The New Red Scare: Debt (red ink)

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

The New Red Scare: Debt (red ink)

One Helluva Speech from Mitch Daniels - CPAC 2011

I normally don't like political speeches. Never have. And it has gotten worse as I have started to become savvy to the crowd manipulation techniques politicians use.

But this speech from an elected politician (Governor of Indiana) made me feel... er.... it's hard to put my finger on it... young again. I think that says it about right.

I only listened to it because a shortened version popped up on Drudge in the top spot. The video below is the audio only and the sound isn't the best, but it is complete.

I might be wrong, but I feel with this guy that I am in the presence of a good and honest man who is also competent.

It's a good feeling.

<iframe title="YouTube video player" width="480" height="390" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/9vJ9mcwQ_oI?rel=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

EDIT: You can see the C-SPAN Video (much better quality) here: Mitch Daniels - CPAC 2011

And here is the transcript: Full text: Mitch Daniels’ speech to CPAC

Michael

[Selene]

Michael:

Well, Well! At least we have an excellent speaker who has experience and the right ideas.

Thanks for posting this.

How refreshing to listen to man who is cogent, does not need a teleprompter and makes real solid sense.

Add to this wonderful mixture that he has a proven track record as Governor of Indiana for:

1) cutting taxes;

2) reducing state workers;

3) implementing a real educational choice program; and

4) using the surplus created as a direct return of tax dollars back to the citizens

makes him a top contender for President.

What a refreshing politician. And a great sense of humor.

Drives a Harley. Perfect.

Thanks.

Adam

[Robert Campbell]

I also thought Mitch Daniels' speech was excellent.

There was some sly humor, and a refreshing absence of the usual BS and platitudes.

I give Daniels the edge over Pawlenty on account of this speech.

Robert Campbell

[Mike Renzulli]

I listened to this speech too and liked what I heard as well. I also like Mitch Daniels' record as Governor. While the Cato Institute rated Pawlenty as having a better fiscal record I appreciate the fact that he is still rated fairly high.

Daniels has called for a truce on social issues on the right (link to Weekly Standard column describing this below) and isn't backing down from asserting it despite the scolding of snake oil salesman Mike Huckabee.

Good for him.

Mitch Daniels is high on my list of contenders for the White House.

http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/more-mitch-danielss-truce-social-issues

Edited February 17, 2011 by Mike Renzulli

[Peter]

This wall street jounal article fought back when I tried to copy it, but I think it is intact.

The Ryan Budget: Grabbing the third rail with both hands.

Peter

GOP Aim: Cut $4 Trillion

Budget Plan Would Transform Medicare, Reset Budget Debate; Democrats Balk

By NAFTALI BENDAVID

Republicans will present this week a 2012 budget proposal that would cut more than $4 trillion from federal spending projected over the next decade and transform the Medicare health program for the elderly, a move that will dramatically reshape the budget debate in Washington.

The budget has been prepared by Rep. Paul Ryan, a Wisconsin Republican and the new chairman of the House Budget Committee, and it represents the most complete attempt so far by Republicans to make good on their promises during the 2010 midterm elections to cut government spending and deficits.

Though Rep. Ryan based the Medicare portion of his budget on a previous plan created in collaboration with a Democrat, Alice Rivlin, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution and long-time budget expert, the current plan isn't likely to get much Democratic support. Instead, it will set up a broad debate over spending and the role of government heading into the 2012 general election.

The plan would essentially end Medicare, which now pays most of the health-care bills for 48 million elderly and disabled Americans, as a program that directly pays those bills. Mr. Ryan and other conservatives say this is necessary because of the program's soaring costs. Medicare cost $396.5 billion in 2010 and is projected to rise to $502.8 billion in 2016. At that pace, spending on the program would have doubled between 2002 and 2016.

Mr. Ryan's proposal would apply to those currently under the age of 55, and for those Americans would convert Medicare into a "premium support" system. Participants from that group would choose from an array of private insurance plans when they reach 65 and become eligible, and the government would pay about the first $15,000 in premiums. Those who are poorer or less healthy would receive bigger payments than others.

House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan, (R., Wis.), and the Senate Budget Committee's top Republican, Sen. Jeff Sessions of Alabama, right, deliver the GOP response to President Obama's budget submission for Fiscal Year 2012, Feb. 14, 2011.

"There is nobody saying that Medicare can stay in its current path," Mr. Ryan said on Fox News Sunday. "We should not be measuring ourselves against some mythical future of Medicare that isn't sustainable."

The proposal would also convert Medicaid, the health program for the poor, into a series of block grants to give states more flexibility. And it is expected to suggest significant cuts in Social Security, while proposing fewer details on how to achieve them.

The federal government expects to spend about $275 billion in 2011 on Medicaid, the program that provides medical care to the poor and disabled, up from $117.9 billion in 2000. The Congressional Budget Office projects Medicaid spending will roughly double by 2021.

Conservative activists who are familiar with the Ryan plan said they expect it to call for a fundamental overhaul of the tax system, with a 25% top rate for both individuals and corporations, compared to the current 35% top rate. It is expected to raise about the same amount of money as the current system, however. Lawmakers already are considering ways to accomplish that by reducing or eliminating some deductions and other tax breaks.

Some conservatives also expected the budget plan to tout a temporary tax change that would let U.S. multinationals bring home as much as $1 trillion in profits at a greatly reduced tax rate. That money currently is parked overseas, beyond the reach of U.S. corporate taxation.

Mr. Ryan and other Republicans on Sunday made it plain a primary goal in advancing the budget plan is to start setting the terms of a debate for the 2012 election, and to move beyond the debate over trimming tens of billions in spending during the remaining six months of the current fiscal year. The government could partially close on Friday if no deal is reached.

Democratic and Republican negotiators have reached agreement on how to divide up $33 billion in cuts for this year, a congressional aide familiar with the talks said Sunday. Specific trims haven't been set, but amounts have been allocated to broad categories like agriculture and interior.

Democrats are pushing to meet the target in part by cuts to mandatory programs, such as agricultural subsidies.

Mr. Ryan wouldn't be more specific in the "Fox News Sunday" interview about his spending reduction targets, saying Republicans were still working on the numbers. The Congressional Budget Office estimates that the government is on track to spend $45.77 trillion in the next 10 years, and that total deficits will amount to nearly $12 trillion if current policies are extended.

By suggesting sweeping changes to Medicare, as well as Medicaid and Social Security, Republican leaders are gambling that Americans are worried enough about the growing national debt to accept overhauling social programs that now cover medical costs or provide monthly incomes for a substantial swath of the public.

As the debate in Congress has shifted to how much to cut federal spending, instead of how much more to spend for stimulus programs or other efforts to prop up the economy, lawmakers in both parties, and President Barack Obama, have said there is no way to make a significant dent in projected deficits without some action to overhaul Medicare, Social Security and Medicaid, which make up 60% of the budget.

Mr. Ryan said Sunday his plan would propose capping overall federal spending at close to "historic levels," which were closer to 20% of GDP during the 1990s through 2008.

Democrats say the GOP plan will leave millions exposed to financial risks. The Medicare premium subsidies would grow more slowly than health costs, they say, so seniors would end up with less coverage.

"All this does is shift the risk and burden of rising health-care costs to seniors on Medicare," said Rep. Chris Van Hollen (D., Md.), the top Democrat on the House Budget Committee. "You're on your own with the insurance industry."

The plan's supporters say it would cut costs without sacrificing quality by introducing competition among insurers.

Mr. Ryan isn't alone in attempting to move the budget debate beyond the 2011 fight and Mr. Obama's 2012 blueprint. A bipartisan group of senators led by Sen. Mark Warner (D., Va.) and Sen. Saxby Chambliss (R., Ga.) and known as the "Gang of Six" is working on a proposal to cut $4 trillion from the projected federal deficit, building from recommendations of President Obama's deficit commission.

Mr. Warner said he is concerned that Mr. Ryan's plan will rely too heavily on cutting social programs, and not take aim at defense spending or "look at major tax reform that would actually raise revenues."

Ms. Rivlin said in an interview Sunday she would have preferred a plan that phased in more quickly and left a traditional Medicare program as a default option for seniors. But overall she supported Mr. Ryan's idea. "What Democrats have to realize is we have to do something," Ms. Rivlin said. "Current policy on Medicare is not sustainable. You can worry about how you structure a premium support program, but I think it's a good way to think about the future of Medicare."

[Brant Gaede]

This wall street jounal article fought back when I tried to copy it, but I think it is intact.

That's because you're violating its copyright.

--Brant

[Peter]

Brant wrote about my trouble cutting and pasting the WSJ article:

That's because you're violating its copyright.

end quote

Yes, teacher. (Grump, behind your back.) Did you read it? Are you guilty too by your reasoning? There it is on the internet, for everyone to read or cut out. Do I sit through their commercials with the volume up? Heck no. Do I want to bring their commercials, links and pictures with me when I cut and paste? No. I honestly do not think of it as copy right infringement. If it were a "subscription only" service and I hacked in, that would be illegal. It may not be polite to their *wishes* but it is less of a wrong that being annoyingly loud in a restaurant. By the way, the way to do it is to cut and paste to a text page. Delete all the pictures, boxes, links and commercials that you can. Then mail it to yourself on hotmail. The hotmail gets rid of the other junk. Recut it to a blank text page from Hotmail, then send that to OL.

The Midnight Extension. I did not like the attempt to put riders specifically about things like planned parenthood onto the continuing resolution. I want to find out if it was Tea Party people who did that. My support for the Tea Party is contingent upon their putting specifics like that on the back burner.

Fox is showing a poll: "Were you satisfied with the budget extension to September?" 57 percent said no. 32 percent yea. The rest don't know. I will put myself in the no column.

I will wait for a final analysis from Paul Ryan and Rand Paul, but in the mean time I will continue to NOT give the GOP any money. During their last call, I told them to stop calling, and they did. I have given money to Radtke, in Virginia, Paul in Kentucky, Kasich, and that fellow in Colorado, among others, but none to the GOP.

Was the compromise resolution to Boehner's credit? We will see. If the 38.8 billion dollar cut contains money already taken out by those continuing resolutions, then NO! NO! NO! And we have trillions to go. I emailed Boehner before the vote to stand tough and for him to say there is no daylight between the republicans and the Tea Party. I mentioned to him that not just seniors are worried about Social Security. My own daughters think it is a scam to get their money and then they will receive little or nothing. I gave John a campaign slogan that speaks to both groups: "To have security, you must save."

Damn it, I want Paul Ryan to get the budget passed in the House and then I want him to declare for the Presidency. I went to his site and could not even find a button to contribute to his reelection, and there was nothing about a Presidential bid.

Peter

[Brant Gaede]

I didn't read it. I wasn't being righteous for that, however, I simply didn't care to. If it was a free article why didn't you just link to it?

--Brant

Edited April 9, 2011 by Brant Gaede

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

We once had a thing about this on the old SoloHQ with an article copy/pasted from the NYT.

So I wrote to them asking if this was copyright violation in their eyes (I think it was me, if it wasn't, somebody did). They wrote back saying that using an article like that on a forum was no biggie for them. Then they said the article could stay up for couple of weeks or something like that, then it should be taken down.

I believe they only said this last part because they couldn't outright say, "Feel free to copy paste the entire paper if you like." I got the impression they were far more concerned about other matters. If nobody had contacted them about this, they certainly would not have contacted SoloHQ.

There is an Internet resource called RSS, which means Really Simple Syndication (this is the most popular meaning, not the original one which said the same thing in geek-speak, i.e., "Rich Site Summary"). If you provide an RSS Feed on your site, you are basically granting permission for other sites to use your content (linking back to the original, of course). I went to the article on WSJ:

GOP Aim: Cut $4 Trillion

There I saw buttons you could use to email the article, print it with special format to save on ink, put it (or link to it) on several Web 2.0 sites, and an RSS Feed link at the bottom. By typing in the term "GOP Aim: Cut $4 Trillion" (in quotes) into a Google search, I got 127,000 results. I went to a few sites to make sure, and sure enough, the entire article was posted.

The intellectual property brains of mankind are still sorting out what is copyright violation and what is not on the Internet, so for now the best rule is common sense. (Many people in the Objectivist subcommunity don't like this--they want clear rules, but reality is what it is and the Internet is what it is.) By common sense, I mean something like the following.

If the site where the content is published has tools placed invitingly that you can use to copy the article onto other sites, and it has an RSS Feed, I think it's pretty reasonable to say you can copy it. I wouldn't go around trying to charge for it, though, nor would I leave out the author's name and where you got it from (and a backlink). And if the author or original publisher gets upset and contacts you, just take it down--unless you feel you are being unfairly bullied and willing to fight. That's usually not worth it, though. There's just too much content you can share out there.

WSJ clearly is encouraging this article to be shared. I believe it's an enticement for people to get interested in their paid service. When a person shares it, he is essentially putting WSJ advertising in front of his own audience's eyeballs and WSJ pays nothing for the exposure. It's a trade-off.

So in my understanding, if Peter is guilty of anything here, it is not providing the backlink. But I just provided it, so it's all good.

Michael

[Peter]

Michael wrote:

So in my understanding, if Peter is guilty of anything here, it is not providing the backlink. But I just provided it, so it's all good.

end quote

Thank you Michael. I originally went to the site from another site that had a link to it. It was so much trouble to copy at the home site I went to that it discouraged me from ever trying again.

I emailed Boehner twice, three days ago. Today I got my first solicitation from his office for money. That was fast. Yesterday, my wife handed me the phone. It was from candidate Pawlenty. I said, "It's too soon," and hung up.

Paul Ryan proposes a 6.2 trillion dollar debt reduction, including cutting Medicare and Social Security. It is time for the Republicans to show up for roll-call.

Peter