This past midnight, the United States government not only did not have an annual budget (and has been without one for the last four years), but also lacked what is called a "continuing resolution," that to which Congress and the President agree as a means of operating at "present spending levels" for a specified time of up to, but not usually, a fiscal year. This short-term fix has kept the nation's government operating for at least four years. But after continued parlays from both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue, and (when it comes down to it) both sides of the political aisle, the luck ran out.
This morning, all federal employees deemed "non-essential" were required to spend up to four hours on duty for "shutdown operations," after which they were sent home. They will get paid for those hours -- eventually. Once a budget or continuing resolution is passed and signed by the President, all employees will return to duty. Whether they will be paid retroactively is a separate decision made by the Congress. In the past, they have done so, but the present general sentiment indicates that they most likely will not. (Relax, all 535 elected members of the legislature who have been dicking around for the past four years are considered "essential." They will get paid on time, if they have to run the presses and print more money by themselves.)
Now, I know what at least one of you is thinking: “Dude, we never know the difference when [begin dripping sarcasm] non-essential workers [end dripping sarcasm] are sent home for a few days, or a few weeks, so, like, um, why should we care? You should suffer just like the rest of us.” My initial response would be thus:
You're an idiot.
That's right. You merely think there's no difference, as long as your Aunt Minnie still gets her Social Security check on the same date every month, and you yourself are not otherwise inconvenienced. Tell that to the war veterans who literally tore down the fences blocking the World War II Memorial today (with the help of at least two members of Congress), because all national parks are now closed. You gotta hand it to them; at this age, these old grunts haven't lost their touch. Meanwhile, dear old Auntie will get her check -- eventually. You see, the money may come from a separate fund, but most of the people responsible for processing it have just been sent home, you big dummy! So you may have to float the old gal a few hundred until the unpaid masses yearning to assist you get to return to their jobs and do just that.
Now that I've got what's left of your attention, let's take a closer look at that, using big words that you'll have to read slowly, to see how some of you will be inconvenienced.
The article at ThinkProgress.org couldn't be more biased against Republicans for allegedly causing this, as the party that didn't control both houses of Congress when the no-budget scenario began, doesn't have one of its own for President who won't sign it without that which most Americans do not want. and didn't have one of its own say that "you'll have to pass the bill to see what's in it." All that aside, the above is a pretty good indication of what you will be missing until this is straightened out. Granted, some things will be missed by some people more than others. But a great portion of the population will be at least mildly inconvenienced while its tax dollars are not at work, including anyone with a government contract that's waiting for their business to be conducted smoothly. That last one will hurt the small businesses the most.
All the crybabies who think they can get along without the government, still want to feed from the federal trough. They are used to it. The most ardent Tea Party member wants their Medicare and Medicaid benefits. They paid for them, right? Well, yes, but you also pay for people to make sure you get them. You also pay for the federal government to swoop down on your little hamlet if there's a tornado, even before the governor of your state can ask them, which is required.
And last but not least, federal employees pay for the same things, with taxes, just as you do. They often get much of the blame for that over which they have absolutely no control. This brings up one more subject. Salaries and benefits are a substantial percentage of a state budget, but only a fraction of a percent of the federal budget. The savings to the federal debt incurred by three years without a cost-of-living increase for federal employees, will amount to about one-fourth of one percent. The woman who once told me -- in full view of Twitter, of all places -- that federal workers should suffer like others do is an ill-informed little twit! What possible benefit will come from wishing ill on people who try to make an honest living? If she can think of one, she can tell it to Federal defense worker Rob Merritt, a husband and father of four, who would have gone bankrupt from a furlough due to medical bills from heart surgery.
(As for me, I am one of the lucky ones. I have a contingency in place, so there will be no "tin cup rattle" campaign at this venue anytime soon, at least not to pay my mortgage.)
What can you do about what's wrong with Washington? Hold your elected representatives accountable. Quit re-electing the same bozos every time they want to keep their miserable job with exorbant benefits, and exemption from many of the laws they pass (including the Affordable Care Act, aka "Obamacare"). That goes ditto for you idiot Republicans in Arizona who keep sending that geezer John McCain back to Washington. For pity's sake, stop making that poor old man think he's indispensable, and let him retire in peace.
That, and quit crying to me about it. We get the leaders we ask for, the leaders we deserve. That means you, too, buckaroo!
Congressman Ron Paul, Republican from the Texas 14th Congressional District (Galveston and vicinity), considered by many to be the “intellectual godfather” of the Tea Party movement, recently announced his retirement from the United States Congress. Yesterday, he gave his farewell address, which is shown here. Also available is the full transcript of that address.
One week ago tonight, we learned the results of this year's general election, including that of President of the United States. As forty-eight percent of the population were stunned by the results the following morning, fifty percent of the population were jubilant at what they termed a "decisive" victory. Now, fifty percent is hardly decisive. Neither is fifty-one percent, which is what they had once Florida's votes were counted. As the inevitable appeared likely, Fox News commentator Bill O'Reilly had this to say as to why the incumbent would be re-elected.
If one can overlook the ethnic distinctions, which are in danger of having entirely too much significance attached to them, it makes a great deal of sense. The unemployment figures do not always count those who have given up looking for work, and if there are enough of them (and the numbers tend to be disproportionately higher among nonwhites), and if enough of them have given up, they will abandon opportunity for dependency. This is part of the cycle to which we alluded just four years ago at this time.
... and that's just for openers. Personally, I don't imagine the President or his campaign to be responsible for this. They wouldn't have to be, with support at the local and state levels from the Service Employees International Union (you know, those goons in the purple tee-shirts who would beat up people outside of "town hall" meetings), and whatever demon spawn has arisen from the ashes of ACORN. It has also been observed that Obama lost every state that required photo identification in order to vote, which cannot help but say something about the integrity of our voting process. Is it so unrealistic to expect people to prove who they are to vote in an election?
While all that's going on, we thought we'd take this opportunity to look at the why and the wherefore of the results, both the big picture, and the devil in the details.
First, let's look at the nationwide map from more than one vantage point. The first map (in this case, from CNN) is how the results would have looked if only those who paid federal income taxes had voted. We can see that it would have been no contest for former Massachusetts Governor and Republican challenger Mitt Romney. This scenario might lend some credence to O'Reilly's observation, especially when you consider that nearly half the population pays no federal income tax. Or so they tell me.
The second map is which way the states actually ended up going. While the popular vote was 51 percent for Obama to 48 percent for Romney, the electoral vote, that which actually determines the election, was counted at 332 for Obama to 206 for Romney. In the United States, the people do not elect their President; the states do, in the form of electors, representatives of the will of their respective states, apportioned by population. But even this is misleading in terms of where the nation as a whole stood with this election.
(We note the exclusion of Alaska and Hawai'i in our subsequent examples. For what it's worth, the former was overwhelmingly Republican, and the latter was overwhelmingly Democratic, so there you go.)
It is here that we look to how the counties voted, which gives up a more accurate depiction of the mind of the popular electorate. In particular, we will look to three of the "battleground" states; Ohio, Virginia, and Pennsylvania.
First, we examine this writer's native Ohio. It is the Buckeye State, above all others, which is arguably the most representative of a cross-section of the nation (or as I used to call it, "the most average state in the Union"). Here we see a state that has long been culturally and economically divided. The northern part of the state is part of the Great Lakes region, with traditional blue-collar industries such as automobiles, coal, rubber tires, steel, and other forms of manufacturing. They would be dominated by the labor unions, whose members traditionally vote Democratic. The central and southern parts of the state are a combination of agrarian-dominated rural and small-town areas, and cities with a balance of white- and blue-collar industries. The southern part of Ohio, in particular, shares a common culture with the South, which in the last several decades has been more conservative, and tends to vote Republican. With the vote from Hamilton County in the southwest corner (which includes Cincinnati) having been swayed to vote Democratic in the 2008 and 2012 elections, it was enough to swing the state's 18 electoral votes (with 50.1 versus 48.2 percent of the popular vote) in favor of Obama.
We see similar dichotomies in Pennsylvania and Virginia. The former is divided between the larger urban centers of Philadelphia and Pittsburgh, and smaller ones such as Erie and Scranton, all with mostly blue-collar and/or minority populations. The latter is more or less split along the Rappahannock River. To the north is a region largely consisting of non-southerners and foreign-born, who rely on the federal government as a "company town" and want to keep it that way, and so will tend to vote liberal; that is, Democratic. The rest of the state is very southern, ergo conservative, ergo Republican, except for the urban centers such as Richmond and Newport News/Norfolk, which are, in concert with northern Virginia, enough to give its 13 electoral votes to Obama as well.
There is another perspective to our cultural divide that was brought to our attention just recently. “One can drive nearly the entire length of the continental United States in a straight line, over 3000 miles [from Curry County, Oregon, to Granville County, North Carolina], without going through a single county that voted for Barack Obama. North to south [from Divide County, North Dakota, to Terrell County, Texas] isn't even difficult.” Well, the west-to-east route could have been pulled off by angling it just a touch southward towards the end, but you get the idea. The bulk of the Democratic vote is concentrated in the northeast, along the Great Lakes, and the east and west coasts, not to mention the Indian reservations. Virtually everywhere else is distinctly Republican. This is how America is divided; urban against rural, urbane against provincial, liberal against conservative. We are supposed to be united as a country, even after a general election. But with the popular vote split so evenly in the last two elections, we live in what Michael Barone calls "two Americas."
People like Ann Coulter blame everyone but Romney, namely those who were what she calls "purists,"while insisting that everyone should have quit the internecine bickering and go with the most palatable, least offensive candidate from the get-go. She does manage to explain, if badly, why the middle-of-the-road approach did not work in 2012. Yet she and so many others of her ilk neglect to explain why this approach also didn't work in 2008, in the form of the wannabe "maverick," Senator John McCain.
The advocates of a middle-of-the-road Republican candidate, which dominate the party establishment and show no signs of yielding, continue to deny that their approach continues to fail. As Jonathan Last points out:
Nor can you say that they were embracing one. That's why they call it "middle-of-the-road." It was the downfall of Bush the Younger's legacy, it didn't work in 2008, it didn't work in 2012, and the definition of insanity, where the same thing is tried repeatedly in the hope of different results, would once again prove fatal for Republicans.
Another columnist for the National Review, Kevin Williamson, boils Romney's loss in Ohio down to three things ...
... the first amounting to borrowing from China to prop up a "too big to fail" industry, the second being a confirmation of how Camille Paglia became disillusioned with Obama, the third underscoring Romney's fundamental weakness: the inability to elaborate on a specific plan, relying too much on that of his running mate (who couldn't very well coach him during the debates, now, could he?).
Then there was the usual canard about playing to the conservative base, the so-called "Tea Party" -- by the way, there's no such thing, as it's more of an idea or a movement, than it is a single, coherent organization -- at the expense of the big tent, the broader conservative constituency; in other words, the country-club-joining, three-martini-lunch-sipping, East Coast banker-and-lawyer types, the aging white guys once known as "Rockefeller Republicans." This old party establishment went out of their way for at least a year to ensure that their man got the nod no matter what enthusiasm any other candidate for the nomination would generate. Don't worry, they'd tell themselves, they'll all say or do something stupid sooner or later.
The thing is, most of them did. On the other hand, none of them ever strapped a dog cage to the top of their car with the dog still in it. In other words, Romney was no more immune from the frailties of the human condition than the rest of them. Many have gone to considerable lengths to describe the Republicans stumbling all over each other, but the most amusing (if only as an acquired taste) came from none other than my son, wunderkind of game design and would-be political wonk Paul David Alexander, a couple of months ago.
At the beginning of the year, it was somebody, ANYBODY but Romney. Romney was a wishy washy twerp who couldn't possibly guide true conservatives to victory. His chief accomplishment in office was Romneycare for [pity's] sake! SuperPACs flooded the campaigns of Gingrich, Cain, Bachmann, Perry -- a different crazy kook every other week, all in the desperate hopes of avoiding what most pragmatic conservative pundits saw as the inevitable. When that didn't work, conservatives pitched a fit and insisted Marco Rubio, Chris Christie, Sarah Palin, or the resurrected corpse of Ronald Reagan take a shot at it. When THAT didn't work, every single notable radio/talk show conservative pundit -- from O'Reilly to Coulter to Huckabee to Beck -- insisted that they were drawing a line in the sand. No way, no how were they gonna get behind this guy. They trashed him week in and week out. My, how things change.
And change they did, which actually proves one of two things. Either the GOP should have come to a conclusion sooner, saving a lot of money on the convention and the primary brouhaha, or the party establishment should have gotten the message that maybe the proverbial cat was not necessarily in the bag, that the "least offensive candidate" approach was going to fail -- again. Alas, they didn't get the hint, and they didn't get the White House. Not very "pragmatic," is it? My, how things don't change. (See "definition of insanity," above.)
AND NOW, THE SO-CALLED “CATHOLIC VOTE”
You were wondering when we'd get to this one, weren't you?
The very idea of discussing the Catholic vote, at first glance, is a joke, as ably demonstrated by those on the political left or right who attempt to claim it. The very fact that such a voting bloc can be determined solely along partisan political lines is a perfect illustration of the ideological tail wagging the Catholic dog. Well-intentioned organizations like CatholicVote.org come off looking like neo-conservative front groups, when they draw up litmus tests that read like a Republican scorecard, heedless of such factors as reservations of two popes concerning America's war in Iraq, all in relation to the "just war theory." One can disagree as to whether or not this criteria may apply, and it is not an absolute teaching like, say, abortion, but when a Pope speaks out on it one way or the other, it carries a certain weight -- unless, we can only surmise, it becomes politically inconvenient to do so. (Mind you, their list isn't wrong, merely short-sighted.)
Attempts to explain the Catholic vote are also pointless without certain distinctions being made.
Getting past why an ostensibly "conservative" Catholic source would refer to assisting at Mass as "attending services" (which some of us are old enough to remember never being done), we can see that practicing Catholics vote one way, and non-practicing Catholics vote the other. Otherwise, the above only proves that the Catholic vote is just like the Catholic divorce rate; indistinguishable from its non-Catholic neighbor.
In other words, the Catholic vote is no big deal. It's just like how we don't have the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, but just "attend services." Geez!
One big loser is conservatism in America, and the Republican party in particular. There are fiscal conservatives who are not keen on the social issues, and social conservatives who court the "religious right," but end up being "big government" conservatives when in office. George W Bush was an example of the latter, and to hear some say it, he has yet to live it down. But one segment of the conservative movement is consistently ignored, and has the capacity to both rouse the traditional party base, and win a good share of the young vote. The so-called "granola conservatives" (or as Rod Dreher so ineptly refers to them, "crunchy conservatives") endorse fiscal prudence, social conservatism with a locally-based activist streak, and a foreign policy of non-interventionism, which we may be forced to adapt sooner or later, as we may no longer be able to afford our Wilsonian vision as the world's babysitter. The most viable standard-bearer for this point of view in the 2012 race was Texas Congressman Ron Paul, who has been the laughingstock of his party's establishment, not to mention some of the candidates.
But the really, REALLY big loser in this election year, which may not be apparent for a while, is the mainstream media. Tucker Carlson and Neil Patel assess the bitter fruit of playing the lapdog for the Obama presidency, with so-called journalists resigning themselves to rare press conferences, evasive responses, and being confined to soft-balling questions, lest they appear "rude" to a thin-skinned chief executive.
We'll leave the rest to you since, having witnessed Joe Biden's completely boorish conduct during the vice-presidential debate, we know you can very well imagine.
HOPE BREEDS ETERNAL (IF MOMENTARILY ELUSIVE)
Syndicated columnist and Pinay Jersey girl Michelle Malkin found reasons to rejoice over the election, if not at the national level, but at various congressional, gubernatorial, and other assorted victories across the nation, in her "20 things that went right on Election Day." One victory she neglected to mention, probably because the results were not immediately apparent, was that of Michelle Bachmann, once-defeated candidate for the Republican nomination, who went on to regain her seat in the House of Representatives, on behalf of Minnesota's 6th congressional district.
Of course, this also means that I won't be getting any more fundraising e-mails from Madame Congresswoman with the subject heading:
We here at Black Hat Central know you've got the feevah, and there's only one cure: “More Jon Stewart!”
They say there are three prerequisites to being called a journalist; you've covered a fire, you've covered a local election, and you've written an obituary. At least that's what they used to say. But as the trial of Jim Holmes, the freakin' obvious suspect in the Colorado shooting, began this week, ABC's Brian Ross found out that there's a Jim Holmes who belongs to the Colorado Tea Party, and just naturally put two and two together.
It didn't matter that he came up with five.
That's the good news, people. The bad news is that, of what used to be called "The Big Three," ABC is the least biased among them. This bodes ill for yet another year of election coverage, don't you think?
This past midnight, the United States government not only did not have an annual budget (and has been without one for the last four years), but also lacked what is called a "continuing resolution," that to which Congress and the President agree as a means of operating at "present spending levels" for a specified time of up to, but not usually, a fiscal year. This short-term fix has kept the nation's government operating for at least four years. But after continued parlays from both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue, and (when it comes down to it) both sides of the political aisle, the luck ran out.
