Representation Without Representation: Our Unaccountable $6 Billion Congress

According to stories here, here and here, in addition to the 535 elected members of the US Congress, there are about 10,000 staffers under various classifications who are hired by these office holders to assist them.

The average staff budget is said to be $1.5 million, which is in addition to the $174,000 annual salary of the elected representatives and senators themselves.

While the latter costs the taxpayers upwards of $93 million annually, the former is upwards of $800 million annually.

In other words, we willingly spend close to $1 billion in tax dollars every year for congressional representation which is pretty much universally despised.

And about five times as much to elect it. A CBS News/New York Times poll in October found just 9 percent of Americans approve of the job Congress is doing, but someone, somewhere, is pretty happy investing $5 billion to elect the right people. And "the right people" end up with net worths ten times that of their constituents.

Maybe it's time to change this.

How about following the constitution for a change?

Article 1, Section 1 of the constitution stipulates that representation "shall not exceed one for every 30,000." By that reasoning we should have a US House today with 10,000 representatives. Instead we have 435, thanks to the Republicans in the 1920s who simply refused to reapportion after the 1920 Census and fixed the number of representatives at the then current levels in 1929 through legislation.

The constitution wasn't amended. It was ignored. And today Republicans would claim the mantle of originalism. I'll believe it when I see it.

The great fear of the anti-federalists, who opposed the language of the constitution, was that no one man could conceivably represent adequately or honestly the interests of 30,000 citizens. They wanted the ratio to be smaller than that. Much smaller. Say on the order of one representative for every 15,000 of their fellows. That would imply today a US House of 20,000.

Instead what have we got?

Representation of one for 700,000 in a district, and climbing. Which is why you are so disgusted with your rich, arrogant and corrupt representative. He represents the guy who pays him the money he needs to advertise on radio and television so that you at least recognize his name and picture every two years and believe some stupid lie he tells about how he represents your interests even though he doesn't even know you exist. The last thing he wants is the real competition and anonymity of being just one of 20,000.

Imagine if your representative represented only 15,000 people. Chances are he would have to work pretty hard to get elected because no special interest is going to fork over millions just for his lousy vote.

He might even ring your doorbell.

What would it cost?

Even if you paid them all the same salary as we do today, half the anti-federalists' number, 10,100 representatives and senators, would cost us $1.76 billion. Their legislation might actually improve if we eliminated all their staff positions and made the elected do the actual work for a change. Throw in some campaign finance reform which stipulates contributions originate within the new districts, and repeal of the 17th Amendment, and you have a nice little package a decent presidential candidate could win on easily.

So far, however, none of them have enough imagination to see that 91 percent of the country is already ripe for the ideas.

If only they had some.

How To Preserve A Tyranny

Aristotle, Politics, 1313-1314:

[T]o preserve a tyranny . . .

keep down those who are of an aspiring disposition

take off those who will not submit

allow no public meals, no clubs, no education, nothing at all

guard against everything that gives rise to high spirits or mutual confidence

[do not permit] the learned meetings of those who are at leisure to hold conversation with each other

keep all the people strangers to each other; for knowledge increases mutual confidence;

oblige all strangers to appear in public, and to live near the city-gate, that all their actions may be sufficiently seen; for those who are kept like slaves seldom entertain any noble thoughts

endeavour to know what every one who is under their power does and says ... employ spies ... send out listeners wherever there [is] any meeting or conversation; for the people dare not speak with freedom for fear of such persons; and if any one does, there is the less chance of its being concealed;

endeavour that the whole community should mutually accuse and come to blows with each other, friend with friend, the commons with the nobles, and the rich with each other

It is also advantageous for a tyranny that all those who are under it should be oppressed with poverty, that they may not be able to compose a guard; and that, being employed in procuring their daily bread, they may have no leisure to conspire against their tyrants.

The Pyramids . . . are a proof of this . . . the edifices . . . the temple . . . all these [public works] produced one end, the keeping the people poor.

It is necessary also to multiply taxes

A tyrant also should endeavour to engage his subjects in a war, that they may have employment and continually depend upon their general. 

A king is preserved by his friends, but a tyrant is of all persons the man who can place no confidence in friends, as every one has it in his desire and these chiefly in their power to destroy him.

All these things also which are done in an extreme democracy should be done in a tyranny, as permitting great licentiousness to the women in the house, that they may reveal their husbands' secrets;

and showing great indulgence to slaves also for the same reason; for slaves and women conspire not against tyrants: but when they are treated with kindness, both of them are abettors of tyrants, and extreme democracies also; and the people too in such a state desire to be despotic.

For which reason flatterers are in repute in both these: the demagogue in the democracy, for he is the proper flatterer of the people; among tyrants, he who will servilely adapt himself to their humours; for this is the business of [1314a] flatterers.

And for this reason tyrants always love the worst of wretches, for they rejoice in being flattered, which no man of a liberal spirit will submit to; for [the best] love the virtuous, but flatter none. ...

A tyrant also should show no favour to a man of worth or a freeman; for he should think, that no one deserved to be thought these but himself; for he who supports his dignity, and is a friend to freedom, encroaches upon the superiority and the despotism of the tyrant: such men, therefore, [tyrants] naturally hate, as destructive to their government.

A tyrant also should rather admit strangers to his table and familiarity than citizens, as these are his enemies, but [strangers] have no design against him. ...

the citizens should be of poor abject dispositions; for such men never propose to conspire against any one.

[the citizens] should have no confidence in each other; for while they have not this, the tyrant is safe enough from destruction. For which reason [tyrants] are always at enmity with those of merit, as hurtful to their government; not only as [those of merit] scorn to be governed despotically, but also because [the meritorious] can rely upon each other's fidelity, and others can rely upon theirs, and because they will not inform against their associates, nor any one else.

[the citizens] shall be totally without the means of doing anything; for no one undertakes what is impossible for him to perform: so that without power a tyranny can never be destroyed.

These, then, are the three objects which the inclinations of tyrants desire to see accomplished; for all their tyrannical plans tend to promote one of these three ends, that their people may neither have mutual confidence, power, nor spirit.

On David Cameron's "Ludicrous", "Dead" Political Party

From Peter Hitchens on David Cameron's purely political play to the Eurosceptics (link):

[T]hat is all he did – avoid a referendum. He didn’t preserve Britain from an EU power-grab. That can and will still happen. Nor did he ‘repatriate’ powers from Brussels (this is a fantasy. No such thing is possible under EU law). Mr Cameron’s only action is a political one, to do with saving his ludicrous, unworkable party from a richly-deserved split and collapse. Why should anyone be grateful for that? It is precisely this artificial preservation, by increasingly desperate measures, of a dead party, that stands in the way of Britain’s long-needed departure from the EU. And there seems to me to have been a great deal of fawning over Mr Cameron by supposed 'sceptics' notably at the famous Chequers dinner on Friday night. I gather the whips called for a restrained response after Mr Cameron's statement on Monday, as by then the supposed wrath of the Liberal Democrats, which had finally awoken all those days later, had to be soothed.

David Cameron, a conservative without convictions.  

Don't Expect Overmuch: Human Nature is a Mixture of Good and Evil

"You are not however to expect, a perfect form of government, any more than to meet with perfection in man."

-- Brutus to the New Yorkers, 15 Nov. 1787

Pat Buchanan Describes David Cameron's Euro Veto as His Finest Hour

Here:

With his no vote on fiscal union, Cameron declared to the EU: "British surrenders of sovereignty come to an end here. And Britain will deny Brussels any oversight authority of any national budgets or any right to sanction EU members."

The euro-skeptic right is understandably ecstatic.

"He Put Britain First," thundered the Daily Mail. "There is now a wonderful opportunity for Britain gradually to loosen itself from the shackles of a statist, over-regulated, anti-democratic, corrupt EU."

The Sun featured Cameron as Winston Churchill, flashing a wartime V-for-Victory sign over the banner headline: "Up Eurs -- Bulldog PM Sticks up for Britain."

The British left, however, almost took to bed.

This, however, was NOT his finest hour just recently, when he said he supported gay marriage because he was a conservative:

"I don't support gay marriage despite being a Conservative. I support gay marriage because I'm a Conservative.”

Methinks the display of December in defiance of Europe was meant to quiet the firestorm of opposition building since October over normalised buggery at home.

Which Fascist Offends You More? Bush, or Obama?

Federal Reserve Loans and Asset Purchases in Excess of $29 Trillion Show Banks Insolvent

From John Carney at NetNet (link):

[T]he need to keep borrowing under what are supposed to be short term facilities shows just how badly financial institutions were faring during the financial crisis.

“The amount of overnight lending reflects how broken our financial system really is. A well capitalized, moderately leveraged system does not require this massive liquidity from a central bank — interbank lending should be sufficient. What the data reveals is that the financial sector remains dangerously under-capitalized and overleveraged,” Barry Ritholz writes at the Big Picture.

Osawatomie? Whatsamatta U?

The Osawatomie Coincidence, seen here. Hm.

Liberal Lawyer Jonathan Turley Rightly Attacks Obama Administration For Support of Repackaging Blasphemy as Hate Speech

In The LA Times (link):

This week in Washington, the United States is hosting an international conference obliquely titled "Expert Meeting on Implementing the U.N. Human Rights Resolution 16/18." The impenetrable title conceals the disturbing agenda: to establish international standards for, among other things, criminalizing "intolerance, negative stereotyping and stigmatization of … religion and belief." The unstated enemy of religion in this conference is free speech, and the Obama administration is facilitating efforts by Muslim countries to "deter" some speech in the name of human rights.

Tyrants Arise From the Want of a Middle Class

"[D]emocracies are more firmly established and of longer continuance than oligarchies; but even in those when there is a want of a proper number of men of middling fortune, the poor extend their power too far, abuses arise, and the government is soon at an end."

-- Aristotle, Politics, 1296a

President's Slaves in Congress Vote to Give Him Sweeping Powers Over You

Based entirely on his discretion, the president now gets to decide as commander in chief if you, an American citizen, are a terrorist. He can then send the US military against you here on American soil, and detain you indefinitely here or abroad without trial and without a lawyer.

American citizenship, American law, and the American constitution now really do mean nothing at all, courtesy of Republicans and Democrats alike. It may have started under President Bush and The Patriot Act, but the liberal savior Barack Obama is all too happy to have the sweeping new powers, powers which he has already arrogated to himself, without opposition from his slaves, by targeting and killing American citizens working for terrorists abroad. All this is being done under justification of the law of war, even though our Congress, long ago made subservient to the Executive, has never had the courage to vote to declare war.







The American fascist police state is now complete.

Welcome to tyranny.

And have a pleasant holiday.

Stories here, here, here, here and here.

Bruce Bartlett is so full of it: "More than 90 percent put themselves squarely in the middle"

No they don't. Bruce Bartlett has no scruples left (link):

Social class also involves self-identification. According to the General Social Survey at the University of Chicago, which has been asking people what social class they belong to since 1972, more than 90 percent of Americans put themselves squarely in the middle – belonging either to the working class or the middle class.


This so broadly defines the middle it makes the definition meaningless.

The chief marker of membership in the middle class is homeownership, which the one third of Americans who are renters in 35 percent of the occupied dwellings in the US cannot claim, and they don't, despite what Bruce Bartlett says. They know they are working class, and they admit it.

About equal numbers have said historically that they are either working class or middle class, 45 percent each, by Bartlett's own admission.

Here's his table of the results of the latest self-identification of social class by Americans, which shows an increase in the percentage of Americans self-identifying in 2010 as working class and a more substantial decrease in the percentage of those self-identifying as middle class, just what you would expect during the collapse of the housing bubble and the decline in homeownership:

The Increase in the Wealth Gap is Due to the Housing Collapse

The latest figures from the Federal Reserve (link: compare lines 4 and 42) show that enormous wealth destruction in housing is the overwhelming cause of the dramatic decline in household net worth between 2006 and 2011.

Of the $7.8 trillion decline in net worth over that period, $6.6 trillion of that is all from the bursting of the housing bubble . . . nearly 85 percent.

Hurt most by this are the millions of middle class Americans whose primary asset is their home. Desperately trying to hold on to what they have, by scrimping, saving and working, they don't have the luxury of time to occupy much of anything to protest what is happening to them.

It is impolitic to say so, but their plight is the frequent one of the undiversified investor: too many eggs in one basket.

But that's not a bug, it's a feature of entering the middle class, whose goal is owning a home and raising a family in it, not sophisticated money management and investing. Such people who can scrape together the income of $40,000 to $50,000 necessary to support home ownership typically aren't going to have significant financial assets to manage. Of the 150 million wage earners in America, after all, fully 99 million make $40,000 a year or less.

Neither Obama nor the Republican candidates for president, nor Occupy Wall Street or the Tea Party for that matter, seem to talk much about any of this, yet the collapse of housing better explains the growing gap between rich and poor in America than do the supposed crimes of the one percent. The rich may be getting richer, but it's inspite of the fact that their own homes have declined in value, too. The middle class is being squeezed downward because its primary asset continues to lose value.

The deep frustration of so many of the American people with their elected leaders is that the leaders really don't represent them in this matter, in the same sense that sympathizing with, understanding, or trying to fix this problem doesn't have the urgency for them anymore than it does for the rich. The reason is that virtually none of them has personal experience of it. From our president to our senators and all the way on down to our representatives, we have leaders whose own high net worth and the insulation from our vulnerabilities that that affords make them remote, unfeeling, and unmotivated.

In point of fact, since it was Democrats and Republicans who conspired in the very policies which have misled Americans to drain $10 trillion in home equity over three decades (for example, dramatic changes to tax and banking policy in 1997 and 1999 under Bill Clinton, Newt Gingrich and Phil Gramm), it shouldn't be surprising that none of them really wants to talk about this gorilla in the living room. They helped make and sell the bed we're now sleeping in. And we bought it.

Of about 132 million total dwellings in 2010 of all types (table 3), just 61 million occupied dwellings are single family homes occupied by their owners, with an additional 11 million occupied by renters, according to the latest Census data here (link). That means something substantially less than 46 percent of total dwellings in the country could plausibly represent the American dream of the traditional middle class. The richest quintile, those households making over $100,000 per year, let it be remembered, lives in houses, too.

The Economic Policy Institute, whose president is a socialist, here (link) provides a useful summary of how wealthier individuals avoided the severity of the housing decline precisely because more of their assets were diversified and were not all riding on real estate (emphases added):

In 2007—prior to the Great Recession—median net worth was $106,000 (consisting primarily of home equity, as discussed later). ... Net worth for the top 1% was $19.2 million in 2007 . . ..

The updated figures for 2009 reflect the enormous destruction of wealth due to the bursting of the housing bubble. As a general rule, households with less wealth have a greater share of their wealth embedded in their homes. Thus, it is not surprising that the fallout from the deflating housing bubble disproportionally affected them. On average, the top 20% lost 16.0% and the bottom 80% lost 25.1% of their total wealth in 2008 and 2009. Average wealth of the bottom 80% was just $62,900 in 2009—a dropoff of $40,900 from 2007 and slightly less, in inflation-adjusted terms, than it was more than a quarter-century ago in 1983. Those at the top also lost ground but not nearly as much, percentage-wise. Average wealth of the top 1% was close to $14 million in 2009, down $5.2 million from 2007. ...

[H]ousing equity is a far more important form of wealth for most households. ... In 2007, the middle 20% of households held $196,700 in non-stock assets, and only $10,200 in stocks. In other words, non-stock assets—which are over-whelmingly housing equity—made up about 95% of this group’s wealth.

In the United States homeownership has long been associated with solid footing on the economic ladder, and yet the housing crash has meant that for a broad swath of people homeownership is no longer a reality.

The stepping stone from the lower and working classes to the upper classes, obviously, is the middle class. Very few skip that step, on the way up or on the way down. Rags to riches and back to rags again is interesting, but not common. Rich liberals from both parties, however, have a vested interest in minimizing the middle class to polarize the country. Rich Republicans and Democrats alike don't want the competition entrepreneurial Americans threaten them with, and leftist Democrats need a servile, manipulable constituency they can feed table scraps to in order to keep themselves in power. Some so-called conservative Republicans also, it must be said, seek their own fiefdoms of influence and power at the expense of impulses to limited government. George W. Bush's play for senior votes with Medicare Part D comes to mind.

What middle Americans should demand is a bigger House of Representatives to co-opt these entrenched interests by de-concentrating the power which the 435 now enjoy. Tea Partiers in particular should be advocating a return to the constitutional principle of one representative for every thirty-thousand of population, if their protestations to originalism mean anything. Instead of the bloated, rich and corrupt 435 politicians we've been stuck with for a hundred years, we should have 10,000 lean citizen legislators.

When we get them, things will begin to change for the better because our representatives will have far less power and far more reason to listen to the people. Special interests will have much less influence over them, campaigns will be far less costly, and Congressional staffs could be reduced dramatically, saving us money and getting some actual work out of our politicians for a change. The move would also take away the enthusiasm for radical proposals such as the elimination of the electoral college by dramatically expanding the pool of electors in presidential elections.

We might even persuade such a House to overturn the 17th Amendment, another blow for originalism, which would help improve the US Senate almost overnight. By returning the corrupting influences of campaign cash to state houses where senators would be appointed, we might actually be able to do something about corruption more often because it would be closer to home and we'd be more aware of it.

Net Worth of Poorest Republican Candidate for President is 10 X More Than 75 Percent of America

Here's the minimum net worth of the Republican candidates for president:

Sen. Rick Santorum: $880,000

Gov. Rick Perry: $1.1 million

Rep. Michele Bachmann: $1.8 million (Congressional disclosure is average of minimum and maximum)

Rep. Ron Paul: $3.6 million (Congressional disclosure)

Newt: $6.7 million

Gov. Jon Huntsman: $16 million

Gov. Mitt Romney: $190 million

Discussed here (link).

75 percent of the American people have a net worth in 2007 of $80,000 or less.

Brookings Institution Must Be Nuts: Says Congressional Wealth Reflects Middle Class

Brookings Corporate Sponsors

I refer to this in USA Today (link) back in November:

Lawmakers disclose their assets and liabilities only in broad ranges. So the numbers are estimates — the average of a member's lowest and highest possible net worth. Their actual wealth is often higher because disclosures don't include home values.

Despite some superwealthy members, Stephen Hess of the Brookings Institution says Congress generally reflects the middle class.

"In many cases, the top 10% are self-made … and it reflects something that's in the American psyche," he says. "We're not against people being rich. We just wish we were. But we are particularly attracted to people who made their own riches."

In the USA Today list of 530 US Representatives and Senators, fully 250 or 47 percent declare their net worth, sans their homes, to be $1 million or more. Add in everybody down to a declared net worth of $600K or more (the average of $1.1 million and $100K) and the list balloons to 315 or almost 60 percent of the Congress.

By contrast, 75 percent of the American people have average net worth of less than $80,000 as of 2007. In view of what has happened to housing values since then, I would expect more people to be worth even less than that.

Unlike the members of Congress in the USA Today report, household net worth calculations as tracked by the Federal Reserve include home values.

And between 2006 and Q3 2011, household net worth has fallen by $7.8 trillion, $6.6 trillion of which has been lost in the real estate maelstrom.

For Brookings to say Congressional wealth generally reflects the middle class is preposterous. Kind of like The Wall Street Journal claiming the tax money the government needs so desperately will be found in the middle class, not among the wealthy. Lies, damned lies, designed to rough you up before they pick your pockets again.

WE ARE RULED BY THE RICH.

Anyone who contributes one red cent to their campaigns should be . . . er, institutionalized.

Brutus in 1787 Predicted Our Rich, Out of Touch, Taxing, Corrupt and Servile Congress

Because it is just too small to be otherwise:

[I]n reality there will be no part of the people represented, but the rich, even in that branch of the legislature, which is called the democratic. — The well born, and highest orders in life, as they term themselves, will be ignorant of the sentiments of the midling class of citizens, strangers to their ability, wants, and difficulties, and void of sympathy, and fellow feeling. This branch of the legislature will not only be an imperfect representation, but there will be no security in so small a body, against bribery, and corruption — It will consist at first, of sixty-five, and can never exceed one for every thirty thousand inhabitants; a majority of these, that is, thirty-three, are a quorum, and a majority of which, or seventeen, may pass any law — so that twenty-five men, will have the power to give away all the property of the citizens of these states — what security therefore can there be for the people, where their liberties and property are at the disposal of so few men?

It will literally be a government in the hands of the few to oppress and plunder the many. You may conclude with a great degree of certainty, that it, like all others of a similar nature, will be managed by influence and corruption, and that the period is not far distant, when this will be the case, if it should be adopted; for even now there are some among us, whose characters stand high in the public estimation, and who have had a principal agency in framing this constitution, who do not scruple to say, that this is the only practicable mode of governing a people, who think with that degree of freedom which the Americans do — this government will have in their gift a vast number of offices of great honor and emolument. The members of the legislature are not excluded from appointments; and twenty-five of them, as the case may be, being secured, any measure may be carried.

The rulers of this country must be composed of very different materials from those of any other, of which history gives us any account, if the majority of the legislature are not, before many years, entirely at the devotion of the executive — and these states will soon be under the absolute domination of one, or a few, with the fallacious appearance of being governed by men of their own election.

The more I reflect on this subject, the more firmly am I persuaded, that the representation is merely nominal — a mere burlesque; and that no security is provided against corruption and undue influence. No free people on earth, who have elected persons to legislate for them, ever reposed that confidence in so small a number. The British house of commons consists of five hundred and fifty-eight members; the number of inhabitants in Great-Britain, is computed at eight millions — this gives one member for a little more than fourteen thousand, which exceeds double the proportion this country can ever have: and yet we require a larger representation in proportion to our numbers, than Great-Britain, because this country is much more extensive, and differs more in its productions, interests, manners, and habits. The democratic branch of the legislatures of the several states in the union consists, I believe at present, of near two thousand; and this number was not thought too large for the security of liberty by the framers of our state constitutions: some of the states may have erred in this respect, but the difference between two thousand, and sixty-five, is so very great, that it will bear no comparison.

Brutus to the New Yorkers, 15 November 1787

ND Sheriff Calls in US Border Control Predator B Drone to Execute Search for $6K in Rustled Beef

Reminds me of Lincoln starting a civil war over a dead horse at Ft. Sumter.

Note the prominent emphasis on "law enforcement" at this government website (link). The use of military weaponry for law enforcement is the modus operandi of the US government at least since the Clinton regime used tanks to crush the Branch Davidians in Waco. 911 gave the strategy new impetus under the Bush regime, and the starry eyed leftist dupes who voted for Obama have witnessed nothing but a continuation of Bush policies under Obama building on the Patriot Act.

The crime here was a lousy misdemeanor offense, and escalated into a felony in part because of the sheriff's actions. More ominously, Federal level quasi-military resources were mobilized against citizens. The militarization of units of the FBI, DHS and BATFE, among others, is all part of the same pattern of Federals crossing the line into military tyranny (Is there any other kind?).

The LA Times has the story (link):

Armed with a search warrant, Nelson County Sheriff Kelly Janke went looking for six missing cows on the Brossart family farm in the early evening of June 23. Three men brandishing rifles chased him off, he said.

Janke knew the gunmen could be anywhere on the 3,000-acre spread in eastern North Dakota. Fearful of an armed standoff, he called in reinforcements from the state Highway Patrol, a regional SWAT team, a bomb squad, ambulances and deputy sheriffs from three other counties.

He also called in a Predator B drone.

Some Gave All, Some Gave Nothing

How Do You Say "I Have a Pair" in Anglo Saxon?

This is how.

Toad Suck, Arkansas

Who would believe it?!

(link)

"Academic inflation makes medical inflation look modest by comparison"

The greedy Marxists who outnumber conservatives on college faculties by three to one figured out long ago how to avoid the draft, subvert the values of America's children and future teachers of the young, and get rich doing it all at the same time.

It's been a veritable trinity of scams milked by the coward and follower classes: military conscription deferments for MA and PhD students, the tenure system which has permanently installed radicals nationwide, and now the most important, federally-backed student loans.

The Economist in September 2010 (link) noted the incredible disparity in the rates of college cost and income increases:

College fees have for decades risen faster than Americans’ ability to pay them. Median household income has grown by a factor of 6.5 in the past 40 years, but the cost of attending a state college has increased by a factor of 15 for in-state students and 24 for out-of-state students. The cost of attending a private college has increased by a factor of more than 13 (a year in the Ivy League will set you back $38,000, excluding bed and board). Academic inflation makes medical inflation look modest by comparison.

More recently Virginia Postrel thinks the reason costs have escalated is the federal student loan program itself, a veritable gravy train which guarantees rising costs for everything academic (link):


Any serious policy reform has to start by considering a heretical idea: Federal subsidies intended to make college more affordable may have encouraged rapidly rising tuitions. ...

If you offer people a subsidy to pursue some activity requiring an input that’s in more-or-less fixed supply, the price of that input goes up. Much of the value of the subsidy will go not to the intended recipients but to whoever owns the input. ...

[T]he number of slots at traditional colleges and universities is relatively fixed. A boost in student aid that increases demand is therefore likely to be reflected in prices rather than expanded enrollments. Over time, enrollments should rise, as they have in fact done. But many private schools in particular keep the size of their student bodies fairly stable to maintain their prestige or institutional character.

The IRS: Another Reason Not To Use A Credit Card

They're snooping on your transactions.

From an article in Barron's in September (link):

In a new program launched this year, the IRS is cross-checking taxpayers' reported incomes with their credit-card records.

So if you took a luxury world tour in a year you drew a modest income and left a trail on plastic, be prepared to defend your tax return. Through these credit-card checks, the IRS hopes to snag, among others, unscrupulous filers of Schedule C, used by taxpayers reporting profits and losses from businesses.

All in all, Schedule C filers are estimated to report just 57% of their income, leaving some $68 billion in unpaid taxes each year.

Good for David Cameron

"What was on offer is not in Britain's interest so I didn't agree to it."

"We're not in the euro and I'm glad we're not in the euro."

"We're never going to join the euro and we're never going to give up this kind of sovereignty that these countries are having to give up."


These lines have been scrubbed from revised UK sources such as the tabloid Daily Mail, but CBS News still has them (link).

When America gets a new president, the Anglo Saxons can repair their alliance with leadership such as this.

Congressional Approval Remains in the Tank!

Gallup has congressional job approval stuck at 13 and under 20 since May.

Representation without representation.

How About 10,000 US Representatives Instead of 435?

Many people, rightly in my opinion, point to the decline of religious faith, traditional morality and constitutional respect for both as a leading cause of our current discontents. In making this argument, however, some fall prey to an ahistorical understanding of the priority of the 1st Amendment, and miss an important remedy which animated the founding generation just as much did the principle of religious freedom.

The latest example of the myth of the priority of our 1st Amendment to the US Constitution is repeated by none other than John Garvey, president of The Catholic University of America, for The Baltimore Sun (link), whose other observations I otherwise find wholly unobjectionable:

[T]he right to religious freedom — the first freedom mentioned in the Bill of Rights — was of great importance to the framers of our Constitution.

Mr. Garvey operates under the common misapprehension that the 1st Amendment is somehow first because of James Madison's statements in various places about the priority of religious liberty as an unalienable right whose basis is in the creator. Accordingly Garvey quotes Madison, "This duty is precedent both in order of time and degree of obligation, to the claims of Civil Society," as if this proves why The Bill of Rights starts the way it does and that we should therefore insist more urgently that 1st Amendment considerations somehow take the lead in our civil deliberations over contentious issues, especially as affecting institutions of The Church. It is to some extent an appeal to the authority of what has primacy, which one might expect of a Roman Catholic.

If Madison could hear this, however, he would no doubt laugh, because he himself authored what was the original first amendment, and it had nothing to do with freedom of the press, the free exercise of religion, etc.

Mr. Garvey's ignorance of the historical situation is not unusual, inasmuch as most of us, if we are familiar at all with even the basic facts of history, are children of the federalists who prevailed at the founding and wrote the constitution. We do not remember the arguments of their opponents, the anti-federalists, nor the issues which animated them, probably because we were never taught them.

The short version of a part of this very complicated history is that there was a list of at least twelve amendments proposed in 1789, and what we call our 1st Amendment was actually third in that list, which, with numbers four through twelve, was ultimately ratified while the two preceding were not. These go largely unremarked today, which is a pity because they reveal that if anything animated the minds of the founders as a matter of first importance, it was the idea of adequate representation. And it was this which was a chief pre-occupation of the anti-federalists, who viewed the constitution as a federalist conception of a defective republicanism which co-opted and undermined local constituencies and state governments. To the men of the anti-federalist camp, the more the representation, the less the chance of despotism.

As an historical phenomenon, representation's importance in the founding era formed a unity with taxation, as in "no taxation without representation."

This is why the first article of the constitution concerns itself with establishing the legislative authority, which the founders considered the predominating power in the new government, and its power to tax, both of which were to be apportioned to the states by population. Hence the census. But the constitution failed to delimit the maximum size of legislative representation, only that the number of representatives should not exceed one for every 30,000, and thus amendments were proposed.

The original amendments 1 and 2 read as follows:

Article I:

After the first enumeration required by the first article of the Constitution, there shall be one representative for every thirty thousand, until the number shall amount to one hundred, after which the proportion shall be so regulated by Congress, that there shall be not less than one hundred representatives, nor less than one representative for every forty thousand persons, until the number of representatives shall amount to two hundred; after which the proportion shall be so regulated by Congress, that there shall be not less than two hundred representatives, nor more than one representative for every fifty thousand persons.

Article II:

No law varying the compensation for the services of the Senators and Representatives, shall take effect, until an election of Representatives shall have intervened.

Because Article I was not ratified, the deficiency of the original constitution's provisions for representation, though hotly debated at the time, was never successfully remedied. The deficiency is that the constitution does not specify the "maximum district size", in the words of thirty-thousand.org (link), which happens to be a veritable cornucopia of scholarship on this problem. Its author points out that our US House of Representatives, if it followed the constitution's original intent, would now consist of 10,000 representatives instead of just 435, a number fixed by the Congress in 1929:

Because this part of the Constitution is still “defective”, Congress can choose to grant its constituents virtually any number of Representatives it deems appropriate. In fact, Congress can choose both the number of Representatives and the algorithm by which they are allocated among the states. In contrast, the role of the Census Bureau is limited to conducting the decennial census and applying, to that result, the apportionment algorithm specified by Congress in order to calculate the allocation of House memberships. 

No one alive today who takes politics seriously can say with a straight face that he feels adequately represented by any politician of any party. Gallup would not report polls indicating the extreme low esteem for Congress that it does were it otherwise. Congressmen are remote and aloof, unresponsive even to their erstwhile supporters. Senators are even worse, to say nothing of the president. This was precisely the future predicted by the anti-federalists.

It might come as something of a surprise, perhaps, to thirty-thousand.org, that the anti-federalists were none too happy even with the constitution's idea that "the number of representatives shall not exceed one for every thirty thousand." Some of them could not imagine that one man could adequately represent so many people even as that.

Madison's attempt to set the representation progressively, stopping at one per fifty thousand, indicates something of his federalist sympathies, as well the limits of his imagination as to the potential growth of the American population.

In either eventuality, it must be said, Americans today would be better represented with more representatives than the few we currently have, whose nearly impenetrable incumbency makes them a veritable hereditary aristocracy of power and indeed tyranny over the lives of the Americans the founders intended them to represent.

What we have today is representation without representation, which is why Mr. Garvey rightly feels The Church to be under attack. Too much power is concentrated in too few hands, which is just the way the opponents of all that is good, true and beautiful like it.

The last thing they want is a US House of Representatives populated with 2300 Catholics.

The Market is Not a Leading Indicator

It is a market that has followed . . . the ratings agencies, the Congress, the Fed, the EU appendage du jour. Anyone with any sense knows this and doesn't need an analyst to explain it to him. The smart money remains out of the market.

Herds keep following, and mostly in fear.

Today we're basically back to August 2 and the debt ceiling fiasco, falling then from the 1260 level and rising to it now.

This is a market longing for the days of QE II in late 2010 and early 2011, but it isn't happening, probably because Ben Bernanke doesn't want to be accused of getting Barack Obama reelected.

But all that QE really could do was reproduce a high level around 1360, last seen in June 2008 before all hell broke loose. 1560 might as well be Mt. Everest.

One false move and it's . . . say . . . 575.

Weeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee!

Splat.

Irrational Exuberance in Stocks and in Home Ownership Coincided Beginning After 1994

Home Prices Are Still At The Top Of Their Historical Range Before The Bubble

Note the inflation-adjusted similarity of the current index value to the late 1980s and the late 1970s. 

This means prices could continue to fall at least another 7-8 percent from April 2011 levels, and easily overshoot to the downside as the imbalances continue to correct.

And it could take a very long time.

(source)

The Day The Jobs Stood Still: Obaamu Baracka Nikto

About 2 million fewer total non-farm workers are employed today than in January 2009, despite growth in the population.

Homeownership Under Obama Hits a New All-Time Low of 59.2 Percent

Even a broken clock is right twice a day:

"This is a make-or-break moment for the middle class and all those who are fighting to get into the middle class. At stake is whether this will be a country where working people can earn enough to raise a family, build a modest savings, own a home and secure their retirement."

-- President Obama, quoted here, Dec. 6, 2011

The fact is the moment has already broken against the middle class.

Nobody is fighting to get into the middle class. The middle class is fighting to stay middle class, and is losing.

The president, who only now protests that he would rescue the middle class as the election season heats up, has actually presided over its demise, turning the middle class into the working class renters of yesteryear, and worse, according to this story from August 5, 2011 at CNN Money (link):

Home ownership is on the decline and, according to a recent Morgan Stanley report, the United States is fast becoming a nation of renters.

Last Friday, the Census Bureau reported that the percentage of people who owned a home had dropped to 65.9% during the second quarter -- its lowest level since the first quarter of 1998 and a far cry from the high of 69.2% reached in late 2004.

Yet, in a research paper issued a week earlier, Morgan Stanley (MS, Fortune 500) analysts Oliver Chang, Vishwanath Tirupattur and James Egan argued that the home ownership rate is even lower than the Census Bureau statistics say.

In fact, once they factored in delinquent mortgage borrowers (the ones who are likely to lose their homes at some point), Morgan Stanley calculated that the home ownership rate is more like 59.2%.

That's the lowest level since the Census Bureau started keeping quarterly records back in 1965 (before that, it recorded home ownership rates once a decade). The Census Bureau's statistics, however, do not factor in mortgage delinquencies.


When it comes to savings, the president speaks of modest savings and secure retirement as his goals for us, when the actual picture is a grim present and a worse future.

A survey using 2009 data and making the rounds in May 2011 said nearly half of Americans couldn't come up with $2,000 for an emergency within 30 days (link).

And just two days ago a story (link) reported on a different survey which suggests that over half of the 151 million American workers have less than $25,000 saved while over half of the already retired are in the same boat:

More than half of all workers, 56%, say they have less than $25,000 in savings, according to a survey by the Employee Benefit Research Institute. ...

More than half of retirees, 54%, report they have less than $25,000 saved. That's up dramatically from 2006, when 42% said they had less than that.


The most recent data from the Bureau of Economic Analysis (link) confirms that there has been a steady decline in the personal savings rate under Obama from 5.3 percent in 2010 to an annualized rate of 3.8 percent in the third quarter of 2011, a nearly 30 percent decline from what was already an inadequate level.

Some unemployed and now homeless families in hardest hit states like Florida are reduced to living in their cars, trucks and vans because shelters are already full. Their plight was the subject of a recent story (link) on 60 Minutes.

The American middle class is under siege on every front, from jobs, to homeownership, to family formation, to savings, to retirement. All this has unfolded under Obama's watch, who vacations, golfs, parties, fund-raises and speechifies, railing against business and the rich at every opportunity. But it is the middle class which is disappearing as he speaks, and he's done nothing to stop it.

The true meaning of class warfare.

Lawyer for Joshua Clough of the Hutaree Militia Turned His Client for The State

If you were 29 and your lawyer offered you 5 instead of life after 20 months in the slammer, what the hell do you think you would do?

On Monday, nearly two years later, Clough cut a deal with the government in admitting to his role in the plot -- a confession that will land him in prison for five years. The deal spared him a potential life sentence.

"This was a difficult choice. I guided him to this decision, and he's comfortable with it," said Clough's lawyer, Randall Roberts, who wouldn't say whether Clough is cooperating against the remaining defendants.

This is why they don't release you on bond, so they can grind you down, working on you day after day, week after week, month after month, until you crack.

None dare call it tyranny: "the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial."

Read the whole story in The Detroit Free Press (link).

John Tamny Believes The Mad Dream of Libertarian Ideology

Briggs forgets his limitations

"[A]s humans we’re free to do anything we want so long as our actions don’t infringe on the freedoms of others. ... [W]e as Americans have infinite natural rights."

-- John Tamny (link)

Just taken at face value the statements are a self-contradiction because the first logically excludes the second.

To qualify the range of permissible action is to limit the range, which therefore cannot be infinite, by definition. In fact, the very resort to so qualifying the range in the first place is a sort of back-handed compliment to the limitations which the underlying order places on all the constituent elements of the world.

Conservatives recognize in the underlying order the divine, which is the basis of the rights. Accordingly the rights themselves have limitations, just as also do we. As surely as our common end is the grave, no one is at liberty to shout "Fire!" in a crowded theatre and to hope to escape arrest. The right to free speech is not absolute.

And to qualify infinite natural rights as somehow American reminds one of nothing so much as the unreflective boosterism of the by-gone era of manifest destiny.

Conservatives recognize their own limitations. Libertarians do not. Therefore the latter are dangerous, especially at the movies.

The Next Bailout: Think Fed Leverage at 53:1 is Bad? Try the FHA at 417:1.

So says Fortune (link), or else it's curtains for Ginnie Mae:

The second catalyst [for government support of housing to decline] is the FHA, which looks increasingly like it will need a bailout. In its annual report to Congress, released a few weeks ago, the FHA reported estimated economic net worth of $2.6 billion backing $1.078 trillion insurance in force, for a capital ratio of just 0.24% (or 417x leverage). One year ago, the capital ratio was 0.50%, and in 2007 it was 6.4%.  The FHA's annual report claims it's adequately capitalized, but this conclusion relies on home prices not falling at all from here. ...

The government will have to pony up to recapitalize the FHA. FHA mortgages are fed into Ginnie Mae MBS, and Ginnie Mae MBS are explicitly backed by the full faith and credit of the United States government. So if the FHA runs out of funds, the government will have little choice but to step up. To do otherwise would be a default – not out of the question these days, but not very likely either.

FHA and VA loans fill void left by private lending

Dr. Housing Bubble weighs in with the big picture (link):

The trend for lower home prices has been baked in for nearly a year now. Last summer we had a mini burst of buyers thanks to artificial tax credits and low interest rates. I still view the current market as being designed for the nothing down leverage happy mentality that is present in our society. You have a large number of buyers purchasing homes with 3.5 percent down FHA mortgages and the default rates are soaring in this category. ...



Over half a decade ago I knew the bigger issue would be the cognitive dissonance that would linger from a post-bubble world. Many now realize that what occurred in the housing market was a once in a lifetime spending binge induced by debt. Yet some still think those days are only around the corner. The global debt crisis will not allow that. This is why most of the mortgage market is now dominated by the government. How many foreign governments or investors are going to trust Goldman Sachs or Morgan Stanley when they drop by their door steps with new mortgage backed securities? I think some have learned their lessons well and the data reflects this.


The housing market was bound to have a day of reckoning and it looks like it is slowly unraveling. It was simply impossible to have a shadow inventory growing with banks just ignoring the reality. We are now going into year five of the housing bubble bursting. You have millions of those in foreclosure who have not made a payment in one to even two years.


Ultimately the burden falls largely on the middle class. The Federal Reserve has a primary mission to protect banks. That is their bottom line. They are not looking out for the best interest of homeowners or working Americans. For the cost of the bailouts and shadow loans, they could have paid off close to every mortgage in the country. Yet even principal reductions were never on the radar because to do that, it would be to admit a financially broken system. Instead they opted to give out $7.7 trillion in backdoor loans to banks and forced the public to deal with “free market” solutions. An interesting situation no doubt but the problems we are now facing are based on this two-tiered system.



Confounded Interest points out (link) just how high the FHA default rates are:

As of October 2011 17.02% of FHA loans were at some stage of delinquency. The serious delinquency rate is 9.05%.


Clearly another government sponsored enterprise is repeating the mistakes of the past as we speak, having destroyed its capital base with non-performing loans swelling its balance sheet. FHA obviously should require down payments which are much higher than 3.5 percent in order to strengthen its bottom line, but it's probably too late to avoid bailing it out for the mistakes it has already made.

Talking Tough While Armed Is Now A Crime of Violence in Hutaree Verdict

Nevermind no actual crime of violence ever occurred.

The plea bargain merely establishes that this poorly advised misguided soul mistakenly agrees that intemperate talk of a plot while armed is itself a crime of violence.

What material difference such talk makes whether armed with a "gun" or merely with one's two arms is now brought into question. The 2nd Amendment is what is under attack here, in order to get at the 1st.

He should get a new lawyer.

The Detroit Free Press has the best coverage (link) of the plea bargain reached with Joshua Clough, 29, who is set to spend five on ice and testify against his brethren:

Joshua John Clough, 29, formerly of Blissfield Township, pleaded guilty today to the use of a firearm during, and in relation to, a crime of violence. ...

Clough went on to admit that, as part of their plot, the Hutaree conducted military-style training in Lenawee County, where they engaged in weapon proficiency drills, patrolling and reconnaissance exercises, and demonstrations on how to assemble and use explosives.

Clough admitted that around Feb. 20, 2010, he participated in a Hutaree training exercise that focused on an upcoming, covert reconnaissance exercise, which was scheduled for April 2010.

During this training, Clough used and carried a firearm.

Perhaps the NRA should take up the case and argue that carrying a firearm is a form of speech, which it most certainly is. Just ask anyone deterred from a crime by the sight of one, as happens everyday.

Unemployment Under Obama is Over 8 Percent for 34 of 35 Months in Office

(source)

George Will, Free Trader, Labels Herman Cain Entrepreneurial Charlatan, Disrespectful

Yeah, after Cain has withdrawn from the race.

Coward.

Here.

Obama Must Be Crackin' a Cold One Tonight: Herman Cain Finished Off in Record Time

The very likeable black Republican with the easily understood tax proposal was neutralized in record time by making him very unlikeable with half of the electorate.

It isn't just that our politics have degenerated into playing the race card, but also the gender card.

Herman Cain didn't help himself when on top of inspiring no confidence on some of the issues he mismanaged the lynching. The thing is, no one expected it would be a female lynch mob, probably Herman most of all. Men are stupid that way. That Herman should have known the Obama m/o in Illinois only demonstrates another disqualification for the big leagues.

What was he thinking?

The LA Times has the story of the end of the Herman Cain for president campaign here.