Rebane's Ruminations
July 2013
S M T W T F S
 123456
78910111213
14151617181920
21222324252627
28293031  

ARCHIVES


OUR LINKS


YubaNet
White House Blog
Watts Up With That?
The Union
Sierra Thread
RL “Bob” Crabb
Barry Pruett Blog

George Rebane

A fundamental tenet on RR has been that as government grows in size and scope, it also grows in becoming intrinsically evil through the conduct of its mega-monied politicians and recourse proof bureaucrats.  Here are some current observations that bolster that argument.


CharitiesCooptedCharities have become fiefs of big government
.  How?  First, they take the money from those who would give more to charities, then they invite the charities to beg for the same funds.  But first the charities have to satisfy certain government agendas, and not the requirements of the people who would freely give.  Almost every charity of any size now expects to receive a sizeable portion of its funding from the state after submitting appropriate proposals and bona fides attesting to their politically correct disbursal of funds received.  In the 18jul13 WSJ James Pierson makes the case that “Much of the not-for-profit sector has become a junior partner in administering the welfare state.” (more here)  And that’s the point of it all, is it not?  – all benefices will henceforth flow from government to which all homage and glory belong.

Eritrea and the United States are unique in that they shamefully share what here is called the Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act (FATCA).  This piece of obamunism became law in 2010, and as most of this grandiose socialist’s other ideas, it has turned into a monster.  First, it has made living abroad for Americans an expensive accounting hell, and then it piles on by creating bad will between countries that asymmetrically enforce FATCA-type policies on their expatriates.  Professor Colleen Gaffy (Pepperdine University) demonstrates that “the core injustice in America’s tax policy is that it is based on citizenship rather than residence.  You ask what could possibly be wrong to pay taxes in two nations concurrently.   The answer (here) will surprise you.  But ultimately FATCA is a sure sign that we are now acting like a descending autocracy desperately attempting to control and milk our citizens wherever they may be found.

Agenda21 marches on.  The latest involves the “U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service proposal to declare two million acres in the Sierra Nevada Mountains as “critical habitat” for the Sierra Nevada Yellow Legged Frog and the Yosemite Toad under the Endangered Species Act.”  And the consequence will be another constraint added to the long list that already prohibits Americans the use of their public lands.  And the telling part is that these critters aren’t even being endangered by humans, but other critters.  But that don’t make no never mind when Americans need to be herded and corralled into their sustainable smart growth stack&pack future.  Congressman Tom McClintock recently summarized an excellent appeal to sanity on the floor of the House in a short speech titled ‘The Real Endangered Species: The Sierra Nevada Hard Working Family’.


And, of course, the sorry trail of socialism in America continues to be littered with destitution, bankruptcy, and dependency.  Breaking news yesterday was that Detroit has filed for Chapter 9 bankruptcy – the biggest municipality in the country to do so.  And the horrifics of Obamacare are sweeping the land as the Pelosi Principle continues to reveal the contents of that monstrosity.  Unions large and small, all dedicated disciples of the messiah, are now screaming bloody murder and are demanding to be protected from the law’s job killing, wallet busting mandates.  (Latest from Teamsters’ Hoffa is that Obamacare is a “perverse” law that is creating “perverse scenarios”, as was reported on RR since day one.)  The remaining supporters of the nationalizing healthcare law will be able to hold their next convention in something we used to call a phone booth.

[update]  Obama gag orders Benghazi survivors.  Did you hear that the WH has ordered all Benghazi survivors to sign non-disclosure agreements?  According to Congressman Frank Wolf (R-VA) that is the apparent reason why Congress can’t get any of these people to come and tell the real story at a public hearing.  I recall the continuing drone of local liberals here telling one and all that Benghazi was a non-event of no enduring consequence.  Now why doesn’t Obama want the story to get out?

The only prominent benefit of Obamacare is from some of the levity that it has generated in the Saturday night shows and emails.  Here’s a typical offering –

Top Ten Indicators That Your Employer Has Changed To The
Obamacare Health Care Plan.
(10) Your annual breast exam is done at Hooters.
(9) Directions to your doctor’s office include “Take a left when you enter
the trailer park.”
(8) The tongue depressors taste faintly of Fudgesicles.
(7) The proctologist in the plan is “Gus” from Roto-Rooter.
(6) The only item listed under Preventative Care Coverage is “an apple a
day.”
(5) Your primary care physician is wearing the pants you gave to Goodwill last
month.
(4) “The patient is responsible for 200% of out-of-network charges,”
is not a typographical error.
(3) The only expense covered 100% is…”Embalming.”
(2) Your Prozac comes in different colors with little M’s on them.
(1) You ask for Viagra and they give you one of their tongue depressors and
duct tape.

Posted in , , , ,

134 responses to “Ruminations – 19jul13 (updated++)”

  1. George Rebane Avatar

    PaulE 1029am – The impracticality of such an approach was highlighted in my 324pm.

    Like

  2. Paul Emery Avatar

    George
    Okay your point is noted, though not agreed with. How about this. Should a recipient of direct financial gain from passage of a bill that they vote on make a statement such as this. “Although I am voting to support this bill. I would like to enter into the public record that my family will be receiving direct financial benefit in the form of a farm subsidy in the amount of $…….dollars if it passes.”

    Like

  3. George Rebane Avatar

    PaulE 159pm – I have nothing against that except to note its great potential for abuse. The benefit of most laws to their promoting legislators is almost always obscure and often involves mediation through third parties.

    Like

  4. Paul Emery Avatar

    George
    It seems to me that would be a consistent point of view with your well noted statement that Stephen Frisch should have revealed his possible conflict of interest being Director of SBC when we had our radio discussion some time back about Proposition 23, which, if enacted by voters, would have frozen the provisions of AB 32.

    Like

  5. George Rebane Avatar

    PaulE 305pm – Agreed. Those considerations would favor your proposal for self-declaration of benefit from legislation. Would you also favor open declaration of why urban reps would vote for farm subsidies by admitting that they have struck deals to get their legislation through that would benefit them. Or would we continue assuming that city reps vote for farm bills on the basis of arms length wisdom, and vice versa?

    Like

  6. Paul Emery Avatar

    George
    I think there has to be some kind of limit but for a start must include direct subsidies or contracts . For example if a Rep or elected Politico is asked to vote on a measure that would directly contract their personal or family business or enterprise. Tit for Tat considerations go on all the time in backroom deals and are difficult to quantify but the sweep has to at least include direct subsidies. By the way, ever wonder why politicians get rich while in office?

    Like

  7. stevenfrisch Avatar
    stevenfrisch

    I think it is absolutely hilarious to watch posters here squirm trying to rationalize Doug LaMalfa’s position.
    I am reminded of one of my favorite quotes from William F. Buckley
    “I won’t insult your intelligence by suggesting that you really believe what you just said.”

    Like

  8. Todd Juvinall Avatar

    Not hilarious, except in your mind SteveF. We think it is hilarious a person yanking a 100 g’s from a non-profit that pays no taxes and redistributes hard earned, inner city earned, tax dollars to millionaires is just to sweet to think.
    LaMalfa would be a piker compared to your scam.

    Like

  9. stevenfrisch Avatar
    stevenfrisch

    Tell that to your minister (or your Congressman) Todd!

    Like

  10. Gregory Avatar

    No squirming, Frisch; it’s just hard to bitchslap you and Paul remotely for your newfound desire to make Congress as pure as Caesar’s wife and to goad a freshman congressman into assuming a leadership role in demolishing the 80 year market framework (a feature of the New Deal) his major constituents (and his own) business was built around.
    While I do think all the New Deal agricultural meddlings should be repealed, I can’t help but conclude your newfound rhetoric (it wasn’t an issue for you before the vote, was it, guys?) is purely partisan and you would both be silent if LaMalfa wasn’t a Republican.
    Insider trading by Congress was only made illegal last year and the basic issues are not new; as Mark Twain once wrote, “It could probably be shown by facts and figures that there is no distinctly native American criminal class except Congress”.

    Like

  11. Ben Emery Avatar
    Ben Emery

    Greg,
    They are talking about the hypocrisy not necessarily the program. A man whose made his political career railing against government is a recipient of huge sums of money from the very government he rails against. Not a small tax credit here and there but over $5 million in government hand outs since 1995. Give people money to grow food but deny the people who need the help to receive the food. This list doesn’t seem like a person who minds taking other people’s money.
    http://farm.ewg.org/persondetail.php?custnumber=A09247988
    Big difference on the argument. When people bend themselves into pretzels to justify LaMalfa welfare the issue takes the same types of turns instead of staying on topic.

    Like

  12. Ben Emery Avatar
    Ben Emery

    George another spammed comment

    Like

  13. Gregory Avatar

    Paul and Frisch, here’s a fresh pile as told by Snopes:
    http://www.snopes.com/politics/business/blum.asp
    A show of hands, please: how many think the Richard Ellis Group would have been named the sole real estate broker of all USPS properties put on the market if their Chairman wasn’t married to DiFi?
    (An aside, Ben, shall we add “spammed” to your list of words whose definitions you need help understanding?)

    Like

  14. Todd Juvinall Avatar

    It would be interesting to see how our lefty comm enters would react if the omnibus bill for say, non-profits and radio stations (their defunding) were relying on LaMalfa’s vote. I have explained omnibus to the dense but they seem to overlook or disregard the point.

    Like

  15. Paul Emery Avatar

    RE Gregory 8:13 AM
    “I can’t help but conclude your newfound rhetoric (it wasn’t an issue for you before the vote, was it, guys?) is purely partisan and you would both be silent if LaMalfa wasn’t a Republican.I can’t help but conclude your newfound rhetoric (it wasn’t an issue for you before the vote, was it, guys?) is purely partisan and you would both be silent if LaMalfa wasn’t a Republican.”
    Not true Gregory. It was a major issue during the campaign during the Republican primary.
    “It didn’t take long after Doug LaMalfa announced he was running for Congress last month before a supporter of his Republican opponents went on the attack, zeroing in on just less than $4.7 million of federal subsidies paid to his family rice farm over the last 15 years.
    Under the headline “Doug LaMalfa for Congress? Are you kidding me???” Sacramento-area conservative activist Aaron Park posted a logo on his blog showing Republican LaMalfa’s trademark cowboy hat emblazoned with two dollar signs.”
    http://www.redding.com/news/2012/feb/18/lamalfas-47-million-in-farm-subsidies-draw/

    Like

  16. Todd Juvinall Avatar

    We on the right are used to the abuse the left dishes out. LaMalfa is our man and that is just fine with me. So PaulE, who are you peddling your piddle to?

    Like

  17. Paul Emery Avatar

    Did you read my 3:57? If you did you would see that there were many on the “right” that feel the same way I do. Todd, you have no integrity on this one. 4.7 million of taxpayers money to a millionaire family that is in a business that cannot exist without government subsidy. Nice work if you can get it.

    Like

  18. George Rebane Avatar

    PaulE 557pm – your hero FDR set up the whole bamboozle over 75 years ago. LaMalfa is one of over 10M recipients of farm subsidies since 1995 of which $13.3B went to rice farmers. I think that you’re being way too easy on the guy who got $4.7M or 0.0035% of it – let’s crank up the rhetoric a notch or two. Don’t let them think that you’re just a big teddy bear.
    http://farm.ewg.org/region.php

    Like

  19. Paul Emery Avatar

    George
    From the CATO Institute
    “Americans pay for the rice program three times over—as taxpayers, as consumers, and as workers. Direct taxpayer subsidies to the rice sector have averaged $1 billion a year since 1998 and are projected to average $700 million a year through 2015. Tariffs on imported rice drive up prices for consumers, and the rice program imposes a drag on the U.S. economy generally through a misallocation of resources. Rice payments tend to be concentrated among a small number of large producers.
    Globally, U.S. policy drives down prices for rice by 4 to 6 percent. Those lower prices, in turn, perpetuate poverty and hardship for millions of rice farmers in developing countries, undermining our broader interests and our standing in the world. The U S. program also leaves the United States vulnerable to challenges in the World Trade Organization.
    For our own national interest, the U.S. Congress and the president should work together to adopt a more market-oriented rice program in the upcoming 2007 farm bill, including repeal of tariffs and a rapid phaseout of subsidies.”
    http://www.cato.org/publications/trade-briefing-paper/grain-drain-hidden-cost-us-rice-subsidies
    It would be interesting to know if the LaMalfa family receives insurance subsidies as well.

    Like

  20. Gregory Avatar

    Paul, I didn’t say you were the first to dump on LaMalfa for being in the rice business, rather, that the only reason you and Frisch have jumped on it is because he’s Republican.
    Again, New Deal agricultural fiddling ‘really didn’t interest anybody outside of a small circle of fiends’ (apologies to the late Phil Ochs) here until a NorCal rice farmer ran for Congress in our district. I’ve been pissed about it since reading Friedman’s “Free to Choose” decades ago, but dumping on a freshman Congresscritter for not aborting an 80 year old policy before he’s even finished his own third trimester in office is pure politics.
    The LaMalfa’s probably also take the individual deductions on their taxes. I’m aghast that we subsidize the rich in such a way.

    Like

  21. George Rebane Avatar

    PaulE 1004pm – You’re hauling coals to Newcastle here Paul. RR’s position on farm subsidies has been a matter of record for years. And Cato’s argument is the leading libertarian cut at opposing such subsidies. But as usual, you’re silent on the substance of my 625pm where your simplistic excoriation of Lamalfa looks ludicrous even before considering the salient points in Gregory’s 721am.
    A more profitable discussion avoided by progressives is how and to what extent do we stand down from farm subsidies. The US has historically been the world’s leading agricultural country, for generations our trade balance was bolstered by exporting what we grew. As others also became export farmers, we protected our farmers with tariffs and then, since FDR, with subsidies. This has served to support farm labor by making the rest of us pay more for our food.
    In the cities the government used its guns to subsidize factory and public jobs through unions which essentially extorted wages and benefits in excess of what the markets would pay. And the rest of us paid for that also. (And the real payments for these extortions are now coming due in the cities across the land.)
    And in response to these policies, a complex government mangled economy has grown up over the last few generations – what the liberal light thinkers like to call a ‘free market’. So to launch a simplistic ragging of an insignificant corner of all this (especially focusing on one individual) is perhaps the highest level to which some people can bring this discussion.

    Like

  22. Ben Emery Avatar
    Ben Emery

    Greg,
    (An aside, Ben, shall we add “spammed” to your list of words whose definitions you need help understanding?)
    I used the term “spammed” as generic communication. Another generic comment that isn’t literal is to “Google” something, maybe you have heard of it? I have never thought of the true definition of spam, so most likely doesn’t fit that definition.
    George, did you understand what I was talking about?

    Like

  23. George Rebane Avatar

    BenE 200pm – I don’t know, since you don’t reference your comments or threads, and I refuse to do the detective work required to reconstruct them from the comment stream.

    Like

  24. Ben Emery Avatar
    Ben Emery

    George,
    My 26 July 2013 at 08:39 AM comment of
    “George another spammed comment”
    Did you understand what I was talking about? Greg G has gone all literal on me for using the term “spam” as a general term for being pulled aside.

    Like

  25. stevenfrisch Avatar
    stevenfrisch

    Posted by: George Rebane | 27 July 2013 at 08:23 AM
    “A more profitable discussion avoided by progressives is how and to what extent do we stand down from farm subsidies. The US has historically been the world’s leading agricultural country, for generations our trade balance was bolstered by exporting what we grew. As others also became export farmers, we protected our farmers with tariffs and then, since FDR, with subsidies. This has served to support farm labor by making the rest of us pay more for our food.”
    So it would appear George that you agree with the rationale I have heard from many supporters of farm subsidies that we subsidize grain because it is an export commodity and do not support lettuce because it is not. I wonder why you would not make that point when Greg was contending it?

    Like

  26. George Rebane Avatar

    BenE 928am – No, I missed it. Again with no referents, all I did was to check the spam folder to retrieve any of comments that may have wound up there.

    Like

  27. George Rebane Avatar

    stevenfrisch 944am – I don’t claim to understand the byzantine negotiations and reasoning behind the subsidy policy for each kind of crop. I’m not sure that your cited rationale, while plausible, is actually behind the current subsidy policy. My ignorance.

    Like

  28. stevenfrisch Avatar
    stevenfrisch

    By the way, this person who is regularly identified here as a ‘progressive’ did posit some solutions; notably the gradual elimination of all agricultural subsidies not specifically tied to a specific and defined public benefit, which would admittedly lead to an increase in food prices, but make locally distributed agricultural products more competitive in the marketplace. Seems like a no-brianer to me. We may pay more but we will create domestic jobs, eat healthier, reduce health care costs, and live longer.

    Like

  29. George Rebane Avatar

    stevenfrisch 956am – yes, the “gradual elimination” solution is the common denominator long accepted by all sides in the farm (and other) subsidies discussion. However, that prescription is too vague to get anything off first base. For example, who goes first or is it a constant percentage across the board? It an ‘across the board’ approach even feasible in the byzantine world of farm subsidies? etc etc
    But we all know that the case of farm subsidies for a “defined public benefit” has not been made in decades, but finally making it in terms of today’s global markets and national priorities would be a start. However, given the state of our national polarization, none of that is possible.

    Like

  30. stevenfrisch Avatar
    stevenfrisch

    Posted by: George Rebane | 28 July 2013 at 10:19 AM
    There are a number of places where we could start the downsizing.
    The first is requiring private insurance for agricultural crops. If government insurance programs were required to be partially matched by private insurance, with a gradual increase in the percentage (perhaps starting as low as 5% private but increasing over time), more of the cost would be born by the private marketplace and the farmer and less by taxpayers.
    The second would be to peg what are known as ‘direct payments” the 10 major export products (wheat, corn, sorghum, barley, oats, cotton, rice, soybeans, minor oilseeds, and peanuts) to real production rather than theoretical production. Direct payments are tied to the historical record of production on a farm, not current production, and if a farmer grows more they get the subsidy on everything they grow. If subsidies were cappped at historical production they could continue to grow more, but not get the subsidy on increased production, and eventually, since productivity is still increasing, the percentage of the product they grow that is subsidized would go down. Gradually their dependence on subsidy would decrease, and shock from future cuts would be less.
    An example of where ‘defined public benefit’ may come into play is maintaining crop rotation in order to maintain the productivity of soil. If income is reduced because a farmer is shifting to soybeans from corn, and the income per acre of soybeans is lower, thus their income and ability to finance future production lower, this might be a place where government wants to bridge the gap in order to maintain soil productivity.
    But in the end, I agree that it is entirely possible that polarization has made change impossible.

    Like

  31. Gregory Avatar

    “Greg G has gone all literal on me for using the term “spam” as a general term for being pulled aside”
    Ben, the dictionary is there for a reason. If you write something using a definition only you use, no useful information is shared, though I suppose for your postings [gratuitous slam deleted].
    From Frisch, 9:44AM: “I have heard from many supporters of farm subsidies that we subsidize grain because it is an export commodity and do not support lettuce because it is not. I wonder why you would not make that point when Greg was contending it?”
    I made no such contention.

    Like

  32. Ben Emery Avatar
    Ben Emery

    Greg,
    This morning I went to a comment by Russ that used the spam filter in it. It has since been replaced with 28 July 2013 at 08:00 AM. If it remained up would you have been as critical to Russ or is it just your obsession with finding personal things to disagree upon with myself, Steve F, and Paul E. It shows once again that you have the maturity level of a 15 year old.

    Like

  33. stevenfrisch Avatar
    stevenfrisch

    Posted by: Gregory | 28 July 2013 at 11:58 AM
    “I wonder why you would not make that point when Greg was contending it?”
    I made no such contention.
    Ooops…I stand corrected. My comment should have been ‘contesting’ not ‘contending’. i apologize for any confusion.

    Like

  34. Bill Tozer Avatar
    Bill Tozer

    Now that this thread has calmed down, I will take another stab at Detroit City. Nah, just kidding. But on the theme of money and pension woes facing our municipalities and states (like Detroit City) here is a DEMOCRAT gobernor that has his head screwed on right for once.
    http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/07/31/top-illinois-democratic-lawmakers-sue-gov-quinn-over-pay-freeze/?test=latestnews
    I especially love the typical Democrat counter points with this priceless quote:
    “Bill Daley, President Obama’s former Chief of Staff who on Monday declared he will run for governor agreed, referring to the Quinn’s act as a “side show” that is “hurting our school kids and stands in the way of creating jobs.”
    Hahaha. Cutting or freezing lawmakers’ salaries will hurt school kids??? Will stand in the way of creating jobs???? This is one example of there is no correlation and there is no causation. Beam me up Scotty

    Like

Leave a comment