Bunning deserves props; media comparison

Sen Jim Bunning (Kentucky) deserves some thanks today; he's temporarily stalling the Obamanation from wasting more of our money ($10,000,000,000 this time) on extending various government support programs, which, although popular, are the continuing bane of America's long-term well-being (being as the largest long-term problem America has is the culture of entitlement, and nothing feeds the culture of entitlement as much as more government spending on entitlement programs). Granted, it's only a temporary setback; the money will be printed/spent soon anyway; and the objection is not to spending the money, but rather a statement about the blatant hypocrisy of Congress proposing the unfunded waste just days after approving "pay as you go" rules for new spending (which this clearly violates in concept, although not in letter). Still, I have to approve of someone in the cesspool of Congress doing the right thing for the country, since it's such a rarity these days.

On a related note, here are some representative samples of the story (and some reader comments), from the [colloquial] conservative and liberal press outlets:
- Fox News
- AP

Feel free to decide for yourself which one gives you the better, more complete picture of what's actually going on, and extrapolate about which side of the political spectrum contains the bulk of the intelligent and informed participants.

Comments

  1. CJMarch 2, 2010 at 3:57 PM

    The Fox article is more detailed, but that doesn't mean ideological news, either right or left, is a good idea.

    How about this article from the New York Times: 2,000 Furloughs Linked to Impasse in Congress

    This seems like a non-ideological news story, which is how news should be. Bunning says the debt is over $14 trillion and going up fast. Democrats say Republicans weren't worried about running up the debt when Bush was president (and, I'd add, when there was no need for fiscal stimulus).

    ReplyDelete
  2. NickMarch 2, 2010 at 7:29 PM

    The NY Times story itself is fairly impartial, but consider the slant of the story itself. The title could have just as easily been "Government Bureaucracy Blames Furloughs on Congress' Delay in Extending Unfunded Entitlement Spending". Same topic, different focus.

    I'd say the WSJ followup explaining the resolution of Bunning's feeble attempt to defy the blatant corruption and hypocrisy of Congress was fairly unbiased; quotes from both sides, a summary of the issue, and no particular spin. It's just too bad he didn't have the political courage to stand against furthering unfunded entitlement programs in general, and/or try to explain why they are destroying the country.

    Se-la-vi, onwards into the black hole, full speed ahead and burn anyone who objects to the Party message...

    ReplyDelete
  3. CJMarch 3, 2010 at 1:08 PM

    Maybe you'll write on the non-ideological problems with unfunded entitilements. Take Social Security. If you assume for the moment you don't have a problem with the government providing retirement, life insurance, and disability insurance, what's so bad about the government getting money to pay this year's benefits from this year's taxpayers? Rightwingers claim they don't like the way the programs are funded, but really you ideologically don't think the gov't should providing those services no matter how the gov't handles the financing.

    ReplyDelete
  4. NickMarch 3, 2010 at 4:46 PM

    I don't think the government should provide anything beyond basic support services, especially when they are they "pay out now, figure out how to not bankrupt the country later" type. I don't really have a problem with a very basic retirement/disability support program, provided it was structured and managed well... which is a far cry from anything the government has proposed or enacted to date.

    The problem with the way social security is structured (pyramid scheme) is that it relies on an ever-increasing worker income basis to maintain the benefits level, which is not sustainable (and not resilient to fluctuations in the economy). When there's a shortfall, two things can happen: taxes can be increased, or benefits can be reduced; you can guess which is more attractive to politicians and less politically hazardous. Everything about this scenario is bad.

    It's similar to my view on a nationalized health insurance plan. I'm not fundamentally opposed, provided it is done correctly; however, I have zero faith that our government will do anything remotely close to something not disastrous, and I'd rather have no action than anything our government would or has proposed. It's not that I don't think there's a good way to provide it, or couldn't construct one which was good and acceptable to me (and by extension to at least some other libertarians); but anything our government will propose will nigh-certainly be a horrible plan I'm certain to object to.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Why I Hate Obama-speak

Every time Obama speaks, it aggravates me. It's not because of his method of speaking or speech itself: he's a great public speaker who's clear, eloquent, and polished. It's also not because he uses a teleprompter obsessively, is very good at not straying from whatever canned message or pitch has been written for him, and dodges answering any probing questions with real information: most politicians have perfected these arts, and they have become so ingrained in our political process that they are as expected as they are unhelpful in conveying actual information. It's obviously also not because he lies: most politicians lie, usually very well, and Obama can state even laughable, preposterous fallacies without even breaking stride, but again, that's expected, normal, and uniform in today's politicians. No, none of these things are the reason Obama's speeches really get to me. See, Obama comes across as a smart guy, and every once in a while you get a semi...
Read more

If there was going to be a public health care plan...

I realize a public health care plan is a bad idea, but it did get me thinking: if I were making the bill, and everyone else strongly wanted a public plan, is there a form of the plan which I would be agreeable to? I thought about it, and I think a public plan would be eminently workable, provided it has some simple immutable provisions. Now, I don't think the Democrats are going to put anything like this into their disaster of a plan, much less be capable of adhering to all the requirements, but I would venture to say that if they truly wanted bipartisan support, this would be one way to get it; I strongly suspect most Republicans would back a public plan with my simple provisions. Without further ado, the provisions: - All public employees will be covered by the same public plan with the same benefits, from every level of government from janitors to the President. This will ensure that the plan is good, provides reasonable coverage, and Congress has a strong incentive to get it ri...
Read more

Why the housing market decline is far from over

Image
This chart shows the recast dates for various loans over the next five years, based on the current rate of negative amortization (copied from CalculatedRisk ). I think it would be fair to assume that most of these are going to be defaults, as soon as (or slightly after) the recast time; almost everyone who can afford their house is either already in a fixed-rate mortgage (and thus not appearing on this chart). This virtual tidal-wave of defaults represents roughly $25,000,000,000 worth of housing inventory being added to the market, per month, for the next five years . For reference, the NAR's latest statistics indicate there are only about $66B in sales of existing homes, per month, total, in the whole US. That lines up pretty well with the latest estimations of total home sales which are foreclosures, which is around 45% (REO's are selling slightly better than non-REO's, cause they are more realistically priced). Most people agree that the housing market is not likely to...
Read more