The Democrat-controlled U.S. Senate willfully—intentionally—refuses to write a budget.  Why?

A budget publishes the lurid photographs of America’s fornication with Marx.  It shines the light on the American welfare state,  with its roaches bursting from the top of the government’s cookie jar and pouring over, threatening to overrun our kitchens, workshops, and streets.  Instead of scurrying away with them, the Democrat Senate and president pretend not to see.  As long as the Democrats distract the public, then they may trick enough people at election time into thinking that our problems are racism, or the religious right, or big corporations.

A spreadsheet of welfare state failure: that is what a budget would be.  In the past, such budgets raised little dust.  Now, the Republicans would howl.  The Democrats would challenge: “OK, then, where do you want to cut?”  Of course, the Republicans are afraid to answer, and so they utter only muffled protests against the Democrat Senate’s dereliction of duty.

Thus the stalemate: The Republicans and Democrats alike perceive that the American public is not yet ready to cast off this manifestation of Marxist mindset known as the American welfare state.  One party is wholly given over to the lust for power Marx promised, and the other party knows it’s wrong, but wants it anyway.  The result is the same.  The American public could force them out, or force them to change, but the American public has only the whisper of a memory of what it is like to wake up free every day.  We define freedom only by  comparison to the most autocratic police states: “Oh, but you should have grown up in ________, where government troops kicked down doors in the middle of the night and took you away.”  We Americans have forgotten who we are.

A budget from the Democrat Senate would mark TEOTUWSAWKI: The end of the unsustainable welfare state as we know it.  In the words of President Obama, the current state of governance is unsustainable.  A budget would ring out its mocking parody of the Liberty Bell, echoing “Unsustainable!” across the UWSA: the Unsustainable Welfare States of America.

It would be the death-knell for big-government Republicans, too.

News just out: Rick Santorum won Iowa. 

ABC whines and breathlessly gushes that Romney tithed millions to his church.  At least those tithes were voluntary; I bet he gave millions to the federal government as well, under compulsion of law and threat of criminal prosecution, but ABC is unconcerned about that.

So, in the minds of leftoids:

Capital confiscated by government: good.

Capital voluntarily given to church: horrifying.

Republicans: taking “Snatching defeat from the jaws of victory” to new heights.  Or lows.  Or whatever.

Serious discussion: The Republican Party is where the debate in this nation is taking place over who we really are.  Of course divisions are deep.  There is no compatibility between constitutional, limited self-government, natural rights believing, freedom loving people, and the opposing political ruling class of both parties.  The Democrat Party might as well just merge with the EU; if we had wanted to live under a European-styled welfare state, our ancestors could have just stayed there.  Are we a place where people may go to be free, or are we all just serfs on some other form of fiefdom, slaving away on the .gov manor, under the whip of petty bureaucrats?  Stay tuned to find out in 2012.

WOE stands for War On Employers.  Not for a single second should any of us be fooled: the .gov at multiple levels sees employers as targets.  The salvos are legislation, regulation, taxation, and litigation.

If you are left-leaning, you have already reacted angrily to what I just wrote.  Don’t get your little pink panties all in a wad.  I’ll hand you a corporate conspiracy theory to chew on instead.  You’ll like it.  Goes like this. (more…)

Picture your life as a pie graph.  Lets make it lemon meringue.  Large whole slices are claimed by the .gov: education, healthcare, and retirement pensions sway the votes of millions.  Slices not monopolized by the .gov include thick layers of government underneath the meringue (That would be the sour, lemon layer.)

Now, look at Greece.  Greece is offering bonds.  Ho, hum.  Who in his right mind would buy?  Typically, government bonds are “unsecured” meaning that they are not backed by collateral, or property.  They are backed by the now-vanished expectation that the government will stand, and will honor the payment obligations.  It is like loaning the money to someone to buy a house strictly on that person’s signature, because of that person’s strength, stature, and integrity.

Government no longer commands such respect.

Greece is offering bonds secured by government property.  If Greece still fails to cut spending, the bond holders could claim government property. Foreclose.

Of course, I would not trust any government to actually honor the terms, and give up the property.  Warning to investors lured by secured bonds, back by the Parthenon: beware of Greeks bearing gifts.  If you want your government’s property back, buy it outright.

That is why the Greek government is offering the bonds: to fend off a growing privatization movement.