Cross-posted at AustinHess.com and UncommonSenseBlog.com

by Austin Hess…

I’ve been surprised and disheartened by the number of Republicans (a minority, but sizable nonetheless) who have come to Todd Akin’s defense after his infamous (and inexcusable) “legitimate” rape comments and his (even more inexcusable and less “legitimate”) refusal to step aside in favor of a candidate who can, you know… win.

I am especially disgusted by Akin’s continued support by Mike Huckabee. I’ve always been fairly well disposed toward Huckabee, even though he and I come from very different sides of the Republican spectrum. I’m a hardcore fiscal conservative that is pretty libertarian about social issues (abortion is the only issue where Huckabee and I generally agree), while he’s a hardcore social conservative that seems pretty liberal (or doesn’t care) about anything else (he is often described as a “Christian Democrat”). I was floored by Huckabee’s reaction to the Akin controversy, though, and Huckabee should be ashamed of himself. After the deadline passed for Akin to step aside unilaterally (without court action), proving himself to be a selfish power-hungry narcissist, Huckabee sent out an email to his supporters defending Akin. Huckabee was virtually the only major politician to endorse Akin in the primary (besides the tacit support of Claire McCaskill as her weakest opponent), and he is now the only major politician continuing to support him (besides the tacit support of Claire McCaskill as her mortally wounded opponent):

Huckabee laments:

The Republican establishment put unprecedented and intense pressure on Todd to quit, including five current and past Missouri Senators.

Yes. And Sean Hannity, Mark Levin, Ann Coulter, Rush Limbaugh, Michelle Malkin and virtually the entire conservative commentariat (including yours truly, though I wouldn’t put myself at that level). I’d hardly call them the Republican “establishment.” This is the same pathetic line Akin and his few remaining supporters are pushing, and it is beneath Huckabee.

He continues:

Who ordered this “Code Red” on Akin? There were talking point memos sent from the National Republican Senatorial Committee suggesting language to urge Akin to drop out. Political consultants were ordered to stay away from Akin or lose future business with GOP committees. Operatives were recruited to set up a network of pastors to call Akin to urge him to get out. Money has changed hands to push him off the plank. It is disgraceful.

What is disgraceful is putting personal ambition before the causes you claim to champion, which is exactly what Akin is doing, and Huckabee is enabling.

Huckabee goes on to acknowledge that Akin made a “mistake,” and seems to reveal that he thinks Akin will probably use. He also reveals his motivation in his continued support of Akin:

If Todd Akin loses the Senate seat, I will not blame Todd Akin. He made his mistake, but was man enough to admit it and apologize. I’m waiting for the apology from whoever the genius was on the high pedestals of our party who thought it wise to not only shoot our wounded, but run over him with tanks and trucks and then feed his body to the liberal wolves. It wasn’t just Todd Akin that was treated with contempt by the thinly veiled attack on Todd Akin. It was all the people who have faithfully knocked doors, made calls, and made sacrificial contributions to elect Republicans because we thought we were welcome in the party. Todd Akin owned his mistake. Who will step up and admit the effort being made to discredit Akin and apologize for the sleazy way it’s been handled?

It appears that Huckabee is less concerned about Akin’s idiocy, but the long term fear that he has about the GOP’s strident social conservative voices being marginalized given the party’s fiscal focus in the age of the Tea Party. He asks:

If this can happen to Todd Akin, who is next?

He concludes:

I’ve heard the talk of new deadlines and the nonsense about the Republican Party running a 3rd party candidate, but I am no longer listening to that noise. The idea that our Party would continue to play games behind the scenes and feed the Democrats make-believe narrative of the GOP’s fictional war on women is equally ridiculous.

No, Huckster, it is idiots like Akin that are “feeding the make-believe narrative of the GOP’s war on women.” And, to quote Obiwan Kenobi, “Who’s the more foolish? The fool, or the fool who follows him?” That you continue to support him is the real ridiculous game being played.

Huckabee could have and should have used his influence as Akin’s only prominent supporter to talk him into resigning before last Tuesday’s deadine, and (failing that) he should be pressuring him to withdraw now before he can no longer legally do so. He is doing the exact opposite, regardless of the impact on the country.

Claire McCaskill deserves to lose, and she must lose. Romney cannot win the election without Missouri, and we very well might not take the Senate without Missouri. If either of those fail to happen, Obamacare WILL. NOT. BE. REPEALED. Akin’s idiocy and selfish clinging to the prospect of power has directly jeopardized our prospect for taking the Senate, and has damaged the Romney campaign (and Senatorial and House candidates) across the board, in addition to undermining the credibility of the pro-ife movement that Akin claims to champion. Rasmussen has confirmed that the Missouri Senate seat has moved from an easy pickup for Republicans to a sure loss if Akin remains the candidate. He is polling behind McCaskill, 48% to 38%. Worse, in the wake of this needless controversy, Romney is now trailing Obama 47% to 46%. Missouri should be an easy pickup in the Senate, and a gimme for Romney in the electoral college. Endangering that is inexcusable.

The stakes are too high. We cannot afford to lose. This is bigger than one person. I care far more about repealing Obamacare and undoing the damage that Obama and his minions in Congress have done over the last several years than I do about a single person’s hurt feelings. And that applies equally to Akin and Huckabee.

Of course, Akin’s campaign (true to form), won’t let the facts get in his way:

“The fact that Claire McCaskill is only polling at 48% after 72 hours of constant negative attacks on Todd Akin shows just how weak she is. If she can’t break fifty percent after a week like this, Democrats should ask Claire to step down. Todd is in this race to win; we will close this gap and win in November with the support of the grassroots in Missouri and across America.”

Jim Geraghty gives some sound advice:

No matter how much you love him, do not select your son to run your campaign. He may have a hard time acknowledging difficult truths when the candidate is someone so close to him.

Akin’s son could perhaps be forgiven for his “epic denial,” and I can even understand Akin’s hesitancy as he watches his dreams slip through his fingers. Huckabee has no such excuse. It is past time for Akin to step aside for the good of his professed causes, and Huckabee is preventing that from happening.

Even if I agreed with Akin’s lunacy 100%, I would want him gone, because of the implications on the future of this country if we lose. Huckabee should consider those implications. The RNC should also (re)consider allowing Governor Huckabee to speak at the convention, considering he (in his misguided loyalty to Akin) is perhaps the biggest obstacle standing in the way of taking over the Senate and White House and repealing Obamacare.

Of course, that won’t happen. Romney’s bona fides with social conservatives are already weak, and he wouldn’t want to antagonize them (or give fodder to the media) by feuding with a social conservative icon with as much clout as Governor Huckabee. Huckabee should consider using his clout for good rather than foolishness, though. I don’t want to be stuck in the unenviable position of making the losing argument: “Yeah, Akin is an idiot… but he’s OUR idiot!”

Posted via email from Uncommon Sense | Comment »

Cross-posted at AustinHess.com and UncommonSenseBlog.com

by Austin Hess…

I (mostly) refrained from commenting yesterday on Todd Akin’s selfish, narcissistic, and delusional refusal to bow out of the Missouri Senate race. Probably wise, as I was so furious. My one tweet was:

.@ToddAkin just raped the Republican party. Let’s hope it wasn’t “legitimate,” so we don’t get stuck with an unwanted candidate. #mosen

Like most Republicans and people who actually care about the fate of the country, I called on Aiken to do the right thing Monday night and step aside in favor of someone who could win the easily winnable MO Sente seat. He failed to do so. He put his own vanity ahead of his professed desire to save the country. In so doing, he has jeopardized the Republican party’s chances to take over the Senate and repeal Obamacare, and possibly Romney’s ability to remove Obama from office, in addition to doing tremendous damage to the credibility of the pro-life movement he claims to champion. I felt slightly sorry for him on Monday because his stupid statement was ruining his career, but his craven clinging to the chance of attaining greater power proves that he is undeserving of sympathy. His stupid statement proved that he is a moron, but his determination to persist proves that he is a power-hungry narcissist who cannot be trusted with power.

Ann Coulter sums up my sentiments well:

This guy Akin is more selfish than Eliot Spitzer. After being caught in a prostitution scandal, Spitzer spent two days looking for anyone who would come to his aid. When no one did, he resigned. Not Todd Akin!

Ann als points out that the Democrats have wanted to run against this idiot all along:

The Democrats carefully nurtured Akin with millions of dollars in campaign money because he was the candidate they most wanted to run against. (Akin thinks all those Democrats voting for him in the primary merely shows that he’s got tremendous crossover appeal!)

You’ll notice that the only people complaining about Republicans trying to replace Akin (other than Akin himself) are Claire McCaskill and her supporters.

I’m also with Ann on the solution:

It’s time for a nuclear bomb. Republicans should stage a write-in campaign for a popular Republican, such as Kit Bond, former governor and senator from Missouri.

If Akin had done the decent thing and dropped out, he could have been replaced with one of the stellar pro-life primary candidates. But for a write-in campaign to work, it has to be a well-known and loved Missourian — someone whose name people know how to spell.

It will be much better for Republicans to be seen as having a zero-tolerance policy on stupid rape comments than counting on people to notice that Republicans universally repudiated this narcissist.

We need Republicans out there saying, “Akin’s not our candidate; our candidate is Kit Bond.

The response from Democrats and their “War On Women” bullshit (which Akin has reinforced) has been as predictable as it is insufferable and intellectually bankrupt, even at the highest levels in the Democratic party, like the detestable Barbara Boxer saying Republicans “don’t like their mos or first wives.”

As an example of the idiocy that Akin has enabled: an old liberal acquaintance of mine on facebook, who attacks Republicans even more viciously (and less fairly) than I do Democrats (and who seems to think Scott Walker is the second coming of Hitler) posted a “helpful” guide on “How to have an opinion about womens’ reproductive rights.” It was a flowchart starting with the question: “Do you have a vagina?” It branches to “Yes: Ok, express your opinion” or “No: SHUT UP” before converging on “Done.”

I responded (in the same vein as my previous blog post):

Do you own a gun? An oil company? Run a union (or live in Wisconsin)? A private equity firm? Serve in the wars? Guess you’d better not have an opinion on those either.

By this logic, one could argue that anyone without a penis shouldn’t have an opinion on what a man does with it, including rape. That would be absurd, of course, because rape involves an innocent victim. Incidentally, that’s also what pro-lifers believe about abortion.

Anyone who believes an unborn child isn’t human but still wants to ban abortion is a fascist. Anyone who believes it is human but is fine with killing it is a monster.

Republicans need to be able to combat Democrats’ demagoguery, and Akin has made that immensely harder, and distracted from the real issues of this campaign. He is forcing himself on the Republican party. We shouldn’t be stuck with his unwanted candidacy regardless of his determination to bring his campaign to term. hs candidacy is no longer “legitimate.” He needs to go. We need him to withdraw so we can win this seat and save the country.

Posted via email from Uncommon Sense | Comment »

Cross-posted at AustinHess.com and UncommonSenseBlog.com

by Austin Hess…

By now, I’m sure everyone has heard Missouri Republican Senate candidate Todd Akin’s moronic statement about abortion in the case of rape. But in case you missed it, here it is:

“Well you know, people always want to make it as one of those things where how do you slice this particularly tough, sort of ethical question,” he replied. “It seems to me first of all, from what I understand from doctors — that’s really rare. If it’s a legitimate rape, the female body has ways to try to shut that whole thing down. But, let’s assume that maybe that didn’t work, or something. I think there should be some punishment, but the punishment ought to be on the rapist and not attacking the child.”

It’s mind-blowingly stupid on every level. I had a better grasp of biology when I was in 1st grade. It’s also stupid politically, making it clear that in addition to being an idiot, which is not a disqualification from office (see Joe Biden), Akin is incompetent and unable to deliver his message and win his campaign (and what kinds of stupid things could we look forward to him saying if he won?). Even people who agree with his stance on abortion policy-wise (as I do, for the most part) are outraged over his statement.

There is some question what he meant by the word “legitimate.” Some think it might refer to the difference between violent rape and statutory rape. From the context, though, I took it to mean someone who was “actually” raped, as opposed, I guess, to someone who kinda enjoyed it or was “asking for it.” That’s very offensive. It implies that the victim has some culpability. After all, if she wasn’t into it, her body would magically terminate the pregnancy, right? Even accepting Akin’s absurd premise that a woman could will herself not to be pregnant, there are holes in his logic. Wouldn’t killing a child by pure force of will still be wrong? And if it were possible, why would anyone need a medical procedure to end a pregnancy in the first place?

Todd Akin’s idiocy damages the pro-life movement by reinforcing the stereotype that anyone that is pro-life is insensitive to women (especially rape victims) and trying to impose their ignorant anti-scientific views onto women’s bodies. Statements like these make it harder to get our message across. Arguments that women ought to keep their legs shut or blaming rape victims are irrelevant as well as offensive. Equally irrelevant is the pro-choice canard of keeping law’s “off women’s bodies,” (I’d venture a guess that most pro-choicers support ObamaCare) because that misses the central point as well. The pro-life/pro-choice divide boils down to what constitutes a human life (and I believe the divide will persist until contraceptive technology advances to the point that unwanted pregnancies no longer occur). If you think a fetus is a human life, but still think it’s OK to kill it, you are a monster. If you do not think a fetus is a human life, but think a woman should be forced to carry it as punishment for her promiscuity or some other such nonsense, you are a fascist. The logical conclusion of the position that a fetus is a human life is to be pro-life. The logical conclusion of the position that a fetus is not a human life is to be pro-choice.

Consequently, I think almost all pro-lifers are not fascists trying to impose their sexual mores on others, but sincerely concerned humanitarians trying to save vulnerable lives. I also think most pro-choicers are not monsters (though some certainly are), but are simply misguided because they do not understand what constitutes a human life. That’s a scientific question, ultimately, and the only concrete dividing line between gametes (as part of the parents’ bodies) and a baby (or a fully grown adult, for that matter) is conception. From that moment on, that “bunch of cells” can’t truly be considered a part of the mother’s body, because only half of its DNA came from her. It is a genetically distinct human organism that, absent some accident or deliberate external contravention, will eventually grow into what nobody could deny is a human (anyone who disagrees with that has about the same grasp of biology that Todd Akin does). Therefore, an unborn child should receive the same protections under the law as any other human being. That’s also why abortion in the case of rape is wrong, because the father is to blame, not the mother or the child (sins of the father, etc.). I certainly empathize with rape victims, and I understand that the burden and emotional difficulty of bearing the child of a man that raped the victim compounds her suffering, but an innocent human life shouldn’t be terminated because of someone else’s crime any more than it should be terminated because it is inconvenient. Adoption would be preferable if the woman doesn’t want to keep the child (and it ought to be easier for childless couples or single people, gay or straight, to adopt). They only case in which I’d say abortion should be an option is when the life of the mother is in imminent danger, making it akin to self defense.

That’s not the argument Todd Akin was making, though (or if it was he royally botched it). It makes all of us, pro-lifers, tea partiers, and/or Republicans, look bad. Of course, it has been universally condemned. Romney and Ryan disavowed it, and many prominent Republicans, including Scott Brown, have called for Akin to step aside.

I have some modicum of sympathy for Akin, in that it’s sad that one stupid statement might just end his entire political career (even if he stays in and ekes out a win, he’d damaged goods and a liability to the party), but this is bigger than him. Our only hope of getting rid of Obamacare (thanks to Chief Injustice John Roberts) is repeal, and that can only happen if Republicans manage to get control of both the White House and the Senate (and keep the House) this election cycle (and of course, it’s important for other reasons). It could be close, so every race counts. The Missouri Senate seat should be an easy win for us. Claire McCaskill deserves to lose (and badly). Todd Akin’s verbal diarrhea just put that seat, and possibly control of the Senate and the repeal of Obamacare in jeopardy. For that reason alone, he should go, and make room for someone who can get the job done. Competence counts. Even if you happen to agree with Akin (not about biology, I’d hope), you can’t honestly say he hasn’t damaged the cause. Maybe you could dishonestly, but that’s what Democrats do.

We need to stop nominating incompetent morons like Todd Akin whose rhetoric scares off independents and cost us elections, especially in the Senate. We should have learned that lesson in 2010, when we nominated Sharron Angle and Christine O’Donnell for the Senate because they were “true conservatives,” without regard to their electability. That cost us two easily winnable seats (and kept Harry Reid in the Senate). The clusterfark of the Gubernatorial race in Colorado may have damaged us across the board there and cost us another. All of that made our job that much harder this time around.

I don’t know if Akin was the “true conservative” in this race or not. It seems to me that he represented the social conservative side, while Sarah Steelman represented the fiscal conservative side (I don’t know much about John Brunner). The point is, he may already have snatched defeat from the jaws of victory. He should do the right thing and step aside. Someone else should step in before it is too late. The life of our hope for winning this seat is in imminent danger, so I say it’s time to abort Todd Akin’s candidacy.

Posted via email from Uncommon Sense | Comment »

Cross-posted at AustinHess.com and UncommonSenseBlog.com

by Austin Hess…

Hilarious new ad from American Crossroads.

It hits several of the highlights of Biden’s gaffes, including his recent “They gon’ put y’all back in chains!” remarks. You couldn’t fit them all into a one minute ad, though. I’m partial to the (not included) one where he tells the guy in the wheelchair to stand up, which concludes with him asking himself “What am I saying?!”

They also didn’t include the latest ones where he forgot what state he was in, what century he was in, and that his rival for Vice President is a Congressman, not a Governor. But hey, it might be a bit soon to elevate them to the highlight reel.

I think it was extremely fortuitous that in the week following Paul Ryan’s rollout as a Vice Presidential candidate, the current Vice President has so vividly reminded the American public how frightening the alternative is. People aren’t asking if they’d be comfortable with Ryan being a heartbeat away from being President. They’re asking if they’d be comfortable with another four years of Biden being a heartbeat away from being President, and marveling at Obama’s failed judgement in putting him in that position. I hope it’s too late to swap Biden out for someone like Hillary.

As the ad concludes: “Joe Biden. America’s greatest Vice President. When we need him most.”

Posted via email from Uncommon Sense | Comment »

Cross-posted at AustinHess.com and UncommonSenseBlog.com

by Austin Hess…

Biden has been stumbling around my old stomping grounds in Virginia over the last few days. After telling a largely black audience of the Romney/Ryan ticket “They gon’ put y’all back in chains!” he decided that he apparently hadn’t made a big enough of a fool of himself. So, in Blacksburg (home of my alma mater, Virginia Tech) he challenged America to “lead the world in the 20th century in making automobiles.”

I for one, would like to commend Biden on his forward… er… backward thinking. I’m glad that the captains of industry in the 20th century decided to retroactively take his advice, and I’m very interested to know how he got his inspirational message back to them.

He also referred to his opponent ,Congressman Paul Ryan, as “Governor Ryan.”

At this point I’m convinced that the only reason Obama made Biden Vice President is so Republicans would never impeach him, for fear of making this moron President. I’d say I don’t know how he dresses himself, but I don’t know that he does. Maybe his handlers do that for him. I am impressed that he remembers to breathe, though. And I’m not alone in doubting his mental fitness to be President. Rudy Giuliani recently (under)stated that he “just isn’t bright.”

Biden also stopped by Radford, where I lived for a semester with my sister and some of her sorority sisters (plus a pot-bellied pig) who attended school there (I’m working on a sitcom pitch). He apparently wanted to do one of those tiresome photo-ops stopping in at a local eatery. However, the bakery owner, Chris McMurray, turned him down because he opposes Obama’s (and Biden’s) policies.

When asked why he didn’t want the Vice President to visit his small business, he said:

“Very simply, ‘you didn’t build that’”

The best part of the story is at the end:

Here’s the back story, we’re told that shortly after Crumb and Get It told Biden’s advance people ‘no’ — the secret service walked in and told Chris McMurray ‘’Thanks for standing up and saying ‘no’ — then they bought a whole bunch of cookies and cupcakes.

Good for McMurray. Personally, I would’ve accepted the offer and used the opportunity to confront Biden directly about the “you didn’t build that” remark by asking if he agrees, and something to the effect of “If I didn’t build this business, who do you think did? You?”

Of course, Biden probably would’ve called him a “smartass,” like he did to the custard shop owner who asked him to lower his taxes.

Biden has become such a walking embarassment that a lot of people are speculating that Obama might dump him (maybe Biden will resign for “health reasons”) in favor of Hillary Clinton. I hope that doesn’t happen as it would revitalize his campaign, but I doubt it will. Dumping Biden would require Obama to admit he made a huge mistake, which would be out of character. I also don’t think Hillary wants to be tarnished by Obama’s failure, or even wants Obama to win. It’s all about 2016 for her.

I’m looking forward to more idiocy from Biden over the few remaining month’s he’ll be in office. I can’t wait to watch him debate “Governor” Ryan!

Posted via email from Uncommon Sense | Comment »

Cross-posted at AustinHess.com and UncommonSenseBlog.com

by Austin Hess…

With the media doing it’s best to convince America that Romney’s selection of running mate was a bad choice that will hurt his prospects because he’s so extremely extreme, it’s worth keeping in mind the caliber of man that Obama, in his infinite wisdom, selected for his running mate (perhaps to make himself look smart by comparison?).

On a trip to Virginia, (where he apparently forgot where he was and gave a shout out to North Caronlina) Joe “One Heartbeat Away from the Presidency” Biden was discussing Wall Street regulations, and decided imply that his Republican (the party of Lincoln, if you recall) opponents want to return to slavery in a way I guess he thought would resonate with his apparently largely black audience.

Granted, I’ve only ever driven through Delaware (and never been to one of the 7-11s that Biden laments being taken over by Indians), but “They gon’ put y’all back in chains” doesn’t seem like something a former Senator from Delaware would say, at least not with that diction. It seems more like what Democratic Senate Majority Leader (and noted peddler of baseless accusations) Harry Reid called a “negro dialect” (when he “complimented” Obama for not having one, in addition to being “light skinned”).

Some might call that condescending and racially insensitive… if a Republican did it, that is. Biden can’t be racist because he’s a Democrat, though (see how that works?). Obviously he’s not racist because he works with Obama, and once himself “complimented” Obama as “the first mainstream African-American who is articulate and bright and clean and a nice-looking guy.”

Besides, there is a long history of Democratic politicians affecting “black accents” in front of black audiences, from Hillary Clinton to Al Gore (whose father, Senator Al Gore Sr., filibustered the Civil Rights Act). It’s to be expected. It’s all part of the Democrats race obsession, geared toward convincing minority voters to fear Republicans because they’re, er… race obsessed. It’s shameless demagoguery, sure, but I guess it’s better than saying Romney killed someone’s wife.

Dan Quayle will forever be branded an idiot because he misspelled “potato,” and Sarah Palin is best remembered for the “I can see Alaska from my house” line uttered by Tina Fey on SNL, thanks to the Democrat’s obedient lapdogs in the media. But when Joe Biden repeatedly engages in extreme hateful rhetoric or does something racist or idiotic (in this case all three), that’s just “Joe being Joe.”

People do realize Biden is a moron and a gaffe machine, though. And thankfully Romney has chosen a Vice Presidential candidate who will positively mop the floor with him in the debate.

Next time someone says that Romney made a poor VP choice, just respond with these two words: “Joe Biden” (look, I can count better than Joe “J-O-B-S” Biden!).

And no, Joe, you’re not going to win Virginia OR North Carolina.

P.S. Check out disgraced disgraceful disgrace Stephanie Cutter lamely try to defend Biden here.

Posted via email from Uncommon Sense | Comment »

Cross-posted at AustinHess.com and UncommonSenseBlog.com

by Austin Hess…

Rarely do my Star Wars geekery and political activism intersect, but as I was working on a way to visualize the enormity (and yes, I’m using the dictionary definition of “atrociousness,” not just immensity) of the US debt, I began to realize that, when you plot it as a circle with an area proportional to the dollar amount, it dwarfs any of the related figures (like any of the “draconian” cuts designed to reduce it)… and that if you arrange the circles a certain way, it starts to resemble the Death Star. I’d seen photoshops of the Death Star with the Obama O superimposed called the “Debt Star,” but I decided to make a Debt Star infographic that shows just what a threat our national debt is.

So, here is The DEBT STAR: 2012 (you can like it on facebook here if you want).

It shows the current figures from the US Debt Clock for the US National Debt, US Federal Spending, US Federal Tax Revenues, and the US Federal Budget Deficit, each as a circle with areas proportional to the dollar amount (all to scale). As you can see, we have a massive amount of debt, and we are spending much more than we take in (thought the deficit is less than it has been in other Obama years), so it is growing all of the time. It’s a trap!

Most of the cuts people talk about (like touted Obama’s $100 Million in savings in office supplies) sound like big numbers… until you compare them to our current deficit. Circles that size would probably be no wider than two meters on this chart (I should know. I used to bullseye womprats in my T-16 back home, they’re not much bigger than two meters). Even the dreaded “Fiscal Cliff” cuts that everyone is falling over themselves to avoid, amounting to $103 Billion, seem pretty paltry.

That $103 Billion is only 8.12% of our current $1.268 Trillion deficit, 2.84% of our current $3.633 spending, and only 0.65% of our debt. $100+ Billion cuts may sound scary to some, but we need to be cutting in the trillions if we’re going to stop hemorrhaging money, avoid bankruptcy, and start to pay down the debt. And no, raising taxes won’t help. All that would do would be to further damage the economy and decrease revenues. And you can’t tax the incomes of wealthy Americans at a high enough rate to even cover this year’s deficit, to say nothing of the next year, when everyone would be destitute. We don’t have a revenue problem. We have a spending problem.

For fun, I decided to expand the Debt Star chart to compare our current debt to our current unfunded liabilities (from Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, pensions, etc.) of $122.1 Trillion. Here, I let Alderaan stand in for the liabilities.

The facebook photo is here. As you can see, our unfunded liabilities dwarf even our already massive national debt (to say nothing of the $103 Billion in cuts). You can find some other great visualizations here. Obviously, we have to reform our entitlement system to avoid even more crippling debt. $15.95 Trillion is a lot of debt, but its only 13.09% the amount of our unfunded liabilities.

I also heard that the US fiscal gap (the present value difference between projected future spending and revenue) just jumped $11 Trillion to $222 Trillion (!). So I decided to compare the size of the Debt Star to that, along with the US GDP for 2011 (the latest year available, obviously) of $15.09 Trillion. This time, I let the red gas giant Yavin Prime represent the fiscal gap, and it’s moon, Yavin IV, represent GDP (here’s the photo on facebook).

As you can see, the national debt is already larger than last year’s GDP, and both are tiny compared to the fiscal gap. Our current debt is only 7.18% of the amount of the fiscal gap (and, incidentally, the $103 Billion in cuts are 0.04639%).

In short, “We’re doomed.” Unless, that is, we rebels in our secret base on that green ball can blow up the debt star and get back to fiscal sanity. I’m reminded of one of my bumper stickers (on my car with the “OBIWAN” license plate) that says “Rebel Scum do it in small thermal exhaust ports.”

All these Star Wars metaphors remind me of a great graphic I saw in the aftermath of Chief Injustice John’s Roberts’ Obamacare decision:

I think it’s applicable here as well. All government spending is taxation, however the spenders might spin it. Deficit spending is just future taxation, and all promises of future spending are promises of future taxation. The debt accumulated by deficit spending can only be paid off (with interest) by direct taxation of ourselves and future generations, or inflating it away by printing more money (which is an invisible tax on everything). So don’t fall into the trap of believing politicians like Obama spending us into oblivion but claiming they’re not raising taxes. Remember, “IT’S ATAX!”

Now, if I can just figure out how to make an infographic using Jabba the Hutt and Leia in her metal slave bikini…

Posted via email from Uncommon Sense | Comment »

Cross-posted at AustinHess.com and UncommonSenseBlog.com

by Austin Hess…

An update to my post yesterday on Menino’s attempt to punish Chik-fil-A for the owners’ thoughtcrime (expressing their religious conviction that marriage should be between a man and a woman) by keeping them out of Boston: apparently his lawyers have successfully explained to him that he is not, in fact, King.

According to the Herald:

Boston Mayor Thomas M. Menino repeated today that he doesn’t want Chick-fil-A in Boston, but he backed away from a threat to actively block the fast-food chain from setting up shop in the city.

“I can’t do that. That would be interference to his rights to go there,” Menino said, referring to company president Dan Cathy, who drew the mayor’s wrath by going public with his views against same-sex marriage.

Huzzah! Mumbles has acknowledged there are at least some limits to his power and that people have rights (including freedom of speech!). He was even gracious enough to hand us a new hashtag to make fun of him:

Meninoism (I was thinking of starting #ShitMyMayorSays):

The mayor added: “I make mistakes all the time. That’s a Menino-ism.”

You sure do, Mumbles. Unfortunately, he didn’t stop there.

“Some people might not like these positions, but as mayor of the city of Boston, you can’t run and hide, and I’ll always protect people’s rights,” Menino said. “I’m right out front there and if people don’t like it, I feel sorry for them. But I’m the mayor of Boston and I get elected to make my opinions known.”

No, Mumbles. You were elected (inexplicably) to administer city government, not shoot your mouth off and abuse your position to bully people that have a different opinion than yours. I wish that you realized that even if you COULD keep Chik-fil-A out of Boston it would be wrong of you to do so.

Also, I neglected to mention in my post yesterday (probably because it’s so obvious on its face) that trying to keep a business out of twn because of the owners’ speech would be blatantly unconstitutional.

I also thought of the perfect name for a Menino-themed restaurant to replace the Purple Shamrock: “Mumbles’ Mouthfuls.”

Posted via email from Uncommon Sense | Comment »

Cross-posted at AustinHess.com and UncommonSenseBlog.com

by Austin Hess…

Dan Cathy, the CEO of Chik-fil-A, recently opined on gay marriage:

I think we are inviting God’s judgment on our nation when we shake our fist at Him and say, ‘We know better than you as to what constitutes a marriage.’

I think that was a bone-headed thing to say from a PR perspective, but Chik-fil-A is well known to be a religious business to the point that they close on Sundays to observe the sabbath (which I think is bone-headed from a busness perspective). I also disagree with Cathy’s position on gay marriage. Personally, I think that marriage is between you, your spouse and your God and that government should butt out (civil unions for all, marriage contracts can be drawn up by churches). But, if we are to have a legal institution of marriage, equal protection under the law demands that same sex couples be allowed to marry as well.

I think it’s perfectly acceptable for those who disagree and are offended by Cathy’s statement to boycott Chik-fil-A (though I think that is bone-headed as well, and won’t be participating because I am not offended and Chik-fil-A is too damn delicious). What is utterly unacceptable, however, is how Boston Mayor Tom “Mumbles” Menino is responding (channeling his inner Mussolini):

Mayor Thomas M. Menino is vowing to block Chick-fil-A from bringing its Southern-fried fast-food empire to Boston — possibly to a popular tourist spot just steps from the Freedom Trail — after the family-owned firm’s president suggested gay marriage is “inviting God’s judgment on our nation.”

“Chick-fil-A doesn’t belong in Boston. You can’t have a business in the city of Boston that discriminates against a population. We’re an open city, we’re a city that’s at the forefront of inclusion,” Menino told the Herald yesterday.

He apparently thinks he’s been elected Godfather of Boston, rather than just mayor-for-life. I can just hear him cracking his knuckles (or possibly hitting a baseball bat in his hand) as he said this:

“If they need licenses in the city, it will be very difficult — unless they open up their policies,” he warned.

What is somewhat ironic about Menino’s thuggishness is that Chik-fil-A is apparently interested in the location currently occupied by the Purple Shamrock (moving because of rent hikes, and rumored to be replaced by a Bank of America), a bar named after the political symbol of another notoriously corrupt Mayor of Boston, James Michael Curley (who once got elected while serving time in prison). I can’t wait ‘til they start naming bars after Menino and I can get a “Mayor ‘Mumbles’ Menino Muffuletta sandwich.”

This is very reminiscent of Mumbles’ opposition to a Walmart opening in Jamaica Plain… because it would provide cheap food, products, and jobs to a low-income community I guess. In both cases, he is abusing his power in order to punish a business that he doesn’t like, but this time it’s even worse. The only difference is: in the first case he doesn’t like the owners’ business practices, but in the second case he doesn’t like the owners’ thought (thoughtcrime!).

Michael Graham, with his usual wit, took on Mumbles’ latest flirtation with fascism in the Herald today:

In most cities in the civilized world, a business owner’s opinions about cultural, political or social issues would be irrelevant to his ability to do business. In Boulder, Buffalo or Bangor a guy who believes the legal definition of marriage should remain “one man/one woman” may lose a few dinner invitations. But he’s not going to lose his right to do business… Ah, but this isn’t the civilized world. This is Boston.

Posted via email from Uncommon Sense | Comment »

Cross-posted at AustinHess.com and UncommonSenseBlog.com

by Austin Hess…

I discovered this great new ad from Scott Brown yesterday at HotAir. I think it’s pitch perfect for his campaign, and anyone who supports him (or at least, opposes Elizabeth Warren) should spread it around. Hopefully they can pare it down for a TV ad.

Scott Brown, by all logic, should be losing this election badly (and shouldn’t have been elected in the first place, for that matter), because, after all, this is Massachusetts (and this is a Presidential election year). However, he’s neck and neck with Elizabeth Warren. This is mainly due to her being a terrible candidate (I always say she’s like Coakley minus the charisma, credentials, and credibility) overall, her off putting personality (as demonstrated in her shrill and angry delivery of her anti-capitalist remarks in this video), and the controversy over her ancestry (follow @Fauxcahontas4MA on twitter for updates). Scott is also a likable guy, but that isn’t going to be enough to get him across the finish line (note to self: cut him another check). He may only vote with the GOP 55% of the time, but that’s better than having Warren vote against it 100% of the time. It’s worth supporting him to keep the woman who professed (before it became politically toxic) to have laid the “intellectual foundation” of the Occupy Wall Street movement (which part? the drum circles, the rape-free zones or the shitting in public?) out of the Senate. Scott at least understands what the American Dream is about. That’s the message of this video. Scott Brown gets it. Elizabeth Warren and Barack Obama do not.

Obama will almost certainly carry MA, so Scott will need to run well ahead of Romney to win. It’s bold of Scott to include Obama in an ad against Warren, but his “you didn’t build that” remarks are so widely reviled and echo Warren’s so perfectly, putting them in really drives the message home. Scott Brown positions himself as the true heir to the legacy of revered Democratic icons of the past who praised the American free enterprise system rather than denigrate it like Warren and Obama. He also invokes Reagan, who (let’s not forget), carried Massachusetts twice. Scott Brown did win running against big government before, and MA did vote for Romney as Governor. Who knows, maybe we’ll get lucky again with Romney (at the very least we can force Obama to expend resources here), but we should be able to defend the people’s seat. As this ad reminds MA voters, this isn’t their father’s Democratic party any more.

Posted via email from Uncommon Sense | Comment »