How To Save or Create Jobs for Dumbassses

Boring-ass video below, but good for a laugh for its absurdity when you get to the facts and ideas that come next:



This post is inspired by the joke of the year, the misnamed site Recovery.gov, the governmnet site showing where all our tax dollars poured into the "stimulus" bill have been wasted spent and how many jobs have been theoretically (by having people guess) saved or created.  It's a joke because each day brings new inaccuracies, especially to the dubious "saved or created" column.  From early guesstimates to ridiculously inaccurate reporting to even the White House admitting the numbers are iffy, the numbers keep changing as the errors keep appearing.

And then to top the mess of the site itself, there's the price per job so far ($230,000), the failure of the stimulus to actually help the people that need it the most, and the fun and pointless ways that this supposed job-growing economic stimulus mess wastes money ($219,000 for Syracuse University to study the sex lives of freshmen women for example (shit, I'd to that (and the freshmen women) for lots less)). 

But the biggest laugh of them all.  The fucking site has $18 million allocated to make it work!!! To put that in perspective, for four distinct email addresses and three active blogs, some of which have tracking info, as well as online document storage applications, I pay NOTHING.  In fact, I theoretically make money with the ads on this blog.  All because there are business models that allow us to get lots of software and webspace for the price of a little advertising.  And in physical costs, all you need is the servers, some code writers, and some staff.  And considering the timeframe, how can a relatively simple site cost $18,000,00.00 just for the redesign? If anybody out there has a clue how much it costs to create a site with similar content in the real world, let me know.  That way I have a hard number to laugh at.  Or even better, put the info out and let the people who sort through this shit do it.

All this, along with an upcoming "jobs bill" and the Obama "jobs summit" is bordering on ridiculous, if it wasn't for the fact that all this flurry to solve complex market problems was not complicated (actually worsened) by incessant government intervention with mindless free cash.

For example, one problem is rising unemployment.  Part of this problem is that we keep paying people to be unemployed.  I remember back in 2001 when I was on unemployment, with little of a pressing need to get another job (my circumstances were better at that point).  When the unemployment was extended, I rode out the extension to the end, avoiding like the plague any temporary employment that would cut into my unemployment check.  After all, since I paid into the system, I was going to get as much of that money back.  I know of businesses that have used the unemployment system to get through slow periods (because their employees are still earning some money that way). 

In the end, real employment is created when businesses have an incentive to hire people.  The problem is that no one of consequence in Washington seems to know how to create any incentive that doesn't directly correlate to reelection votes.  So here's the list of things that will immediately get the engine of capitalism humming again, and will eliminate the need for Obama to even waste our time with his jobs summit.


The FairTax (or related concepts) - The very simple concept is that taxing businesses and individuals with increasingly complicated and punitive taxes for economic success makes money and jobs and whole companies start looking to Communist China as a land of opportunity.  And while I champion the all-inclusive solution of the FairTax, the principles that make it work are the key to dealing with the lack of motivation to create jobs in this country.  After all, when reams of paperwork and tax info are required any time you hire someone, you don't want to do it until you have no choice.  Instead, you dump more work on the people you have or use the temp agencies.  This, by the way, is why unemployment is a lagging indicator in a recession.

The Pit of Debt Despair - Along with fixing the obsessive need to tax everything in existence and everyone into "equality," much of our current mess is the result of an overaccumulation of debt, in both the private and government sectors.  While individuals will use debt to extend their buying power, business often will leverage a certain amount of debt to allow for operations even in tougher times, and governmnet has the ability to use debt in times of need (like wars and crises) to deal with situations, the chronic reliance on debt saps the ability to use money efficiently, and simply eats up value that could use to expand, and hire in the process.

Mandate Paranoia - Government mandates (like employer-provided health care (with penalties for not providing it) for example) are instant job killers.  Very simply, when legislation is working its way through Congress that is going to add to expenses, and companies are on a tight margin, why would they want to invest in employees that could suddenly cost a whole lot more with no added value?  The idea of adding profit-killing mandates at a time when job growth is a priority is simply dumb, whether the concept is good or not (my example is not a good concept, but even if it was, it's still another expense at a time when more expenses mean fewer jobs).


Sustainable Jobs - Government can't create them.  Period.  Let me clarify what a sustainable job is.  A sustainable job is something that produces something of value, which produces income, and therefore pays for itself.  Private industry creates these jobs in the pursuit of profit.  The things I have listed above are things that eat away at this profit without adding any real value.  And most of these are caused by government.  Contrast that with Government, which creates jobs by taking money from the private sector.  By and large, those jobs don't add any value to the economy or infrastructure, and are usually the most inefficient uses of money that could otherwise be adding value.  At best, government purchases things from the private sector that leads to added value.  And "stimulus" money too often artificially stimulates jobs that would not exist otherwise, until that money goes away.  Then it's pink slip time.

In the end, the manufactured "created or saved" numbers mean dick, as some may be jobs that would have come about anyway, some are bullshit numbers required to get fed cash, some are funded jobs (aka governmnet-by-proxy make-work funded jobs) that will die with the funding, and some may actually have been created or saved (at a cost of at least ten times the annual salary per job).  And in the end, as long as we keep looking to the government to "fix" the economy, the longer we'll languish.  After all, we have the legacy of government intervention by Presidents Hoover and Roosevelt to look at to see how an economic crash can last a decade.


Finally, and somewhat related to the post, here's a post I found in my research entitled Fun With Numbers!  It's worth a read, but it didn't fit exactly in what I was trying to point out.

The Sarah Blitz and Domestic Malfunctions

Today, Sarah Palin's book, Going Rogue, finally comes out, having already racked up bestseller status.  And as a consequence, the former governor (and victim of the McCain disaster) is out on the standard media blitz in support of a book that everybody was already talking about in either excessively glowing or horribly derisive terms.

On the plus, the people get a chance to rediscover Sarah Palin on terms other than under the gun of the hackocracy that goes ape shit during any presidential race.  Her first stop was Oprah (not surprisingly after considering what happens to books that appear there).

So it was with interest that I actually hunted down Oprah's show (as it has been years since I saw it).  The short verdict:  Oprah was fair, Sarah looked and sounded good, and every reason Oprah gave last fall for not having any candidate on her show (being she was supporting Obama) was well-explained, because this good interview could not have happened in the climate of partisan politics.

Unfortunately, there aren't too many good clips on YouTube yet and Oprah's site doesn't have embedding code (the bitch) and I still lack the technical know-how to construct the embedding myself. So here's a link to the non-aired clips. And below is the teaser vid for the show, had you somehow missed it all.



So there will be an assload of chances in various places to see Sarah Palin.  And unless you're wholly devoted to her or utterly jaded in your disgust with her, it's her first chance since the McDisaster to really talk about stuff. 

Although I don't see her showing up on Letterman....


Okay, enough about Sarah, I came across this and I couldn't resist:
Obama's Home Teleprompter Malfunctions During Family Dinner

Musical Interludes and AOTW

Go ahead, press play. Unless you are a complete music snob you'll get the point:

Justice is lost
Justice is raped
Justice is gone

I'd like to say that I'm going to have fun with this post as I always do, but I don't have the energy and the subject matter is too damned serious.  So let's get to it:

Lady Justice is Asshat of the Week!

While it has its flaws, our criminal justice system is something that, as Americans, we can be proud of.  With each day, more of the inequities that were present in the past are being worked out, and the law takes shape.  It's a system that lives on appeals in the case of a guilty verdict, many chances for a second chance, and even letting the guilty go free (OJ), because the system defaults to not guilty.  All of this means that we generally do our best to be open and make sure that only the guilty go to prison.

But the Obama administration has decided to move terrorists, including 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, from Guantanamo Bay to New York City to stand trial in civilian court.  It's a concept that I can't come up with a joke for.

Let's look at it from the point of view we would look at any trial.

First, there's the matter of a jury.  I'm trying to imagine a person who was aware of the world that could be called for jury duty in NYC that WASN'T affected by the events of 9/11.  There is no such thing as an impartial jury here.  You'd have problems going to an Amish community and finding someone not aware of the events of 9/11.  So you have two camps.  People that want to see these terrorists die, and people that want to hurt the USA.

Next is the matter of jurisdiction.  The acts of terrorism (oops, downgrade that to crime) that the terrorist pieces of shit are accuses of are allegedly killing 3000 people by allegedly having 18 guys allegedly fly 4 alleged planes into the two WTC towers, the Pentagon, and a field in Pennsylvania.  However, these scum were captured in another country as a part of a military option designed to hunt down foreign terrorists.  This is probably the best reason to shoot terrorists first and ask questions later (through some bastard that talks to the dead).

Now, let's talk evidence.  There was, of course, what we saw that Tuesday morning, excessively documented.  There's also all the intelligence sources that we will have to reveal to the public (and thus the terrorists), lest the intel be thrown out by the court.  And let's not forget the confessions, which may evaporate once the non-Mirandized, taken under duress nature comes up.

Which brings us to the confusion the defense will sow.  Will we hear from the 9/11 truthers and every crackpot theory as to how it wasn't KSM and company, but the Bush administration that staged everything?  Will they call witnesses that are hidden in Pakistan (like Osama Bin Laden himself), and maybe even ask for temporary amnesty so they can testify?  And when the terrorists take the stand, will it be the usual questions, or will it be the opportunity to indict the evil Americans for every "crime" they've ever committed in the world?

In the end, they'll probably be convicted.  And the fact I have to say probably should scare the shit out of all of you.  Because as I noted above, the civilian court system goes out of its way to give every advantage to the accused.  And our enemy knows this, and will use it. And if, somehow, they manage to not be convicted, what then?  And even if we get the conviction, it means years and years of appeals.  For fucking terrorists.

So for a decision that rapes our justice system, and because I'll reserve Obama's AOTW for when the trial goes South, I give it to the symbol of the justice system this time.

The General Welfare

An idea that I've picked up from others and run with is the concept of a Tenth Amendment Commission - a government body with a single purpose:  to limit the size and scope of itself by applying a strict constitutionality to the ever-expanding Imperial nanny government.  This, very simply means that if it is a power not explicitly stated in the Constitution or the Amendments, it is reserved for the States, or the people, and that federal agency must ultimately be transferred or shut down.  And while some reforms that have come down the pike approach that concept, they fall short in that they don't cite the Tenth Amendment.

But as with all great documents written centuries ago, there's a little bit of leeway in the language that has only grown as the meaning of our language has changed and phrasing that was common in 1787 is so two centuries ago today.

One of these phrases is from the Preamble, which I will reiterate (said phrase is highlighted):

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

"Promote the general Welfare" is an interesting phrase, as it has been used, on the occasion we can get an answer from a politician (rather than the arrogant exclamatory cackle "Are you Serious?"), as a justification for every single governmnet transfer program ever created.  However, I don't think welfare was what the Founding Fathers meant.

So let's clarify what is the general welfare.  First, pertinent definitions (because definitions do matter):

General - not limited to one class, field, product, service, etc.; miscellaneous: the general public; general science. 
Welfare -  the good fortune, health, happiness, prosperity, etc., of a person, group, or organization; well-being: to look after a child's welfare; the physical or moral welfare of society. 

In this case, the concept of the "general Welfare" are those things that benefit the society as a whole, not just specific groups, people, or organizations.  Which brings me to some examples:


Infrastructure such as the Interstate highway system was created as a defense measure, but also benefits the public at large, thus the general welfare, whereas payouts for state projects would be for some people and not others, therefore NOT the general welfare.


Adjusting business taxes down or eliminating overreaching regulations to allow business to grow (without the use of loopholes) is for the general welfare.  Subsidizing a specific industry or regulating an industry because of a moral, ethical, philosophical or political objection, is NOT for the general welfare.


Maintaining national parks, which preserves parts of our country that are unique and allows anyone to come and explore the majesty of our country, is, arguably, part of the general welfare.  Building shit for a specific city is NOT for the general welfare.


Fighting a pandemic (H1N1 this year) in order to keep it form spreading across the country and killing a whole bunch of people, which requires national coordination and response, is a part of the general welfare.  Providing insurance for part of the population by taking it from the other part of the population is NOT for the general welfare.

Now this is not an absolute yes/no process, but the point is simple.  Spending and programs and laws that address the citizens at large, without discrimination on the basis of class, income or geographic location are generally part of what can be called the general welfare.  Those programs however, that serve to benefit one group at the expense of another, often out of a misplaced sense of fairness, cannot be justified by the concept of the general welfare.  And if they cannot otherwise be justified by the Constitution, then it is time to consider another way to provide those things:

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

The Deader the Better

It's not often the wheels of justice roll quickly and efficiently.  For John Allen Muhammad, the DC sniper and evil raghead piece of human debris, they rolled over him at 9:11pm last night.  No overwhelming calls for clemency, no last-second legalistic bullshit (just the standard appeals and protesters and shit).  Goodbye and good riddance to bad life.

Now I have two minds on this subject (I know, *gasp*). 

The first is obvious.  If we have a death penalty and we have clear cases where the guilty is sentenced to death, then we need to get the executions rolling.  and if we're going to execute, then we need to get a better system than the pussy method of sticking a needle in them and putting them to sleep first.  I've always been a fan of the guillotine myself.  Simple, visual, scary as hell.  You can see a head getting lopped off.  It's got some clear deterrent value.  In fact, you set up the execution enclosure so that the top of the guillotine is visible from outside prison walls, and you detonate a small charge when you drop it.   That way, everybody knows.  I stop short of saying to televise it, because there are too many people that would get off on watching people get heads lopped off (myself among them).

But I've also listened to the reasoning of the anti-death penalty people.  And there is room for compromise.  But we have to be clear and have an ultimate punishment for the worst of the worst.

So here's how we end the death penalty.  First of all, the death penalty people do not get simply reduced to life without parole.  We create a new designation, called dead to the world.  Then we ship them off to a special prison (in either Alaska or some isolated island).  In this prison, there are no amenities.  Nutritionally acceptable but bland and shitty food.  Minimum human amenities (enough heat in the Alaska prison to keep people from dying, clothes, a blanket). Reading material is limited to the Bible, Koran, etc, history texts, educational stuff.  No TV, no music (except for what the warden wants to play).  No visits (except by counsel), no phone calls, letters only (all letters in and out are transcribed into type by other prisoners).  Work is 12 hours a day for 6 days (including the fun of breaking rocks).  Sunday is a day of reflection and isolation.  Routine medical to keep communicable diseases under control, but no major medical help (comfort care only).  Public display in stocks for troublemakers.  Repeated troublemakers get a shock collar.  Any attempt at escape is a killable offense, and guards are trained to shoot limbs first.

In short, a life of continuous suckage with almost no contact with the outside world.  This satisfies those who oppose the death penalty on moral (and/or religious) grounds, those who oppose it for social reasons (racial inequities in the condemned population, execution of the innocent, etc), as well as those who want these monsters to want death rather than a life of no hope whatsoever with no reasonable chance of getting it.  And a prison that saps any hope of getting out, ever, achieves that.  It has to be bad enough to make death a release, not a punishment.

The fact is that we have evolved to a point where locking people up forever is now feasible.  In prior centuries, killing was clearly a reasonable punishment for the worst of the worst.  But we have to have an absolute punishment to deal with those that deserve no right to live ever again in our world.  And as they throw the shell of the piece of shit DC sniper in a hole or cook him to ash (but not throw him to dogs to be torn apart), let's consider what punishment would be more fitting.