It’s a win but...

            Mitt Romney scored big against Barack Obama in the first of three rounds of presidential debates. Even between libs and the GOP the general consensus is that Romney won. There needn’t be any huge argument about it—simply follow a lot of big democrats on Twitter and the blogosphere and the answer is obvious. Even the DNC painted that this could very well happen and Obama himself alluded to such a possibility a few days ago.

            Notable points, both verbal and non-verbal include:

-       Mitt using humor more successfully

-       Obama’s constant (though not complete) refusal to look at Mitt Romney

-       Mitt’s focus, versus Obama’s tangents

-       Obama’s stutter and slow moments (which is characteristic of his speech—not a slight on him, but this mannerism certainly didn’t help)

-       Mitt handled the moderator well (refusal to be bullied) while Obama did not—some are arguing that Obama snapped at Lehrer once or twice.

-       Obama tried to invoke the power of math, Romney invoked actual numbers—often and with relevance.

-       Mitt owned the counterattacks.

-       Obama is not a great speaker under pressure, off the cuff.

-       Mitt was on offense all night, and Barack never got a chance

-       Obama was more general. Mitt was more specific.

-       Romney was having fun. Barack was not.

All this being said, there’s some notable things to discuss. First, as the DNC put it (and yes it’s spin, but it’s got some truth), Romney was historically in a good spot to win this one—which he did. Barack was ill-prepared—as one Reuters commentator told Greta van Susteren: “I recognized the President’s performance tonight—the same one I had in college when I felt like I didn’t need to study for an English exam because I already knew English.” Perhaps Obama prepared the wrong way, and expected the wrong attacks. Perhaps. But it’s highly arguable that he won’t make that same mistake twice. Conversely, Romney knew Obama’s playbook and had done his own research and study. When Obama called upon the power of the almighty Independent Study, Mitt knew which one and had 4 more that said something different. Love him or hate him, Mitt wasn’t lucky—he was prepared.

Also of note is how clean the fight was. Romney didn’t mention Barack’s newly surfaced videos, or questionable friends (Wright, Ayers, etc), and neither did Obama mention the “47%” remark or Bain Capital. Some of these attacks might have fit into the debate context, but the two seemed to be quite content hitting each other above the belt. Again, this may not happen next time. Obama likely feels the need for an “edge” and the “47%” or Bain might be appealing as a way to get that edge. (Of course this opens the possibility that Mitt could do that exact same thing to keep his edge). Either way, Romney should be prepared—Obama never really got his offense going tonight, and he’ll want to taste blood during the next debate. Mitt should be ready to dodge some fast punches in 13 days.

Now that Obama knows how Mitt will fight, he’s going to work on his technique. First round to the challenger—certainly…but there are two debates to go. If Mitt wants to keep this up, he needs a decisive victory over the next two debates. While Obama has prep time to analyze Mitt’s attacks and plan his own, Romney has to plan his deflections and counterattack.

Among other things here’s a shortlist of points not pressed, not touched upon, and possibly to be used and considered for next time:

-       Romney ran a terrific offense—he was at his best. Can he keep being his best?

-       Lehrer was honestly a weak moderator. Compared to Obama’s own flat performance and a helpless moderator, Romney couldn’t help but look strong. The moderator next time may not be such a push over.

-       Obama should hit and even belabor the points where he feels strong—this may help keep Romney out of the groove and run the clock down.

-       Mitt’s 47% and Obama’s little race video might pop up. Both need attacks and both need parries and deflections.

-       When ObamaCare resurfaces (as it will) Mitt can easily win the point with one line: “ObamaCare needs to be repealed because the people want it repealed and the majority of Americans don’t support it—even though the President and a democrat congress rammed it through.” In this way Mitt can defend RomneyCare and attack ObamaCare.

-       Mitt should use Libya as evidence of a failed foreign policy. This is going to be a tough plot of beans to defend for Obama—because Libya has “botched” and “scandal” written all over it like obscene words in a bathroom stall.

-       Neither one can afford to let the other get in the groove first. Obama was on his heels 97% of the night. He doesn’t like that feeling—so he’s going to try to "return to sender". Mitt’s job is make sure Obama stays on his heels.

All in all, the debate definitively went well for Romney, and the win was certainly needed. But his excellent performance needs to be repeated, and then repeated again. Obama must go on heavy offense now, but with the additional topics coming up Mitt has little to lose on foreign policy and Barack has little to gain. Additionally Obama is a bit behind on financial issues as well. Even so, it’s arguable that the advantage is still to Obama, as the safe alternative to Mitt Romney. If Mitt wins next time Barack will definitely be behind the count—and he may not recover. It’s still anyone’s game, but Romney made a decisive point to be everything he needed to be. If he keeps it up he’ll likely have two more wins—and possibly a presidency in his pocket. Still, it’s not a one-man show and Obama wants to retain his seat of power for as long as he can. Part of Mitt winning involves Obama losing, and that’s something the president won’t give up easily.

Fight Night in Denver: Romney’s Big Chance

            One of the best quotes about Mitt Romney’s debate performance comes from Rush Limbaugh. During the GOP primaries Limbaugh said, “Mitt Romney does not win debates. He survives them.” Back during the primaries survival was good enough. Newt wowed crowds once or twice, but otherwise fell flat. Ron Paul’s disjointed rants and Rick Santorum’s obvious discomfort at the debates made for a constant “less than par” performance from these two contenders. Mitt simply had to show up, breathe air, and avoid eating his own shoes and he “won”.

            That won’t cut it two days from now in Denver. There will be no passive victories in this fight. While Rick, Ron, and Newt all died on the mat from self-inflicted blood loss Obama will do no such thing. Mitt simply remaining standing will not motivate the 15% in the middle who will swing this election one way or the other. Mitt will have to not only get on offense, but to do so with uncharacteristic aggressiveness. Obama’s overall approval is largely negative at this point, so if the middle sees someone that can and will bloody Obama in the debates they may respond very favorably to a contender with a strong voice and a definitive message.

            The DNC has outright stated that historically the challenger usually wins the first debate—possibly in an effort to do preemptive damage control for the president and bank on a weak Romney follow up debate performance. For Romney the challenge isn’t to “win” per se as a “win” may not cut it. His challenge will be to establish a pattern of effective, aggressive offense on Obama’s record, and thus generate momentum going into the next two debates. Providing Romney does his job well in the debates, Obama should be in shock by the end of the first debate, sputtering angrily at the end of the second, and dazed, punch-drunk and looking for an exit by the third. If Obama looks lost and outgunned he’ll look like a poor choice for a leader—and that’s Mitt’s goal. Unfortunately for Mitt, that kind of unprecedented result will take an unprecedented performance on his own part. Mitt has a great opportunity in Denver with the “challenger” advantage, and Obama’s record for ammo. If he fails to capitalize on this first round, the undecided may be too busy following reality TV to give Mitt another chance to make his case. He might not have enough time left to strike out and do serious damage to Obama in the eyes of the undecided voter. Mitt won the GOP primaries arguably because he was “safe” compared to his competition. But now the tables are turned, and it is Obama who is the “safe” candidate. For Mitt Romney, it is time to be dangerous. Nothing less than success will do, and if Romney fails, time, and history may not forgive him for it come November.

"I know what you did in Libya this summer..."

Libya…simplified

            In todays world news is updated by the second, and with multiple stories flying through the internet on a minute-by-minute basis it’s easy to lose track.

One of the most important stories of the month, and of the year (in terms of the election and foreign policy) is of course the mess in Libya. The following is a time line approach to the Libyan events with a few thoughts on how and why certain events happened. It is my firm belief that the average voter does not understand what happened or why it’s significant or what it means. So let’s start at the beginning—not September 11, but in the days and weeks leading up to the attack.

Each note will have a source link for verification.

April/May/June: The US Consulate in Benghazi, Libya is targeted by Islamic terrorists. The House Intelligence Committee chair says the consulate was targeted for an IED attack. ³

June 6: An IED is thrown at the American Consulate in Benghazi.^{3, 12}

June 11: The British Ambassador is the target in an RPG attack^{3, 12}

July, and August 2012: American Ambassador to Libya Christopher Stevens writes in his journal about his concerns over security threats, possible attacks, and being on an Al-Qaeda hitlist.^{1, 16} These fears proved to be well-founded in light of events in June and early August. (See also 12).

August 5: The Red Cross building in Benghazi is struck by an RPG attack.³

September 8: Libyan officials meet with the American diplomats in Benghazi, Libya, and warn them that the situation there is “deteriorating” and “frightening”. ² Officials later say that this wasn’t the first time they warned Americans about impending attacks.²

September 10: Obama appears on The Late Show with David Letterman.⁶

September 11: Around 4 PM local time the US Embassy in Cairo is stormed by protestors and the American flag is taken down and possibly burned. It is replaced by the black flag of Islam.⁹

The compound in Benghazi is attacked. News outlets report that witnesses say the compound was quiet before the attack: there were no protestors.^{8, 16} President Obama is briefed an hour and a half after the attack begins. The ambassador is missing during the attack. President Obama goes to bed while his ambassador’s fate is unknown.⁴

The Libyan guard at the gate is armed with a radio and the attackers with machine guns and RPGs. The compound is eventually set on fire.⁵

September 11/12: The Ambassador Stevens is discovered alive—though just barely—and taken to a hospital by looters going through the US Consulate.^{2 (video)}

The ambassador dies either en route or possibly later at the hospital. A Lebanese news outlet reports that he had been raped and dragged through the streets. This is still neither confirmed nor debunked.⁷

September 11/12: Around 12-2 A.M. another attack is made on remaining American personnel in the compound. The attack is described as “complex . . . sophisticated . . . an ambush.” It is suspected that during this attack the two American security personnel, Tyrone Woods and Glen Doherty are killed. By 6:30 A.M. the evacuation of American personnel is complete.⁸

September 12: WH Press Secretary Jay Carney is asked, “Why did the President feel it was so important to continue with his campaign schedule today?” Carney insists the President is receiving briefings on the road from the intelligence community he travels with.¹⁸

September 13: Obama cancels intel briefing as the riots continue and heads to Las Vegas for a fundraiser.⁹ Some information persists that the President did not often attend intel briefings in the days leading up to the attack, but it is highly unlikely that said information could or would be confirmed or debunked. One fact remains: the spokesman for the National Security Council, Tommy Vietor refused to answer whether the president has attended any of his daily briefings since September 5.⁹

September 14: Senate Armed Services Chairman Carl Levin (D-Mich.) and Senator John McCain both call the attack, “planned” and “premeditated”.¹² McCain added that, "People don't go to demonstrate and carry RPGs and automatic weapons," he said, adding that the facts suggest "this was not a 'mob' action [or] a group of protesters."¹²

CNN Reports State Department Under Secretary Patrick Kennedy alluded to the attack being preplanned by the amount of light and medium weaponry on the scene.
The site reported that the remarks had been made earlier in the week (IE the 12^th or 13^th).²⁰

The same day, WH Press Secretary Jay Carny says there was no intelligence suggesting an attack, and “we have no information to suggest that it was a preplanned attack.”¹³ Carney blames the Innocence of Muslims video as what “sparked” the outcry. When asked if they would apologize for the video Carney says, “Absolutely not . . . we have said we find it offensive and reprehensible, but we will not -- we cannot and will not squelch freedom of expression in this country.”
Carney takes one final question that unfolds as follows:

Q:    Jay, one last question -- while we were sitting here -- Secretary Panetta and the Vice Chair of the Joint Chiefs briefed the Senate Armed Services Committee.  And the senators came out and said their indication was that this, or the attack on Benghazi was a terrorist attack organized and carried out by terrorists, that it was premeditated, a calculated act of terror.  Levin said -- Senator Levin -- I think it was a planned, premeditated attack.  The kind of equipment that they had used was evidence it was a planned, premeditated attack.  Is there anything more you can -- now that the administration is briefing senators on this, is there anything more you can tell us?

MR. CARNEY:  Well, I think we wait to hear from administration officials.  Again, it's actively under investigation, both the Benghazi attack and incidents elsewhere.  And my point was that we don't have and did not have concrete evidence to suggest that this was not in reaction to the film.

Carney does not use the word “terrorist” in his answer—or much at all in relation to the attacks during the course of the Q&A session.

September 16: US Ambassador to the UN, Susan Rice is hosted on CBS’ Face the Nation. She repeatedly calls the attack “spontaneous” and said, “We do not have information at present that leads us to conclude that this was premeditated or preplanned.”¹⁰

On the same program, the president of Libya’s General National said, “The way these perpetrators acted and moved, and their choosing the specific date for this so-called demonstration, this leaves us with no doubt that this was preplanned, predetermined.”¹⁰

On Fox News Sunday, Susan Rice tells Chris Wallace that, “"a spontaneous incident."

"The best information we have today is that in fact this was not a premeditated attack," Rice said.¹⁵

50 Arrests are made in relation to the death of Ambassador Stevens by the Libyan government.²⁷

September 17: State Department spokeswoman Victoria Nuland declined to label the strike. "I don't think we know enough," she said. "And we're going to continue to assess ... and then we'll be in a better position to put labels on things, OK?" ¹⁷

It’s reported that mortars were used in the strike on the compound and/or safe houses.¹⁴

September 18: WH Press Secretary refuses to say that there was enough (or not enough) security for the consulate in Banghazi.¹⁴ His answer is “They were numerous steps taken, as there have been every year on the anniversary of 9/11, and as there have been at different times on the calendar when it is judged by the experts that taking additional steps, security steps, is the right thing to do.”¹⁴

However Ambassador Stevens was known to “travel with a relatively small security detail.” ¹⁴ (Note how many Americans were killed, including the Ambassador. If the security team were say 10 men strong, it’s certain more would have been killed. There is some evidence suggesting that two other Americans (Woods and Doherty) were perhaps killed at a different time and location than Stevens.⁸ Does this leave just one man protecting Stevens?)

September 19: Counterterrorism Center Director Matt Olsen called the strike in Libya a “terrorist attack”.¹⁷ Up until this day not one official has called the strike a “terrorist attack”.¹⁷ He also referred to Al-Qaeda as possibly being involved.¹⁹ (This seems to be significant because in the Senate hearing video I saw, Olsen was asked about this with a certain level of redundancy).

September 20: White House Press Secretary Jay Carney finally calls the events in Libya a terrorist attack—9 days later.¹¹

Carney has this exchange with reporters:
Q    Can you -- have you called it a terrorist attack before?  Have you said that?

MR. CARNEY:  I haven’t, but -- I mean, people attacked our embassy.  It’s an act of terror by definition.

Q    Yes, I just hadn’t heard you --

MR. CARNEY:  It doesn’t have to do with what date it occurred.

Q    No, I just hadn’t heard the White House say that this was an act of terrorism or a terrorist attack.  And I just --

MR. CARNEY:  I don’t think the fact that we hadn’t is not -- as our NCTC Director testified yesterday, a number of different elements appear to have been involved in the attack, including individuals connected to militant groups that are prevalent in eastern Libya, particularly in the Benghazi area.  We are looking at indications that individuals involved in the attack may have had connections to al Qaeda or al Qaeda’s affiliates, in particular al Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb.

He also pointed out that -- I’ll point out as well -- that the FBI investigation into this tragedy is ongoing, but according to the best information we have now, we believe it was an opportunistic attack on our mission in Benghazi.  It appears that some well-armed militants seized on the opportunity as the events unfolded that evening.  We do not have any specific intelligence that there was significant advanced planning or coordination for this attack.

September 22: One investigator tells a news outlet that the consulate was “staked out” and “monitored” before the attack—further discrediting the narrative that the attack was spontaneous. Reports of betrayal by Libyan security forces also emerge. ¹⁹

September 23: Obama speaks on 60 Minutes, calling recent events in the Middle East, “bumps in the road”.²¹ The four Americans have been buried less than two weeks.

The attack in Libya is called a huge setback for intel efforts in the region, and “a catastrophic intelligence loss”.²²

September 24: 50 detainess are cleared to leave Gitmo. Word surfaces that the attack may be been planned by ex-gitmo detainee. ²⁶

September 25: Senators demand that Sec of State Clinton show them the last messages (aka “cables”) from Ambassador Stevens.²³

Obama addresses the General Assembly of the UN saying that, “The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam.”²⁴

After repeatedly of blaming “the video” for the attacks and having his staff blame the video, the President said it should be “marginalized” by being “ignored.”²⁵

September 26: NBC airs an exclusive interview with Libyan President Mohamed Magarief. Magarief says the video (which the Obama Administration constantly blames) had  "nothing to do with" the attack on the US consulate.28

Cited Sources:

-->

1 – http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/09/22/cnn-christopher-stevens-personal-journal-libya_n_1905650.html?ir=Media

2 – http://www.cnn.com/2012/09/22/world/africa/libya-ambassador-journal/index.html

3 – http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/09/14/diplomatic-western-posts-targeted-repeatedly-in-benghazi-in-run-up-to-deadly/

4 – http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2012/09/obama-knew-about-benghazi-terror-attacks-three-hours-after-they-began-went-to-bed-video/

5 – http://www.cnn.com/2012/09/15/world/meast/libya-diplomats-warning/index.html?hpt=hp_t2

6 – http://www.usnews.com/news/blogs/Ken-Walshs-Washington/2012/09/17/entertainer-in-chief-to-visit-david-letterman-again-

7 – http://www.snopes.com/politics/military/stevens.asp

8 – http://www.theatlanticwire.com/global/2012/09/timeline-benghazi-attacks/57124/

9 – http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/marc-thiessen-obama-alone-this-president-does-not-need-intel-briefers/2012/09/13/c11e1a52-fda5-11e1-b153-218509a954e1_story.html

10 – http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/was-the-attack-on-the-libya-consulate-planned-or-not/2012/09/16/6f1136be-0042-11e2-b260-32f4a8db9b7e_blog.html

11 – http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2012/09/20/press-gaggle-press-secretary-jay-carney-en-route-miami-fl-9202012

12 – http://www.rollcall.com/news/senators_question_leon_panetta_about_syria_libya-217594-1.html?zkMobileView=true

13 – http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2012/09/14/press-briefing-press-secretary-jay-carney-9142012

14 – http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/was-the-attack-on-the-libya-consulate-planned-or-not/2012/09/16/6f1136be-0042-11e2-b260-32f4a8db9b7e_blog.html

15 – http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/09/23/robert-gibbs-libya-fox_n_1907114.html

16 – http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Foreign-Policy/2012/0923/White-House-pressured-to-tell-more-about-Benghazi-attack

17 – http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/09/20/carney-elf-evident-benghazi-attack-was-terrorism/

18 – http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2012/09/12/press-gaggle-press-secretary-jay-carney-en-route-las-vegas-nv-9122012

19 – http://www.infowars.com/obamas-shaky-libya-narrative/ AND
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/09/21/obama-s-shaky-libya-narrative.html

20 – http://security.blogs.cnn.com/2012/09/14/in-attack-aftermath-disagreement-over-how-it-began/

21 – http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/09/romney-says-obamas-bump-in-the-road-comment-is-revealing/

22 – http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/24/world/africa/attack-in-libya-was-major-blow-to-cia-efforts.html?_r=0

23 – http://thecable.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2012/09/25/senators_to_clinton_show_us_the_aambassador_s_cables

24 – http://www.humanevents.com/2012/09/25/obama-at-the-un-the-future-must-not-belong-to-those-who-insult-the-prophet-of-islam/

25 – http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/obama-view-marginalize-video-ignoring-it_653041.html

26 – http://www.nydailynews.com/news/world/al-qaeda-ex-gitmo-detainee-linked-libya-attack-u-s-consulate-report-article-1.1163284

27 – http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-3460_162-57513754/libyan-president-50-arrests-in-consulate-assault/

28 - http://worldnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/09/26/14105135-libyan-president-to-nbc-anti-islam-film-had-nothing-to-do-with-us-consulate-attack?lite

A Parable of Idiocy: The Chicago Teacher’s Strike

            Let’s pretend for a moment that you read a story in a newspaper. The story goes something like this: “Pleasant Valley Hospital doctors demands a 35% wage increase for their services at the hospital.” You skip down a few lines in the article and stumble upon this sentence: “The doctors at the Pleasant Valley Hospital have only had a 20% success rate with their treatments. They say that if their wage increase is granted, their success rate will probably go up.” What’s your response? It’s probably not sympathetic to the doctors, is it? More pay, for sub-par results? Yet that’s exactly what’s happening in Chicago.

            The average wage for teachers in the Chicago district is $71,000 or so, according to ABC News. That’s just shy of 75% more than the national average wage of $41,000, according to SSA.gov. Keep in mind, these teachers don’t work 12 months a year, but make a lot more than what most year-round workers make. There are a lot of underpaid and under appreciated teachers in the nation, but the teachers of Chicago aren’t in that group.

            What is more damning of this strike is the results of the teacher’s work: 79-80% of Chicago 8^th graders are not proficient in either math or reading according to the US Department of Education. ThinkProgress.org reports that the elementary schools in Chicago have a school day that is less than 6 hours long, and that many students attend 10 less days a year than the national average.

            Put it all in perspective, it looks like this: A Chicago teacher makes 73% more than the average worker, works fewer days than the average worker, and teaches a shorter class than other teachers. This teacher turns out students of whom 8-out-of-10 are ill prepared in the most basic subjects, and this same teacher is demanding a 35% raise which would pay them nearly $100,000 a year. Because the raise wasn’t granted, they ditched a third of a million children who desperately need education to pursue their own demands of “need”. This is sheer idiocy and why the entire strike is a sad and bitter joke about our educational system.

If the Chicago students were in the top one percentile it would be a pay raise based on the ability of the teachers to produce exceptional students. Even that makes sense for $100,000 a year—being the best teachers and producing the best students anywhere. But there are far better teachers making far less money in other states, and turning out far better students. I should know…I sat in their classrooms. Education News reports the average pay for our local college instructors is $53,000 a year—and they’re grateful for their jobs…unlike some people.

…you stay classy Chicago.

National Debt: the d'Anconia Perspective

"An honest man is one who knows he can't consume more that he has produced." -- Francisco d'Anconia

            I’ve been mulling this line over in my head for the last few days as I’ve been reading and writing and thinking through an essay I’ve been working. In light of recent events (which I’ll name in a moment), I’d like to suggest something: Debt is consumption above and beyond what one currently produces.

Debt is the act of borrowing additional consumption against current or anticipated future production. It is based on the fact that current production is not producing enough for current consumption. This might be a positive action in some cases, or at least acceptable premise to work with. For instance, homeownership is usually funded through debt—because it is rather difficult to come up with $150,000 on the spot when purchasing a house. Thus, funds are borrowed in anticipation that the house will gain value as the homeowner pays down his loan.

Another acceptable case might be a small business that uses a loan to create additional production. If the demand for production increases, a loan is one way a business might use increased future production against current business consumption. The current business consumption does increase—but it does so to increase production, and the business owner banks that her increased production will exceed her needs to pay off her loan. She anticipates that her loan will result in production that pays her back far and above the cost of her loan payments and interest.

In either of these cases there is an end to the means. The homeowner is looking for a return on his debt-funded investment by means of increased value and equity in his home. The business owner is looking for increased sales and funds as a direct result of her business loan. Personal beliefs aside for a moment, there is legitimate rationalization for both these cases. One other case might involve hospital bills or other emergencies of that nature, but that’s a different category altogether.

However, the rationalization for debt stops there. Much of the debt/credit card mentality is based on a “want” today that is fulfilled against this month’s production. The “want” does not increase production, short term or long term. Worse, the phrase, “I’ll pay it off someday” is justification used for an expenditure today that is funded through the production of “someday”. There are no immediate plans for “someday”, only the hope that future production will outweigh today’s “must-haves”. There is no business calculation of return on investment, only the justification that “we have to have it” and “we can afford the payment”. Ironically, being able to afford the payment and being able to afford the item are two different things all together.

Fortunately, the private sector is starting to “get it” as credit card usage is currently dropping. Unfortunately, the public sector is going the opposite way. The event I mentioned earlier happened on the 4^th of September: the national debt clock rolled over $16 trillion dollars in debt. We have become a nation that is funding current pork against wishful thinking. If the debt counter were to slow down, stop, or even go down it would be one thing, but our national debt has more than doubled in four years. What have we to show for it? A car company the majority didn’t want, a healthcare mandate that the majority didn’t want, and increased ties to China that the majority didn’t want. Like a teenager with a credit card, we can’t seem to remember where all the rest of that money went, and it’s no wonder: we have no budget to tell us. Yet every household in America now effectively owes the world over $130,000—yet without significantly increased production to answer the debt.

“Oh but we don’t owe the money—the government does!” The answer to this simple naivety is in the question: where does the government get its money? From it’s citizens. What the government spends, the citizens pay.

“Oh but the rich…” Ahh yes, the rich. The IRS reports that that richest 1% pay 40% of all of the income taxes in the country, and the top 25% pay 86% of all the taxes. The top half of our society pays 97% of all the income taxes. How much more can we tax, and who else is left? More isn’t the answer.
            The truth is that if every American—all 300 million, rich and poor—gave every dollar they had to the US Fed to pay off the national debt, as of today they’d be $13 trillion dollars short. That’s a far cry from being paid off, or even caught up. At current spending rates, the theoretical $3 trillion an almost irrelevant payment.

            At the end off all this lies a simple truth: we don’t make enough, we don’t have enough, and we cannot tax enough to keep up with our debt. Francisco d’Anconia would say that our consumption has far exceeded what our ability to produce can support. That’s pretty damning evidence against the big spenders of both parties, who worsened the financial mess the country has seen following the 2008 elections. There is only one answer: stop spending. What we have is a spending problem that makes a drunken sailor look like a frugal housewife. Keep that in mind this November.

Paul Ryan - An Effortless Performance

            Paul Ryan’s acceptance speech to the RNC may be one of the best political speeches of the year—if not out of the last four years. It’s strengths were many, and it’s weaknesses few, and the delivery was impeccably good. It wasn’t entirely “safe”, but neither was it the politically risky ranting and raving that makes people uncomfortable. He was idealistic without being unrealistic, and realistic without being a doomsayer. He was funny without being a clown, heartfelt without the sappiness, and pointedly brutal without coming off as a douche. He spoke clearly, and succinctly, proving that brevity is indeed the soul of wit—wit without being an unlikeable know-it-all.

            Love him, hate him, or indifferent, there are several truths each side should recognize: first, it was a killer delivery of one hell of a speech. The crowd loved it, and perhaps the nation did too. Paul Ryan came off as a very easy guy to like and to listen to. The speech could have been ten minutes longer, and Ryan still would have had the crowd in his pocket. Second, Mitt Romney has three very tough acts to follow: Mrs. Romney, Condy, and Paul Ryan. Making it even tougher on Mitt will be Clint Eastwood’s address, and the scrutiny of the nation coming off the Olympics with a scorecard mentality. Mitt Romney survived debates, and hit singles when faced with fastballs. But the last three batters hit home runs. Mitt Romney simply surviving and "paring the course" won’t be anywhere near enough. Mitt Romney’s greatest challenge Friday night will be to end the convention with an energetic bang that motivates the base and the undecided voters of the country.

            Perhaps the greatest challenge facing the democrats after Ryan’s speech is the third truth, a cold reality for Team Obama: Joe Biden is no match for Paul Ryan. Biden tries to be likeable, but Paul Ryan is likeable. Joe Biden comes off as an arrogant jerk, Paul Ryan as a friendly intellectual. Biden is an awkward, embarrassing bull in a china closet, yet Ryan is relaxed, inspiring, and precise. Biden flounders, but Ryan delivers. For Joe Biden, Paul Ryan is a nightmare Biden cannot wake from. Whatever Paul Ryan may have done on Thursday night, one thing is for certain: Joe Biden can neither replicate nor match it.

Era of Idiocy: Grounding Moonshot Beer

            It’s the era of idiocy—especially in government. More and more the nation irreversibly charges into the realm of the nanny-state, and the idea that the common person cannot look after their own good. But the almighty Federal nanny isn’t exactly a powerhouse of common sense either. The Fed ends up doing what it does best: making an idiot out of itself while stepping on the common citizen. Case in point? Look no further than Moonshot Beer.

            Moonshot was featured in the documentary Beer Wars, which came out in 2009. Dogfish Head brewery, Moonshot, Samuel Adams, and a few other small-time entrepreneurs were featured as well made, craft-breweries taking on the giant corporation of Anheuser-Busch. Moonshot was unique in being one of the first if not the first beer with caffeine in the brew. Moonshot front-woman Rhonda Kallman said in the documentary that Anheuser-Busch was her biggest threat—they had made a caffeinated beer of their own, and had illegally offered free cases to stores that would carry the brew over hers. The law in her state prohibits such activity, but obviously that never stopped Anheuser-Busch, nor did it protect Kallman. The law never helped her one bit.

            Kallman’s problems continued with distribution. Under federal law, a brewery may not sell to retailers directly, or even online. Instead, they must use what’s known as the three-tier system. This nightmare of laws and paperwork was enacted to help create a regulated system that prevented monopolies. A small-time brewer would say it does exactly the opposite: it creates a system where only large corporations are favored. Kallman struggled to find investors for her company, but she also struggled to get her product to retailers. The middlemen delivery companies were tied up with million-dollar accounts with the Big Three brewing corporations. In this case the law didn’t just leave Kallman out to dry—it hindered her almost completely.

            Still she struggled on. In one interview she said the only thing that wasn’t leaned or mortgaged were the kids—and she would keep them. Her husband, while fully supportive, said that if Moonshot didn’t take off, they’d lose everything—house included. Even so, he was confident in her resilience and in her ability to bounce back from the flak she took for trying. It seemed like Rhonda Kallman was the incredible bobo-doll: no one could knock her down for good. So it seemed.

            Moonshot was finally brought down—not by “evil” corporate America, but by the federal government. The FDA ruled that Moonshot was too dangerous for consumption, and in spite of Kallman putting up a fight for her product, family, children, and company, the fed would have none of it. Her beer contained 69 mg of caffeine—as much as a can of Pepsi. But big brother knows best. If what the Kallman family stated was true, the collapse of Moonshot cost them their house and a bankruptcy. Kallman had another brand started, but the collapse took out the secondary company before it had a chance to become self-sufficient.

            This is a picture of the idiocy that is our government. Mixing Redbull and vodka (which is very popular) is like Moonshot on steroids—and Redbull doesn’t contain as much caffeine as Monster, or Rockstar, which are also popular mixers. Yet all these combo-mixer drinks are completely legal. Does it stop there? Unfortunately, no. Jack-and-Coke, Rum-and-Coke, Baileys-and-cofee and other popular mixed drinks contain high levels of alcohol and caffeine. Is it good for the human body? Probably not. But the federal argument against Moonshot was akin to saying, “Cigarettes from Marlboro, and Camel are outlawed because they cause cancer and are too dangerous. But you can roll your own and put whatever you want in them and smoke those instead.”

            In the end, any one of the aforementioned drinks is legal to order and consume at any bar—and they all probably have as much or more caffeine and alcohol than Moonshot, given the right proportions. Moonshot came under fire probably because it was both ingredients in one bottle. Is mixing one’s own drink less dangerous, or is the fed just that stupid?

            In the end, Moonshot may not have been a great product. Light beer drinkers seemed to like it, though many connoisseurs didn’t care for it. Was it a gimmick or a good idea? The truth is, we’ll never know. The fed failed to protect Ms. Kallman from violations of the law by other companies, they failed to allow her a fair opportunity via the shipping laws, and finally they simply quashed her altogether. They did all this while “worse” drinks were made and served everyday in bars across America.

The market, the people, the consumers are the ones who should have decided if Moonshot was a bad idea. If they didn’t like it, they didn’t have to buy it, and eventually it would go away. Despite this, the fed has moved into nanny mode to decide which beer (among other things)  is best for the consumer. Wake up, America. This is your government.

(Author’s Note: I have never tried Moonshot, and even if given the chance I probably wouldn’t try it. The whole concept never appealed to me, and I’d rather just have a coffee if I needed caffeine. That said, still I believe in a free market where people can decide what they want without an idiot politician telling them what they can have.)