Preaching that this is not class warfare generally precedes a volley in the self destructive attacks on the wealthy.  It is like the shyster who precedes a dishonest act with “trust me.”

There was some news of some of the protesters on Wall Street being paid to march.  That pretty much sums up the integrity of their argument.

Apparently the Democrats do not agree what wealthy is.  The president wants to define it as over $200,000 for singles, $250,000 for households.  Chuck Schumer and Nancy Pelosi  thinks it should be over $1,000,000 in income.  I have contended that clarity destroys poorly thought out plans. For the controlling elites excess wealth is the income from anybody who either a) makes more money than they do or b) makes it in an industry or profession that they deem less worthy than their chosen or preferred profession.

Speaking of poorly thought out plans, Herman Cain’s 9-9-9 plan smacks of yet another poorly thought out  populist idea.  I like Herman Cain in many ways and I like a consumption tax for several reasons, but the devil is in the details and tax policy is no place to think out loud.  It takes some thought.

The President’s jobs bill was dead on arrival: another poorly thought out plan, a political hip shot at poor economic performance. The tax increases from the health care bill have not even taken effect yet and he is already piling on additional taxes.  Republicans in the Senate have petitioned to bring it to the floor (assuming to embarrass the president and his own party) and Harry Reid has killed the vote.  The bill does not even have a co-sponsor from his own party in the House.  Yet the Republicans are blamed for obstruction. This is not a serious effort to stimulate job production; it is a cheap political stunt.

There are three rules often missing in economic analysis.

• What works in one quantity does not necessarily work in another quantity.
• What worked in one time period may not work in another time period.
• What works in the short term may not work in the long term. The reverse is also true.

Economic models only work to the extent that they must exclude variables that inhabit the real world.  That is why economics, unlike physics and math, is not a science.

There is a distinct connection between a free economy and growing economy, but freedom is not enough. There must be a moral center, security of property, and a reasonably educated population. But without individual liberty these other factors will not create the growth that other countries with liberty can.

Looking back on the economic collapse, it is hard to reconcile the intellect and credentials of the people in the public and private sector who participated in this fiasco. Yet at the end of the day this collapse was no different than hundreds of other financial disasters.  Too much debt, too much money, and too many well educated elites who think that this time is different.  Yes there was also greed, but we have had greed since the dawn of man and we still have greed today. Blaming the collapse on greed is like blaming a plane crash on gravity.

Yet we are still enamored with well credentialed ignorance.  We listen to Keynesian economists tell us that every dollar spent by the government creates economic output of $1.50.  It makes me wonder why private business owners work so damn hard to make a buck when all we have to do is play golf and wait for the government to just spend our way to prosperity.

It is only a slight corollary to hear ex-speaker Nancy Pelosi state how unemployment benefits are the most productive way for the government to spend money, because these poor slobs need the money so bad that they will spend it quickly giving the economy a big boost.  In fact it is such a great idea, I wonder why we do not double or triple the unemployment benefits to give us a bigger faster boost.  I realize the left thinks Sarah Palin is a moron, but this statement along with her famous “we have to pass the health care bill to see what is in it” makes Ms. Palin look like a Rhodes scholar.

As I hear Senate Majority leader Harry Reid justify funding of the Cowboy Poetry festival while we have a record deficit it is hard to escape just how removed from reality our leaders are.  Every business who saw huge cuts in their volume in the last year knows how to solve this problem.

To believe that we can spend and tax our way out of this pending catastrophe is the equivalent of believing in the tooth fairy.

When the Constitution was written and adopted it carefully balanced the need for a strong central government with the need to restrict the power of the central government.  It’s genius is in striking that balance.

Rights were addressed in the form of protection of human freedom from the interference from government and the protection from the tyranny of the majority.  The founding fathers were very well read in the history and philosophical development of man.  Yet they saw past the mere problems of the day that they were addressing and created a structure that could change, yet protect the fundamental rights they held dear.

Those rights such as freedom of speech, freedom of religion, and freedom of assembly were freedoms not granted by the government in power but human freedoms that were to be protected. These freedom only required respect of the authorities to exist.  This is vastly different from “rights” to healthcare, education, housing and other “rights” that require that transfer of wealth from one citizen to another.  Once these “human rights” first articulated by FDR but claimed by progressives today such as Jesse Jackson, Jr. become the province of government then the endless “right” to your money to pay for these rights turns the government into a tool of moral supremacist looters.  Elections then just become “an advanced auction of stolen goods.”

Health care is a market, not a right.  And government’s confusion on this issue amounts to nothing more than an intrusion into the market.  A market takes into account the wishes of thousands of participants, the government takes into  account the judgment of an elitist few.

When the government does interfere into the market it should be to maintain or improve the function of the market. Anti-trust legislation seeks to prevent monopolies to keep competition vigorous even though the outcome of much legislation and regulation is often to protect established enterprises from new competition. Some regulations seek to force transparency or accurate reporting, in belief that dependable knowledge is necessary for consumers to be able to make their own choices.

But these regulations are distinctly different from creating or claiming rights that require the government to spend money that is not theirs. We no more have a right to health care than we have a right to a car, a computer, a flat screen TV, books,  a new wardrobe, or cowboy poetry (see Harry Reid video).

It is the poor understanding of what a “right” actually is that underlies the financial mess we find ourselves in. It is the belief that by claiming such rights that do not exist that these political and economic morons believe that the government can solve any and every problem we encounter.

Not too many surprises that were not predictable. I was surprised that Reid won even though I thought Angle was weak. Intrade missed that one. Angle and O’Donnell may have overcome inexperience and qualifications in the primary, but that did not equate to a final victory. Yet Marco Rubio came far and won; he was just compelling and exuded competence. Quality did count on most races.

I was surprised to see Murkowski pull a Lieberman in Alaska.  (possibly)

Again we learned that money alone does not win races, at least not beyond a certain point. Meg Whitman outspent Jerry brown in multiples and lost. No amount of money will overcome gross demographic or structural disadvantages.

Interesting to note that the new young faces belonged to ‘conservatives’ (Rubio, Haley) and that the return of the old tired faces (Boxer, Frank) belonged to the ‘progressives’.

Erick Erickson, the conservative (also young, vibrant, and very influential editor of Red State) noted that the real gain for conservatives was in the state houses.  The number of new governors and state legislatures turning red is significant.

One reason is the acknowledgement that the Democrats will be facing a much wider swatch of red real estate in 2012. But for me the bigger issue is that the Republicans are growing a much much larger base of experienced leaders. At a time when Bill Clinton can no longer fill a high school auditorium this is a serious advantage. The Democrats are in serious need of new blood. There is no depth in new vibrant leadership beyond the president, and he has now hit a mighty wall.

In Georgia’s 8^th district Jim Marshall lost to Austin Scott.  He has survived 4 previous campaigns, some of them close and contentious.  Jim is a very experienced Viet Nam vet and is about as blue dog as a Democrat can get.  He is smart, independent in his thinking and supported by many Republicans although he is a Democrat. His constituent services are probably the best in Congress.  He voted against the health care bill and even wrote a great article in National Review ( a conservative magazine) about why market forces can be tapped to correct many health care problems.

He campaigned against Pelosi and is a strong supporter of the second amendment.  His fatal liability was the large ‘D’ next to his name.

The Democrat’s agenda was so arrogant, heavy handed, and reckless that many voters who were never so adversely partisan before refused to vote for any Democrat.  Jim Marshall was a victim of a reckless Democrat administration. How many other blue dogs facing the same fate will consider switching parties?

Pelosi, Reid and Obama were not just a disaster for their ill conceived and irresponsible legislation. They were a disaster for their own party.

Peggy Noonan claimed, correctly in my opinion, that the Tea Party saved the Republican party (Why It’s Time for the Tea Party -The populist movement is more a critique of the GOP than a wing of it, Wall Street Journal / Opinion Journal, September 17, 2010). A year ago (The Democrat’s Fragile Advantage – August 18, 2009)  I stated that the Republicans will not be resurrected by the same old faces. The future of the Republicans are not the faces of Gingrich, Huckabee, Romney, McCain, or even Palin. It is the face of Chris Christie of New Jersey, Mitch Daniels of Indiana, and Marco Rubio of Florida and others. They are clear speakers with substance rather than mere eloquence and  real governing experience.  They are both knowledgeable and intelligent.

This is not to suggest that the old guard are bad candidates or not qualified.  It is just to suggest that change may require new faces with new energy.  Competence and experience  must also count.

The Democrats are relying on old faces (by old I do not mean aged, but stagnant) but the drawing power of the Clintons has become as irrelevant as the Republican old guard. The Democrats need some new faces with new energy.  Obama’s claim to bring new ideas and change has been nothing more than the rehashing of failed old ideas.

Just as the Republicans were pulled from the ashes by a grass roots movement the same can happen for the Democrats.  If the Republicans can restrain their movement from succumbing to ethnocentric intolerance they will retain the independent voters. If the Democrats can restore the fiscal common sense of Clinton or Kennedy while regaining the reputation for tolerance and openness their brand will be sustained.

If both parties will discuss the issues with some actual depth rather than partisan bickering and juvenile behaviors the voters may benefit as well.