I am fully aware that there are many articles that talk about more important things than this, but I was struck by just how flat-out bizarre this was. Being incredibly cynical about politics, I am not inclined to judge a person by which party they're a member of, instead basing my assessment on the individual.
This glorious display of mental acrobatics certainly cements Joe Biden as a very unique individual: http://firstread.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/02/27/17118912-biden-says-illinois-race-sent-a-message-on-gun-control?lite
It's one thing to support gun control. There's a case to be made for it, there's facts and evidence for both sides, and so on and so forth. The debate is necessary and productive. Gun control is not the issue here - the issue is Joe Biden's ability to draw an utterly bizarre conclusion from a really normal scenario.
Situation: A Democratic, pro-gun control candidate wins in a heavily Democratic district of the left-leaning state of Illinois, which is home to Chicago, with the strictest gun laws in the nation - and is also the only remaining state that does not allow concealed carry. There is literally nothing unexpected about this scenario at all - it's exactly as meaningful as a Republican winning in rural South Carolina.
Mr. Biden then declares that this situation proves that representatives and senators will not endanger their careers if they vote for more gun control, and also argues that this shows that Americans as a whole are totally in favor of even more gun laws. Recap: this race was in a Democratic district of a Democratic, pro-gun control state.
I must confess, I am utterly at a loss as to how this particular race proves anything except that candidates of party X are likely to win in districts that favor party X. Now, if a pro-gun control politician had been elected in, I don't know, rural Texas, that might prove something. Now, I don't think Mr. Biden is stupid - his thought process just confuses me. If, however, he wants to make a case that Americans support gun control, he should probably use national polls that are an accurate cross-section of the U.S. population.
Wednesday, February 27, 2013
Tuesday, February 26, 2013
Sequester scare!
We all keep hearing incessantly about the sequester, how the spending cuts are going to cost jobs, etc. etc. Here's President Obama's position on it (despite being the originator of the idea, if I'm not mistaken): http://www.businessinsider.com/obama-sequester-speech-virginia-newport-news-military-cuts-sequestration-2013-2#ixzz2M28nfgsE
It's going to cost jobs? Yikes! That's the last thing we need!
Wait a minute. Aren't there very, very large portions of the Federal budget that don't involve productive jobs? Yes, yes there are. In fact, if one were exceptionally cynical, one would almost think that Mr. Obama is threatening the loss of jobs to avoid getting it passed.
Before we go any further, we need to look at the sequester as it really is. The cuts are $1.2 trillion over ten years. That sounds big until you think about it. It's most definitely neither a large nor meaningful "cut," and in fact it's up for debate whether it's a cut or not. Spending will still increase by larger and larger amounts over the next decade - assuming the U.S. doesn't default by then - while the sequester just sort of sits there as a minor slowing of the increase in spending, allowing Republican politicians to pretend they did something right and giving the Democratic ones something to moan and whine about ad nauseum. In short, the sequester isn't even a stopgap measure, it's the epitome of feel-good legislation. It will have almost no actual effect in the real world, and certainly won't do anything about the debt.
Now, about those jobs. President Obama is currently claiming that the nonexistant "cuts" will cost productive jobs that everyone approves of. This is just not so. Senator Rand Paul - one of two current politicians that I actually like - has proposed an alternate sequester that involves exactly zero layoffs, demonstrating beyond doubt that the scaremongering about jobs is ignorant at best and dishonest at worst. You can see the alternate plan here: http://paul.senate.gov/?p=press_release&id=716
Even still, Senator Paul has very vocally acknowledged that the spending cuts in question don't actually mean anything in terms of the debt, and has stated that the only reason he supports it is because the other Republicans don't seem to have the spine to propose anything else.
It's going to cost jobs? Yikes! That's the last thing we need!
Wait a minute. Aren't there very, very large portions of the Federal budget that don't involve productive jobs? Yes, yes there are. In fact, if one were exceptionally cynical, one would almost think that Mr. Obama is threatening the loss of jobs to avoid getting it passed.
Before we go any further, we need to look at the sequester as it really is. The cuts are $1.2 trillion over ten years. That sounds big until you think about it. It's most definitely neither a large nor meaningful "cut," and in fact it's up for debate whether it's a cut or not. Spending will still increase by larger and larger amounts over the next decade - assuming the U.S. doesn't default by then - while the sequester just sort of sits there as a minor slowing of the increase in spending, allowing Republican politicians to pretend they did something right and giving the Democratic ones something to moan and whine about ad nauseum. In short, the sequester isn't even a stopgap measure, it's the epitome of feel-good legislation. It will have almost no actual effect in the real world, and certainly won't do anything about the debt.
Now, about those jobs. President Obama is currently claiming that the nonexistant "cuts" will cost productive jobs that everyone approves of. This is just not so. Senator Rand Paul - one of two current politicians that I actually like - has proposed an alternate sequester that involves exactly zero layoffs, demonstrating beyond doubt that the scaremongering about jobs is ignorant at best and dishonest at worst. You can see the alternate plan here: http://paul.senate.gov/?p=press_release&id=716
Even still, Senator Paul has very vocally acknowledged that the spending cuts in question don't actually mean anything in terms of the debt, and has stated that the only reason he supports it is because the other Republicans don't seem to have the spine to propose anything else.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)