Who is John Galt?

identity theft

Suppose there was a person who took out credit cards and loans in your name.  He buys whatever he wants, and all the bills come to you.  Would you pay them?  I'm thinking you wouldn't.

Yet the government does exactly that.  Every day, the government borrows money -- often from sources who would like nothing better than to have influence over you -- and it borrows it in your name, with the understanding that it will make you pay it back.  Are you planning to pay it back?

I'm thinking you aren't.  Even if you support big government, my guess is that your support relies on a condition that you should only have to pay your "fair share," and that the really big bills will go to someone with the "ability" to pay them -- someone whose "fair share" is considerably bigger than yours.  If you support big government, you're probably demanding that Washington get its books straight, starting with tax increases on "the rich."

There are only around 100,000,000 -- 100 million -- people actually paying income tax in the U.S.  There are eight zeros in that.

The problem is that the credit card balance is 14,000,000,000,000.  With twelve zeros.

If you're counting on the rich to knock enough zeros off of that balance so that you and all the other "non-rich" people can divide up your "fair share," you're seriously overestimating how much the rich have.  Part of the definition of being that rich is that such people are somewhat rare.  There simply aren't that many of them.  Furthermore, being really rich -- with a few extra zeros, like Bill Gates -- is exquisitely rare.  Bill Gates' entire fortune would only run the government for days.  Would you really give half of Microsoft to the Chinese for another week of federal government?

I have a hard time imagining any distribution of the national debt which doesn't work out such that every American basically owes an entire house.  If you're a "poor" American, it may be a small house, but it's still a house.  (Seems ironic, when you consider that this crisis basically started with an initiative for everyone to own a house, doesn't it?)

A lot of people think it's important for the government to have good credit.  Not me.  I want its credit revoked.  I want the cards cut up.  I'm not seeking to bankrupt it, though that's tempting.  But the federal government does need to live within its means.  Our means.  Your means.  We've bought it enough houses.

Grover Norquist once said, "I don't want to abolish government. I simply want to reduce it to the size where I can drag it into the bathroom and drown it in the bathtub." 

I don't know if I'd go that far, but I can tell you one thing: I'm sick of the damned thing taking out mortgages in my name.

understanding class warfare

When we think of class warfare, we think of a political effort to pit the poor against the rich.  The premise is that someone who has more than you is your enemy, which I suppose would be correct if you intend to satisfy your own needs by means of "might makes right" -- by taking from them through force or coercion.

But, assuming that both you and he are capable of producing, free trade holds that someone who has more than you should be your friend.  They say that you can't get a job from a poor person, and it's hard to imagine a better relationship with a rich person than one which makes both of you richer.  It's certainly more productive than a relationship which seeks to make you richer by making him poorer.

An interviewer once asked Ayn Rand if it was okay for some men to have caviar while other men want for bread.  (For some reason, such questions seem more valid with a Russian flavor.)  If we know that caviar costs a hundred times as much as bread, then we can imagine that a hundred poorer men could buy bread with the money a single rich man might spend on caviar.

But money, bread, caviar -- even men -- do not really work this way.  A price is a balancing point between supply and demand.  While bread and caviar have their own balancing points -- prices -- which can be compared to each other, there is no direct translation between bread and caviar themselves. 

fixing the 17th amendment

Ed Morrissey analyzes a proposed constitutional amendment allowing states to repeal acts of Congress.  Morrissey correctly notes that at the heart of the problem is the 17th Amendment, which effectively disenfrachised the states in the US Senate.

Those who want to see government restrained by the states would do better to repeal the 17th Amendment.  Instead of requiring popular votes for Senators, go back to the original purpose of the Senate and let the states choose how to pick their Senators instead.  Some might keep the popular vote in place, but those states concerned about federal encroachment on state sovereignty might return to having appointments made by the state legislatures, or governors confirmed by the legislatures.  That would make the state itself the constituent of each Senator, and they could overrule the populist inclinations of the House by thwarting encroaching legislation.

Unfortunately, we are well beyond repeal of the 17th Amendment.  People simply like "democracy," at least in the sense that they prefer direct election of senators.

However, there is a viable amendment that would fix the problem at its source without disenfranchising voters: A Senate Recall Amendment.  Under such an amendment, states (or state legislatures) would able to summon their senators, during which time the senator would be deemed absent by the Senate.  This would effectively modify Article 1, Section 6, which prohibits members of Congress from being detained from congressional business.

The Senate Recall Amendment is a very workable idea to restore states' representation in Congress without jeopardizing popular election of Senators.  And in the wake of Obamacare, particularly after the Republican sweeps of 2010, both the states and the public could easily get behind it.

Imagine what would have happened to Obamacare if every Democrat senator from a red state had been called home before (and during) the cloture vote.

finally, a liberal definition of "freedom"

By now, you've no doubt seen or heard the quotes from Nancy Pelosi, extolling the virtues of universal healthcare:

Think of an economy where people could be an artist or a photographer, a writer, without worrying about keeping their day job in order to have health insurance.

 

Imagine an economy where people could follow their passions and their talent without having to worry that their children would not have health insurance, that if they had a child with diabetes who was bipolar or pre-existing medical condition in their family, that they would be job-locked.

From the American Thinker:

The problem with Pelosi's remarks, however, is that from hindsight, they are not bright, new, or liberating. On the contrary, almost identical words were penned over a hundred years ago by another champion of economic "freedom": Karl Marx. Marx criticized the private economy because it led to the "renunciation of life and of human needs." 

Like Pelosi, Marx was deeply troubled by an economic system that left most people job-locked and unable to satisfy their "human need" to become more authentic. In other words, the more you have to work, said Marx, "the less you eat, drink, buy books, go to the theater or to balls, or to the public house, and the less you think, love, theorize, sing, paint, fence, etc."

...This kind of sheer lunacy could have been hatched only by an unemployed academic and journalist like Marx, who, by the way, was supported financially in his authentically job-liberated struggle against capitalism by his wealthy colleague Friedrich Engels. What's most disturbing is the number of wild-eyed crusaders, both then and now, who have fallen for Marx's creative definition of "freedom."

So I guess I can quit my day job and become a full time blogger.  Sure, it doesn't pay as well, but we're well on our way to the point where so much will be "free" that we won't really need money anyway.

It's like that cartoon where Obama gives everyone freebies and then promises them jobs, too: What do we need jobs for?  Money's the same way -- once everything's paid for, what will be the point of money?

The problem is that doctors, like the rest of us, don't work for money.  They work for the things the money can buy.  And when you guarantee that someone doesn't have to actually produce anything to get money -- or health insurance -- you're left with the question of who, exactly, will produce the things of value that doctors work for.  Call it a wild guess, but I'm thinking your doctor appreciates the net value of your contribution at your regular job more than your fine art.  Your job is supposed to be what you do in exchange for the things you consume, and the idea is that everything you produce should be equal in value to everything you consume.

So I guess healthcare reform is now an extension of the National Endowment for the Arts -- another fringe benefit added to the compensation package for people who receive an entitlement for doing whatever they want instead of doing what other people might actually be willing to pay them for.

If the economy actually makes it that far, we're approaching the point where you'll be able to lose your job, take unemployment for as long as two years, and have your healthcare paid for. 

Think about it: The classic unemployment benefit problem is one of denial -- a laid-off worker holds out for his old job, his old salary, his old benefits; it's only when the money runs out that his hand is forced and he finally accepts his new position in the economy.

In a way, it comes down to an agreement about your job title.  You may call yourself an assembly line worker for as long as you receive unemployment, but the truth is that you cease being an assembly line worker the day the factory shuts down.  And all that time you think you're still in manufacturing while you're drawing a benefit?  Well, that's just the period where you don't yet realize that from now on you're going to be in retail.

By Pelosi's line of thinking, your lost job is no longer a signal that you're more valuable elsewhere.  Now it's an opportunity for you to throw your energies into producing nothing of material value -- without having to be worried about living on the nothing that you produce.

Pelosi just increased the benefit: Instead of waiting for the day when a furloughed assembly line worker figures out that his new future is in retail, we're going to throw in a little something extra so he can try his hand at painting.  Wonderful.

Let's just hope all the doctors -- and all the people who produce all the things starving artists need -- don't suddenly decide to become violinists.  Or glass-blowers.  Or whatever.

The real mind-boggling going on here is that we're supposed to feel sorry for people who could be artists if only they weren't "job locked" in occupations of actual value.

And it's interesting how your boss -- your job -- is something to be liberated from.  People don't realize that it's your needs that enslave you -- your boss and your job are actually part of the solution.

That's the John Galt Line.

 

michael barone

The man is a god.

nothing has changed

I'm just taking a break to watch the show.  Like you, I spend my days following the counts provided by people with the proper sources and time to compile them.

Here are two of my favorite vote counters:

• The Hill
• David Dayen

I'll give you a hint for reading whip counts:  Don't focus on "216."  The most important number right now is 38.  That's how many Democrats must oppose the bill in order to stop it, and it's a lot easier to count.

And despite all the uncertainty, the fact that no vote is currently scheduled should tell you that we're ahead.  Internally, there are no "undecideds."  What we call undecided is simply unreported.  The whips know exactly which way each of their members would go if the vote was held at a given time.

If the libs can't erode resistance below 38 by the time members go home for Easter break, the measure will never pass.

I saw someone at the Weekly Standard refer to "fauxmentum."  That's a good term.  Inevitability is an illusion.  If the leadership was really so sure, the vote would already be scheduled.  Last night I was reading that libs are asking Obama to delay his vacation again.  They're not making the progress you might think they're making.

healthcare whip count

Jay Cost of RealClearPolitics.com keeps a running tally of House Democrats on healthcare reform.

I've been following Jay on Twitter for some time, and I really like his work.

no, massa

On Drudge: Is Eric Massa being tossed out because he's a "No" vote on the Senate bill?

An interesting dynamic here that I'd overlooked.  When Massa leaves, the threshold for passage drops to 216.  For the liberals, ousting their own "No" votes is the same as ousting Republicans.

Of course, resigning is still Massa's call.  There can be political motives for bringing ethics charges, but I have to think Massa makes his own decisions about leaving.  If he does stay as a "No" vote, then that's better than having him stay to vote for the bill.

I'm not sure I believe the story though.  Massa's pretty liberal.  His explanation for his vote against the House bill sounded a lot like Kucinich's vote.  If necessary for passage, I've figured the liberals already have him.

It is interesting, though, that Dems may be reduced to culling their own ranks.  If true, it would suggest they've hit a wall in their search for more votes from within.  Without a CBO score, though, I don't see how they've reached that point yet.  So while it could happen, I'm not sure that's what's going on with Massa.

And yet, I just can't put anything past these people.  The libs will bring out some very long knives indeed to pass this, if necessary.

pelosi's hole cards

Of the 220 representatives who voted for the House healthcare bill in November, only 216 Democrats remain.  It currently takes 217 votes to establish a majority in the House, meaning that Pelosi will have to turn at least one of the "No" votes from November into a "Yes" vote in order to pass the Senate bill.  She will also need to turn one "No" vote for each member she loses over the Senate's abortion language.  It's likely that she's lost some additional votes over the healthcare effort's increasing unpopularity, but she may have also gained others simply because the Senate bill is more moderate than the original House bill was.

Presumably, some Dems sought Nancy Pelosi's permission to vote against the House bill to avoid taking a beating back home.  These members would have been prepared to vote in favor of the bill, but only if necessary for passage.  If the bill could pass without them, they would have wanted to vote against it.

When Pelosi goes looking for votes to make up for her losses, she's going to start with those "pocket votes."  When the Senate bill comes through the House, she'll be calling in those votes to make up for Murtha, Wexler and Abercrombie, and whoever Stupak's taken with him.  I expect her to get Kucinich as well, and I think she would have gotten Massa's vote if he wasn't resigning.

So just how many such "hole cards" does Nancy have?  Well, as Jay Cost has pointed out, if Pelosi was sandbagging more votes than Stupak had, then she would have used those votes to keep the Stupak amendment from ever getting to the floor.  It can't be that many.

Below is CSPAN video of the House of Representatives passing its healthcare reform bill.  I picked this clip because it starts before the bill reaches majority.  What I want you to see happens within the first minute.

What we should expect to find is that some Democrat "No" votes are held back until the "Yes" votes reach 218.  Remember, those members can only cast their votes against the bill if there are enough votes to pass it without them.  So they would withhold their votes to the very end, not really knowing until the last minute which way they'll have to go.

As the video opens, the Democrats are at 216-36, with 6 votes to go.  Allowing that what we see on the count may not fully explain what's actually taking place on the House floor, three "No" votes are registered in fairly quick succession.

I can only imagine that these votes were held till the very end because it took that long for certain members to be sure the bill could pass without them.

I'd also like to point out that of the 39 who voted against the original House bill, at least 20 voted for the Stupak language.  I think it's safe to say that those 20 are not going to be voting for the Senate bill, leaving Pelosi with about 16 or 17 Democrats that she could potentially turn, including her original hole cards.  And if Stupak's taken as many votes as he says he's taken, she's going to have to dig deep into that reserve.

whip-counting democrats

Jay Cost (H/T to BigGovernment.com): Factors in the search for House Democrats to approve the Senate healthcare bill.

How many such "options" does Nancy Pelosi have among these 38 nay voters? That's the big question, and it is impossible to pin down a precise answer. However, it's important to note that the Stupak amendment is precisely the kind of bill that the party leadership does not allow onto the floor - it passed, but with a majority of the majority voting against it. That Pelosi allowed this to happen suggests that she needed the Stupak voters, which in turn suggests that they are (or at least, were) more numerous than however many pocket votes she had.

Cost also mentions here (and elsewhere) that reconciliation will be about winning over liberal Democrats rather than moderates.  Consider the tax on "Cadillac" plans, which is part of the Senate bill.  House liberals sensitive to union interests are going to want that fixed in the reconciliation bill before they'll okay the Senate healthcare language.