An Elephant in Donkey Land

March 12, 2009

More Liberal Hypocrisy

Filed under: Uncategorized — conservativelawstudent @ 2:28 am

As if there needs to be more trotted out before the public.

Sen Leahy has vowed to out any Republican that delays the confirmation of Obama Supreme Court nominees.

“Today, however, there will be no more secret and anonymous Republican holds. Any effort to oppose the president’s nominees — executive or judicial — will have to withstand public scrutiny.”

But just three years ago, Leahy led an effort to do just that with Bush nominee Sam Alito.

“Sen. Patrick Leahy of Vermont, the panel’s top Democrat, said: ‘This arrangement accommodates Republicans and Democrats.'”

What could be done by Democrats three years ago, will no longer be tolerated by Democrats now with The One in office. What was good ol’ fashioned bi-partisanship three years ago is now just partisan hackery.

Hypocrisy.

Life is Busy

Filed under: Uncategorized — conservativelawstudent @ 12:01 am

My twin boys were born last Wednesday, Wilson Reagan and Andrew Patrick.

And they already have more debt than I could ever hope to build up. Thanks Obama.

February 27, 2009

Jim Calhoun vs. PC Police

Filed under: Uncategorized — conservativelawstudent @ 2:27 pm

According to a story from Sporting News, there are some lawmakers in Connecticut that feel bad about Jim Calhoun being the highest paid state employee with a salary of $1.6 million, when the state has a budget deficit of over $1 billion.

Let’s go through this in detail shall we?

Sen. Mary Ann Handley, D-Manchester, and Rep. Roberta Willis, D-Lakeville, said Thursday that Calhoun’s outburst on Saturday does not reflect well on him or the state’s flagship university.

The outburst in question?

[A] political activist and freelance reporter, questioned Calhoun at a news conference following Saturday’s 64-50 win over South Florida. He asked why the coach of a public university collects a salary of $1.6 million while the state has a budget deficit of more than $1 billion this fiscal year and up to $8.7 billion over the next two fiscal years.

Calhoun first responded with a joke, then grew angry as Krayeske continued the line of questioning.

“My best advice to you is, shut up,” Calhoun said.

A political activist, asking question at a college basketball press conference. Brilliant. Does he have the right to ask about the salary? Maybe. I’d accept arguments from both sides on that question. But to continue to pester Calhoun until the point where he finally had enough is not journalism, it’s political activism, and doesn’t belong in a college basketball press conference. Save it for the local communist rag.

Why is the line of questioning a bad one? Well, let’s see. UConn pays Jim Calhoun $1.6M to coach the basketball team. Not a professor of economics, not a janitor, not a UConn regent, a basketball coach. As such, his number one priority is to take care of himself, and his family. UConn has every right to not pay Jim Calhoun $1.6M, but to pay him something less. But they know that by paying less for one of the top three coaches in the game today is to lose one of the top three coaches in the game today. Calhoun’s program does not suck at the teat of the state, drawing state funds to keep it running and fly the team across the country, they generate their own revenue, for their own program as well as for the institution they represent. Sure UConn could pay a lesser coach lesser money, but they know that the $12M the program brings in right now would take a sharp nose dive. This is an investment by the university, and a damn good one. An investment that has a rate of return by my calculations to be around 650%. Try to find another investment like that right now.

This little argument posted by this little political activist, who didn’t get his name posted here for the same reason the NFL doesn’t put streakers on camera, was not about Calhoun and his salary. It was not about anything but his leveraging a rotten economic time in our history to show his utter jealousy for those that are better off than he is. It is all about class warfare, and an opportunity to push his PC communist views out to a wide range of people. Do professors and teachers deserve to paid better than sports players and coaches? Maybe. That’s a debateable proposition. But we live in a free market society. The players and coaches get paid like that because someone thinks they are worth it, and it is an investment. Until teachers and professors can get 20,000 people to drop $30-$50 a ticket to come watch them teach, too bad. It will be a cold day in hell if this blogger could get TEN people to come watch a redesign of a plastic part in an automatic gear shifter for free, let alone pay money to do so. Not to mention it would be a cold day in hell when this blogger complains about not making as much as the punter for the New England Patriots, maybe the most overpaid job in the world.

Get over the petty jealousy and try to make life better for yourself. The avenues are wide open for you. Once you get there, you can try to help bring up some of the less fortunate, rather than pulling from the bottom trying to bring those more fortunate down to your level.

January 28, 2009

177 of 177 Republicans vote ‘No’ on stimulus package

Filed under: Uncategorized — conservativelawstudent @ 11:55 pm
Tags: , , ,

While it doesn’t kill the bill, it did pass after all, it does send a strong message. There will be no republican stake in the fallout from this massive pork infested crap sandwich. A Pyrrhic victory to say the least, but for the first time since the great sleep-over just before the election, I am proud to stand with the party I support with most of my votes.

Now, with the dozen or so republicans heading over for drinks with the President, I am wondering what the mood will be like. Will there be a lot of post-partisan singing and jovial banter?

I think not.

The Sun is rising on Congressional Republicans

The Sun is rising on Congressional Republicans

January 22, 2009

From each, according to his ability. . .

Filed under: Uncategorized — conservativelawstudent @ 3:18 pm
Tags: ,

. . . to each according to his needs. Maybe the scariest clip I have seen of the American government in action.

So, as a professional, middle-class, white male, who has been on unemployment for 20 weeks now, I shouldn’t get any of the stimulus because I “don’t need it.” I would like to thank the Congressmen for letting me know what I need and don’t need. This is problem #1.

Problem #2 from the clip is the new New Deal. Government creating jobs is a pathway to disaster. This has been tried before, and failed. Something called the Great Depression, maybe you’ve heard of it. FDR tried to come up with a way to create jobs by building infrastructure and using government money (read: taxpayer money) to pay them. Now that the tax base is lower, the government now needs to increase taxes on private individuals, which drives the tax base even lower, which forces the government to increase taxes on individuals, and eventually you get to a point where the tax base is close to nil, and there is no longer any money to pay your infrastructure workers. This is not theory, this is not speculation, this is verifiable fact based on history. Specifically, history in the 1930s. The New Deal failed, and according to this 2004 UCLA study, actually prolonged the Depression.

The free market system must be allowed to fail from time to time. This is called market correction. When things like housing values skyrocket out of control, eventually that bubble must burst, and the industry takes a nose-dive, although it the dive would far shallower without the intervention of the government. The drop would fall just below their “correct” location, and see a minor spike back up to fall back in line with inflation. The democrats inflated the housing bubble artificially by forcing banks to take on high-risk loans in the interest of “fairness,” so that when this bubble burst, it was far worse than a normal market correction. The Federal Government needs to stay out of the housing industry, the auto industry, and every single other industry in the country. Let bad things happen from time to time, it is how people learn and adjust their behavior. Without the risk, there is no fear, and we can expect a lot more of this to happen before anything gets better.

But that was before the coronation of The One. He is here to make all things better, and will make sure it works this time, right?

At least the trains will run on time.

January 21, 2009

Could not have said it better myself

Filed under: Uncategorized — conservativelawstudent @ 1:35 am

It’s been a while since I’ve blogged about politics, mainly because after a two-year campaign season, if you can call it that, I am wiped. I have blogged about sports enough over at my blogspot home to keep me busy.

But, finals are over, another term has fired up, and I find myself getting back into the blogging spirit. The first blog back will not be an original, but taken from Big Hollywood. Andy Levy gives us conservatives a nice rundown of how not to be exactly like the people we have been chastising for the last eight years, and how we can be a better minority.

I do want to add one personal note. While I think the things President Obama will do will ultimately fail, I sincerely hope we are better off in four years. I will be praying for him, as well as for his family, and wish him the best of luck, and Godspeed.

I’ll be back a little more often from here on out.

December 19, 2008

Bush Hands UAW Bailout Illegally

Filed under: Economy — conservativelawstudent @ 8:38 pm
Tags:

Not to mention one of the worst, if not the worst decision he has made in a running string of bad decisions. As I have written about before, the American auto industry is in shambles. It is partly about management, but most of this has been caused by the UAW. And make no mistake, this bailout is for the UAW. This will not work, and they will be back within months asking for more. But next time, Ford will be included.

LET.THEM. FAIL. Much like a forest fire is a healthy thing for the forest, when a bad business model fails, it is bad in the short term, good overall in the long term. There will be a vacuum that will be quickly filled by better, more efficient companies.

Not to mention that using TARP funds for this is illegal. The funds for TARP are for “financial institutions.” The Big Three are most certainly NOT financial institutions. Although the definition in the statute is very broad, with the phrase “including, but not limited to,” that does NOT give the government carte blanche to give money to anyone in need. Yes, it will be hard. Yes, a lot of good people will lose their jobs. If there is anyone who knows what that is like, it is me. But it is necessary. And exactly where is this money coming from? Where are these TARP finds coming from? The government HAS NO MONEY! They are in a deficit. A big one.

Bush has been a complete and utter disappointment over the last year. Other than his foreign policy, he has me completely disgusted with the government as a whole. We are slipping very quickly into socialism.

November 25, 2008

The difference between right and left economic theory

Filed under: Economy — conservativelawstudent @ 4:41 pm
Tags:

Normally, when a conservative and a liberal start arguing about economic theory, it ends badly, and both sides are only more entrenched in their opinions than before.  This stems from the facts that they tend to argue the branches of their theories against each other, rather than go back to the place of common thought and argue the first place of divergent opinion.  For example:

If you have 10 people stranded on a desert island, each with $100 American in their pocket.  This means that there is a total of $1,000 on the island.  What is most money one person can make in one year?  A liberal would think that the answer is $900.  They already have $100, and they can only make what everybody else has in total.  A conservative knows this is wrong.  Money isn’t “made” by taking from one, but rather by the circulation of that money.  If Joe gives to Bob to build him a house, now Bob has more money.  Bob then gives to Jim to make him some food.  Jim then gives to Bill to protect his newly found restaurant, and so on and so forth.  The more money that is circulated around the island, the more money they all make, the more moeny they all spend, and each has a quality of life that gets exponentially better.  All of the things stated before can happen instantly, and there is no limit to what each can make.  In theory, each could make $3 Trillion every day!  This is a VERY simplistic way of showing how economics work, but it can be extrapolated to entire countries, like, say, oh, I don’t know, how about the US?  

What liberals want you to believe is that there is only so much money out there, and that to bring up the lower class, one must take from the upper classes and give it to them.  Where they go wrong is that an economy can grow and bring everybody up, including the lower classes, while not arbitrarily lowering another class down.  This is why conservatives are constantly clamoring for lower taxes.  In the hypo above, if there was on Senator on the island, who didn’t produce anything but offered valuable services to the others, the others would have to pay him, most likely in the form of taxes.  Well, if those taxes are too high, nobody has the power to purchase any goods or services from the others, and the economy of the island grinds to a standstill.  It is similar to the US economy — if the government takes too much of the producers money, they cannot purchase any goods or services from others, and everybody suffers.  

Where too many of the arguments that happen go wrong, is that the arguments stem from the higher taxes part of the theory, not the basic divergent theories about wealth creation.  This leads to two people arguing two different points in two different theories, and makes each mad until they just drop the conversation.

I will post more on how the island can teach us about the securities meltdown in a later post.

November 24, 2008

Big Three denied bailout. . . for time being

Filed under: Economy — conservativelawstudent @ 10:27 pm
Tags: , ,

As far as I’m concerned, having worked in the auto industry for the better part of a decade, the Big Three can just be allowed to fail. And they will. Even with a “bailout,” their management schemes and processes are so backwards and horribly executed, that a bailout will only delay the inevitable. Not to mention the union effect, which makes vehicles built in non-union shops upwards of $3,000 less for Joe Public to purchase.

Let’s take a better look at some of the arguments I have been hearing lately:

Argument 1
“They wouldn’t be in this situation if they made a quality product.”
This is not true. They have been making quality products, at times, in certain vehicles, and they still do not sell. Why not? Because you can get a comparable product, with the same quality, for less money built in a non-union shop. Why? Because you are not paying for the newspaper reader on the line making $90,000 a year. You are not paying for literally millions of unbelievably great pensions out there for these guys that worked on the line. You are not paying for the best of the best health care for these guys working 8-5, punching the clock on the way in, going out of their way to not go out of their way to help anyone else, and you are not paying for companies paying for workers who are not working.
From the management side, well, those of us on the ground floor have seen this coming for a long, long time. We have tried to make decisions based on what would be best for the long term, only to be shot down because some cell in some spreadsheet would all of the sudden not be green. And some manager in charge of that cell in that spreadsheet, who was not going to be the manager of that cell past another six months did not want to have to explain why, even though that cell is no longer green, it was good for the company long term.

Argument 2
“If they can just get through this, they’ll be all right.”
This is just wrong on so many levels. For the reasons stated above, nothing would change. The companies would take the money, continue business as usual, and we would be in the exact same position 3 years down the road, if it even took that long.

Argument 3
“They bailed out Wall Street because it is so integral to the economy, so is the auto industry.”
False. Wall Street is the backbone of all industry. Without the ability to borrow money, no industry can survive. The entire chain of product and process breaks down, no work gets done, nothing gets built and nothing gets purchased. The auto industry is a cog in the machine of US economy, but so was the railroad at one point. Not to say that we have reached a point where cars are obsolete, but just because a certain industry is a large part of the economy, most certainly does not mean that the economy cannot go on without it. It will fail, and it will be rebuilt, from the ground up.

What needs to happen

If they decide to go ahead with another crap sandwich for the auto industry, it needs to be with serious conditions. The first is to either dump or re-negotiate with the UAW. I would say dump it, scrap it, let them strike and be proud to say nasty things to people going into plants, making decent money and building quality product. UAW Ron Gettelfinger already has stated that his union workers will not negotiate pay or benefit cuts, so send them out. The next is to take the management of all three companies and fire them. One by one, all at once, whatever. Go find some smart managers from outside the auto industry, from companies that have succeeded, that know how to succeed, and install them in place. Then watch the fun as OEM/supplier relationships are restored, costs of doing everything go down as decisions are made with long term success in mind, rather than just looking good tomorrow, and parts are built better and more efficiently, driving up quality in the end product as well. I would rather my tax money did not go to these idiots, because this kind of good thinking would go unheralded, and we will be talking about this again in the near future, but it is a necessary step if the Big Three are to survive.

November 7, 2008

Before we predict the end of the world. . .

Filed under: Uncategorized — conservativelawstudent @ 7:01 pm
Tags: ,

Let’s all just take a big, deep, breath, and realize that Obama is not going to socialize the USA. At least not without the Republicans help. Some facts:

- The Democrats have 55 seats in the Senate. This is a majority, but not the 60 needed for a filibuster-proof freeway to socialism. For Obama and Congress to get anything through, they need the help of the Republicans, and for that they will either have to come to the center, or give something up. Having said that, the Republicans should come out and say right now that card-check and the mandatory community service for high school and college students are not bargaining chips. They are off the table. Completely. Say it now, and never revisit it.

- The Supreme Court is not likely to shift left during Obama’s reign. The two Justices most likely to scoot are both lefties, and the mix will remain as is. There are four lefties, four righties, and Anthony Kennedy, a guy in the middle who gets called a leftist from the right and a rightist from the left. Obama may think he is the most powerful man in America, but Justice Kennedy could probably win that argument.

Obama will dip his fingers into foreign policy and will move the country left, and the recession will deepen. But we must keep in contact with our representatives, constantly letting them know where we stand on certain agenda items, and which are absolutely non-negotiable. Get out the message that it was the Democrats that got us into this mess. I have never got into an discussion with a liberal that didn’t devolve into an ad hominem attack on me, but have never returned in kind. Keep up the diligence, and in 2010, get the House majority back, and dip into the Senate majority.

We are stuck with Obama for four years, get over it. But we can relieve Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid of their posts in two years. We need to get to work.

UPDATE: Sounds like he needs no help instituting the “fairness doctrine.” The FCC can do that unilaterally, and by June 2009, he will have the three out of five votes needed to “flip the switch” back on. Not good.

Next Page »

The Rubric Theme. Create a free website or blog at WordPress.com.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.