US Fiscal gap: $222 Trillion. No big deal, right?

Just in case you had forgotten the financial straits the country as a whole is in, here's a bit of info gleaned from the latest CBO (Congressional Budget Office) report by economists Laurence Kotlikoff and Scott Burns (via Hotair):

In the course of that year, the U.S. government’s fiscal gap -- the true measure of the nation’s indebtedness -- rose by $11 trillion.

The fiscal gap is the present value difference between projected future spending and revenue. It captures all government liabilities, whether they are official obligations to service Treasury bonds or unofficial commitments, such as paying for food stamps or buying drones.

Wait! Before your head explodes when you see the $11 trillion number, read this to calm you down: That's only an increase of 5.2%. See, it's not really that bad!

The U.S. fiscal gap, calculated (by us) using the Congressional Budget Office’s realistic long-term budget forecast -- the Alternative Fiscal Scenario -- is now $222 trillion. Last year, it was $211 trillion. The $11 trillion difference -- this year’s true federal deficit -- is 10 times larger than the official deficit and roughly as large as the entire stock of official debt in public hands.

This fantastic and dangerous growth in the fiscal gap is not new. In 2003 and 2004, the economists Alan Auerbach and William Gale extended the CBO’s short-term forecast and measured fiscal gaps of $60 trillion and $86 trillion, respectively. In 2007, the first year the CBO produced the Alternative Fiscal Scenario, the gap, by our reckoning, stood at $175 trillion. By 2009, when the CBO began reporting the AFS annually, the gap was $184 trillion. In 2010, it was $202 trillion, followed by $211 trillion in 2011 and $222 trillion in 2012.

$220 Trillion. With a big fat T.

Just Social Security alone will be enough to absolutely crush the economy. Once the Baby Boomers all retire, they'll be collecting a whopping 85% of the GDP annually.

Holy sweet cyborg pirate Jesus.

The solution recommended by the economists? Raise taxes by 65% or lower spending by 40% immediately, right effing now, or it'll only get worse.

Naturally, neither party wants to touch the issue of the Baby Boomer retirement, because they see it as political suicide. The unfortunate truth, though, is that we cannot sustain this kind of spending. This goes beyond the argument of Keynesian vs. non-Keynesian policies. There's no amount of benefit to be gained from deficit spending that could make up for the debt incurred.

The solution to this won't be pretty, but it'll only get worse the closer we get to the brick wall. Here's my idea: Raise the age that you receive social security to 83 immediately (5 years older than the average life expectancy), which will apply to anyone who is currently 60 or younger. If you're 50 or younger, you don't get Social Security. Ever. Sorry, buddy. Life sucks.

Don't go thinking your paychecks are getting any bigger, though. That money you pay into SS still gets paid, but instead of going towards the "Support retired Americans" fund it goes into the "Prevent America from becoming a third world country" fund.

That's only one of many steps that would be necessary until we got our debt back under control, but at least it'd be a start.

From HuffPo: Why are the gaffes so important?

As I was perusing the various and sundry political websites I frequent on my lunch break (What? You don't spend your free time reading articles on tax policy? Weird), I happened upon this opinion piece from none other than Arianna Huffington, of the Huffington Post. HuffPo is an unapologetic left leaning blog that I read in order to hear from the other side. She wrote an excellent article on "gaffe grenades and faux outrage", which asked the simple question: Why are politicians who run for the highest office so wooden? What is it about the presidential race that sucks the life out of them?

It made me wonder: Why is running for president so diminishing? What is it about the process that turns thoughtfulness and confidence into desperation and insincerity? Why is it assumed that the only route to the highest office is the lowest road possible?

We have 25 million people unemployed or underemployed. We're on the edge of falling back into recession and none of the problems that led to this seemingly endless financial crisis have been solved -- or even really addressed. And yet our presidential campaign has devolved into a never-ending contest to see which side can catch other side in the worst "gaffe."

And it's not just about catching the other side in meaningless gaffes. When the gaffes don't come along at a steady enough clip, the campaigns just make them up. Who says we're losing our manufacturing prowess to the Chinese? If you factor in our robust and growing Gaffe Manufacturing Sector, we're still number one. (USA! USA! USA!)

Context is often used as a go-to word that actually means "When I said x, I really meant y", but it actually is very important in communication. For instance, when Romney said "I like to fire people", he wasn't saying he liked to fire people per se, but that he wants businesses to have to compete to get his money, which is how the market works. When Obama said "You didn't build that", he clearly wasn't saying that business owners didn't own their businesses, but that the environment in which businesses thrive is built by everyone. Taken in the context, you may or may not agree with the sentiment behind a comment, but at least it is a valuable part of the conversation.

The answer to why the campaign is about gaffe's is this: They are easy. They are short. They don't take long to digest, and they fill up airtime.

It would take time and effort on the part of the candidate to explain his position on tax policy in a way that people could understand. More importantly, it would take time and effort on the part of the electorate (In other words, you and me) to understand the policies that our politicians are espousing. It would mean having a discussion, getting your opinions challenged, and coming up with a meaningful solution. Isn't it easier to simply play a 5-second clip on why the other candidate endorses puppy mills?

Vote Romney and the kitten gets it.

What's the solution? In my opinion, it's courage. The courage on the part of a politician to not fear the gaffe machine, and simply speak passionately about what he believes. To not be afraid to explain his policies and hold them up for scrutiny. Perhaps if a politician stopped acting so much like a damn politician, people would take the time to listen.

Shocking: Christian, family run business espouses Christian, Family Values!

In a recent interview Chik-Fil-A CEO Dan Cathy plead guilty to supporting traditional Christian values, stating specifically that his organization believed marriage was forever and between one man and one woman. This naturally was received as a healthy expression of opinion in the public forum. Opponents acknowledged that while they may not agree with Mr. Cathy's opinions, they certainly support his right to have them and proceeded to engage in a courteous dialogue on their differences of opinion.

Hah, just kidding. It actually began a massive firestorm of manufactured outrage at a person who dared to have an opinion contrary to some other people's beliefs. I mean, who is this guy? He treats this like it's his Constitutional right or something!

The actual quote is as follows:

“We are very much supportive of the family — the biblical definition of the family unit. We are a family-owned business, a family-led business, and we are married to our first wives...We know that it might not be popular with everyone, but thank the Lord, we live in a country where we can share our values and operate on biblical principles.”

Of course, he was wrong on that last part about being able to operate his business as he saw fit. At least, he was in Chicago, where "Alderman Joe Moreno, who represents Chicago's Logan Square neighborhood, plans to use his aldermanic privilege, a Chicago tradition in which City Council members defer to aldermen on local matters, to block the restaurant's permit." For those of you having a hard time understanding this Chicago slang, when they say "a Chicago tradition" they mean "rampant corruption and abuse of power".

Said Joe Moreno:

"It's a very diverse ward-- economically, racially, and diverse in sexual orientation," Moreno told ABCNews.com. "We've got thriving businesses and we want more but at the very least don't discriminate against our LGBTQ folks."

He continued by saying "So, we want to maintain that diversity, unless that diversity means that someone may have an opinion contrary to mine. If that happens, then naturally I'm going to use the power of my elected office to crush their business, despite them not having done anything illegal whatsoever. It's tradition." The mayor of Chicago, Rahm Emanuel, has also come down on the fast food chain and is supporting this "tradition".

This sort of action is the height of hypocrisy. The National Review Online made an excellent point:

"Rahm Emanuel has been many things in life — ballet dancer, investment banker, congressman, White House chief of staff, now mayor of Chicago — and he apparently wishes to add another title to his curriculum vitae: Grand Inquisitor. He has denounced the fast-food chain Chick-fil-A and endorsed a Chicago alderman’s plan to block construction of a new outlet because the company’s executives do not share his politics. This is a gross abuse of power: Imagine if the mayor of Provo, Utah, had tried to punish a business for supporting same-sex marriage — the Left would demand his resignation, etc. The powers of government are not to be used for parochial political ends. Even in Chicago."

 Here's the deal: Mr. Cathy didn't "target" gay folks, the so called "LGBTQ...IWHQNDYT" crowd (I added a few more letters since that acronym seems to get bigger every day, and I want to stay ahead of the curve). He targeted the decay of the institution of marriage as he sees it, and said he doesn't approve of it and neither does his organization. That means he was no more "targeting" gay people than he was "targeting" divorced people, of which I am (quite happily) one. There are plenty of good, decent, caring people that do not support same-sex marriage. I used to be one of them, before I was persuaded through reasonable, calm discussion to change my stance.

Even aside from that, why is this a surprise? I mean, who didn't know that Chik-fil-A was a Christian organization? They aren't even open on Sunday! "OMG, I am shocked and outraged that a Christian organization might express traditional Christian values and donate to organizations that share their viewpoint!" said No One, Ever.

We live in a country where you have the right to express your opinion and worship your God as you see fit. We live in a country where you do not (and I cannot possibly emphasis this enough) have the right not to be offended.

If you, as a private citizen, don't like Chik-fil-a's comments, then don't eat there. Encourage your friends not to eat there. Go all Tea Party on them and buy their chicken then throw it into a lake or something. But don't pretend like they crossed some invisible line in the sand by having an opinion and should therefore be banned from your city.

As for me, I don't agree with their opinion, and even resemble the sort of person they disapprove of...but damn, their chicken is good. So I'm going to keep eating it.

Romneycare vs. Obamacare: Distasteful but defendable

Last Thursday the Supreme Court handed down the decision that even though the mandate was not constitutional, they still thought the idea was totally awesome, so they just called the mandate a tax. Bam, problem solved. Well, except for the problem of now giving Congress the unlimited power to levy whatever penalties they like as long as they call them taxes, even if their goal is to raise $0 revenue, but hey, since when has unbridled power been a problem for the government, right?

Needless to say, while the decision was disappointing to say the least to anyone who is a fan of limited government, we did get the consolation prize of being able to slam Obama for clearly and unequivocally raising taxes on...wait for it...

The Middle Class!

For a taste of the beating that ensued, see the video below. Watch it in its entirety. It is a thing of beauty to see how the interviewer slowly backs his opponent into a corner, having him state that the mandate was not a tax, then playing the audio where team Obama argued in the courtroom that it totally was.

Unfortunately, Romney has not really capitalized on this turn of events. The reason? One word: Romneycare.

While Romney was governor of Massachusetts he signed into law a healthcare bill that looks remarkably similar to Obamacare, to include mandates and penalties and exchanges (oh my). Always concerned at being labeled a flip flopper, Romney is torn between defending his past record and by extension Obamacare, or admitting he was wrong and trashing Obamacare, and himself in the process.

Well, Mr. Romney, I don't like what you did in Massachusetts. In fact, my two favorite things about you are your territorial tax system proposal and the fact that you are the most Presidential looking guy EVAH, no homo. But, since you are not, in fact, Obama I will give you an out that apparently every one of your highly paid advisers have failed to discover. The reason they may have overlooked it is understandable. It comes from the Constitution, and I know that you DC folks don't like to pull that thing out much.

Let's say for the sake of argument that Obamacare is exactly the same as Romneycare, because let's face it, you'll never be able to articulate any meaningful differences in the public forum. Even if they are precisely the same down to the last letter, they differ in one extremely important way:

Romneycare was a state action. Obamacare is a federal action.

The 10th amendment, probably my very favorite amendment in the Constitution, states:

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

The power to create a healthcare exchange and mandate people to participate is not included in the Constitution, so therefore that power is reserved to the States. The reason the Obamacare mandate is a tax and Romneycare mandate isn't because "The Supreme Court said so". That is a part of it, but you look like a douche when you say it. The whole reason is that the power to have a mandate is clearly a power of the States, not the Feds. Therefore, Obama is overreaching. He is attempting to seize power for the Federal Government away from the people, in a way the framers never intended. Only by hiding it in the tax code (and therefore raising taxes on millions of Americans) can it even be allowed, and that doesn't make it a good thing.


To condense that into a soundbite sized statement for you, Mr. Romney:

"Romneycare made sense for Massachusetts. What is good for someone living in Massachusetts may not be good for someone living in Virginia, or Texas, or Nebraska. I believe that people are better able to make decisions about their healthcare than the federal government can, and so those decisions should be kept as close to the local level as possible. This sort of power is guaranteed to the States by the 10th amendment, and the President is attempting to circumvent the Constitution, and he's doing it by using the mandate to raise taxes on the hardest hit Americans, the middle class."

Bam. In one go you've defended Romneycare, drawn the distinction between it and Obamacare, defended the Constitution and States Rights, and accused Obama of raising taxes on the middle class without lumping yourself in that same statement. You come out sounding like a paragon for the middle class and conservatives everywhere, a defender of Truth, Justice, and the American Way who probably helps little old ladies across the street right after you kill terrorists by smashing them with your massive testicles, not some weak kneed douchebag who is relying on the Supreme Court to fight your battles.

You're welcome. Please make the check out to Mr. Fluffy.

Supreme Court upholds portion of SB 1070; Obama takes ball, goes home.

On Monday the Supreme Court handed out two decisions: One, that life sentences without parole for minors was unconstitutional. Two, that the portion of the Arizona immigration law (aka, SB 1070) that allowed officers to check the immigration status of those they arrest for other crimes was Constitutional. The two provisions that added fines and additional illegality for being an illegal immigrant in Arizona and job searching were struck down. This preserved the most controversial portion of the law, which was that the police could essentially demand to "see your papers" if you were arrested, and verify your legality to be in the country.

Naturally, Obama's administration deferred to the authority of the Judicial branch of government when it comes to interpreting the Constitution, and went about the job of administering the nation.

Just kidding. He actually proceeded to pout and kick his feet. He then put out the following official position of the Executive branch:

From the Washington Times:

The Obama administration said Monday it is suspending existing agreements with Arizona police over enforcement of federal immigration laws, and said it has issued a directive telling federal authorities to decline many of the calls reporting illegal immigrants that the Homeland Security Department may get from Arizona police.

Essentially, the immigration strategy here is to "ignore the problem until it goes away". While this strategy is effective for nearly every other problem, I think perhaps immigration may require a slightly more thought out response.

 Jan Brewer is the Governor of Arizona and is, based on the photographic evidence, quite possibly the Wicked Witch of the West.

I'm not saying she definitely is, I'm just saying she may want to avoid large bodies of water.

Needless to say, she was less than pleased to hear about the administration's reaction.

Brewer told Fox News’s Greta Van Susteren on Monday that she was “shocked” and “outraged” to learn of the move.

“This is politics at its best,” she said. “It’s just unconscionable. What they said to Arizona is, ‘Drop dead, Arizona. Drop dead and go away. We’re going to ignore you."

At the end of the day, I consider this a victory. Many people consider this a step towards some barbed wire police state, crying that this will encourage racial profiling and saying how unreasonable it is for the police to check immigration status. The problem is, illegal immigration is a crime, just like driving without a driver's license. When a cop pulls someone over, he demands they show him proof that they are allowed to be driving and that the vehicle is theirs (License and registration, ma'am). How is a green card any different?

Besides, we already allow the police to check on things only tangentially related to the original charge when they arrest someone. For instance, imagine the cop pulls you over for speeding. He then detects the odor of marijuana, so he searches the vehicle. In your trunk he finds a dead hooker and ten pounds of coke, as well as some Ron Paul campaign stickers.

What started out as a routine traffic stop turned into a murder and drug charge, because the police checked up on other possible crimes while he was at it. That's known as "good police work" when it catches murderers, rapists, and drug inhaling libertarians. How is it suddenly evil when we round up illegal immigrants?

Many officers have expressed concerns that they could be vulnerable to lawsuits for racial profiling for enforcing this law. There is a super easy solution to that: Check the immigration status of every single person you arrest.

Bam. No more profiling.

Upcoming SCOTUS decisions and my predictions

 The Supreme Court has five more decisions left to hand out, most notably on the Arizona immigration case and the Obamacare issue. Monday is the last day they are scheduled to hand out decisions, but it seems like a foregone conclusion that they'll have at least one more day after that. Naturally, any showman worth his salt saves the best for last, and I expect that we won't be hearing the decision on Obamacare until the last possible moment.

In case you haven't been hanging on every word to come out of the SCOTUS lately, here's a summary of what's to come this week.

1: United States v. Alvarez

What it is: Alvarez is the scumbug...I mean...alleged scumbag...Who erroneously claimed to have earned the Medal of Honor and was prosecuted under the Stolen Valor act, which criminalizes false claims of military honor. (Side note: Why the MoH? If you're going to claim a false medal, do something a tad less flashy, like a DSC or a silver star. Both very respectable medals without the blatant "Only ten people have earned that in the last few wars there, jackass" angle). The contention here is that lying about receiving medals is protected speech under the 1st amendment. The counter argument is that while some forms of lying are beneath the notice of the law (for example, claiming you are a doctor in order to get laid), military honors and the benefits, both tangible and intangible, are a kind of "trademark" of the government, and therefore the 1st amendment does not apply.

Actual lawyer analysis here.

Why it matters: This is the first law to test the Constitutionality of said law. Should it be overturned, Congress will likely respond with an already drafted amended version of the same law that will bring it in line with the Justice's opinions.

My guess: The court will uphold the law, but make an extremely fine distinction between lying to obtain government sanctioned benefits and lying to get a woman to sleep with you. 5-4.


2: Miller v. Alabama and Jackson v. Hobbs

What it is: Two cases are being reviewed where convicted murderers have been sentenced to life without parole. In one case the convict broke into a motor home, stole $350 worth of baseball cards, then beat the homeowner unconscious with a baseball bat (This guy really likes baseball), and then set the motor home on fire with the homeowner still inside.

The other case was a bit less baseball centered and more mundane. Guy walks into a store with a shotgun. Demands money. Clerk says "I ain't got no money" and dude blasts him away.

The argument is whether a sentence of life without parole is "cruel and unusual" and a violation of their 8th amendment rights.

Why it matters: Did I mention both convicts were 14 years old at the time of the murder? That's right: When I was still running around pretending to be the best Ninja Turtle (Donatello, obviously), these two kids were setting people on fire over baseball cards. The convictions aren't contested, only that a life sentence without parole is excessive for a minor. The defense wants the "without parole" part removed.

My guess: The court will overturn the without parole part of the sentencing, which is in line with previous decisions regarding punishments in non-homicidal and/or setting people on fire cases. 6-3

3: First American Financial Corp. v. Edwards

What it is: Some discussion on whether companies can enter into kickback agreements or something.

Why it matters: It doesn't.

My guess: 15-2, Orioles lose.

Who cares: Nobody, least of all me. Moving on.  

4: Arizona v. United States

What it is: Read my blog about it here. Basically, the question is can the State of Arizona round up illegal immigrants by requiring anyone arrested for anything, regardless of race, be checked for citizenship status. Anyone found to be in the country illegally would then be referred to the Feds.

Why it matters: This case determines how tough a state can get on immigration. It is not contested that immigration is clearly the Federal government's job (one it does remarkably poorly, of course). What is contested is how far a State can go to put illegals into the government's hands.

My guess:  Arizona comes out triumphant, and the States win over the Feds for once. 5-4.

5: HHS v. Florida, Florida v. HHS, and NFIB v. Sebelius (AKA Obamacare)


What it is: If you just asked that question, please punch yourself in the face. Hard. Then read my blog about it here.

Why it matters: This will determine the scope of the Federal government's authority to regulate healthcare. Big questions include: Can they create commerce in order to regulate it? Is the lack of commerce also commerce? Can the government FORCE you to buy healthcare, or face a fine if you do not?

My guess: ...is as good as yours. Constitutional lawyers and SCOTUS clerks think the mandate is dead. The public wants the law gone. I pretty sure the mandate is done for, and I'm going to go out on a limb and say they'll strike the whole law down, with the opinion making it clear they did so because the mandate was so central to the proper functioning of the law and a failure to strike the whole thing would be tantamount to legislating from the bench. 5-4.

"It's not my fault I'm fat, evolution made me do it!"

Last week His Majesty Bloomberg, King of New York City announced a planned ban on normal sized overly large sugary drinks in an effort to combat obesity. His plan is to block the sale of any sugary drink over 16 ounces (Unless it's a milkshake, fruit juice, diet soda, or simply a refill on the first 16 oz sale. Or if the soda is sold in a grocery store. Then it's A-okay) throughout the city, in order to bring down the approximately 50% obesity rate in his city.

“Obesity is a nationwide problem, and all over the United States, public health officials are wringing their hands saying, ‘Oh, this is terrible,’ ” Mr. Bloomberg said in an interview on Wednesday in City Hall’s sprawling Governor’s Room.

“New York City is not about wringing your hands; it’s about doing something,” he said. “I think that’s what the public wants the mayor to do.”

If you're curious how much of the "public" the mayor is referring to supports his plan, check out this poll at the Huffington post. Even at the good ol' HuffPo, this measure only garners a 31% approval rating. Clearly such an unpopular measure that unequivocally slices into the consumer freedoms of New Yorkers should not stand, right?

"Not so fast!" shouts Dr. Daniel Lieberman, professor of human evolutionary biology at Harvard University. He claims that coercive action taken by the government is not just necessary, it's natural.

Lessons from evolutionary biology support the mayor’s plan: when it comes to limiting sugar in our food, some kinds of coercive action are not only necessary but also consistent with how we used to live.

Obesity’s fundamental cause is long-term energy imbalance — ingesting more calories than you spend over weeks, months and years. Of the many contributors to energy imbalance today, plentiful sugar may be the worst.

Since sugar is a basic form of energy in food, a sweet tooth was adaptive in ancient times, when food was limited. However, excessive sugar in the bloodstream is toxic, so our bodies also evolved to rapidly convert digested sugar in the bloodstream into fat.

Simply put, humans evolved to crave sugar, store it and then use it. For millions of years, our cravings and digestive systems were exquisitely balanced because sugar was rare. Apart from honey, most of the foods our hunter-gatherer ancestors ate were no sweeter than a carrot. The invention of farming made starchy foods more abundant, but it wasn’t until very recently that technology made pure sugar bountiful.

Who is to blame, then? Is it people unable to control their base urges? Don't be silly! It's those evil corporations!

The food industry has made a fortune because we retain Stone Age bodies that crave sugar but live in a Space Age world in which sugar is cheap and plentiful. Sip by sip and nibble by nibble, more of us gain weight because we can’t control normal, deeply rooted urges for a valuable, tasty and once limited resource.

That's right. They are taking advantage of you, taking advantage of the fact that your great^100th grandfather didn't have enough honey is his diet. Those bastards.

How do we fix this? Not by doing nothing or through education, he says.

The final option is to collectively restore our diets to a more natural state through regulations. Until recently, all humans had no choice but to eat a healthy diet with modest portions of food that were low in sugar, saturated fat and salt, but high in fiber. They also had no choice but to walk and sometimes run an average of 5 to 10 miles a day. Mr. Bloomberg’s paternalistic plan is not an aberrant form of coercion but a very small step toward restoring a natural part of our environment. 

We humans did not evolve to eat healthily and go to the gym; until recently, we didn’t have to make such choices. But we did evolve to cooperate to help one another survive and thrive. Circumstances have changed, but we still need one another’s help as much as we ever did. For this reason, we need government on our side, not on the side of those who wish to make money by stoking our cravings and profiting from them. We have evolved to need coercion.

Basically, his argument runs like this:

1. Humans evolved to really like sugar since we didn't have access to delicious Dr. Pepper in the past, and even if we did, we would have had to chase it down through the tundra and beat it with a stick before we could drink it.
2. Now that we've advanced to the point where we don't have trouble getting sugar, we no longer have the natural limitation to its intake, allowing us to practically bathe in the sugary goodness of Dr. Pepper.
3. Since there is no natural limitation, our craving for the 23 flavors of absolute perfection must be curbed by Big Brother.

 The biggest problem here is that this argument places the blame for a person's poor eating decisions not on themselves, but instead solely on evolutionary factors. Unfortunately there are all kinds of things that make evolutionary sense that we expect people to handle on their own.

Having sex with other people when you're in a committed relationship is generally frowned upon. Despite the fact that it makes evolutionary sense, we expect people to resist this urge on their own.

Also, I doubt very much that ancient man, while hunting down his elusive prey of Haagen Daz, had much to train him for handling credit card debt. If someone defaults on their loans due to their own incompetence (as opposed to, say, a medical disaster or something of that nature) we rightfully place the blame on them and expect them to handle it.

Then again, maybe the Mayor and Dr. Lieberman are both right.

Perhaps these overweight New Yorkers are just..."Too Big to Fail" .