Who is John Galt?

"To Spend is to Tax"

Milton Friedman rather famously proclaimed that "to spend is to tax."  If the government is paying public sector employees -- regardless of where the government got the money -- then the fruit of workers' labor is being consumed by those who are doing the government's bidding.

Thus, even if someone "lent" the money to the government, the process of disbursing it -- spending -- taxes producers.  In other words, capping borrowing would bring immediate tax relief to the private sector.

It boggles my mind that Republicans could conceivably cave on the debt limit.  The party of limited government is actually worrying about, well, placing limits on government.  Even more unusual, they are attempting to sweeten the pot in order to get the left to accept additional government growth.  Just whose side are these Republicans on?

It's a bizarre premise.  The right should be looking forward to a government shutdown.  Especially if they are concerned about "taking the blame" for the disruption of government services.  The reality is that this is the easiest government cut Republicans will ever get to make.  All they have to do is draw the line in the sand, and all the hard choices fall on someone else. 

The real problem with reducing government has always been choosing which programs to keep, and choosing which sacred cows to slaughter.  But this time it's different.  This time, Obama has to make those choices.

It doesn't matter what Obama does.  If he cuts social programs and keeps the constitutional ones, then that's a choice he'll have to explain to the beneficiaries of those programs.  If he cuts constitutional government in order to save social programs, then he'll have to explain that choice instead.

The only challenge for Republicans is to stay on message: If Social Security Checks Stopped Coming It Would Only Be Because Obama Decided Not To Send Them.

 The bottom line is that there is more than enough funding to run the government at 2005 levels (plus some growth of entitlements).  We can fully fund Social Security and Medicare, and even make military payrolls.  But we do have to cut $100 billion a month in unfunded spending.  American Thinker shows what this would really look like, done right.

The question is whether Obama wants to do it right, or whether he wants to try blaming his worst possible choice on Republicans. From RedState: The President Declares He Will Shoot His Hostages.

 From Doug Powers, writing at michellemalkin.com:

Hopefully Social Security recipients are familiar with chess, because they’re now officially pawns in the president’s debt ceiling game.

Sorry, but this President's decision-making has not impressed me.  He's not "shrewd" -- he's somewhere between evil and incompetent.  Let Obama demonstrate the choices he would make when forced to choose, and I believe he will fall on his sword.

Republicans just need to stay on message.  These are the easiest spending cuts they'll ever have to make.  It has to stop somewhere.  If not here, then where?  If not now, then when?

pop quiz

I do think at a certain point you've made enough money.

Hmm.  How might John Galt reply to this?

a question about the "reconciliation" bill

Didn't Obama promise a token tort reform effort as one of the best Republican ideas to come out of the "summit"?

We know it wasn't in the Senate bill.  I've looked at the "sidecar," and I don't see it.  Isn't there supposed to be some tort reform language in there?  If you know where it is, please let me know.  And if you can't find it, please ask around, and ask others to ask around.

If this is a broken promise, it needs to be news.

Not that broken promises are news anymore...

unemployment steady - steadily climbing, that is

Despite claims that unemployment is holding steady, seasonally adjusted "U6" unemployment, which includes "discouraged" workers, has risen from 16.5% to 16.8%.  Last month's raw (unadjusted) U6 was in fact a record high.  Since the adjustments change, I'm still looking for the raw figure from this latest report.

Actual unemployment is not getting better -- chronically unemployed people are just falling off the chart.

paying people to not work

As government prepares to subsidize unemployment past 99 weeks, joblessness soars.

Which came first, the chicken or the egg?

mccotter: boycott the summit

Found via BigGovernment.com, on RedState.  Thaddeus McCotter explains the "trap" of Obama's healthcare summit:

The summit’s goal is to persuade the public that the Republican minority is “forcing” the Democrats’ heavy-handed tactics to foist this abominable bill upon Americans.

clever

Hat tip to Donald Luskin.

ultimatum and compromise

Democrats are threatening to use reconciliation to amend and pass healthcare reform if Republicans do not play ball at the upcoming "bipartisan summit."  I will explain why this is a bluff.

Quite simply, any inputs from Republicans will be seen by Dems as "worsening" the bill.  Democrats don't actually want anything Republicans might add to the legislation.

This leaves the Democrats with two choices: Pass the existing legislation using reconciliation, or pass even worse legislation that may ultimately require reconciliation as well.  Given those two options, why would Democrats work with Republicans?

The answer is: Because the bill doesn't have enough Democrat votes to pass via reconciliation.  If it did, they would have already passed it.  By introducing Republican ideas, Dems hope to either hope to win some Republican votes, or to convince some Democrat holdouts that only reconciliation will pass the bill.

Without Republicans, reconciliation is just too high a hurdle for the House.  The original House bill, in November, was passed with 220 votes -- all the liberals, around 15 "Blue Dogs," and one Republican.  Over 35 Blue Dogs voted against it.  Since then, Murtha and Wexler are gone, and Cao (the Republican) is unlikely to vote for it again.

Meanwhile, the bill has gotten significantly more unpopular, abortion restrictions have been gutted, and the tax provisions have changed.  Furthermore, Republicans are climbing on the generic ballot and Scott Brown has taken Ted Kennedy's bluest seat in the Senate.

With a sense in red and purple states that Democrats are trying to ram their healthcare reform through, Pelosi probably does not have all of her original Blue Dogs.  Getting back to 218 votes is already an uphill battle.  She probably can't get 218 votes in favor of the bill, and she certainly doesn't have that many now.

Besides, if the Dems could pass it without making Republican concessions, they would.  Democrats don't have the votes in the House for reconciliation, and I think Republicans recognize this.

exactly what they should do

This is exactly how I'd hoped Republicans would deal with Obama's "invitation" to discuss healthcare before the cameras.  John Boehner makes public the House minority's written response.

Since then, the President has given dozens of speeches on health care reform, operating under the premise that the more the American people learn about his plan, the more they will come to like it.  Just the opposite has occurred: a majority of Americans oppose the House and Senate health care bills and want them scrapped so we can start over with a step-by-step approach focused on lowering costs for families and small businesses.

The letter then lists a series of questions probing the sincerity of the president's offer.

It's a good political response to a clearly political move.  I wonder if the White House will even reply.

"seasonally adjusted unemployment"

"Real" (U6) unemployment is at a record 18%.  Today's supposedly lower figure, 16.5%, relies on a seasonal adjustment.

Accepting the "seasonal adjustment" is another way of saying record 18% unemployment is less bad than it seems because unemployment's always higher in January.

But if unemployment was always this high at this time of year, then 18% wouldn't be a record, would it?