The Merry-Go-Boom

Written by Yappy.

Here is the “learned” quote: "It is in fact reality that median household incomes are stagnating and labor's share of GDP is historically low while corporate profits and cash reserves as a share of GDP are historically high."

What matters is what conclusions one can draw from those facts.  In my mind, they are clearly linked, but not in the way liberals believe.  Think about it (for non-liberals only).  Government has made capital investment risky, and punished successful entrepreneurship.  This reduces capital investment that might otherwise produce productivity gains that would justify higher worker wages.  Without that productivity, the supply of goods and services relative to the population is reduced below what it could be, causing prices to increase, along with profits.  Those profits are then retained by the corporation because of the above risks to capital investment. Meanwhile government deficit spending sucks huge amounts of capital out of the marketplace and builds up inflationary pressure that will be released down the line, when the economy recovers, creating the same circumstances—reduced capital investment and rising prices—all over again. 

Having government boost the minimum wage by fiat is just one more in a long, long string of government interventions in the economy, each designed to correct some problem caused by previous government intervention in the economy.  Somebody, please, stop the merry-go-boom. 

Too Late Now

Written by Yappy.

Last fall I was going to propose an experiment to answer the question of “how stupid are we?”   The experiment would work by comparing the vote totals of those people who (apparently) accepted the liberal-money-fueled DFL lie/smear machine as truthful, and those who readily recognized the lies when they saw them over and over and over again.  Now certainly there is a “margin of error” created by the huge DFL money advantage and the fact that over 90% of that spending goes to negative advertising against the Republican.  But Al Franken?  Really?  Mark Dayton?  Really?  I think we’ve answered the question.  On average, we’re about as bright as they are.  :-(


For The Environment

Written by Yappy.

Ah, these environmentalists, how wonderfully their minds spin, like a windmill in the breeze.  They don’t want the Keystone pipeline because there might be a spill, though the trains that replace it are much MORE likely to spill their contents.  They also oppose the pipeline because the oil might “bypass” the US even though it goes right down the middle of the country, to Louisiana refineries who sell most of their product to the US market.  THEN they are concerned that all of that oil will be burned and create CO2 that will cause global warming, but somebody will burn that Canadian oil, and the added CO2 created to ship it to them makes the whole proposition worse than if it were burned here in the US. 

Moreover, speaking of CO2, don’t even try telling them that nuclear power is the safest and most effective, CO2-free alternative available to us.  They hate nuclear power and are committed to “renewables” like wind and solar, even requiring them by law.  But there are a few problems.  First, the geniuses who study this stuff, even though they believe in the global warming scam, believe it is not possible to produce the energy we need with ANY renewable energy source.  

Then of course we have the problem that these energy sources are TERRIBLE for the environment, beyond even their detractions from wilderness beauty or their requirement for fossil fuel backup plants for the half the time when the sun or wind isn’t available.  They are actually killing protected wildlife, and these environmentalists are granting exceptions to the law to both wind and solar energy companies to do it!   Wouldn’t it be great if these folks had a lick of common sense?

Advice to Spineless Wonders

Written by Yappy.

The recent capitulation by Capitol Republicans came as a shock to many.  Surely the combination of 75% approval from the public, the fact that most of the actual security operations of DHS were “essential services” and would not be shut down at all, and having majorities in both the House and Senate would seem to have permitted SOMETHING to have gone to Obama’s desk, from which a whole new politics would have emerged, possibly with positive results.  Isn’t that the game, now?  Fire things up to the President and make him veto these common sense proposals?  At some point, nervous Democrats will be anxious to start asserting Congressional prerogatives again and abandoning him. 

Instead of these sensible and politically smart steps, what we get is a total surrender.  I certainly understand the unwillingness to act because of being blamed for the total government shutdown last year (totally unfair though it was).  But that was the total government, with Obama making it as “painful as possible” for everybody and Senate Democrats simply refusing to do anything at all.  This DHS battle was a much smaller fight, over clear constitutional issues, with broad public support and with Republicans in charge (at least on paper) in the Senate.  For Pete’s sake, GOP, when you get Obama in your sights like this, pull the trigger!  I am sure they had all kinds of advice on how this could have been done, so I am not going to add mine.  I just wish they would get some spine, like they promised. 

They may believe that the courts will eventually rein Obama in, but since when has Obama followed the courts or the law, or anything else?  I believe we need to find SOMEBODY with a spine, and just produce a little public service message, in Spanish, something like this:  “President Obama is trying to tell you that you can become a legal resident of this country just because he says so.  That is illegal for him to do.  If you participate in this, you will do two things.  You will ADMIT that you are here illegally, and you will register so that the government will know exactly where you are.  Don’t be tricked by Obama.”

Keeping Score

Written by Yappy.

Every hour on the hour, and sometimes half-hour, we hear a running body count of the deaths of “civilians” in Gaza (though Hamas calls all their fighters “civilians” and even “innocent civilians”).  If the number of Israeli military killed is mentioned at all, it seems to be for the purposes of telling us how unfair it is for Israel to defend itself against thousands of missiles launched against its civilian population.  As prime minister Netanyahu said, “Israel uses missiles to protect its citizens; Hamas uses its citizens to protect its missiles.”  Given that truth, I propose a new means of “keeping score” in this conflict.  I suggest that from now on we consider the number of civilians INTENDED to be killed by each side.  That would make Hamas responsible for many thousands of intended civilian deaths in Israel, as well as for most of the truly innocent citizens in Gaza.  Based on that score, the world’s moral outrage and calls for Israeli restraint are clearly aimed at the wrong party.  Where is a fair scorekeeper and referee when you need one?

Why, Governor?

Written by Yappy.

So, our brilliant Gov. Dayton has been saying, “We need to eliminate the use of coal” in Minnesota.  He simply states it as a matter of fact and offers no reason whatsoever for this economically disastrous course of action.  That is perhaps understandable because there is no reason whatsoever to do this.  Oh, we all know that this supposedly solves the problem of “Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warning,” or “Climate Change” as it was renamed when global warming stopped 18 years ago.  It is also understandable because those who are still supporting the hoax-- perhaps the greatest scam in human history – realize that if they have to get down into the weeds of scientific evidence to support their cockamamie ideas, they are quickly exposed as frauds and their cause is lost.  It almost makes you wonder if the question is correctly punctuated.  Of all the things Mark Dayton might be doing to actually help the people of Minnesota, Why Governor?


Written by Yappy.

The current “humanitarian crisis” on our southern border is just one more symptom of a glaring flaw in our political system.  That is, that 1) we have endless politicians who promise to “go to Washington and solve problems," and 2) we believe them, despite their proven inability (and some would say lack of Constitutional authority) to do so.  Let us take this immigration problem as our example, and see what real problem-solving looks like.

First of all, the situation arises because Congress previously solved the “problem” of sex trafficking of minors and, in so doing, created the current mess.  Therefore the first step is to immediately amend or repeal that flawed law.  Then we immediately need to “shut the door” to keep the problem from getting worse.  We should order the National Guard to the border to reinforce the Border Patrol until “the fence” can be built, and Congress should authorize any environmental waivers required to make that happen ASAP.  Finally, but still immediately, we need to do something with the crush of those recently arrived.  We should temporarily assign enough of the hundreds of current immigration judges we already have, and with expedited proceedings could clear this backlog in about three weeks.  This might involve 15-20 flights a day to return these “kids” to their home country and their home.  I would make sure they had medical treatment and food for the return trip, and I would even consider an up to $10,000 “repatriation fund” to be paid to the government of the home  country on condition that they stop sending these kids, and that some of the money goes to the parents to pay off the coyotes they hired.  The last piece is getting our existing ICE agents to fan out and find those that have already been dispersed into our communities.  If they have in fact been reunited with their parents but their parents are illegal, then the whole family gets a day in court.  If they have not been reunited with their parents, then we must deport them back to their parents (remember Elian Gonzalez).

Now the point here is that I came up with this complete, common-sense solution in about 30 minutes.  Those with more knowledge and dedication might take all day.   But our highly-paid problem-solvers in Congress have already been at it for weeks!  If they cannot solve such a simple problem themselves, they ought to at least recognize the simple solution when it is presented to them.  It is starting to look like the biggest problem we have to solve is Congress itself.


Written by Yappy.

We have certainly heard a lot lately about the thousands of IACs (illegal alien children) crossing our Southern border.  We have heard that “we have a moral responsibility” and that we “must care for the children” and that we have a “humanitarian crisis.”  Never mind that some of these “children” may be as much like sweet widdle kiddies as a rabid Doberman is like a Pekinese-- we really won’t know until the Obama administration decides to let us actually SEE, and maybe even talk to, these “refugees.”

Whatever happens, we will certainly be seeing and hearing a lot more violin-playing, heart-string-tugging, crocodile-tear sympathy on the one hand, and insistent finger-pointing outrage on the other, all wondering “what to do.”  Certainly there are many that believe that Obama himself is to blame for this problem, while he tries to get Congress to authorize $4 billion for HIS “solution.”

Nowhere in any of this is anybody asking the first question that SHOULD be asked when you find yourself with unwanted guests in your house and more lining up on the front porch, which is: WHY DIDN’T YOU CLOSE THE D@M DOOR?  We would not be having ANY of these problems if we had the border secure and these “unaccompanied children” had never gotten across the border in the first place.  And before we worry any further about those already here, why don’t we close off the border to keep the problem from getting worse!?


Another Good Reason

Written by Yappy.

The Star Tribune worries that Minnesota’s public utility companies are being treated “unfairly” under the Obama administration’s new “War on Coal” regulations, because they are not being given “credit” for the windmills they have built over the border in North Dakota.  I would like to suggest that there is an even better reason to oppose these regulations, namely that they are STUPID!  First of all, there are huge, unknown and probably totally unconsidered costs in decreasing the supply of electrical energy and increasing its cost to consumers.  Far worse is that the supposed benefit, that of reducing CO2 levels to prevent “global warming,” is entirely fictional!  For the last 17 years, while CO2 has continued to increase, global temperatures have NOT!  Every single computer climate model, upon which the EPA relies as the scientific underpinning for its regulatory authority, has thus been proven WRONG!  Not only that, even if they were 100% right, the difference in temperature 100 years from now would be so small as to be immeasurable!  In short, any cost-benefit analysis, supposedly required for EPA regulations, would be hugely negative, as should any sensible reaction to the EPA’s STUPID new regulation.


Putting It Right

Written by Yappy.

The mark of human intelligence is our ability to put multiple ideas together and learn from them.  Let us look at these ideas:

  •          "First you win the debate, then you win the election." – Margaret Thatcher
  •          "We will win these debates because we are right.”  – MNGOP State Convention candidate
  •          "Truth Matters" – MNGOP slogan and website
  •          "A lie is as good as the truth if you can get somebody to believe it.”  – Flip Wilson
  •          “A lie will go round the world while truth is pulling its boots on.”  – Old English proverb

So, what can we learn?  Yes, we should win every fair debate, but they are seldom fair.  Worse by far is that too many conservatives believe that just being right is enough to win not just debates, but elections, and that  simply is not true, cannot be true, because Democrats LIE.  To win elections, we have to let no Democrat lie stand unchallenged, and let no truth go unspoken – indeed un-SHOUTED.  That, of course, takes lots of money, time and effort, and Democrats will still call you all kinds of nasty names.  Just let them; then smile and ask, "So, you agree I am right?"

The Four Ps

Written by Yappy.

It is Convention season, and some of our brightest Republican friends are again saying that “the Platform is too long.”  They may be correct, but the question is, too long for WHAT?  Until you know the purpose of the platform process and the platform document, you cannot say.  Others call for the entire platform to be eliminated and replaced with a “Statement of Principles,” but that has the same flaw-- we must ask WHY?  What does that accomplish that the current platform does not, and vice versa?  Before we do anything drastic, we need to understand these things.   “P” stands for “Problem” and we need FIVE  “Ps”—principles, policies, a platform and a set of promises, plus a process for creating and maintaining them-- to create a solution, since our disagreements stem simply from trying to cram what should be four documents into one.  Here’s how I see it. 

Principles are like posteriors.  They serve a necessary function and everybody needs one, but you'll never get 2000 people to agree on exactly how to describe the perfect one in just a few words.  The real problem is that we are trying to do too many things with a single platform document.  We (first) want to be able to explain, in a few simple terms, what Republicans in general stand for -- a "marketing document" that fits on one page and that the vast majority of voters would agree with at first glance.  I've seen it done with five short sentences on a business card.  Let some committee come up with one, and let it stand until somebody comes up with one vastly superior to it.  Or have several.  We already have one, the "We Believe document," which has been widely published and accepted, and we have the recently adopted (but longer) Principles that preface the current platform.  Nothing more is needed, but YMMV—Your Mileage May Vary. 

 We also need a more detailed document that describes those public policies that we derive from those "principles."  These “Policies” would be general statements of preference, like “taxation that is low, simple and fair.”   Once established, like the Principles, they would change very little unless substantial reform of government were to occur, in which case this document would become shorter.  The process would be a periodic review to verify whether or not each of those policies was implemented into law, and assure that each was based on one or more principles.  If they were in conflict, then have we got the policy wrong, or have we misstated the principle?  Ay, that is the rub, as Shakespeare would say.  But it would quiet the arguments about “consistency.”  Perhaps the preface to each of the current platform sections serves this purpose?

The closest thing we would have to a “Platform,” if that is the word we choose (and we probably should), would be completely (or largely) rewritten every two years.  What is critically important, and is NOT preserved by radically reducing the platform or by replacing it with a one-page statement of principle, is to recognize the concerns of caucus attendees, as expressed in the resolutions Process.  People deserve, need, and want to be "heard" in the making of public policy.  Currently, the thousands of individual resolutions at caucus get whittled down to a precious few by the Herculean efforts of the State Platform Committee, and much is lost, but it is done simply to keep the standing platform from blowing up to a completely unmanageable size.  By substantial  rewrites every two years or perhaps even every year, we directly address people's concerns of the moment, and with substantial specificity.  We will have removed from this document the general policies and statements of principle found in our current platform so that we can more effectively and specifically guide our legislators.  Specific legislation, like Eddie Eagle or the NAFTA superhighway, could be placed here, and “sunsetted” in the following year (or convention), holding this new State Platform to a much more manageable size.  Right now, in Second District, we create a "resolutions summary" that includes ALL resolutions, and goes from every BPOU straight to their elected officials.  That would be like this proposed Platform document, and it could simply go directly to the Congressional and then State Platform Committee for consolidation and word-smithing—a much simpler, fairer and fully transparent process. 

The fourth document we would like is a short, clear list of things our politicians would commit to doing in the upcoming term, if elected (to the majority).  Call it the "Promises" or "Contract with Minnesota."  There are two schools of thought on this, that the State Convention would write this contract, or that those who have dedicated themselves to the effort of getting elected and serving as legislators would write it themselves, based on the previous three documents and their knowledge of the issues, which to me is the only fair and reasonable way to do it.

So that's it: four purposes, four different documents, four different processes.  Our disagreements stem from trying to cram all of them together into one.  Okay?