Wednesday, March 31, 2010

Vampires of New York & DC Prostitutes: A Love Story

DC Prostitution:  Politicians turn tricks for Big Money and the Taxpayer gets screwed...

Eliot Spitzer has his hookers; Mark Sanford had an Argentinian "soul mate."  Statist DC politicians are locked in a sleazy pornographic embrace with corporate vampires, and we're the ones getting screwed.

Jonah Goldberg explains why Wall Street gives twice the amount of filthy political lucre to Democrats as it does to Republicans:
Big business is not "right wing," it's vampiric. It will pursue any opportunity to make a big profit at little risk.
Getting in bed with politicians is increasingly the safest investment for these "crony capitalists." But only if the politicians can actually deliver.
But the tide is turning, Democrat fortunes are falling, and Wall Street now pays almost half of its political bribes to Republicans in anticipation of the new power they will wield come November.
The political failures of the Obama White House have translated into business failures for firms more eager to make money off taxpayers instead of consumers.

That's good news. The bad news will be if the Republicans once again opt to be the cheap dates of big business. For years, the GOP defended big business in the spirit of free enterprise while businesses never showed much interest in the principle themselves.
Now that their bet on the Democrats has crapped out, it'd be nice if they stopped trying to game the system and focused instead on satisfying the consumer.
That's what I'm talking about.  Can the Republicans stay on the straight and narrow?  The GOP has actually grown a pair since Obama and the Pelosicrats handed their asses to them in 2008, and they seem to have learned their lesson about flirting with big government.

If they regain some power, will they stay true to their new-found, small-government, free-market principles?  A noisy tea party that hounds them just as it hounds dirty dog democrats will help them keep their minds right.

Tuesday, March 30, 2010

Los apellidos terminados en EZ

Voy a probar con uno en espanol.  Amo El Castellano casi tanto como el Ingles...
Un puntito de educación en el amplísimo campo de la Rica gramática de la Lengua Española. 

El sufijo EZ al final de Los apellidos hispanos proviene de una raíz hebrea sefardí y tiene la connotación de "Hijo de".

Es así como apellidos considerados muy castizamente españoles como Álvarez significa hijo de Álvaro, Enríquez, hijo de Enrico; Rodríguez, hijo de Rodrigo; López, hijo de Lope; González, hijo de Gonzalo; Martínez, hijo de Martín; O Hernández, hijo de Hernando. Solo existe una excepción gramatical a esta regla: Chávez,  Hijo de Puta.

!Gracias Lorenzo! 

New Government Seal

Official Announcement

The federal government today announced that it is changing its emblem from an Eagle to a CONDOM because it more accurately reflects the current government.

A condom allows for inflation, halts production, destroys the next generation, protects a bunch of pricks, and gives you a sense of security while you're being screwed!

Defusing the Debt Bomb

Fareed Zakaria is one of my favorite liberals.  He and conservative George Will account for 99% of the brainpower over at Newsweek. Zakaria has written a short, smart and well-reasoned article on how to tackle the nation's mounting debt. 

I don't agree with everything he said, and it's a little simplistic, but journalism such as this is what we need to help us understand complex issues.

He lays out three simple proposals:  Adopt a VAT, end certain subsidies, adjust entitlements

"Adopt a Value Added Tax (VAT)" 
I am only for this if we completely scrap the current tax code on US citizens and businesses.  None of this "we'll impose VAT now and adjust the income tax to compensate..."  No way.  Scrap it.  Then we can talk about the VAT.

A VAT is progressive, especially if basic food staples are exempted.  Rich people buy more stuff and more expensive stuff, so they would pay more tax under this plan.  It also removes the penalty for saving and investing while promoting capital formation that powers job growth.

"End the massive, distorting subsidies for home-ownership, health care, and agriculture"
I'm willing to raise Fareed on this one:  End ALL subsidies!  Let the free market chips fall where they may.  If it's a good idea it will survive; obsolete solutions will succumb to Schumpeter's creative destruction.  Up from the ashes will grow new ideas, new jobs and new solutions to society's challenges.  

"Make sensible adjustments to entitlements"
This will have to be done, one way or another.  Entitlements constitute around 50% of the federal budget and the share is growing, along with interest payments on the debt that fund these programs.

Slowly increasing the retirement age is one way government is already doing this.  "Ending Welfare as we know it" was another.  The greatest leap would be to wholesale divest the federal government of all extra-constitutional function and free up individuals, families and communities to tailor problem solving to each one's unique situation.

Fareed Zakaria, like Paul Ryan, has done a public service by putting his ideas out there.  You may not agree with them, but we need a vigorous debate on how to avoid fiscal calamity while not starving everyone in the process.  Putting government on a diet would be a good first step.

Monday, March 29, 2010

How to Troll

Trolling 101:  An Object Lesson
A dude named Beamish is my newest hero! (and I'm suddently and curiously thirsty for beer...)  He totally owned the Obamabots over at a lefty blog called It's My Right to be Left of Lenin.

Everybody needs to go over there and treat themselves to a conservative tour de force from deep in the lions den of loony leftism.

Beamish stood up to the fleck spittle invective splattered at him by the rabid leftwads.  He bravely brought facts, quotes, and logic.  He even pasted in video, but nothing could crack their fantasy bubble. Reality just does not compute with some people.

I admire the man's perseverance. I troll a lot, and I do it like he does, bringing facts and avoiding being needlessly provocative. That had to be the best stand I've ever seen of a conservative at a liberal blog.

I got kicked out of kooks and cryers for less than that. Props to the blog owner Dusty, at least she didn't ban him.  Many "liberal" bloggers are quite intolerant and illiberal when confronted with inconvenient truths.

Beamish reduced them to muttering childish insults at him. Liberalism has nothing but emotion and foam at the mouth rants.

My Own Adventures
I've been trolling around some and holding my own.  Haven't "converted" anyone, but I hope that I've at least made some people stop and think outside the MSNBC bubble.

Response is varied.  Some are foul mouthed simpletons who refuse to think, others are good natured but take what MSNBC says as gospel and refuse to think beyond that, and some are very intelligent people who I have had some productive exchanges with.
I did find a gem of a liberal site in my travels across Blogostan:  The Swash Zone.  They are really good folks over there and they know how to argue their points intelligently and civilly.  If you're looking to debate some smart liberals, that's the place to go.

As always, I advocate civility at all times.  Profanity and gross insults while in someone elses house is not the way to win hearts and minds.  I've also been informed that what I do is not really trolling since I'm not being provocative, but I like the name...

Classical Liberalism (It's a Good Thing!)

What is Classical Liberalism?
The objective of classical liberals is to free as many people as possible from the tyranny of others. Classical liberals believe this requires replacing public policies that limit individual freedom with policies that respect and expand individual rights and autonomy.
Modern classical liberalism, sometimes called the “freedom philosophy,” was articulated by prominent economists and political philosophers beginning in the 1930s and 1940s. That group included Gary Becker, Aaron Director, Milton Friedman, Baldy Harper, Friedrich Hayek, Henry Hazlitt, Frank Knight, Frank S. Meyer, Ludwig von Mises, Leonard Read, and George Stigler. (Source:  Joseph L. Bast, Heartland Institute)
Classical Liberalism vs. Statism
Classical Liberalism is best contrasted with its antithesis:  Statism.  Statism can take many forms: Democratic, totalitarian, monarchic, left, right, or centrist.

Classical Liberalism is: Free market capitalism vs. crony capitalism; A free people protected by a limited government vs. an unlimited government controlling every aspect of the peoples' lives.

Modern Day Liberals are Not Classical Liberals
There is no one more illiberal than a modern day liberal.  Today's liberals are rigid doctrinaires, clinging to Orthodoxy Which Shall Not Be Questioned.  There would be nothing wrong with this if they didn't hijack the government to impose this orthodoxy on us all, snuffing our liberty in the process.

Conservatives who want to use the coercive power of government to impose their morality on others make the same mistake.  The right answer is to stand for the constitution that protects the rights of all.

You are a True Classical Liberal...
...If you believe in limited government and believe people have the God-given right to liberty and freedom, even freedom to fail.

Further Reading
NCPA - What is Classical Liberalism?
Rockwell - American Classical Liberalism
Google Search: Classical Liberalism

Sunday, March 28, 2010

Bark Stupak Worth $4.7 Billion

Abartion (A Bart ion, Noun):  A procedure performed in Washington DC where a politician's principles are violently sucked out.  The empty feeling is quickly assuaged by an infusion of taxpayer cash.

District of Criminals
The Chicago Crime Syndicate bought Bart Stupak for 4.7 billion in bribes.  If your congressman didn't get as much you need to call and complain...
A day after Rep. Bart Stupak, D-Mich., and ten other House members compromised on their pro-life position to deliver the necessary yes-votes to pass health care reform, the "Stupak 11" released their fiscal year 2011 earmark requests, which total more than $4.7 billion--an average of $429 million worth of earmark requests for each lawmaker. (Source:  Sunlight Foundation)

Read These Books Now!

It's a left-right battle, and information is the ammo!

If you want to arm yourself up for liberal-conservative battle (or just make a small-government argument), there are literally hundreds of books you could read. If you're like me, you just don't have that kind of time.

Herewith I humbly commend to you four books that will get you up to speed in the minimum amount of time while giving you the maximum amount of essential history and critical information.

1. The 5000 Year Leap, Cleon Skousen
Absolutely essential, unless you are already a constitutional expert. He breaks down the founders' ideas into 28 easy to understand principles. If you want to understand the constitution and the thinking that went into it, you must read this book. It also has many useful quotes from the founders.

2. Liberty and Tyranny, Mark Levin
If you are a political neophyte, this is a must-read for you. He clearly and concisely explains the great issues facing us today, and applies the timeless principles of our founding fathers to each of them. Levin's gift is to make complex issues understandable and accessible to ordinary people.

If you're already politically well-versed, you may find this book a little pedantic. This is in no way a criticism. He writes like he speaks, and he thoroughly covers all the important issues without going too deep, which is a plus for beginners. If you could only read one book, this should be the one.

3. Hoodwinked, Jack Cashill
A veritable catalog of liberal lies. You will be stunned at what progressives have gotten by with these past 150 years. This is a treasure trove of material to lob back at the smug liberals who think they know it all. It is also useful for disabusing the ignorant who have innocently believed everything professors and news magazines have told them.

It's all there: The scientific frauds in pursuit of proving we all came from Darwin's primordial soup, Planned Parenthood's racist founding, Criminals the left hold up as heroes. As a bonus, Cashill's storytelling style makes this a breezy read that is never dull.

4. Liberal Fascism, Johah Goldberg
This is the mother lode of progressive history in America. It took me some time to read this book because it was so dense with information. I often found myself stopping to ponder some point or flip back to the footnotes because I could not believe what Goldberg was saying. He lays his case out carefully and with copious authoritative references.

This is an immensely interesting book for those who like history, and it is a slow read only because it is so packed with good information. It is well worth the read. You will understand just what fascism is and why the American left can be accused of it when you're done. You will also be able to explain why Mussolini and Hitler were not "right wingers," but rather hard-core socialist demagogues who harnessed commerce and society to the wagon of state.

Extra Credit:

The Forgotten Man, Amity Shlaes

An economic history of the great depression. Her central thesis is that Roosevelt's Keynesian meddling prolonged the economic woes of the 1930's. This book also gives you a good sense of the roots of progressivism and the urge to believe big government can solve everything.


President Obama didn't invent progressivism; it's been around for over 100 years. He is merely using current crises to advance progressivism's Long March. Read these books and you will see the big picture. Never again will you believe, as I once did, that the liberal movers and shakers are merely misguided.  They have an agenda!

Progressivism/liberalism has a rich ideological history and a mature doctrine. It is the left's game plan. Time to arm up with knowledge and fight back in the arena of ideas.

Saturday, March 27, 2010

Government Happy Talk has left Us Angry and In Debt

 What is the Purpose of Government?

The purpose of government?  Progressives have an (unsurprising) answer in this good article in the Times Online.  (Enjoy it while you can Rupert Moloch will start charging later this year.)

I have always maintained that Big Government Progressives are not evil.  They just think they know what's best for the rest of us.  They remain restless and mischievous until they have us all yolked to the state and marching in lockstep.

This sums up their ruling philosophy pretty well:
"once basic needs are met, governments should abandon a narrow focus on economic growth or gross domestic product (GDP). They should, instead, define collective wellbeing and seek policies that promote happiness."

WRONG!  This may work in England or San Francisco, but ordinary Americans bristle at government defining transcendent concepts like "Wellbeing" for them.  How do you promote the collective happiness of 300 million diverse individuals?  Democrats have proven this to be a fool's errand.

The author neatly dispatches such silliness, and for good reason.  We are autonomous beings, each pursuing our rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness in our own way.

Sometimes, Happiness is being left the hell alone...

The Superstition of Progress

Ants in a heap, carrying food to the queen and biting the heads off of genetic nonconformists, believe in the superstition of progress.
-- Kurt Silverfiddle

Friday, March 26, 2010

Power to the People!

Here's a new requirement the health care bill levies on insurance companies:

Insurers also will have to reveal how much of members’premiums they spend on medical care, as opposed to executivesalaries or other administrative costs. Next year, they’ll owe arebate to customers if the insurers spend less than 80 percenton benefits for people in individual or small-group plans.(Bloomberg)

I think this is an excellent idea!  In fact, it should be imposed on government as well:

$ - 80%  of education must be spent on teachers and the classroom, or we get a rebate!

$ - 80% of welfare and food assistance must go directly to poor people. If the poverty numbers don't come down, fire congress.

$ - If any government program spends more than 20% on salaries or overhead, fire the bureaucratic blubberpots who administer the program, disband the department, and return the money to the taxpayer!

Power to the People!

Thursday, March 25, 2010

Civil Disobedience

Obama's a big fan of Ghandi.  That's where he got all that (bowdlerized) "we are the change we've been waiting for" crap.

Well, here's one from his hero he may want to meditate upon... 
"civil disobedience becomes a sacred duty when the state has become lawless and corrupt." 
-- Mahatma Ghandi
 Go read Shikha Dalmia's article, Resisting Obamacare, Ghandi Style.

* - BTW, that picture is not a joke.  I took it from one of the Obama worship websites.

Wednesday, March 24, 2010

Tax Time

This is the time of year my anger at the federal bureaucracy reaches the boiling point, as I do my taxes.  They decreased everyone's withholding last year so we'd feel richer; that is until it's time to pay it back.  Government treating me like a child and jacking with my paycheck was just one more brick in the wall.  I was working so much overtime I didn't notice until it was too late.

It's not even the money so much as it is the complexity and time spent trying to get it right.  We all live in dread of an "invitation" from The IRS.

George Will sums it up beautifully:
Today's tax system was shaped by sadists who were trying to be nice:

Every wrinkle in the code was put there to benefit this or that interest.

Since the 1986 tax simplification, the code has been recomplicated more than 14,000 times -- more than once a day.
He's written a 2012 fantasy piece where Mitch Daniels had just been elected president and Paul Ryan is his VP.  Will's look into the future is a brilliant explanation of Ryan's roadmap in story form.

He then invites readers to...
 "Compare Ryan's lucid map to the Democrats' impenetrable labyrinth of health care legislation."
The Democrats are driving a decrepit, politburo-centric agenda that produces impenetrable, backwards-looking bureaucratic sludge.    Go read Ryan's Roadmap and you'll see why Republicans own the future with their forward-looking agenda.

Tuesday, March 23, 2010

Bread and Circuses: Democracy in Action

In this time of great political debate on the national stage, one is left wondering about the root causes of our political turmoil, one need look no further than ones own backyard.

I live in a semi-rural mountain community, predominately a bedroom community, half an hour from the second largest metropolitan area in the state. Outside of the commuters and service sector, we are predominately a tourism oriented economy... camping, hiking, fishing, and a few nearby casinos. The anchor town, Woodland Park, has a population of about 6500, with a county population of approximately 20,000, mainly residing in unicorporated areas. Since 2007 the raging local political debate has been in regards to business advertising, signs, electronic signs and the Chicken-man. By my limited recollection, it all began when a Wild Wings 'N' Things moved into town.

Denver Post

It seems that having people in chicken suits advertising for local business is prohibited, but then it seems that "unless it's specifically permitted, it's prohibited" - City Manager Buttery. But that is just the start of the issue... after three years and hundreds of hours of political wrangling, the city council tied 3-3 on a new 26 page ordinance governing signage and costumed characters, so the saga continues.

Mountain Jackpot

More entertaining is the ongoing (as far back as 1996) proposed rec-center/YMCA for this small bedroom community of 6500 people. Price tags range from 14-25 million funded in part by a 1% increase in the city sales tax. The interesting thing is that in this town of 6500 people, this facility will require a membership of 4000 people at $80 a month to be self-supporting, otherwise the city gets stuck with the bill. Sure, two-thirds of the population is a reasonable goal... a proposal goes on the ballot before the citizens the 6th of April.

All Business

Small towns, local governments, this is the breeding ground for future politicians. While few will go on to the state and fewer still to the national level... is it any wonder we are in the position we are in? If we can not rationally govern our local communities, what hope is there for the national stage? But then again... if we can mandate you buy insurance, why can't we mandate you join your local YMCA? Isn't a healthier America what we're all after anyway?

Teach Your Children

I took the older kids skiing yesterday.  Driving through South Park listening to Neil Young, Bob Dylan and MCR, we had a good talk.  (Yes, there really is a South Park, but it's not a town; it's a big wide open space between the front range and the Collegiate Peaks.

We talked about our faith...

"Yes, I do have doubts sometime.  You should never be afraid to question."

"No, I don't agree with everything our church teaches 100%, but I believe the big things, and I understand why they teach some small things I may not like to hear."

Our Rights Come from God
We talked about our natural rights and how they are enshrined in the constitution.  My kids understand that their rights come from God, not men.  The founders said that, not me.

No trashing of President Obama or dumping on those who voted for him, just a conversation about first principles and how do-gooders have warped our government all out of shape so that the founders would not recognize it.  

A Revolution of the Mind
People are now talking about another civil war.  The Democrats have indeed started one with their unilateral, highly partisan shot at our basic individual rights.  But this is a war of ideas.  They have slogans and emotions, we have Locke, Jefferson and Madison.  And the ballot box.  And kids asking questions.

My kids will do fine as long as they continue to hold these American values sacred, maintain a healthy skepticism and insist on thinking for themselves.

An Intellectual Poverty
Meanwhile, those who look to a mere mortal for "hope" will continue to suffer an intellectual poverty, a miserable absence of imagination.  Waiting for a hero, a man, to give you free stuff is a sure recipe for more poverty and misery.  Is there any greater example of hopelessness?

When we got home, I slipped my arm around the beautiful Mrs. Silverfiddle's slender waist and grilled us up some pork chops.  She loves God more than me, and that's OK.  I downed a shot of Jack and picked up my fiddle and played.  This is America.  Kids still question everything and buffalo still roam.

Tomorrow is another day.

Monday, March 22, 2010

Your Rich Uncle is Senile

That rich uncle, the one who promised you health care, a cheap house and free college?  He's not really rich.  He's senile. 

The adults knew it all along and just smiled when he promised all those things.  But the kids, the ones who still believe in the tooth fairy and man's ability to control the world's temperature, bought it hook line and sinker...

Sunday, March 21, 2010

The Great Divider

"We will fundamentally change America."
-- Barack Obama

President Obama will go down as the most divisive president in American history.  He makes Bush like like a Kumbaya campfire counselor. 

Now that Bart Stupak has sold out, here's what's on the horizon:

$ Energy market shakedown:  Cap and Trade
$ Democratic Party voter program:  Immigration Reform
$ Democratic vote buying disguised as "Education Reform"
$ Another "Stimulus" to reward Democratic constituencies 

Oh yeah, American. With this health care success, the Dems have their mojo back! A strong wind is in their sails and they'll use this momentum to steamroll their way to transforming America into their liberal utopia, just as candidate Obama promised.

And get used to the racist insults.  They will only increase as the Democrats continue dividing us and pitting us against one another.

Goose Stepping Towards Gomorrah

Sinclair Lewis (no relation to C.S. Lewis) has been misquoted as saying something like "if fascism comes to America it will come wrapped in the flag and whistling 'The Star Spangled Banner.'"  Liberals have been repeating it ever since.

Who thought it would come riding on a donkey?  

But seriously, the democrats are not fascists, and Lewis' sentiment doesn't apply anymore, since the US populace is no longer as susceptible to patriotic or religious appeals, and thank God for that.  Have any two ideals been more abused by politicians?  Nowadays, fascism would have to be wrapped in hundred dollar bills, porn, botox and free stuff for all.

Here's a more appropriate quote from a different Lewis:
"Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. 

It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. 

The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience."
-- C.S. Lewis
It's About Ideas--Republicans just happen to be on the right side this time
For three straight days I've attacked Democrats, and this after I proudly told some liberal bloggers I respect that I don't engage in partisan political arguments, I'm about ideas.  Well, this is about ideas.

Shall we be free to make our own choices and live our own lives, free even to fail?  Or will we allow a nanny state government to infest every last corner of our lives?

They are not Nazis
A commenter yesterday obliquely accused me of calling Democrats Nazis, but I'm not doing that at all.  Despite the Leni Reifenstahl propaganda and public displays that border on deification of Obama, it is not appropriate.  Obama is not Hitler and the Democratic party in no way resembles his horrible ideology.

It's Not Socialism
Obama's coterie includes some socialists and Chairman Mao fans, but they are not implementing socialism or communism either.  This despite the cult of personality, the artwork and the iconography.  Socialism dictates that the state seize the means of production.  They are not doing that.

 It's Called STATISM
They are statists.  Statism does not advocate seizing the means of production, but rather using the power of the state to manipulate them.  This leads to crony capitalism where companies curry favor with a corrupt political class that routinely milks them for money to pay for voter freebees.  In return, favored companies are allowed to make money in a rigged market while calling themselves capitalists.

Statism is better known as fascism, but that is a European concept that rightly conjures ugly, murderous thugs.  ACORN and SEIU aside, it doesn't fit here, so I prefer to call them statists.  And there are plenty in the GOP as well, they just don't have any power right now. 

Statism includes:
* Grab the corporations by the throat and challenge them: You're either with the state or you're against us!

* Drastic decrease in strikes--The state is looking after the worker now. Unions are only allowed to march on companies the state has declared evil.  The federal government, through a Department of Labor, intimidates uncooperative businesses to get in line
* Central control by the state of everything, from schools, to commerce to public health.
* Manipulation of societal institutions such as church, family and community

Our government bears all of these marks, and it's only getting worse.  

I put Soviet hats on Democrats not because I think they are communists, but because they have come to resemble a Soviet Politburo, binding all states together tightly, snuffing all differences and applying top-down, one-size-fits-all solutions that vast majorities do not want.

Call it what you want, but it doesn't look American.

Saturday, March 20, 2010

Liberalism is a Bankrupt Monster

Conservatism is a shining city on the hill. Liberalism is the cold, clanking monster that threatens to destroy it.

Who's out of touch? Liberals or Conservatives? I think the Democrats' shameless bribery, vote buying and outright legislative fraud answers the question.  Christopher Chantrill gave us his take last year in his brilliant piece, Who's Out of Touch.

Here is an excerpt that neatly summarizes his thesis:
The awful truth about liberalism is its central delusion, the notion that life can be neatly organized into rational bureaucratic programs. It turns everything it touches into a soulless clanking monster.

The glorious truth about conservatism is its love of life. Before princes, principalities and powers comes life and love, mothers and babies, children and families, struggle and sacrifice, a city on a hill.

Proof? Look at the Democratic Approach to Health Care "Reform"

Democrats are stuck in the past, spending like it's 1939 and churning out turgid tons of bureaucratic sludge. Diversity is suddenly out the window. One size fits all because they say so!

Here are two gimmicks they shamelessly employ to enact their ponzi scheme into law

Gimmick # 1: "This plan is deficit neutral" intones the Professor in Chief. Yeah, because it collects 10 years of taxes to pay for only 6-8 year of coverage.

Gimmick # 2: Put a huge reduction in medicare reimbursements in the bill and get the CBO to score it. Then, pass a separate bill to cancel the cuts in the first bill.  From CNN:
Ryan correctly stated that the bill projects that Medicare will lower reimbursements to doctors by $371 billion over the next 10 years, yet Congress would cancel those cuts in a separate bill, all part of an attempt to mask the true size of future deficits through "gimmicks and smoke and mirrors."

Obama steered the discussion away from Ryan's numbers, and the White House hasn't challenged his analysis. (CNN-Money)

Bernie Madoff went to jail for less than this. His only crime was that he was unelected...

Friday, March 19, 2010

Demon Pass: A Congress of Cowards

Demon Pass?  Never heard of it!  It's "Deem and Pass," and it's the latest craze!  All the kids in the District of Criminals are doing it...

Dispatches from The CrapItAll 

Obama:  I don't care about the process I just want this done.  Government is not big enough and the people have too much power

Pelosi:  It's a good thing when we can take the coward's way out and declare edicts without voting

Rev Wright:  America's Chicken's...  have come home...  to roost!  And they're roosting under the capitol dome!
Louise Slaughter (apt name) says it's "Self-Executing!"  ...If Only...
Ramesh Ponnuru - Talking Points
Orange Punch - We Don't Need No Stinkin' Vote!

Thursday, March 18, 2010

If a country falls in the Mediterranean, and no one is around to hear it...

A shiftless and flaccid culture that cannot sustain itself is no culture at all

Europe is dying, with angry Vandals and intolerant Goths swarming from the east, tearing down what's left and picking through the ruins. 

Nobody makes pessimism and decline sound classy like the witty and articulate Mark Steyn:
What's happening in the developed world today isn't so very hard to understand: The 20th century Bismarckian welfare state has run out of people to stick it to. In America, the feckless insatiable boobs in Washington, Sacramento, Albany and elsewhere are screwing over our kids and grandkids.

In Europe, they've reached the next stage in social democratic evolution: There are no kids or grandkids to screw over. The United States has a fertility rate of around 2.1 – or just over two kids per couple.

Greece has a fertility rate of about 1.3: 10 grandparents have six kids have four grandkids – i.e., the family tree is upside down. Demographers call 1.3 "lowest-low" fertility – the point from which no society has ever recovered.
Waaah!  Selfish meanies are taking my freebies away!

Steyn strikes at the heart of what's wrong with selfish protesters throwing fits in the street because the government teat they've been suckling at has dried up...
Once a chap's enjoying the fruits of government health care, government-paid vacation, government-funded early retirement, and all the rest, he couldn't give a hoot about the general societal interest; he's got his, and to hell with everyone else.
People's sense of entitlement endures long after the entitlement has ceased to make sense.
Let's face it, if Greece disappeared from the face of the earth, would anyonebesides a few tourists even notice?

Wednesday, March 17, 2010

US Census: Get Your Fair Share!

** CAUTION:  Unhinged DeviledEgg Rant! **

I hate what our country has become!!!

I just got a letter in the mail from a bureaucratic fink named Robert M. Groves and he urges me to fill my census form so my city and state can "Get our fair share!"

That's right America! It's a free for all!  So grab with both hands.  You know those bastards the next state over will be snagging theirs and then some!  Get it before it's gone!

Dirty Hank and Bush's gang of pirates looted the treasury so the the Wall Street banksters could get their fair share!  Now it's your turn.  Grab yo piece of Uncle Obama's stash!

So what exactly would be my "fair share" of negative $100 Trillion Bajillion Dollars? 
Because that's what's in Uncle Sam's bank account, a big, fat negative number.  It's a pile of IOU's written on toilet paper.  There's your fair share America!  Tear off a corner and stick it to your face next time you nick yourself shaving.

Maybe if the feral government wouldn't confiscate our money and "spread it around" to acorn and other useless socialist gangsters and corporate crony crapitalists, we wouldn't need a "fair share."


It is sickening what this country has turned in to.

When I got to the bottom of that letter, the polyglot  banga-thong-gong-boo-boo-cachinga-TV antenna gibberish almost made me boil over.  Our melting pot is now a smelting pot.

Tuesday, March 16, 2010

Smelting Pot

America used to be a melting pot, where cultures from all over blended together, producing a vibrant, successful nation. No longer.

America is now a smelting pot, where mixed up cultures separate under extreme heat, producing sulfurous odors, slag and other useless byproducts.

David Paulin at American Thinker concludes that America no longer remakes its immigrants, the immigrants now remake America.

The elites tell us we should be ashamed of our white, Anglo-Saxon protestant culture, and defending is is tantamount to racism and cultural chauvinism.  

What about those of us who are mixed?  Who speak other languages and celebrate  other cultures at home, but still don't like how illegal immigration is remaking the nation?    

Is a noisy, polyglot patchwork of mutually exclusive and antagonistic cultures really better than what our founding fathers established? We'll find out soon enough.

Monday, March 15, 2010

Gun Rights Don't Come From Government

Justices Signal They're Ready to Make Gun Ownership a National Right 

(It's an El Lay Times headline, so what do you expect?)

Government does not confer this right.  The Second Amendment recognizes gun ownership as a preexisting right granted by God (or natural law, if you prefer.)  The Constitution is a document drawn up by the several states charging the Federal Government to protect this right and not infringe upon it.  Pretty damn simple for this Colorado boy...

False Dichotomy
But do individual rights enumerated (and upheld) in the Constitution supersede a city’s duty to protect the health and welfare of its citizens? Because that’s how the City of Chicago is describing its position:
Chicago Mayor Richard Daley’s response is that the federal government is not responsible for the health and safety of the citizens of Chicago; the city is.
Daley slips us a false dichotomy:  Either ban all guns or we can't be safe. 

A writer at The Moderate Voice gets it right:
So on the one hand we have an individual right, enumerated in the Constitution and upheld by the Supreme Court — just like freedom of religion, or speech, or assembly — but thus far only applied to federal jurisdictions.

On the other hand we have a city’s (or other local entity’s) duty to protect its citizens. Which should take precedence? [...]
Cities and other governmental entities cannot simply ban a Constitutional right. I’m somewhat amazed, frankly, that it took this long to get this issue decided.
The bogus liberal argument of imperious rulers like Mayor Daley presupposes, generally, that God-given rights cannot be reconciled with public safety, to wit: Gun ownership is a threat to the health and safety of Chicago's citizens.

That is demonstrably false.  Anecdotal evidence to the contrary is everywhere.  Concealed carry laws do not cause more crime.  Anecdotal evidence suggests such laws bring the crime rate down.  Knowing his "victim" might have the capacity to drill a .357 slug between his eyes makes a criminal think twice.  A puny gun ban does not. 

King Daley and his liberal comrades are not so foolish that they believes their own BS about gun ownership.  Like so much of the progressive agenda, this is about power and control.

Sunday, March 14, 2010

Che Guevara, T-Shirt Salesman To The Tards

Che Guevara was a cowardly murderer, and those walking around the US with his stinking, bearded countenance adorning their apparel are ignorant fools.

I can understand why he is a hero in Latin America, where the rich dump all over the poor and call it capitalism and democracy. But here in America--the most egalitarian and upwardly mobile society in the world--the most famous t-shirt salesman in the world is a mark of ignorance.

A Che logo screams "I am blissfully ignorant of history and I despise the capitalist freedom that brought me this gucci bag and these $200 Raybans."

What are these people making a statement against? Our nation having the richest, fattest poor people in the world? Government-subsidized higher education? Too many air conditioners and iPods?

Che Murdered Cuban Campesinos
Humberto Fontova writes brilliantly of the contrast between the butcher from Rosario and one particular woman who resisted his persecutions. Zoila Aguila was a brave Cuban campesina who took to the hills of Escambray and fought the Castro gang and their soviet masters for a year, until they finally captured and imprisoned her.

Hollywood produces hagiographic paeons to this homicidal maniac from Argentina, while real heroines like Zoila Aguila go unsung because nobody pinched her butt in a north country coal mine or she didn't blow the whistle on an evil corporation run by greedy white men. You can read this Cuban's short article at
American Thinker.

American Thinker

Dissident Frogman

Saturday, March 13, 2010


Intaxification (Noun): 
Euphoria at getting a tax refund, which lasts until you realize it was your money to start with.

* - HT to OD 

Friday, March 12, 2010

Democratic Party: Overlawyered

Why do Republicans tend to look to the free market for solutions while Democrats insist on passing more laws? 

...the tactics of "legislation by litigation" ... should be profoundly anathematic to a free society.
By increments, the need for lawyers has been extended to every aspect of human life, and the law schools themselves have metastatically expanded. In a sense, our entire society has been criminalized, by lawyers adding to myriad laws that impinge not only on criminals, but on everybody.
Democrats are Stinky with Lawyers
This is a point brought home to me by an amusing item a friend forwarded this week, comparing Democrat to Republican party in the United States.
The Democrat leadership is all lawyers, and has been for some time. Barack Obama, lawyer; Michelle Obama, lawyer; Hillary Clinton, lawyer; Bill Clinton, lawyer; Harry Reid, lawyer; Nancy Pelosi, lawyer; and so forth.

All Democrat presidential candidates since 1984, lawyers -- except Al Gore, who somehow failed to graduate from law school.
  Republicans are more diverse
Compare, if you will, the Republican leadership over the last while, in White House and Congress.

The last Republican lawyer to make president was Gerald Ford. Instead: movie actor, spy chief, businessman, successively. Last election: an old soldier, and a PTA lady.

Look back at the leaders of the so-called "Republican revolution" in Congress: Newt Gingrich, history professor; Tom Delay, pest exterminator; Dick Armey, economist; Bill Frist, heart surgeon. (And note what the Democrat lawyers did to get rid of them.)
In a nation of hammers, every problem looks like a nail...
In a government ruled by lawyers, every citizen looks like a criminal, and every problem can be solved by one more law...

Thursday, March 11, 2010

Federal Failure

It's The Education, Stupid!

Evan Thomas, in an otherwise useless Newsweek article, observes:
Grade inflation is so out of control in the nation's high schools that 43 percent of college-bound seniors taking the SATs have A averages—even though SAT scores have remained flat or drifted slowly downward for years.
The Federal Government Killed our Education System

Decline in public education can be traced back to the 1965 Elementary and Secondary Education Act, a 60's version of No Child Left Behind. Indeed a straight line to hell can be drawn from that date, through the 1979 establishment of the Education Department, to where we are now.

The deeper the federal government and the teachers unions get into education, the dumber our students become and the more it costs us. This should provide a lesson for those who want more government involvement in healthcare.
Over 200 years ago, the nation's Founders understood that federal intervention into state, local, and family concerns like education would be futile. They knew that the federal government would be too distant and unwieldy to solve problems in the nation's diverse cities, towns, and hamlets.

It's a major reason why the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution declares that "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," and why the Constitution makes no mention of education at all. (CATO - Neal McCluskey)
Diversity Killed the Health Care Bill

Why is the health care bill so contentious, with seemingly irreconcilable demands? Because we are a diverse collection of people. We were never meant to have a national politburo imposing one-size-fits-all, we-say-so regulations on us.

Each state should hammer out its own solutions based on the particular needs of its residents. I don't want a Vermont solution here in Colorado, and I'm sure Oregon doesn't want Texas telling it what to do.
It's time to let 50 experiments bloom, as the founders intended.

Wednesday, March 10, 2010

"Neat Tricks" that bend the "Reality Curve"

Progressives have a reality problem:  They can't stand it, it's too messy.  

Global warming, climate change, whatever they're calling it nowadays 

The earth is warming!  Wait! it's cooling! No, it's more ominous than that, Its Changing!  Swimming polar bears!  Gay penguins with happy feet!  Aaaaaagh!

Sensible people would simply let the free market, as it has always done, adapt to changing weather patterns.  That's what polar bears do.  But no, liberals insist on changing reality by attempting to change the global climate, to the tune of trillions of dollars.  Pause and think about that...  Change. The. Global. Climate.  What hubris!  Scariest of all it that they really think they can do it.

Deficit Neutral Health Care for All (and other fairy tales)
"This plan is deficit neutral" intones the Professor in Chief.  Yeah, because it collects 10 years of taxes to pay for only 6-8 year of coverage. Neat trick. 

Here's another neat trick that bends the reality curve: 

Put a huge reduction in medicare reimbursements in the bill and get the CBO to score it.  Now, pass a separate bill to cancel the cuts in the first bill.  That's the wink and nod that got the AMA and some doctors on his side. 
Ryan correctly stated that the bill projects that Medicare will lower reimbursements to doctors by $371 billion over the next 10 years, yet Congress would cancel those cuts in a separate bill, all part of an attempt to mask the true size of future deficits through "gimmicks and smoke and mirrors."
Obama steered the discussion away from Ryan's numbers, and the White House hasn't challenged his analysis. (CNN-Money)
Progressive Crony Capitalism
Granting special loopholes got AARP on board, since they stand to make untold millions selling supplemental insurance on a playing field tilted in their favor. 

It's neat tricks like this that have us buried under an avalanche of debt.  Progressives try to bend reality, but look out when it snaps back.  And it always does.

Tuesday, March 9, 2010

Lies, Damn Lies, and Presidential Statistics

President Obama marked International Women's Day with the typical tired boilerplate worthy of such compulsory occasions. It was a veritable smorgasbord of standard liberal platitudes. Here are the two most spectacular...

The Glass Ceiling
Most egregiously, he morphed his grandmother's great achievements into a counterfeit story of discriminatory shame:
"I saw my grandmother work her way up to become vice president at a bank in Hawaii, starting as a secretary, never had more than a high school education. But I also saw how she hit a glass ceiling, and had to watch as men, no more qualified than she was, rise up the corporate ladder."
God bless this woman's soul, she made it to bank vice president without a college degree! Not many men have achieved that. She also had to overcome Hawaiian bigotry against white people, but he failed to mention that.

This is a story of a woman who triumphed over all odds, not some poor victim who cracked her head on the glass ceiling. He should be ashamed of himself for disrespecting her memory in order to pander to another interest group.

Why Women Make Less Than Men

Here's another stale crust from his speech:
"The statistics of inequality are all too familiar to us -- how women just earn 77 cents for every dollar men make..."
Work History
Women get pregnant, men don't, causing gaps in the average woman's work history. They are also more likely than men to interrupt their careers to care for a young child or an infirm relative or friend. That may not be fair, but you can't blame the employer who hands out pay raises based upon work performance and career continuity instead of motherhood and care of relatives.

A Difference of Degrees

Obama's statement is true in the aggregate. But as Thomas Sowell shows, the argument for discrimination breaks down upon disaggregation of the data.

Simply put, men disproportionally get degrees in disciplines that pay more, like the hard sciences and engineering. Women overwhelmingly pursue degrees that earn less money, like the social sciences and liberal arts degrees. Sowell also shows that more men than women hold masters degrees and PhDs. (Thomas Sowell, Vision of the Annointed, pg 38)

Bottom Line: There is no pay disparity when you control for education level, degree discipline, and work history.

Monday, March 8, 2010

Democrat BS and Fantasy-Based Rhetoric is Wearing Thin

David Broder counts the ways the Republicans are beating the Democrats in the health care debate. Poll after poll shows a public overwhelmingly simpatico with GOP ideas. Obama's latest foray didn't help matters. He looked more like a Chicago ward boss than President of the United States.

The major dem talking point that rankles me is how this multi-trillion spendfest is "deficit neutral." I understand political talking points, but the press used to throw the BS flag at such flagrant abuse of the truth.

The other issue I see getting completely distorted is cost versus availability. This is not Broder's sin, he is merely reporting on the one area where Dems have a slight but eroding advantage:
Another basic difference was highlighted by Obama when he contrasted the 3 million uninsured Americans who might get coverage from the main Republican alternative bill with the 31 million made eligible for insurance by the Democrats. (David Broder - WaPo)
I we can make it cost less through market forces, won't that in turn make it available to people who previously could not afford it? Isn't that the goal, to make it affordable so people can be self-sufficient?

The Democratic party and its hordes of supplicant voters reminds me of a dysfunctional relationship between a mama and her grown-up child who can't cut the apron strings.

Sunday, March 7, 2010

Gun Grabbers have their Day in Court

Are the 50 states required to obey the Second Amendment?

Or can they do whatever they want, with no obligation to respect our right to keep and bear arms?

That’s what’s at stake in the Chicago gun-ban case, McDonald v. City of Chicago (Alan Korwin)
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
-- 2nd Amendment to the US Constitution
This will be a landmark decision
Last year, The Supreme Court upheld our right to bear arms in the Heller Decision, but since it was a DC case, it was silent on such bans imposed by states and cities.

The Chicago Case before the Supreme Court is complex and involves much more that just the right to bear arms.  Can the federal government compel states to respect The Bill of Rights?  If so, is this a violation of states rights?

A straight reading of the 2nd Amendment should settle it:  Chicago may not infringe upon a person's right to own a gun.  Unfortunately, progressive lawmakers have trampled and twisted our constitution, and deferential judges have too often let them get by with it.

But the practice of constitutional law has unfortunately long since been about more than the simple application of the plain text.  That’s because the Constitution—the point of which is to limit government power—is a rather inconvenient roadblock when government wants to do something without restraints.  

Courts, in many cases, have abandoned their responsibility to apply the clear commands of the Constitution and have become extremely deferential to legislatures, especially with regard to progressive policy goals the judges themselves often share.  

Some call this judicial “restraint,” but increasingly, a more accurate term would be judicial abdication.  
This case revolves around not just the 2nd Amendment, but also the 14th.  It's a very long amendment, passed to give teeth to the 13th, which abolished slavery.  Here is the relevant section:
No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. 
Gun Rights champion Alan Korwin has written The Definitive Article on this case.  He breaks it down so us non-lawyers can understand it.  Here are some excerpts:
Our brief establishes this crucial point: the Second Amendment protects an American right that is long standing, deeply rooted and truly fundamental, and therefore meets the tests for incorporation under the 14th Amendment.

 The idea that the states should also be obligated to respect the fundamental rights in the national Bill of Rights didn’t arrive until 1868, with the 14th Amendment. And that was a result of the end of slavery — the former Confederate states did everything they could think of to deny virtually any rights to newly freed slaves — especially the right to keep and bear arms.

Is Chicago obligated, under the 14th Amendment, to honor and respect your rights? It says no, it can do as it pleases and screw your rights, just like other abhorrent petty tyrants currently running loose without nooses in the United States.

Gun Rights vs. States Rights? 
Here's a critical issue:  If the court overturns the ban, is it a blow to states' rights?  As important is a separate issue:  If the federal government can use the 14th Amendment to force states to respect a right mentioned in the 2nd, will liberals use this precedent to force states to recognize other "rights" that they invent?

Yes, we’re delighted that the states may be forced — by our friends the feds — to honor our right to keep arms and our right to bear arms. We can conveniently overlook and rationalize any concerns about federalism — the concept that states are sovereign and independent, and in many matters can decide on their own how their territories will be run.

Will gun rights activists end up providing cover fire for progressive schemers?
Force from federal mandates seems just fine to protect free speech or stop search-and-seizure abuse, or to protect RKBA. But how well that flies if it’s “newly discovered privileges and immunities” (polygamy? drugs? animal rights? affirmative action? debt? medicine? carbon neutrality? diversity? greenness? diet?) remains to be seen.

Those are far fetched and unlikely concerns, according to most people in the know.
Interesting stuff. I don't see this as a states rights issue because our God-given rights may not be infringed by anyone.  As for the progressive schemers, the tide seems to be turning against them.

Saturday, March 6, 2010

The Chicago Gun Ban Case

Supreme Court Appears Ready To Overturn Chicago Gun Ban Ordinance
If the early reports coming out of Washington D.C. are correct, we will not have to listen to the nonsense Mayor Richard Daley has been spinning for years. Mayor Daley has defended the city's handgun ban as being necessary and reasonable. Reasonable? For Whom?

The New American - Partial Victory Could Have Other Implications
So while the anticipated Supreme Court decision may represent a partial victory to some, and an unconstitutional infringement on the powers of state governments to others, the future of gun rights in America generally looks brighter than it did just a few years ago. After all, more and more Americans are beginning to appreciate that the right to keep and bear arms is an unalienable gift from their Creator which “shall not be infringed” by government. And that is encouraging news. 

The Economist
Mr McDonald’s lawsuit against Chicago’s gun laws reached the Supreme Court this week. It was the moment gun-lovers had been waiting for since 2008, when the court struck down as unconstitutional a similar handgun ban in Washington, DC. By a 5-4 majority, the justices ruled then that the second amendment’s right “to keep and bear arms” applies to individuals, not just members of a militia. 

The question now is whether this right applies only in a federal enclave such as Washington, DC, or nationwide. Judging by the questions the justices threw at Chicago’s lawyer on March 2nd, the answer is “nationwide”.

The first ten amendments to the constitution (the Bill of Rights) originally bound only the federal government. But the rights contained in them, such as free speech, have mostly been applied to the states via the “due process” clause of the 14th amendment. (“Nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty or property without due process of law…”) This is the most likely way that the court’s slim majority will extend gun rights to the whole country. 

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
-- 2nd Amendment to The US Constitution

Friday, March 5, 2010

Who's Your Most Famous Facebook Friend?

I don't spend a lot of time on Facebook, but I have a pretty cool collection of friends (farmers, army officers, and a beauty pageant director...)   Liberals will be surprised at how "diverse" it is.

I've made some Colorado political friends since writing in support of Ken Buck for Senator,  and I got some interesting friend suggestions.  It was really cool when Jon Caldara accepted a friend request.  I've listened to him for years on the radio.  See also, Jon's excellent blog, The Cauldron, and The Independence Institute.  He's a great advocate for small government.

Coolest of all was when Tom Tancredo and I became Facebook friends.  He's not in elected office anymore, but he's still a powerful conservative voice! His CPAC speech where he suggested a constitution test for voting really spun up the libs.

Now, for some facebook humor.  I wish I could remember where I got this from...

Thursday, March 4, 2010

Dems on a Greased Rail to Hell

Why are Democrats determined to pass health care that voters don't want?

Conservative Ed Morrissey does an excellent job explaining why Democrats are still trying to pass a grossly expensive, highly unpopular health care bill despite opposition from a clear majority of Americans.  It actually makes political sense, in a liberally twisted kind of way.   

Here are a few excerpts, but I highly recommend you read the entire article.

Quoting Andrew McCarthy:
They know America doesn't want this, but they've factored that in already
I hear Republicans getting giddy over the fact that “reconciliation,” if it comes to that, is a huge political loser. That’s the wrong way to look at it.

The Democratic leadership has already internalized the inevitablility of taking its political lumps. That makes reconciliation truly scary.

Since the Dems know they will have to ram this monstrosity through, they figure it might as well be as monstrous as they can get wavering Democrats to go along with.
It's about power and control

Dems know Republicans will not be able to dismantle the monstrous bureaucratic beast (and the hundreds of thousands of government positions that go with it) once they get it in place.
They want socialized medicine and all it entails about government control even more than they want to win elections.

After all, if the party of government transforms the relationship between the citizen and the state, its power over our lives will be vast even in those cycles when it is not in the majority.

This is about power, and there is more to power than winning elections, especially if you’ve calculated that your opposition does not have the gumption to dismantle your ballooning welfare state.
Still, it's not a done deal
They will put their heads down and go for as much transformation as they can get, figuring that once they get it, it will never be rolled back.

The only question is whether there are enough Democrats who are conventional politicians and who care about being reelected, such that they will deny the leadership the numbers it needs.
Gotta give the Dems Credit.  Unlike Republicans, they are willing to go down in flames for their political convictions:

Dennis Prager Agrees:
Most people on the Left are True Believers. This is critical to understand. They are willing to lose Congress; Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid are prepared to lose both houses to get this through.

Why? Because losing an election cycle means nothing compared to taking over more of the American economy.
Wouldn't it be great to have some true believers on the conservative side?

* - DISCLAIMER:  I do not think the democrats are nazis, just your garden variety North American statists.  I just think this picture from The People's Cube is incredibly funny, and quite apropos, nazi references aside.

Wednesday, March 3, 2010

It's Official: Liberals are now Part of the Problem

CNN Poll:  Majority of Americans See Government as a Threat
Fifty-six percent of people questioned in a CNN/Opinion Research Corporation survey released Friday say they think the federal government's become so large and powerful that it poses an immediate threat to the rights and freedoms of ordinary citizens.

Forty-four percent of those polled disagree. (CNN Poll)
Guess Who Made Up The 44% Who Love Big Government?
Remember when liberals protested government?  Now that they have infested academia, mass media, and ...  The Government!  They use these powerful soapboxes to harangue the proletariat and rally them to the cause of government.  The bigger and more oppressive the better.  

Here's the breakdown of the CNN poll by ideology:

* 63% of Independents see government as a threat

* 70% of Conservatives agree with that proposition

* A puny 37% of Democratic sheeple think the Federal Government is too big

Here's Why

Ross Kaminsky, American Spectator explains:
In the last few years, government employment -- and thus the taxes required to fund it -- has been growing while private businesses across the nation have had to cut back to survive. As THIS chart from Americans for Limited Government shows, since December 2007 the private sector has lost over 7 million jobs while government has added about 100,000 jobs.

By 2008, the federal worker was making double -- yes double -- the private sector worker.
Public Pension Plans (unlike our private sector 401Ks) are choking state and local governments:

"A $1 trillion gap… exists between the $3.35 trillion in pension, health care and other retirement benefits states have promised their current and retired workers as of fiscal year 2008 and the $2.35 trillion they have on hand to pay for them."

The unions which represent government workers, including the Service Employees International Union (SEIU), the American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees (AFSCME), and the American Federation of Government Employees (AFGE), are accumulating power, money, and influence, especially over Democrats, and using these as a self-reinforcing mechanism to acquire more.
Follow The Money (From the Unions to the Democratic Coffers)
In 2008, unions contributed $74.5 million to political candidates, of which $68.2 million went to Democrats.  Since 1990, unions have contributed over $630 million to Democrats (more than 12 times their contributions to Republicans.)
The ever-pithy Michael Barone sums is up beautifully: 
"Public-sector unionism tends to be a self-perpetuating machine that extracts money from taxpayers and then puts it on a conveyor belt to the Democratic Party."
So government unions use their poorly-paid liberal confreres in the private sector as campaign shock troops to get Democrat elected.  Government workers get paid more, private sector workers get paid less, making them angrier, and the cycle repeats.  It will be interesting to see when these good-hearted unemployed liberals realize they're getting screwed.

It's a self-licking liberal ice cream cone, and we're footing the bill...