Is Obamacare A Tax or a Penalty?

Does it really matter?  Either way, you're screwed.  (From Foden at Townhall)

Over-Regulation Nation

If you've been here a few times, you'll know that beside common sense economics and playing with guns, one of my favorite topics is over regulation, and especially the costs it imposes on us - dollar costs, or costs in freedom.  In addition to my series "More Tales From the Over Regulated State", I posted back in March about a web site we could go to, Regulations.gov, that tells us how many regulations are being created.  That post had this line:

In the last 90 days, the Fed.gov has issued 5999 new regulations. 

It's interesting that this wasn't some sort of unusual number.  They weren't rushing to meet some deadline, some sort of perverse "rush job", and put out a lot of extra regulations; no, they do it all the time.  Here's today's screen capture:

You can see in the last 90 days (it has been about 120 since that post on March 5th), they have issued 6083 new regulations.  I've checked it now and then since March and always found it around 6000 regulations in 90 days; 2000 per month, 125-ish per day.  Some of these are just bureaucratic flotsam and jetsam; mind-numbingly routine things like "Olives Grown in California: Increased Assessment Rate" - others will bring major, expensive changes.

John Ransom, over at Townhall.com is on this topic, too, today in "The Last Socialist in America"; wishfully thinking that Americans are so disgusted by the mess the current administration is making that there will never be another socialist in office in this country.  He talks about a study "Red Tape Rising" from the Heritage Foundation on the impacts and cost of these regulations:

“Overall, the Obama Administration imposed 75 new major regulations from January 2009 to mid-FY 2011, with annual costs of $38 billion,” reports Heritage.  In contrast, there were only six deregulatory actions by the Obama administration saving $1.5 billion says the Heritage report.  (emphasis added)

Before I drop the next sentence, I want to remind you that our annual budget deficit is about $1.3 trillion dollars.

In terms of the overall impact on the economic health of the country, the figure is much higher.  “More specifically, the total cost of federal regulations has increased to $1.75 trillion,” writes the federal government’s own Small Business Administration

Which, of course, says the cost of regulation is bigger than the budget deficit.  That's how much more money could be flowing into the pockets of Americans without this regulatory burden.  Furthermore, with an administration that has demonstrated cronyism over and over, it shouldn't be a surprise that small businesses bear a bigger chunk of this regulatory cost - a tax by any other name - than the big campaign donors - um - big companies.   According to the Small Business Administration:

Because it prevents the creation of more jobs, however, it hits the poor and middle class particularly hard, “while the updated cost per employee for firms with fewer than 20 employees is now $10,585 (a 36 percent differ­ence between the costs incurred by small firms when compared with their larger counterparts),” says the SBA  In other words, small employers take it on the chin even harder than the big guys. While Obama’s rhetoric panders to the little guys, his actions seemed geared to favor the big guys instead.  

The Code of Federal Regulations expanded to 163,000 pages in 2009, and the rate of growth is accelerating.  The number of "major" regulations continues to grow.

A year ago, I asked, "How Many Federal Crimes Did You Commit Today?", quoting author Harry Silvergate from Reason Magazine saying the average person commits three federal crimes per day.  Don't think that not knowing if something is illegal is any excuse;  there are many people in jail who had no idea they were doing anything wrong. 

The register Code of Federal Regulations hit a record 163,000 pages in 2009 and the number of pending regulations costing more than $100 million has more than doubled according to Heritage. And once on the books, regulations are almost impossible to get rid of. One regulation that’s been requested for elimination for over four years, says Heritage, is one that treats “milk as an ‘oil,’ thus requiring dairy spills to be treated as hazardous. According to the agency, exempting milk from the regulation will save dairies around $1.4 billion over the next 10 years.” And yet this regulation still sits on the books four years later, even with the support of the Obama administration in getting rid of it. 

Now, according to the Center for Fiscal Accountability, when we add in the costs of [implementation] of just Obamacare over the next ten years the costs soar another $230 billion per year.

Not including the costs of premiums going up - which is already the case for many people.

We are becoming a country bound by our regulations, unable to move, and society is becoming a make work program for lawyers in which whether you are free or in prison is just a matter of luck.  Everyone violates three federal laws per day, some just happen to get caught in the "system".  You are at the mercy of whoever decides to find something to charge you with, because anything can be argued to be illegal. 

The 163,000 ++ page Code of Federal Regulations must be cut down in size.  I swear you could throw out 3/4 of it and not negatively impact a single person's life - except for the lawyers and prosecutors who would need to find honest work.
 

Salting the Earth

After last week's historic ruling by the Supremes on Obamacare, Bayou Renaissance Man posted a piece on how the law must not stand, how the law must not only be repealed, it must be destroyed: “Obamacare Delenda Est”

The history here is instructive, and Peter describes the use of the term in war between Rome and Carthage (the historical “Carthago delenda est”);  Rome didn't just defeat Carthage, they eliminated it, virtually wiped it from the face of the Earth.  They razed all of the buildings almost completely to the ground.  Not quite to the “no stone left on another stone”, stones from buildings on higher elevations rolled onto buildings below, but close. 

Although original sources make no mention of it, there's a story that after destroying the city, Rome salted the earth around the ancient city to prevent survivors from growing food, and the phrase “salting the earth” is widespread in historical writing.  Genghis Khan was said to have salted the farms of his conquered enemies, to prevent their farming.  It's a final insult; not only do we kill all the men who could fight, we will force the survivors to go somewhere else to resettle, or starve to death where they are. 

That is what we need to do.  Not just to Obamacare, but to all of the progressive programs that are forcing this country into a direction it was never intended to have.  Programs that are forcing us down the road to economic collapse, and burdening future generations with insane debt levels.  We must remove all traces of them from the code of regulations, and then salt the earth in Washington, so that monstrosities like this never see the light of day again.  

Because that's what they are doing to us.  It's what the big government/anti-freedom forces are doing: salting the earth of liberty, trying to kill any memory of ever having it, so that no one cherishes individual freedom again, and individual rights vanish into the mists of time as we die off.

(cartoon disclaimer - source - yeah, it's not a level of seriousness in keeping with the post, but I couldn't resist).

WIll Google be Gone Within a Decade?

There's a few factors that tell me Google will probably be gone before too long.   The biggest threat is that Steve Jobs swore he would spend every penny Apple had to destroy them, and Apple appears to be working on doing it without going broke.  Rumors coming out about iPhone OS 6, currently expected to be released this fall, put some meat on the bones about the methods they're taking.  Google gets the majority of its revenue from those ads that show up in search results.  Apple is going to cut iPhone customers off from Google.  While I would assume anyone who wanted to get there still could do that with a browser, iOS6 will no longer feature Google Maps - an "entry drug" into the Google system.

Apple will instead run its own mapping app, which has a high-quality 3D mode, on the platform.

There are many more aspects to how Apple appears to be mounting an attack on what they see as the next battleground.  A slightly earlier report, before the developers conference, from Kurzweil AI said,

It was widely reported yesterday that Apple will likely announce at its WWDC in June that the new version of the built-in maps app in iOS6 will not be fed by Google maps. Instead, Apple has developed its own, in-house 3-D mapping database, based on the acquisition of three mapping software companies between 2009 and 2011, Placebase, C3 Technologies, and Poly9.

For a demo of their new mapping technology, see the video at that Kurzweil AI link or here. It's slick.

The other factor to consider in Google's decline is their stupidity.  Last week, I read on an internal forum at work that Google Shopping is no longer showing any results related to shooting, guns or ammo.  Word of this is getting around, but We The People has posted the email from Google in its entirety.  The email policy talks about the obvious things - no fraud, provide a valid link to the right product - but never says why they don't approve of hunting, target or competitive shooting.  Lacking a clear explanation, it then seems to imply that they are banning all links related to firearms because:

Google Shopping should be compatible with Google’s brand decisions. Google Shopping must be compatible with company brand decisions. Our company has a strong culture and values, and we’ve chosen not to allow ads that promote products and services that are incompatible with these values. In addition, like all companies, Google sometimes makes decisions based on technical limitations, resource constraints, or requirements from our business partners. Our policies reflect these realities.

For their part, Google Shopping issued a terse, "We do not allow the promotion or sales of weapons" statement.  Obviously not members of the gun culture who are all keenly aware that the weapon is the mind, the gun is simply a refined tool.  One could use dozens of things they do allow links to as weapons.

I don't need to remind you that firearms and ammo sales are one of the hottest areas in all of retail right now.  The Wall St. Journal is a little mixed about why that might be, but clearly reports that S&W is reporting all sorts of records and while Sturm, Ruger may not be doing as well, they're doing quite well by most company's standards.  Unless I miss my guess, the real surge in sales for the election hasn't even started yet, and I expect the health care ruling to give gun sales another kick.   NICS background checks pretty much just keep going up, year over year.  But Google has just said they will not sip from the cool waters of that revenue stream.

(source)
It might be that the Google 's board of directors has suddenly thought they could be sued if a gun bought through their linking service was tied to a crime, but what about liability for anything?  Not a weapon, but what if water filter doesn't work or a bike breaks?  Or what happens if the camping ax or a hammer or a Mont Blanc pen is used as a weapon?  You can't make or sell anything without risk of lawsuit, so why just bar guns or ammo?   With this sort of management, they're cutting their own throats. 

In my view, here you see the deadly duo:  gutless management on one side and a ruthless competitor on the other.  My guess is it's already over.  Unless something changes, the rest is mere formalities.

Weekend Off

Like CA at Western Rifle Shooters Association said the other day, I made this a TMBL weekend.  No pondering the evil of Obamacare.  No consideration of politics.  No contemplation of whether Justice Roberts went to such extremes of idiocy he wrapped around the imaginary axis to brilliant.  Just working on some skills and abilities that seem like they'll come in handy in the coming nastiness.  Now maybe that implies doing pushups, lifting weights, and such; my workout was "lift awkward weights, bend, stretch, get on your hands and knees, sit on the ground, stand up, sit back down" and so on.  Try to feed yourself off the land, or in this case, water.  No target practice this weekend. 

So far, fresh fish is costing approximately $5000 per pound.  I'm sure other boaters will understand.

 

Meanwhile, Back at the Ranch

Some of the things I was trying to do today are taking longer than I thought.  As always. 

That's me in the upper right panel. 

More Tales From the Over Regulated State - A Series

In which tonight's episode can be entitled "You Don't Need to Outlaw Guns - You Just Need to Outlaw Shooting".  Either the "Nudge" tactic, or the full linebacker hit tactic.  

The Volokh Conspiracy links to a story of OSHA attacks on indoor shooting ranges.  In an investigation of the Illinois Gun Works indoor range, to borrow the words of Jim Stafford,

One day this feller from Washington come by
And he spied us and he turned white as a sheet!

To quote from the original link:

Many of alleged OSHA violations at the safety training range involved noise exposure for the instructors. Among OSHA’s suggestions were to eliminate training in “larger caliber” handguns such as “9 mm Luger and/or .45 Colt”  and substitute “handguns of smaller caliber,” such as .22LR. And “Prohibition of any shotguns and/or rifles firing in the firing range.” (p. 6). In other words, eliminate training for all firearms except those which are least likely to have the stopping power to be effective for self-defense. And ensure that the range can never provide students with personal instruction in the use of the firearms which constitute the vast majority of firearms which people actually own.

In addition to thinking the noise was too loud (all together now, THEN TAKE SILENCERS OFF THE NFA LIST), they were shocked, shocked! that someone might have to touch a round of ammunition without gloves.  Dudes, if you're worried about the miniscule amount of lead dust in that environment, you're done with your job.  Workplaces are safe now.  Everyone go home and start looking for honest work.  And - seriously - man to man - if you think 9mm Luger is a big, loud  major caliber, you might want to check into an addadicktome or those little blue pills.  Just sayin'...

The one that I got the biggest laugh out of was this:

...employees used Hoppes #9 solvent for cleaning guns, but Illinois Gun Works had not relabeled each Hoppes bottle to list all the hazardous chemicals therein. (pp. 54-55). 

Only an OSHA weenie would complain about this, because most of us love the smell of Hoppes #9!  They even make an air freshener that releases the scent 24/7 so we can get more of it.   Besides, what good does labeling the containers do?  Sure, you should clean your gun with adequate ventilation - anyone with an IQ above room temperature knows this - but simply labeling the chemicals doesn't make them any less dangerous.

OSHA is a serious impediment to business in this country and while I joke about this, they're deadly serious.  In this case, they've assessed fines of $111,000 against this little shop.  Like most government single-issue focuses, they've cycled through the Pareto chart enough time to be just working on unimportant things, but they keep tying businesses up with expensive regulations that lead to tiny marginal improvements if any improvement at all.  They may have improved worker safety 40 years ago, but now they're pretty much useless.   Their terror over the lead dust is a great example.  When the EPA started, there was widespread lead in the environment, and that has been reduced to tiny fraction of what it was, largely by requiring unleaded gas and getting the lead out of paint.  The shooting instructors aren't making lead products, they're encountering micrograms of the metal. 

Personally, I think there might be another dynamic at work here, too.  This shop is just outside of  Chicago.  So what major city is involved in a tax-wasting war against its citizens to prevent the McDonald decision from being implemented?  What city was trying to regulate gun permits out of existence by requiring applicants to travel long distances to practice at ranges that don't exist in the city?  What city is run by Rahm Emmanuel, who served in the same administration as Cass Sunstein, the Czar of Nudge? 

Coincidence?  Oh, I'm sure.  Nothing to see here.  Move along.

The question is whether this is going to spread out and hit many more ranges.  If it does, you can expect fewer ranges, at the very time we need more and more ranges due to the incoming new shooters.  

It's Sunset in America

I refer, of course, to Reagan's famous "it's morning in America again" campaign ad as the polar opposite of what I feel after today's ruling from the supremes. 

To be honest, I'm conflicted on this.  While I can't imagine that the law is constitutional, what Justice Roberts said, in effect, was, "We're not your bitches.  We're not going to get into a political shit pile just to bail your sorry asses out.  Congress:  you broke it, you fix it". I can see it as the supremes punting.  This is a similar approach to what blog brother Borepatch says.  The supremes reduced it to a tax, "Own it, Nancy".

On  the other hand, to have the famous "swing vote" justice, Kennedy, go hard line constitutionalist and say, "this whole thing is a fetid, stinking piece of unconstitutional crap" and later in his writing, "it's a steaming pile of Justice Roberts" tells you that not everyone thinks that refusing to deal with it was  a wise choice.  (I admit I made up much of Kennedy's writing, but not his tone.  DOJ - this is called "satire".  Look it up.)

Being serious for a while, what I think really happened is that the Supremes pushed our existing cold civil war, or open source/underground civil war, which ever you call it, a little closer to going hot.  

I worked with a guy several years ago who said, "America's next civil war will be between the 'haves' and the 'have nots', when they are led to believe they have a right to everything the 'haves' worked all their lives for".

Maybe a better way to say that is "between the makers and the takers".

Remember the old saw about the four boxes of freedom: soap box, ballot box, jury box, cartridge box?  It is - remotely - possible we can fix this with the ballot box, if enough people get out to (1) give mittens a mandate beyond the few hundred votes that fraud can give in a given state and (2) the same wave sweeps the Senate and the House.  Because all the stupid party knows or cares about is their power, we really need another one: (3) we whip them all like rented mules until they restore some sense.  It's also possible today's ruling guaranteed getting numbers 1 and 2.  If the people really are 60-40 against Obamacare, those 60% would probably walk through fire to vote him out. 

From what I read on other blogs and in comments, a lot of people are ready to go for the last option.  

For those new around here, I've not sworn loyal to any party, but as fiscal deficit hawk, a small "L" libertarian and conservative I don't have much in common with today's left.  The two parties are two faces of the same ruling class.  They both are continually aggregating power, they both are prone to cronyism with their favored donors,  they both are the problem. 

I Knew About 100W Bulbs, But Not Fluorescents

In the email today from a Friend of a Friend.

In my home, there are 27 pre-existing 2 and 4 bulb fluorescent light fixtures, all of which use T12 bulbs, the most popular size by far in American homes and businesses.  All of the fixtures in my home use high-efficiency electronic ballasts which significantly boost the lumens/watt and also prolong the life of the bulbs.  Since my home is standardized on this bulb, years ago I bought a large box of replacement bulbs and a case of replacement ballasts. Needless to say, all new fixtures that I’ve put in over the years have been T12-based.
 
I went to Home Depot today to purchase a new 4-bulb fixture for my workshop in the basement.  To my surprise, there were no T12 light fixtures available.  I went to Lowe’s – same thing.  I inquired at both places why there were no T12 light fixtures available for sale, and nobody knew the answer.  I came home and Googled “T12 Light Fixture” and found out…that the US Dept. of Energy is “phasing out” (that means “banning” for all of you freedom-lovers) the T12 bulb next month.
  
I don’t know about you, but I’m pissed.  I did some research on the proposed replacement bulbs (T8 and T5) and discovered that they use less energy – and also produce less light. The lumens/watt for both bulbs is about the same for similar ballast technology.  At the Home Depot, it was obvious to me immediately that the T8 shop lights were not as luminous as my T12’s scattered about my basement and garage.

Along with the story, FoaF provided an interesting link to a company who is "making lemonade" out of the new rules and selling new fixtures as "Cash for Clunkers" upgrade.  In it, they say the ban comes from the Department of Energy.  What they really banned, apparently back in 2005, were the magnetic ballasts that are used to start the fluorescent bulb which leads to the demise of the bulbs.  First they were banned in new light fixtures, then all production of ballasts for T12 lamps was banned in 2010.  Why?  Alleged "energy efficiency", although FoaF (a very good engineer) says the new bulbs offer the same lumens/watt as the old ones, and I believe him over the greenies who say it pays for itself in a year.  Of course, they're including "tax incentives" and other use of OPM to pay businesses to make the changes. 

They say there is just about one billion of these bulbs installed in the US.  Talk about a make work/giveaway program!  A billion bulbs that will be replaced - you have to figure a couple of bucks each at wholesale.  With those billion bulbs will be perhaps as many as a half billion ballasts.  That's where the big money is, because ballasts are way more expensive than bulbs.  While you can go to your local big box home improvement store and buy a fixture with two bulbs for $10 to $15, if you go to buy a ballast, the ones sold separately are better quality and considerably more expensive.  (DAMHIK)  A low-end ballast may go for more than that fixture; the better ones a few times its price.  The ballast makers could be looking at quite a windfall here thanks to an overactive Department of Energy.

(T12, T8 and T5 from top to bottom.  The code represents the diameter, not the wattage.  They are typically sold by length, with length corresponding to wattage.  Source) 

I looked around my house and find a mix of T12 and the thinner T8 bulbs, depending on when the fixture was bought.  I have two T12 bulbs left that are not in a fixture.  I knew to stockpile a few 100 W incandescent bulbs although the later vintage ones sure seem to be crap and fail at an unnaturally high rate, but this is the first I've heard of this one. 

Narcissist in Chief

I was going to comment on the president's dual attack on the state of Arizona yesterday, but Francis Porretto at Liberty's Torch did a better job than I had.  Go read...

As PJ Tattler said, Obama went all "Soviet" on them. 

 Obama has written it off, and is now going Soviet on it to make it an example to others.

I've pondered before (for example) the possibility that there might not be a next election, or as I usually say, that the last election was The Last Election.  Many have chimed in on this, and to my surprise, this week, I've heard Rush Limbaugh talking about the possibility elections could be suspended (I've had a bit more time at my desk than usual).  So while I vote "3" in Fran's post, it could also be "none of the above" - it doesn't matter how many people he pisses off because he takes over everything by then.  

What Happens When the Euro Collapses

Tyler Durden over at Zerohedge writes on The Consequences of the Unthinkable: Here's What Happens When the Euro Collapses

As the following image from Spiegel summarizes, three things will happen simultaneously when the unthinkable finally occurs: i) economic output plummets, ii) unemployment rate soars, and iii) consumer prices explode. Of course, this is nothing but merely deferred consequences for Europe partying for over a decade under an unsustainable regime that borrowed from the future (sound familiar?). And now the inevitable hangover. In other words: payback is a bitch.

Feeling a bit more poetic than Spiegel magazine, I think it goes something like this:
 
from The Gods of the Copy Book Headings - Rudyard Kipling

As it will be in the future, it was at the birth of Man
There are only four things certain since Social Progress began.
That the Dog returns to his Vomit and the Sow returns to her Mire,
And the burnt Fool's bandaged finger goes wabbling back to the Fire;

And that after this is accomplished, and the brave new world begins
When all men are paid for existing and no man must pay for his sins,
As surely as Water will wet us, as surely as Fire will burn,
The Gods of the Copybook Headings with terror and slaughter return!

A New Historic Low in Class

A couple of days ago, Miquel at Gun Free Zone pointed out the laughably crass Obama 2012 donation website, which says

Let your friends know how important this election is to you—register with Obama 2012, and ask for a donation in lieu of a gift. It’s a great way to support the President on your big day. Plus, it’s a gift that we can all appreciate—and goes a lot further than a gravy bowl.

As Dave Barry says, "I'm not making this up":

Still in the category of "I'm not making this up", the website hasn't scrubbed comments!  At least on a Sunday morning at 11:30, comments are strongly against the idea.  I grabbed these to show you:

I find this fund-raising idea to be horribly crass, and I'd swear this was the Onion or Newsbusters or another parody website if I hadn't gone there myself.  Derek Hunter, columnist and snarkmeister at TownHall.com does a column on it appearing today that sums up a lot of it.

This tactlessness got me thinking – what other sorts of “asks” could the Obama 2012 team come up with?

“Do you have a terminal disease? That’s a tragedy, just as President Obama not winning a second term would be a tragedy. So as you get your affairs in order don’t forget to add the campaign to your last will and testament. Your family can have your furniture; we just want your cash. If you can survive long enough to sell the furniture, that’d be peachy. Cash is king, you know.

We've read this week that Mittens is out-raising Obama, and Obama is outspending his donations.  Despite the high-profile dinners like Sarah Jessica Parker and  Anna (the devil in "The Devil Wears Prada") Wintour, Bamster isn't raising the money.  Bankers gave him far more money in 2007 than McCain; this year they're giving their money to Mittens.  That can only mean the bankers are putting their money on the safest bet.  Obama has been a disappointment to them; one can only disguise the incompetence and dishonesty so long.

Mrs. Graybeard and I were talking about the essential difference between Jimmy Carter and Obama.  Carter apparently believed the crap he spread and walked the walk.  He wore the dopey sweater and kept the thermostat low; he put a solar panel on the White House, and didn't just give our money to a solar electric company. After he was booted out of office, he built the Habitat for Humanity houses.  Obama, on the other hand, is transparently lying: while he tells us about austerity and shared sacrifice, he and his wife live at extraordinary spend rates.  Who would have guessed? 

And Now for Something Fairly Different

Last night, I was practicing a handful of acoustic guitar songs I'm learning, and then was looking up the videos on YouTube to see how they they played it.  As YouTube surfing goes, I soon came across this song that I've always liked, by Al Stewart.

Every time I look into a historical incident, like the basis of the song, I'm reminded how ignorant I am of history. It's both humbling and saddening.  Stewart himself has a web page that contains his inspiration for the song, a story of the war along the Russian front in WWII.  Of course, I know rough overviews of the history, but the story makes it personal, and YouTube user "circumpunk" put together an effective set of images to supplement the story.

It's haunting.  

And if you like the style, the song and story of Lord Grenville amazed me, too. 

Edit: 1925 EDT- Linked to the wrong song!

Most Obvious Headline Evah

"Obama Campaign Spent More Than it Made in May"  Really?  Obama, the guy who has never seen a federal budget with less than 35% more spending than revenue?  He spends more than he makes?  Would would have guessed?

The campaign and the Obama Victory Fund, a joint fundraising committee with the Democratic National Committee, raised more than $54 million last month, but they spent $69 million.

 (Lessee, 69/54... 27.8 % more spent than they took in?  Sounds good for him.)  And as Kate Hicks, a Town Hall Editor, concludes that linked piece:

And what has all that money bought them? Statistical dead heats in formerly blue stalwarts like Michigan and Wisconsin.

While I'm on the topic of The One, go read Sultan Knish's latest on Obama, King Con: the Legend of Obama.  

Before Obama lied to America, he lied to the left. Before he cheated us, he cheated them. Now he comes to them with some pink underwear and a tricolor sombrero and the people he conned eagerly cheer for him, the way that Madoff's investors cheered when despite all the investigations around him, he sent them a check.

"If it was all a scam, why would he be sending us money? If it's all a scam, why did he endorse gay marriage and illegal aliens?" That's the mark's question that hangs in the air and there is no answer. The question is already the answer. If you're looking for proof that you haven't been conned, it's the best proof that the con has already happened.

and dig on Sultan Knish's artwork:

Another Head Fake on QE3

This morning, the talking heads were confident that after the Fed's Open Market Committee meeting, a new round of QE would be announced.  Instead, what they did was extend their "Operation Twist" program.  Operation Twist swaps short term bonds for long term bonds, which they say is intended to keep long term bond rates low.  Wanting to keep long term bond rates low is simply to try and keep the market from "getting away from them".  You probably know that a major item in our budget is the interest on the bonds that must be paid.  Many people have pointed out that current interest rates are at historic lows (they are really negative when inflation from QE is figured in) but that if rates were near where they should be based on inflation and not the Fed controlling the rates, say around 8 or 10%, the US would collapse in no time.  This move is to kick that can farther down the road.

This is today's intra-day chart of yield on the 30 year bond (the "long bond"), you can see the rate dive low right after the announcement and then pop back up nearly where it was.  Joe Weisenthal at Business Insider thinks their approach is not going to work.  

Now the incorrect thing you'll hear today is this: That because the Fed says it would buy more long-term Treasuries, and because in theory greater demand for Treasuries causes rates to fall, that the fall in rates is what the Fed was going for.

But actually it's the opposite. Fed easing causes rates to rise, because people expect more growth and inflation and growth and inflation causes people to dump Treasuries.

So the initial drop in rates reflects the market's view that the easing the Fed announced wasn't satisfactory and that the Fed wasn't going to do as much as expected.

More ominously, from my viewpoint, this says the Fed wants inflation.  They are doing all they can to create inflation and gets us out of this mess by creating money from thin air.  If you're retired and living on savings, or saving for retirement, they just put another one in your back.  Oh, yeah - I've been saying this for a couple of years.

More Stories of Executive Branch Overreach

It's getting to be way too old a story and way too repetitive to say the administration is using regulations from government agencies in place of actual laws passed by congress to control behavior it doesn't like.  In this case, according to columnist Katie Kieffer of Town Hall, the administration is using the SEC and specious charges of "insider trading" to try to make Wall Street look bad. 

If you're like me, you're probably thinking those brokerages don't need a lot of help to make them look bad.  In truth the markets and speculators are essential features of a good market economy and no economy does well without them.  Obviously, if you're determined to make the free market look like a failed system, though, markets must be made to look worse than they are.

According to Kieffer, the strategy appears to be to blame the financial problems on "insider trading".  There's one major problem with this:

First, there is no definition of insider trading. Dean emeritus of the George Mason University School of Law, Henry G. Manne, tells TIME Magazine: “Neither the SEC nor Congress has ever defined inside information, nor has either succeeded in specifying the level of significance the information must have to be the subject of a criminal violation.”

This surprised me somewhat, as I am required to take a regular refresher course on the perils of insider trading every year (along with Sorbanes-Oxley, diversity, ethics, diversity, workplace ergonomics, diversity, third party Intellectual Property, diversity, and so on) - I naturally assumed there was a good definition of insider trading. The administration seems to be using the "pornography" definition: they don't know what how to define it, but they know it when they see it - and they see it everywhere.

Like all of these vendettas, it requires a Federal prosecutor with bulldog tenacity, political loyalty, and the morals of a "los Zetas" drug cartel chieftain:

In 2009, at the prodding of New York Sen. Chuck Schumer, Obama appointed Preet Bharara to be the U.S. Attorney in Manhattan. Bharara is using unprecedented and unconstitutional tactics to prosecute high-profile “insider trading” cases on Wall Street.

Bharara’s unscrupulous tactics include utilizing wiretaps without probable cause; pressuring lower-level defendants into becoming tattletale “informants” against sexy Wall Street execs; and using circumstantial and emotive evidence to sway juries and judges into handing Wall Street traders record-long prison terms.

To give an idea of the kind of poor ethics I'm talking about, star prosecutor Bharara is alleging "insider trading" for passing on information which was published in the press weeks before the illegally wire-tapped call was recorded!

Using almost entirely circumstantial evidence, Bharara and the Obama Administration accused Gupta of passing “inside” information to Rajaratnam, including “tips” from an Oct. 23, 2008 Goldman Sachs board meeting. However, Gupta’s lawyer pointed to news articles indicating that the information Gupta shared with Rajaratnam was public knowledge as early as Oct. 13, 2008 and FBI wiretaps indicate that Gupta may have called Rajaratnam to simply “catch up.” 

Target of the prosecutorial wrath Gupta is "Rajat Gupta, former head of McKinsey & Co. and a past board of director for both Procter and Gamble and Goldman Sachs."; Gupta is so well respected by his peers that his "...colleagues traveled long distances to offer testimonies of his character and honesty on the witness stand, such as Ashok Alexander, a manager for the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, who trekked from New Delhi to Manhattan."  

While I don't know much about this story, it's so similar to other stories we've gotten in to over the last few years, that my money is on Gupta being a designated target, and not guilty of anything beyond the technicalities that we're all guilty of every day.  As Katie says,

My assessment is that Gupta is another high-profile victim of Obama’s attempt to deflect blame and sway the public that capitalism is corrupt and more socialist policies (i.e. more government intervention) will solve a government-induced financial crisis.

Greece Votes in the Adults. All is Saved.

Greece voted in the grown ups who realize they need to follow austerity measures, control their insane spending and their welfare state.  Greece is saved!  The European Union is saved!  The world is fine!  What's on TV tonight?

Yeah.  Riiiiight.

The Economic Collapse Blog tells the story.  Go RTWT, it's not very long.

But the truth is that nothing has really changed.  Greece is still in a depression.  The Greek economy has contracted by close to 25 percent over the past four years, and now they are going to stay on the exact same path that they were before.  Austerity is going to continue to grind away at what remains of the Greek economy and money is going to continue to fly out of the country at a very rapid pace. Greece is still drowning in debt and completely dependent on outside aid to avoid bankruptcy.  Meanwhile, things in Spain and Italy are rapidly getting worse.  So where in that equation is room for optimism?

Right now the ingredients for a "perfect storm" are developing in Europe.  Government spending is being slashed all across the continent, ECB monetary policy is very tight, new regulations and deteriorating economic conditions are causing major banks to cut back on lending and there is panic in the air.

We've been granted a little more time to prep.  It may be just a very little, and it may be just a little more than that - but it's not today and it wasn't this past weekend.  Use your time wisely.

Americans Are Waking Up to the Deficit Time Bomb

This morning, Business Insider carried a summary of a Pew Research Center study which shows Americans are waking up to the financial disaster looming ahead.  In the last few years the percentage of people calling the budget deficit the biggest problem facing us has grown from 53% to 69%, a healthy increase.  Perhaps unsurprisingly, Republicans were much more concerned than Democrats, with 84% of Republicans saying this compared to 66% of Democrats - which is still a pretty healthy percentage.  Source data is here at the Pew Center.

Let me point out something a little subtle here.  Their table said 84% of R, 66% of D and 62% of Independents said the budget deficit is the largest problem facing us.  If there were equal numbers of the three views in their sample, the percentage "of Americans" quoted in the opening (69%) would be the mean of those or 70.6%.  The fact they say 69% indicates that their sample was weighted away from Republicans. The Pew center has a reputation for being a left-leaning organization and the selection of the sample group they chose, and the text of that article lead to that conclusion, too.

That aside, the problem is that there is no consensus on what to do about reducing the deficit, and neither side in Congress offers leadership.  The general public seems to say that they're concerned about it, but have no idea how big the deficit is and how dire the situation is. The Simpson-Bowles commission, which reported on the problem and potential fixes in 2010 is a good example.  The Pew center pollsters asked their sample group to react to proposals in the Simpson-Bowles report. 

If we look at the acceptable to moderately unacceptable options, you can see a definite "let the other guy pay for it" outlook.  It was "totally unacceptable" to raise gas taxes and reduce federal funding to the states - things that everyone would pay for.  No, raise taxes on "high income earners"; raise Social Security contribution cap for "affluent earners", and create a national sales tax (rich people buy more, so they pay more). 

Sorry, this isn't going to work.  You could take every penny from "the richest 1%" and not be able to run the US at current spending levels for a whole year - let alone continually increase spending as we've been doing.  We're all going to hurt.  We can't put this off on someone else - there will be pain for everyone. 

Bill Whittle says it well in this video.  There will not be an American Economy in 15 years if the CBO is right.  It's not just that the Republicans won't be able to provide the awesome benefits you're expecting; nobody will.  There is literally not enough money in the world. 

The discussion that must happen is how to stop us from following the Eurozone into the abyss.  Most importantly, it needs to be an honest discussion, as free of distractions ("eat the rich!") as it can be. The people may need to lead their leaders.  At least people are beginning to wake up to the problem.  Andrew Kohut, director of the Pew Center put it this way:

In my years of polling, there has never been an issue such as the deficit on which there has been such a consensus among the public about its importance – and such a lack of agreement about acceptable solutions.

V'ger Has Left the Solar System

According to my homies at the JPL, Voyager 1 has left the solar system.  Voyager 1, immortalized as V'ger in the first Star Trek movie, is the first object humanity has made that has left the solar system.  She will eventually be followed in that distinction by sister Voyager 2 and the Pioneer 10/11 spacecraft.  Although launched before the Voyagers, the Voyagers have a higher velocity than the Pioneer 10/11 craft, and overtook their distance (all four are going in very different directions).

Voyager 1 is in the 35th year of a 5 year mission.  Her radioisotope thermal generators are expected to keep the few functions running alive until 2025.  Then she will go silent and eventually cool to almost absolute zero. 

If we are lucky, some day a ship from Earth may find her and bring her back to whatever serves as the equivalent of the Smithsonian in those days. 

In all probability, she will simply follow the Newtonian laws of motion, cool to a couple of degrees Kelvin and glide away forever, all alone in the night.

A Little Whine With That

Do y'all mind if I tell you something that really annoys me?  It's not just that I want to vent, it's that there's a chance (a snowball's chance in Florida) that some good might come of it.  In the topsy turvy world of the Internet, there's a chance that the exact right person might read this...

Let me tell you something about your old Graybeard that I've never talked about.  I don't like to talk about this, because it might sound like I'm bragging.  I give to a bunch of charities.  I mean a bunch. 

To begin with, I'm one of those crazy, "bitter clingers" that gives more than a tithe to my church.  I belong to a church with no membership and no formal tracking of who gives what (I was surprised to find there are churches that want to see your 1040 or other proof of income), so it's not forced on me.  On top of that, I give to a couple of faith-based charities that I think do excellent work.

After that, I give to the Moffitt Cancer Center, the clinic that helped save my wife's life.  I give to a few medical-issue charities.  I give to "Toys for Tots", and the "Make A Wish Foundation".  I'm a member of the NRA, the GOA, the NAGR the JPFO; the Heritage Foundation, and more. 

So here's my whine.  It seems the approach everyone uses for fund raising these days is that once they get your initial contribution, they immediately start hitting you up for more.  It's as if the program says, "Hey!  We got a new sucker!" and the frequency of requests skyrockets.  Now, I know that businesses always say it's easier to get repeat business than a new customer, but the charities seem to come close to spending your contribution asking you for more.  I had the same problem with the Stupid party - I know I've mentioned this before.  I gave a modest contribution to the National Stupid Party offices once, and I swear they've spent twice what I gave mailing me to get more money!  

I really don't think I'll ever give to the national political parties again.  I may give to a candidate (and have) because I haven't seen the profligate waste the national party did.  I will probably never give to the Arthritis Foundation again, because - again - I swear they spent more soliciting me for more money than my contribution.  

The tactic that annoys me the most is the "survey".  Typically, the mailing tells you they are trying to get their members' opinions on various issues, but the survey is loaded questions, and always leads to the unspoken "if you think this way, you need to give us more money!". 

It's hard to say who's the worst.  The NRA-ILA sends money requests by the pound, but I've only donated a little extra when they send their "win 21 guns!" contests (I'm trying to modify their behavior).  The best, in terms of not bothering you, is Samaritan's Purse, Franklin Graham's (Billy's son's) charity.  They actually ask you if you're getting too many mailings and to let them know so that they can pare down mailing lists. 

Finally, a tip.  I always check new solicitations against Charity Navigator to see if the charity is rated well.  This isn't always available, for reasons they explain, but they're a good starting point.  And, yes, I've given to them, too.