default.  That brings us to a little considered section of the 14th Amendment:

Section 4. The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.

Obviously, this is a Civil War amendment that allowed the federal government to not reimburse slave owners under the takings clause of the 5th Amendment.  Nonetheless, it declares the US debt to be immune from default, thus offering a potential loophole to bypass Congress.  The Treasury would mint a $1trillion coin out of platinum (Congress has passed laws regarding the minting of coins in other metals as well as paper money) which would immediately be deposited at the Federal Reserve.  Voila!  The debt is paid down by a trillion dollars and spending can continue apace.

 

To my astonishment, I have found economists on both sides of the political spectrum who are either wholly in favor or not particularly opposed.  In effect, it is raising the debt ceiling by other means with similar, if not identical, economic effects.  Both say that it is not inflationary and may have a point.  All the printing (QE1, QE2, and QE4ever) have not resulted in runaway inflation.   Still, I am aghast at the idea.

 

Once the government mints the trillion dollar coin, there will be more such coins with increasing frequency.  Only the Federal Government can be so fiscally irresponsible and have PhDs defend it.  No other institution can mint a coin for a nominal fee and get a trillion dollars in spending from it.  Could we press 16 and pay off the debt?  Somehow I don't think China would accept a handful of platinum in payment.