The GOP and the Fiscal Cliff

Here is a crazy and bold prediction: à la the 1994 government shutdown, no matter what happens with regard to the "fiscal cliff", the GOP will get the blame. Just as the right was fingered as the culprit for the housing bust even while they were sounding the alarm about the need for more regulation of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, so too they will be blamed for any detrimental effects of the fiscal cliff. Republican options for dealing with this issue include:

• stay true to their values and pledges of smaller government and lower taxes;
• put forth reasonable solutions such as the Ryan Plan;
• agree to return to the full panoply of the Clinton era taxes;
• put forward the Simpson/Bowles plan as a compromise;
• just vote "present" and let the Dems march forward unresisted;
• leave DC and hole up at the Best Western Clock Tower Resort in Rockford, Illinois;

But, it doesn't matter what the GOP does short of registering as Democrats and feeding grapes to Nancy Pelosi, they will be castigated by the Dominant Liberal Establishment Mass Media (DLEMM) and those on the left as obstructionist and intransigent.

And this will happen even though the left boldly proclaims their intransigence on a daily basis:

• Before the election, Harry Reid said, "Mitt Romney's fantasy that Senate Democrats will work with him to pass his 'severely conservative' agenda is laughable."
• Harkin and Rockefeller asked Obama to "reject changes to Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security that would cut benefits"
• The Congressional Progressive Caucus said that entitlements are off the table
• Durbin, the Senate Majority Whip, said in a speech that under no circumstance would there be any entitlement reform.  
• Krugman says, "Mr. Obama should hang tough, declaring himself willing, if necessary, to hold his ground even at the cost of letting his opponents inflict damage on a still shaky economy. And this is definitely no time to negotiate a 'grand bargain' on the budget that snatches defeat from the jaws of victory. So stand your ground, Mr. President, and don't give in to threats. No deal is better than a bad deal."
• A pundit opines, "The president can win, without doing anything. He does not have to give an inch. Not an inch!"

Are these the voices of bipartisanship and compromise?  

The left sets up a situation where "negotiation" means something like 'You can choose any color you like as long as it is blue," and then accuses the right of stonewalling if they desire any color other than the shade of blue that the Dems are promoting. They are all for compromise so long as it is the GOP that does the compromising.

However, If the GOP compromises here - and by compromise I mean choosing the preselected, preauthorized positions of the left that are not open to compromise - they will just be yielding more ground to the all-encompassing entitlement state and will be part of the problem.  They will fix nothing and only slightly mitigate the slowing economy, higher taxes on everyone and increased debt. But worst of all, if there is even a trace of GOP DNA on the deal - GOP good intentions notwithstanding - the DLEMM and the left will pin all negative outcomes on the right and the GOP will bear the political consequences of failed policies no matter who authored them (e.g., housing bubble).

Since most agree that we are approaching the cliff at a high rate of speed, the GOP should let the left own the 'solution'. Many on the right argue against this because of the inevitable destruction resulting from leftist policies. But since our Thelma and Louise moment is nigh, will nudging the wheel so that we enter the atmosphere at an angle somewhat less than 90 degrees change the outcome? Will insisting that the windows remain rolled up before we sail off the cliff make the car any more drivable once we reacquaint ourselves with terra firma?

How could the GOP let the Dems own the solution? First, the GOP should set forth details about what they would do if they had control of all three branches. Second, they should propose Obama's own budget and tax plan with a nice acronym like AIRBORN, or FORWARD and vote "present". Lastly, the GOP should then let the Dems propose anything they like and vote "present".

The first move would establish a benchmark.

The second would, as much as possible, remove the ability of the DLEMM and the left (but I repeat myself) to blame and demagogue the right's attempts to inject sanity. And there is little likelihood of passage since Obama's plans have gone down in flames before. 

The last move would allow the Dems to wholly own the solution by letting them propose solutions without resistance. By removing the resistance, the Democrats would be forced to realistically deal with their own proposals. It is very likely that without a great Satan to battle against, the Dems would self-moderate rather than relying on the GOP to provide the moderation for them (as well as a scapegoat) and come to rest on something like Simpson/Bowles. A self moderated outcome may share many aspects with the Republican benchmark and the GOP could enjoy an 'I told you so' moment. But even if the Dems don't moderate their extreme positions, by voting "present" on anything the Dems propose the right gets absolution - not from the DLEMM or the left, but from their base and their conscience.

GOP moderation and compromise only serves to prolong the inevitable. Just as Democrats often stand in opposition to and protest against economic reality, we may be at the point where Republicans are standing in defiance of Schumpeter's reality, and they should, if reluctantly, step aside and allow creative destruction to do its work.

The Infinite Womb

An IEET article observes that Juntendo University researcher Yosinori Kuwabara "predicts that a fully functioning artificial womb capable of gestating a human fetus will evolve in the near future." Cornell University's Dr. Hung-Ching Liu who has successfully implanted and grown mouse embryos in a lab-created uterine lining says it could be as soon as 2020 for animals and 2030 for humans.

The article notes that "In an unusual twist, this technology offers justification to pro-lifers in the abortion debates." How so? A few weeks ago, a Facebook friend asked the following question:

Let’s say we build a machine that’s a perfect simulation of a womb. It can take a human egg and sperm and replace the need for a woman to carry it. However, the machine is scalable, so that it can carry the human through the entirety of its development, all the way to the point where the cells naturally break down and stop working (i.e., through adulthood, old age and death). If the human never leaves the womb, and goes through all the same phases of development that you and I do, at what point do we consider it alive? Do we ever consider it alive?

The current state of affairs is a strange moral place where the worth of the fetus is determined solely by the mother. If she wants to keep the baby, the fetus is infinitely precious and you can be prosecuted if you harm the "child in utero". However, if the mother decides she doesn't want the child, the fetus is determined to be no more important than a wart.

It is an odd thing that this one person determines the worth of another living thing. Even a dog's worth is not determined by its owner - just ask Michael Vick. Right, wrong or indifferent, this situation is certainly odd and unique.

But my FB friend's question calls attention to the 'magical birth canal' sophism - i.e., there is something magical about the infant leaving the birth canal and taking a breath that validates its sanctity or humanity or its life. This is presumably why some docs can perform partial birth abortions because so long as the face is not exposed and a breath is not taken the child is not considered fully human and the activity is not considered infanticide.

If this current way of thinking is applied to the artificial womb scenario, it would appear the object growing in an artificial womb would not be considered human or 'alive' unless and until it took a breath of outside air or the mother deemed it so.

Applying the current ethos to the artificial womb reveals how ridiculous the current thinking on this matter can be. Add to that the potential to more readily observe the fetal development - albeit maybe not as transparently as the womb galleries depicted in the image provided with the article - and the likelihood of earlier and earlier application of the 'life' or 'baby' moniker increases. Just as ultrasounds affect the way a mother now views the developing fetus within her womb, so seeing the developing human form would certainly affect future observers.

However, one suspects that abortions could become increasingly rare for those using artificial wombs as the purposefulness of the sans-sexual insemination process would move it ever closer to former Surgeon General Dr. Joycelyn Elders' wish that every child be a wanted child. If women could harvest eggs and store them for future artificial insemination in artificial wombs and be rendered functionally sterile with birth control, the need for abortions due to accidental pregnancy could theoretically be eliminated. And it is difficult to imagine a couple purposefully initiating the artificial womb process and then pulling the plug at some later stage of development - that is, those who were careful and purposeful.

One can just as easily imagine a world in which individuals desire the natural birthing process, careless partners not preventing pregnancy, or those without access to birth control still using the "dark and dangerous place" for gestation.

However, having the parallel option of artificial wombs would certainly bring clarity to the double standard that is debated even today. On the one hand it would be easy to understand that a vandal who removes the fetus from the life giving sustenance of the artificial womb could be easily charged with murder. What would not be so easy to understand is why the woman who separates the fetus in her womb from her life giving sustenance would not be so charged. If those two cases are not equivalent, then one is tacitly stating that an artificially produced child has more right to life than a naturally gestated fetus.

Big Government Means Bigger Business

Newsflash: The rich are already rich. Higher tax rates don't prevent them from being or becoming rich. The wealthy are less concerned with higher tax rates because they will avoid taxation by shuffling their wealth around and by collaborating with government to ensure their position. Higher tax rates will not prevent GE and the Hollywood effete from acquiring wealth – they have already ascended. Large corporations are natural allies of heavy handed fiscal policy because they are better positioned to influence government in their favor and better able to reposition themselves financially and globally in order to skirt or avoid taxation. Big business is the natural ally of big government.

Tax rates do, however, have a mitigative effect on those moving through the economic continuum. In free societies people are not restricted to the class into which they are born. Unlike most economic systems throughout the world, capitalism allows for infinite mobility through the economic spectrum. But onerous tax regimes – and worst yet, being told that the system is rigged against you – can have profound and devastating effects on those trying to climb the economic ladder.

One of the better aspects of the 'creative destruction' of capitalism is the possibility of unseating the power structure. If the influence and control by the government is relatively weak then there is less ability for a group that has the policing power of the state to influence, collude and control. At the very least, corporations can be toppled by the next guy with a better mouse trap. Simply put, if WalMart is functioning in ways that offend your sensibilities, you can spend your dollar elsewhere. If government is doing a poor job, good luck trying to change that.

When a controlling bureaucratic labyrinth exists, the rich and powerful will seek to impose their will with the force of law. The small guy doesn't have the same ability to influence the heavy hand of government as the wealthy. Sure the little guy gets one vote. But the wealthy get that same vote plus a lobbyist. This is the impetus that motivates those with the notion of smaller government. It is mystifying that so many vote for larger government to control the economic and social reigns while thinking it will lessen the influence peddling.

Ironically, those who seek to lessen the shipping of jobs overseas, the consolidation of power and wealth into the hands of a few and reign in corporate behavior with taxation, caps, restrictions and regulation often make the problem worse. One must be careful when ceding power to the government or imposing one's will via government mandate to not just intend to do good.

Republican Obstructionists

From Bob via Taranto:

Seems to me one of the less talked about casualties of Biden's sneering, mocking demeanor is the credibility of the notion that the reason things haven't been getting done is because the 'Republicans are unwilling to work with the Democrats.' Biden destroys the illusion that the Democrats can be conversed with reasonably, respectfully and in good faith.

UPDATE: Harry Reid isn't interested in working with anybody with whom he disagrees. But it is the GOP that is obstructionist.

"Mitt Romney's fantasy that Senate Democrats will work with him to pass his 'severely conservative' agenda is laughable."

Mr. Reid flatly ruled out following Mr. Romney's agenda, saying he and his colleagues have already voted down many of those proposals, including House Republicans' budget, written by Republican vice presidential nominee Rep. Paul Ryan.

UPDATE: Oops.  After the election that kept him in the majority, Harry Reid is all about getting things done, cooperation and compromise.

VP Debate: Who's Religious Interpretation is Omniscient

Last night during the debate the second to the last question put to the candidates asked how their Catholic religion informed their views on abortion. Two things struck me as I listened. First, both men say that Catholicism informs their views. Both said that the church doctrine says life begins at conception. Biden said that he would not let church doctrine override a woman’s ability to choose and Ryan said that he would not let church doctrine interfere with exceptions of rape, incest and health of the mother. Looks like total agreement so far. So the only things I can see that may differentiate the two are their thoughts about late-term abortions and who pays for it. If I understand it correctly, the GOP position is that late-term abortions should be discouraged or prevented and that taxpayers shouldn’t be footing the bill. Is this the crazy, snake-hair, arm-waving, clothes rending, maniacal, Tea bagging, woman-hating, misogynistic, Big Bird slaying, wacko policy that is to be resisted at all costs?

One wonders in our current climate that if the same religious doctrine informs both of them and they conclude different things about whether we should do in the womb what would never be done outside the womb as well as different notions about who should pay for this activity, does that mean one or the other is a liar? Also, Biden said:

But I refuse to impose it on equally devout Christians and Muslims and Jews, and I just refuse to impose that on others, unlike my friend here, the — the congressman. I — I do not believe that we have a right to tell other people that — women they can’t control their body.

This thinking obviously ends somewhere. I doubt that Biden would make the same comment in support of Peter Singer’s idea that a newborn should not be considered a person until 30 days after delivery and therefore ‘aborting’ or killing disabled babies within 30 days of birth would be a moral good. Would Biden in that case refuse to impose his views, religious or otherwise, on peoples of other faiths? I should think not.

BTW, it is a curiosity that a) the left is not so interested in “choice” when it comes to reforming the education of children via vouchers, reforming healthcare, reforming health insurance, reforming MediCare, reforming Social Security, voting for unions with secret ballots, etc., and b) as Prager notes,

The human fetus has no worth except for what the mother says it has. If she thinks it is worthwhile, it's infinitely precious. If she doesn't, it is infinitely worthless. It is a very odd moral scheme. It applies nowhere else in life, where one individual determines the complete worth of something else. We don't even allow that for dogs. We don't say dog owners determine the worth of dogs. But human fetus owners determine the worth of a fetus. It is a fascinating development in the degradation of our value system.

So, of course Biden and the left would impose their views if post birth canal abortions were proposed. (Although, as Ryan noted, "The vice president himself went to China and said that he sympathized and wouldn’t second guess their one child policy of forced abortions and sterilizations." This might cause one to seek clarification from Biden and the left on the post birth canal abortion issue.) By confronting the Singer dilemma we see that both Democrats and Republicans are willing to impose their notion of morality on others via legislation. (This is the old “We’ve established what kind of girl you are, now we are just haggling over price” gambit.) In the case of abortion, we are just publicly discussing when that imposition will happen and where legislative lines will be drawn. For Dems to pretend that they aren’t drawing lines, imposing their moral will and legislating morality is self-delusional. All participants in politics want to impose on others as much of their morality as possible, and no group is more insistent on that than the left. Which brings us to the second observation.

Biden noted that his Catholic faith “has particularly informed my social doctrine. The Catholic social doctrine talks about taking care of those who — who can’t take care of themselves, people who need help.” We know by his statements and policy preferences that this means the state should take from some and give to others in the name of compassion. Why is it that he does not feel the same restraint for this imposition of religious charity on “devout Christians and Muslims and Jews” - as well as the groups he left out, including atheists - as he does for abortion? Where is the wall of separation that is lauded by those on the left? Why is it acceptable to impose this aspect of his religion on others while imposing restrictions on actively extinguishing the life of a human is not acceptable? (If you think that assessment is overwrought, he said that he accepts the notion that “life begins at conception” - I did not put those words in his mouth. If he really believes that life begins at conception, then at the very least he thinks that abortion is the ending of nascent human life.) Is Mr. Biden really arguing that the state should be the charity arm of the Catholic church?

So Biden and the left are pro-choice on extinguishing nascent human life (and, incidentally, for teacher's unions to invest heavily in Bain and other risky Wall Street schemes) but not pro-choice on how you can educate your children, health insurance, medical care, end of life decisions, Social Security, etc. He is consistent on one thing though: who it is that will pay for all of this.

This is an election that involves larger themes: the size and nature of government; limited powers v statism; individualism v collectivism; liberty v egalitarianism; the locus of charity; E pluibus unum v multiculturalism. Those concepts and choices are fairly clear. Unfortunately, most of the conversation is focused on personal character assassination and the tit-for-tat of dueling experts.

Coming Out

The Blaze reports that Stacey Dash has Tweeted that she will vote for Romney. Of course this is not how a dignified black woman should act.

This stuff inevitably devolves into name calling of the black person that dares to reveal conservative thoughts. They must be of questionable character if they share the 'white man' thinking of the Founding Fathers that includes limited government, morality by religiosity, E pluribus unum and liberty. One side thinks skin color (aka, genetics) determines how a person should think about government and economics. One side thinks if you don't think like them, you are an Uncle Tom or a traitor to your race. What it is about dark pigmentation that means there is some genetic predisposition of the cranial cellular matter that suggests it is more racially consistent to believe in leftist ideas rather than conservative ideas is somewhat bewildering – or, said another way, raaaaaacist. These are the ramblings of the KKK. To say one must vote or think according race is literally – and not in the way that Vice President Biden uses the word literally – racist.

That blacks of today consent to the idea that there is some appropriate or race-centric way of thinking is astonishing. If whites spoke words such as these, they would properly be dismissed as racists. But I guess the right doesn't need to be as overtly racist as the left because they sneakily toot those racist dog whistles – that, oh by the way, only the left can hear.

Believing that genetics dictate ideology is why the left can say that Thomas Sowell, Walter Williams, Shelby Steele, JC Watts, Juan Williams, Clarence Thomas and others are not only not 'black leaders', but are sellouts. (Oddly, only angry, aggrieved blacks, gays, women, etc. can be 'leaders'.) One is not true to his race if he does not think as the left thinks. How stupid $#!% like this can be said out loud in this day an age boggles the mind. Surely they must then also believe that genetics dictate who is Catholic, prefers Chevrolets and thinks children should be spanked.

Furthermore, this sort of thinking is not only racist tribalism, it is a lie. How so, you ask? Ask anyone who says that you must vote for Barack Obama because he is black whether they will uncritically and publicly support Clarence Thomas because he is black. Of course they won't. They don't want you to support just any black; you must support a black person of the left.

Have you ever seen media types who get thrills in their leg for Obama have similar feelings for Thomas and sing from the rooftops how great it is that a black man rose to such a high station in life and what that may say about the country in which it happened? In contradistinction, commentators on the right are critical or supportive of people no matter what their race based on their ideas. Herman Cain is an ideological friend because of shared ideas and values, not because his DNA says he has relatives from a certain part of the world. Al Sharpton isn't disagreed with because of his skin color, but because conservatives disagree with his ideology. Again, a simple test can demonstrate whether these claims are true. Would conservatives all of a sudden love the policies of the last four years if Joe Biden were the president? Of course not. But the left thinks it is purely racism that animates the right's disagreements with President Obama.

People on the right aren't interested in the color of your skin, they are interested in your values. If you share values, skin color is of no consequence. Ever been in a church that isn't preaching black separatist, er, liberation theology? Blacks and whites arm-in-arm in support of shared values, not shared skin color. The left is obsessed with race, gender and class. The right is interested in values.

The day that these balkanized, aggrieved groups begin to feel that America is likely the best – not perfect, but a damn sight better than most – place on the planet for blacks, Hispanics, women, gays, Muslims, immigrants, illegal immigrants, etc. to live, is the day the individuals in these groups might reconsider their voter registration. That coupled with realizing that those who are not politically like them really aren't the stupid, ignorant, mean-spirited, war-mongering, selfish, greedy, hateful, nativist, racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamophobic, bigoted, intolerant, fascist, misogynistic and hypocritical SOBs that the left says they are, is the day they stop voting for leftists – or at least consider the discussion coming from the other side of the aisle. Isn't attacking the humanity and character of those who aren't like you a form of bigotry?

This woman might wilt under the scathing pressure of these mean, bullying and unkind attacks on her character and humanity. It is hard to withstand the fire hose of enmity that seeks to take out any black that strays too far from the plantation. I hope she can channel Rosa Parks and stand firm.

UPDATE:  Good for her.

So True

See the original at PlanetThornburn.

One wonders what happened to the land that Lincoln envisioned that was a government of the people, by the people, for the people...

Worth of a Fetus

Prager notes:

The human fetus has no worth except for what the mother says it has. If she thinks it is worthwhile, it's infinitely precious. If she doesn't, it is infinitely worthless. It is a very odd moral scheme. It applies nowhere else in life, where one individual determines the complete worth of something else. We don't even allow that for dogs. We don't say dog owners determine the worth of dogs. But human fetus owners determine the worth of a fetus. It is a fascinating development in the degradation of our value system.

Bain Charlatans

This graphic and audio is making the circuit on Facebook. The post asks the reader to view the super secret tape to find out that Romney is trafficking slaves or some such.

What exactly is going on here? Romney observed that America is ridiculously wealthy compared to the world. True. He notes that Chinese life is so bad that working for a pittance is a vast improvement and highly desired. True. If you went over and saw this, wouldn't you too say largely the same thing? But giving women equal-pay-for-equal-work jobs that are highly sought after - so much so that fences are required to keep those who want the jobs out to maintain order - is called slavery by demagogues.

If the right demagogued like the left they would say that it is the Dems who don't want to improve the lives of anyone other than Americans and unionists in particular. Or that the left says "To hell with women and gays in Iraq," or "Too bad if girls get acid thrown on them if they dare to act like something more than a dog." Or, in this case, that Dems would rather have girls in China starve than have good paying jobs.

If somebody moved into a rural America and began building computers there because they could pay the workers less (but still great pay for the area) thereby driving down the cost for consumers, wouldn't that be a great thing? (Happened. Called Gateway.) Wouldn't that be great for the workers? And consumers? Not to those exercised by this video. That would be slavery.

And tell that same story outside the borders of America and you're a villainous cretin who hates. Isn't there something just a bit racist, nationalistic or xenophobic about that? Give Americans a manufacturing job and your are Jesus Christ come to earth. Give anyone else a manufacturing job and you are Satan the outsourcer. Dare not give Indians, Tibetans, Africans or Koreans a job. Screw them. Where is all the social responsibility and global community talk then?

But, thankfully we can just follow the money and that should reveal who is behind this horror show of slavery. (Follow the trail of tears here, here and here.) Oops. Apparently the left loves Bain when it makes their pensions larger and  when they are gambling with granny's retirement money on risky private investments that would never work for Social Security, even though government pensions typically don't pay into Social Security because they've got their money tied up in private investments because they don't want to rely on that dumb government Ponzi scheme that won't provide the retirement they desire.

Aren't these wealthy corporations that fund Chinese slavery everything that they accuse Romney of being? Wouldn't they have been pissed if Romney lost all their money by not being a good capitalist when he was at the helm? Does that make them hypocrites? Greedy? Outsourcers? Aren't they funding the work of the devil?

The beauty of being on the left is never having to say you're sorry. They get to demonize and accuse people of horrible things and then go do those things they demonize.

Gaffe-master

Klavan notes:

Romney is caught on tape saying that nearly half the country is on government assistance and will vote for Obama to keep the dole coming. In related news, a video is unearthed of Pythagoras saying that the square of the hypotenuse of the right triangle is equal to the sum of the square of the two adjacent sides.

Once again, the media goes blitheringly insane.

If everything said wasn’t gathered up and shoved into the gotcha grinder, many on the left would likely assent to this statement. They would make a few tweaks, but the equation would be the same. Stated another way, 'Obama caught on tape saying that nearly half the country is getting tax breaks/loopholes/kickbacks/corporate welfare/etc. and will vote for Romney to keep the dole coming.' I am certain that such a sneakily hustled quote from a clandestine meeting in dimly lit, smoke filled room that revealed such insider discussions would be almost too shocking to hear. But luckily, the media wouldn't go blitheringly insane over that.

Coulter also considers the crazy idea that net tax receivers might actually keep voting their wallets as Dems constantly tell us to do:

At a private gathering, Romney told donors that Obama had a lock on the 47 percent of voters "who pay no income tax" and "believe the government has a responsibility to care for them." This was deeply offensive to people who pay no income tax and believe the government has a responsibility to care for them.

Is what Romney said largely different than what has been attributed to Alexander Tytler?:

A democracy is always temporary in nature; it simply cannot exist as a permanent form of government. A democracy will continue to exist up until the time that voters discover that they can vote themselves generous gifts from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates who promise the most benefits from the public treasury, with the result that every democracy will finally collapse due to loose fiscal policy, which is always followed by a dictatorship.

The average age of the worlds greatest civilizations from the beginning of history, has been about 200 years. During those 200 years, these nations always progressed through the following sequence:

From Bondage to spiritual faith;
From spiritual faith to great courage;
From courage to liberty;
From liberty to abundance;
From abundance to complacency;
From complacency to apathy;
From apathy to dependence;
From dependence back into bondage