From the Wall Street Journal:

…Here are some Badger State numbers: Roe v. Wade legalized abortion nationwide in 1973. The Wisconsin Department of Health has statewide figures on the annual number of abortions going back to 1975. Tot up the numbers through 1992, and you come up with 316,457.

Scott Walker won the governorship last year by a margin of 124,638. That may not be within the margin of abortion; after all, some of the missing 316,457 would have voted Republican had they existed, and many would not have voted.

But JoAnne Kloppenburg, the left-liberal state Supreme Court candidate who was supposed to save Wisconsin’s labor monopolies from Walker’s reforms, lost by just 7,316 votes, according to the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel (this figure is pending a possible futile recount). It’s almost inconceivable that the Roe effect alone is insufficient to account for Justice David Prosser’s victory…

Killing is really not the best policy prescription. On the whole, it seems that it is always better to have people alive rather than dead. This is, of course, on the understanding that we all must die, one day – but there does seem to be a negative effect in hurrying that date along.

Perhaps liberals will think this over a bit?

Sorry guys and girls, just couldn’t get together a good morning topic – feel free to discuss all the most important issues of the day. Such as…

1. Just how bad does Obama suck as President?

2. Could anyone, if they really tried, suck more?

3. If you took Jimmy Carter and combined him with Barack Obama, would a black hole of suckitude commence?

4. Is there any way we can clone Ronald Reagan?

5. Do nations age and die, or do they just get suddenly stupid after about 232 years?

Well, this is a bit frightening – from William H Gross over at PIMCO:

…Previous Congresses (and Administrations) have relied on the assumption that we can grow our way out of this onerous debt burden. Perhaps we could, if it was only $9.1 trillion, as shown in Chart 2. That would be 65% of GDP and well within reasonable ranges for sovereign debt burdens. But that is not the reality. As others, such as Pete Peterson of the Blackstone Group and Mary Meeker, have shown much better and for far longer than I, the true but unrecorded debt of the U.S. Treasury is not $9.1 trillion or even $11-12 trillion when Agency and Student Loan liabilities are thrown in, but $65 trillion more! This country appears to have an off-balance-sheet, unrecorded debt burden of close to 500% of GDP! We are out-Greeking the Greeks, dear reader…

Gross figures we have to have tax increases and/or benefit cuts to get out of this. I disagree – spending does need to be cut, but benefits do not need to take a hit. Taxation does need major reform, but rates actually have to become lower in some areas (especially on savings and investment in productive activities). But regardless of how you think we should get out of this, the glaring fact is that we’re in a heap of financial trouble.

Now, how can we cut spending without cutting benefits? Lots of ways. First off, whatever number of employees we have in the federal government, we can probably let half of them go. If those who remain say they can’t do the job with the lower staffing levels, then we fire them, too. And keep firing and hiring until we find the people who can get the job done at the staffing levels we like. There is a way – and it will be found by employees who have their jobs at stake in finding the way to do it. Secondly, we can do without all or part of the Departments of Commerce, Energy, Education, Labor and Housing and Urban Development (and, in fact, most of our 50% reduction in force should come from complete or partial shuttering of these departments). Finally, lots of programs which go on in the federal government are luxuries of prosperous and indulgent times – unless they protect the lives, property and liberty of the American people, they have to go. Period. End of story. No, sorry, but you can’t keep it no matter how wonderful you think it is – we’re broke.

After that, the reform of taxation and the elimination of regulations which inhibit the creation of productive enterprises will allow our economy to grow – and grow in terms of real wealth – fast enough to cover the debt; eventually to pay it all off. This is not something to happen in a day or even in 10 years. It is a generational thing. It took us a century to get in to this mess, it will take us a while to get out of it. Most important is that we get on it – and our trouble is that as long as Obama is in the White House, we won’t even make the first move. Which puts us in quite a pickle, indeed.

On the other hand, a bit of suffering can be good for the soul – and the country. We’ve been fat, dumb and happy for quite a long time and our younger generation, especially, is a bit flabby. Perhaps the pinch of poverty is needed to spur us to new heights? At any rate, the real Americans of our nation will endure whatever problems come down and will simply get to work and do what is right – so, in the end, no real worries.

Right now, the word is that after “quantitative easing, part 2” (ie, printing up money and giving it away to banks) is complete, there will be no more bags of free money. We’re going to start unwinding all the Federal Reserve actions which were designed to save us from utter economic collapse – and we’re going to do this because the Fed has finished rescuing us, all is well and so now we can stop doing it. And yet, rumors continue to persist that “quantitative easing, part 3” is coming. Graham Summers over at Zero Hedge thinks he knows why it will happen:

The reason that the 2008 debacle happened was very simple. The derivatives market, the largest, most leveraged market in the world.

Today, the notional value of the derivatives sitting on US banks’s balance sheets is in the ballpark of $234 TRILLION. That’s 16 times US GDP and more than four times WORLD GDP.

Of this $234 trillion, 95% is controlled by just four banks…

…The Fed HAS to continue pumping money into the system to support these firms’ gargantuan derivative exposure. Failing to do so would mean a disaster on the scale of four to five times that of 2008.

Remember 2008 was caused by the credit default swap market which was $50-60 trillion in size. The interest-rate derivate market is $200+ TRILLION in size…

The four banks are JP Morgan, Bank of America, Citibank and Goldman Sachs. I’m no financial expert; when I read up on derivatives what most struck me about them is their speculative nature – and thus their ability to distort true values. If someone has a way to explain how they are actually vital to the process of making, mining and growing things, I’m all ears.

While it might seem a bit absurd to state that there are $234 trillion dollars in derivatives out there, that does seem to be the case…which means we’ve speculated ourselves in to having financial instruments which exceed the monetary value of the world. We’re up to our eyeballs in financial risk which can only be accommodated as long as things don’t go wrong…such as a liquidity crisis leading to sovereign default in the European Union (not enough money out there for people to, say, actually buy the increasingly worthless bonds of Portugal so they can’t roll over their debt and thus can’t pay current bond holders who then dump all their Portuguese paper triggering a round of sell offs around the world, etc). How to avoid a liquidity crisis? Well, the best means is to not have more debt out there than you have assets to back it – but we’re waaaay the heck past that, already. So, the other way is just flood the market with money and hope that things don’t fall apart.

And, so, there is a strong argument that whether the Fed wants to stop printing or not, they’ll have to keep on doing it because the financial system is doomed unless they do. Of course, it is doomed if they do print, too. Eventually, all this money printing will destroy completely the value of the dollar and thus dollar-denominated assets will become worthless. That, in turn, would lead to all sorts of financial sclerosis – ie, the very crash the printing was supposed to prevent. We’re kind of stuck between a rock and a hard place here, my friends.

Does anyone out there (a) have any hope that we’ll just skate our way out of this or (b) have any suggestions about how we get out of it without pain? I just can’t believe in (a) and see no way for (b) to happen.

Not at all a good sign – from the Wall Street Journal:

Iran and Egypt’s new government signaled Monday they were moving quickly to thaw decades of frosty relations, worrying the U.S., Israel and Saudi Arabia that the overtures could upset the Mideast’s fragile balance of power.

Iran said it appointed an ambassador to Egypt for the first time since the two sides froze diplomatic relations more than three decades ago, the website of the Iranian government’s official English-language channel, Press TV, reported late Monday.

Also Monday, officials at Egypt’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs confirmed that new foreign minister Nabil Elaraby is considering a visit to the Gaza Strip—an area controlled by Hamas, a militant Palestinian Islamist group backed by Tehran and until now shunned by Cairo…

And now the folly of dealing with tyrannical regimes is completely laid bare. All our agreements and arrangements in the middle east were predicated upon a friendly regime in Cairo. It is why we helped work out the deal whereby Israel would surrender the Sinai and control of the Suez Canal. It is why we agreed to the creation of an independent Palestine. We sold some of our most advanced weaponry to the Egyptians because we figured it would never be used against us or an ally. Well, guess what? The tyrant at the center of all this is gone – and is now replaced by people who don’t seem to want a cozy relationship with us. As of this moment, it would be better if the Israeli Army was still installed on the Suez and that Egypt was armed with obsolete Soviet military equipment and the West Bank and Gaza were still occupied by Israel.

As we go forward and try to repair the damage, our goal must be freedom. We should talk peace with any government out there, just so long as it is a government acceptable to American ideals. If it isn’t ruled by consent of the governed, then we shouldn’t bother. True enough, a free and fair election might result in a terrorist republic…so be it; they won’t ask for peace negotiations and if they want to try war, then that is what will be…and we’ll crush them and then see if they want to talk peace. And, of course, it just might prove that a free and fair election results in a popular government willing to make actual peace between peoples…not the peace between a people on one hand, and an un-elected tyrant on the other. No matter what results, it won’t be any worse than we’ve got now, and could be much better.

From Zero Hedge:

Nobody could have expected this. Certainly not the 112 hedge funds which hold GM stock on expectations the government, the Fed and GETCO would never let “that company” plunge this far. Next up: a congressional hearing for GETCO regarding charges of ponzi maintenance dereliction. As for the much touted “breakeven” on GM by the US government, the WSJ summarizes it best: “To break even, the U.S. Treasury would need to sell its remaining stake—about 500 million shares—at $53 apiece. GM closed off 27 cents a share at $29.97 in 4 p.m. trading Monday on the New York Stock Exchange, hitting a new low since its $33-a-share November initial public offering.”…

And you just gotta know that Obama will be touting GM as a success. He’ll make speech after speech in 2012 telling us that if it weren’t for him, GM would be gone. But unless we, the people who bailed them out, get our money back, it is a complete failure. We’re a bit more than $23 a share away from break-even. Anyone want to bet how long, if ever, it will take GM stock to climb that much? And what happens to GM auto sales if gasoline does go to $5 a gallon?

The government cannot fix the economy – ever liberal out there should be forced to write it 10,000 times. It is not possible for any government official to know what needs to be done – it just isn’t the thing government is for. To put in old-fashioned terms, government has not the competence; and no law or regulation or academic theory can change that.

Interesting argument from David Warren over at Inside Catholic:

…A month ago, in my daily newspaper column, I briefly reminded readers of the requirements for a just war from the Catholic or Western tradition, from Augustine and Thomas Aquinas through Westphalia. My point then was to make the reader aware that, while few wars meet all the requirements, this, if it is a war, meets none of them — not even one.

Just think of that for a moment. In outline: The enemy is not, in this instance, an aggressor against us or against any of our allies. Muammar Gaddafi’s regime is fairly monstrous, though not by regional standards. In defending it against an anarchic uprising, he is doing no grave, let alone lasting damage to the international order. The obvious alternative (which has worked in the past with him) of presenting a plausible ultimatum with a realistic deadline and specific, foreseeable penalties was not tried. It was not even seriously considered — largely because we didn’t know what we wanted him to do, besides evaporate, and be replaced by angels. There is similarly no chance of victory for our side, since we don’t know what we want to achieve. Nor, thus, can we measure the evils we impose against the good we seek to accomplish. No “post-war” order is conceivable, let alone one that would be an improvement on that which preceded our intervention…

Which is all a pretty devastating critique of the war. I, of course, wanted us to go in – and go in a lot earlier – with the avowed purpose of removing Gaddafi from power. We went in late – very late – and still haven’t a clear notion of what the goal is. We’ve pretty much done this all wrong – no clear goal, use of force not calibrated towards a desired end, no possibility of building a future which would be inherently better than the continuance of the status quo.

In the decision to launch military action there is always this requirement: that it have an end in sight. If one person is killed to no discernible purpose it is worse than if 10,000 die for a good cause. Unless we are using our military to attempt to create a better future, then we are not using it properly. I can’t really understand why Obama went in. I know why I would say, “go”, but I can’t figure out Obama’s desire. To protect civilians? Right now, plenty of civilians are suffering in Libya – from the results of what has now become a long, drawn out civil war. But, also, civilians are suffering as much – or, perhaps, more – in such places as Syria, Iran and North Korea. Nothing wrong with rushing to the aid of the weak…but it does no good to rush there and then refuse to get rid of the source of the trouble. We’re intervening to save the kids from the schoolyard bully, but our action is akin to smacking the bully in the back of the head without making and effort to get him to stop.

The end in Libya is unclear – right now, it does not appear that we are any closer to getting Gaddafi out, if that is our actual goal. NATO is proving ineffective and only the renewed application of American power – and on a much larger scale – promises a swift end to the battle. But we don’t have leadership. No leadership, that is, which can set a goal and then ruthlessly develope the means necessary to achieve it. And so the twilight war will go on – the only thing consistent will be the fact that people will die, every day.

We can retrieve this situation, but only if Obama finally wakes up to his responsibilities as President. His job, the primary reason we have a President, is to ensure that the orders given are animated by conviction and a desire for finality and victory in action. So far, we have seen none of that and while we thank God that none of ours have died, it still does not excuse us from our moral responsibility to bring a swift, just and victorious end to this war.

I guess they’ve just decided to go The Full Orwell and no longer bother to pretend – from The Nation:

…We must develop an argument that the market is a source of constraint and government an instrument of freedom. Without a strong government hand in the economy, men and women are at the mercy of their employer, who has the power to determine not only their wages, benefits and hours but also their lives and those of their families, on and off the job…

The lack of comprehension expressed in those two sentences would be astounding except for the fact that it is just the same argument the left has been using for well more than a century now. Faced with the problem of what to do with a small group of plutocrats their solution is to set up a small group of autocrats, instead. Decrying the power of some over the lives of others, they seek merely to replace one group with another with never a thought that, just perhaps, the solution is to have no one in charge. They don’t understand that you can’t make freedom – you can only leave things be, and thus have freedom.

Curiously enough, it was Barack Obama who demonstrated the problem the left has. Once upon a time, in discussing our Constitution, he opined that it was flawed because all it had was “negative rights” – it forbade government to do this, that or the other thing. To fix it up, we need a Constitution with “positive rights” – for government to be able to compel this, that or the other outcome. There is no comprehension of the fact that if you’re trying to rescue me from a Capitalist who is compelling me to work for less than my full worth, the solution will not be found in some other entity compelling me in a different direction.

There are certain requirements for a just and free market. A free market is just that – free for any to enter whenever they wish on any terms they like. A just market is one where no one loses because someone else managed to gain an unfair advantage via law and regulation. As far as possible consistent with essential safety and with full respect for the rights of others, a free market is a place where people come and go as they please and do what they like.

It is wrong to have gargantuan corporations which can distort the market and make it difficult or impossible for someone to enter and complete. But it is more wrong to have a gargantuan government deciding who can enter, when and under what terms. The corporations, even the most powerful, cannot compel me at risk of life and limb to do their bidding – government can. I can be entirely relieved of Wal Mart by the simple expedient of not shopping there – but where am I to go to get relief from the Internal Revenue Service? So vast is the difference between the power of a corporation and the power of government that it ceases to be a difference of degree and becomes a difference in kind.

In a certain sense, it is touching to see this liberal faith still on display. Undaunted by logic, unwilling to face facts, impervious to the experience of the past century, our liberals are still determined that they can take the heavy club of government and turn it in to a magic wand of peace, freedom and prosperity. All we have to do is give them more and more power and they’ll eventually fix everything up for us – they’ll tell us how to be free and have a law, regulation and tax ready for every possible contingency to ensure we never escape the straight jacket of liberal freedom. We will be forced in to a mold, turned in to what is good and we will one day cry in unison, “we are free”. Such is the liberal dream.

You some times can be very well known by the company you keep – from the Daily Mail:

Crazed cult leader Charles Manson has broken a 20-year silence in a prison interview coinciding with the 40th anniversary of his conviction for the gruesome Sharon Tate murders – to speak out about global warming.

The infamous killer, who started championing environmental causes from behind bars, bemoaned the ‘bad things’ being done to environment in a rambling phone interview from his Californian jail cell.

‘Everyone’s God and if we don’t wake up to that there’s going to be no weather because our polar caps are melting because we’re doing bad things to the atmosphere…”

After all, it is “settled science”, right? I mean, ol’ Charlie is just as up on this as any other global warming enthusiast, isn’t he? And doesn’t this environmental consciousness in some way relieve the fact that he butchered innocent people? Heck, these days you can get Democrats going to the mat defending you for doing just that…well, ok, to be fair; for doing that as long as you call it “choice” and be sure your victims are unknown. Manson just happened to take things that one, little step too far, huh?