Absurd. Absurd.

Instapundit also notes that 30 college presidents made over one million per year.

He's been on this a lot -- the education bubble. As we'eve subsidized and subsidized education, that money has not gone to new value; instead, it's just permitted college administrators to give themselves and their faculty huge raises.

When in the past was being a professor considered a lucrative career? Never. Until now. Teaching in college was always a desirable job -- status, good hours, plenty of time off, terrific lifestyle, and, of course, having sex with students. With this pile of inducements, we never needed a huge salary to draw people to the academy; the academy's like Hollywood in that thousands and thousands of people are willing to work for minimum wage just to have some kind of shot at making it big in academics. ("Big" meaning a tenure track position.)

So why have we inflated salaries beyond all measure?

This regime is awful in so many ways -- expensive for the taxpayer, hugely expensive for families, and hugely expensive too for students, who begin their careers until a pile of ruinous debt. Debt which they took on believing they needed to, and also because too few people think about actually paying off big loans when they're taking them.

This is the sort of situation that should bother liberals -- tricking people, essentially, into taking out huge loans to buy something of dubious marginal value (that is, why not go to state school?) in order to personally enrich a small elite with a vested interest in charging ever higher and higher prices.

But of course it doesn't; their response is just to guarantee more and bigger loans, apparently not getting that it is exactly that flood of money that has inflated the cost of higher education in the first place.

And, of course, this is because they are so reliant on the academic-media complex for support.

The bubble needs to be burst as soon as possible. Cap the amount of guaranteed student loans at $7000 per year and watch how quickly tuition stops escalating. (Actually I guess $10,000 per year -- $7000 at this point is too low, given how crazy this has gotten.)

Posted by: Ace at 07:19 AM | Comments (174)
Post contains 398 words, total size 2 kb.

It's really minor, but MSNBC denied me my schadenfreude by psychologically preparing for the loss on November 2 and dealing with the wipeout with bitter snark instead of tears. I tried to watch them for the weeps, but they refused to give them to me.

This is sort of good too though.

Dejected Democrats wiped away tears on the House floor Monday night while Republicans congratulated themselves on winning back control of the lower chamber.

...

Joyful House GOP lawmakers, who will take control of the House in January with at least 85 new members, made no effort to conceal their elation.

Spotted crying: Dina Titus of Nevada and Debbie Halvorson of Illinois. Video please.

Posted by: Ace at 07:00 AM | Comments (89)
Post contains 129 words, total size 1 kb.

Over the weekend soon to be ex-Speaker thought she cut a deal to keep both Steny Hoyer and Jim Clyburn on the Democratic leadership team by shoving Clyburn, the top ranking black in Congress, to the back of the bus.

No so fast says the Congressional Black Caucus.

The Congressional Black Caucus wants more details about the proposal to create a leadership position for Rep. James Clyburn (D-S.C.).

The Congressional Black Caucus is withholding its endorsement of a proposal by Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) to create a new Democratic leadership position for Rep. James Clyburn (D-S.C.).

The CBC met for nearly two hours on Monday to discuss the deal that Pelosi brokered to end a leadership battle between Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (Md.) and Clyburn, who had been vying for the second-ranking post of minority whip.

The caucus chairwoman, Rep. Barbara Lee (D-Calif.), said after the meeting that the CBC wanted more details about Clyburn’s policy and strategy portfolio and was “reserving judgment” about the package the Speaker is offering.

“We fully support our current whip, Mr. Clyburn, for the No. 3 position and we’re currently reserving judgment on the entire package until we see what the actual portfolio entails in terms of responsibilities,” Lee told reporters.

If that wasn't enough, Nancy is getting a challenge from Heath Schuler for Minority Leader.

Rep. Heath Shuler (N.C.) formally launched his long-shot bid Monday to oust Speaker Nancy Pelosi (Calif.) as the leader of House Democrats, beginning to ask lawmakers to support his more centrist campaign to be minority leader.

"I'll be running," Shuler said after votes Monday, in his most definitive declaration yet that he'll oppose Pelosi.

Shuler hails from the depleted ranks of the conservative-leaning Blue Dog Coalition, whose Democratic ranks were roughly halved by midterm elections two weeks ago. Many consider his effort a protest candidacy that will give the remaining moderate Democrats an alternative to voting for Pelosi, whose popularity plummeted during the fall elections amid thousands of campaign commercials displayed her in a negative light.

Shuler's bid is a long shot at best since his constituency of Blue Dogs was decimated on Election Day. The challenge is mostly about 2012...Shuler and several other Democrats ran away from Pelosi this year in order to avoid being swept up in the wave. If one of them didn't run they couldn't pull that trick again in 2 years. Now Shuler can say he tried to change the directions of Democrats in the House and others can say they voted for him.

Mostly it's just kind of fun to watch Nancy squirm. It's amazing she thought she could lead the caucus to such a historic defeat and then maintain the status quo when they came back.

Pelosi must really like having a driver if she's willing to put up with this kind of grief from members who don't seem to be as grateful to her driving them into the minority as she seems to think they should be.

Posted by: DrewM at 06:22 AM | Comments (73)
Post contains 507 words, total size 3 kb.

Football. It's a funny game isn't it? There's blockin, and tacklin, and no way in hell a 1-7 Cowboys team could possibly beat the Giants, is there?

Quarreyman: 82
Bruin22: 82
Iowa Amy: 79
ReggieBush'sBirthCert: 78

The B Squad
Ben: 70
DrewM: 68
Russ from Winterset: 68
CDR M: 66

...

DiT: 62

Yeah, I didn't pick the Cowgirls either.

thanks as always to our two Cray number crunchers Ben and CDR M

Posted by: Dave in Texas at 06:07 AM | Comments (18)
Post contains 85 words, total size 1 kb.

Oh, look at that! A dumb idea went and found a friend!

Posted by: Gabriel Malor at 03:13 AM | Comments (204)
Post contains 20 words, total size 1 kb.

Hey Remember When Bands Had Their Own Rock Operas?

The Beatles dabbled with it a bit but I believe The Who were the first with Tommy. Which [as an actual opera/film] was kind of a flop. But that didn't stop Styx from attempting their own rock opera album and videos. Of course "Mr. Roboto" only makes any sense after you've read the Wikipedia page on it.

Posted by: Maetenloch at 05:42 PM | Comments (792)
Post contains 575 words, total size 7 kb.

Menendez of NJ made this announcement, not saying what kind of amnesty he meant, DREAM Act or full Comprehensive Piece of Shit or some other crap they've cooked up.

As Allah counts it, we're at a precarious 41 votes to block it, unless we can induce some Democrats to defect our way. Nelson, maybe, who's up in 2012.

But we also have to be worried about people we've either tried to burn (Murky) or will try to burn (Snowe, Collins) deciding to go full retard.

Mark Kirk, RINO bastard, says "signaled" in a previous debate that he's voting... against it.

The constant chest-beating denunciation of RINOs needs some nuance: Yes, indeed, it is in fact better to have a RINO on your team than a Democrat working against you in those votes where the RINO votes your way (which is well north of 50%, usually). No, they're not ideal, but they are better than the Worst Case Scenario.

Corrected: Kirk "signaled" his opposition but did not state it foursquare. My RINO-apologia might have been premature. Here's hoping, though.

What Should Happen: Even though seven GOPers were willing to vote for the DREAM Act (which is what this might be; it might also be the Comprehensive Piece of Shit), they should take the position that this is not an appropriate piece of legislation to pass in a lame-duck situation where the majority party has been badly repudiated. And that a decent respect for the wishes of the American people should be observed.

But that is, uh, much less likely than I would wish it to be. I have a feeling that history is going to be doing some more drunk-dialing pretty soon; which of our RINOs will answer the phone?

Posted by: Ace at 03:04 PM | Comments (268)
Post contains 313 words, total size 2 kb.

This is from his Nov. 4th podcast and isn't really a surprise to anyone who's been following California's decline into a bankrupt, busybody state. It turns out that when you make doing business (or just daily living) difficult and expensive enough, the people and businesses that can will vote with their feet. And when putting in a pool costs $100K+ well even Jay Leno says uh, no thanks.

The rant part starts around the 13:30 mark but the whole show is worth listening to. And yes there is cursing.

Posted by: Maetenloch at 03:02 PM | Comments (28)
Post contains 122 words, total size 1 kb.

The people who did this really should get what they have coming to them*.

Shortly after finishing their protest at the funeral of Army Sgt. Jason James McCluskey of McAlester, a half-dozen protesters from Westboro Baptist Church in Topeka, Kan., headed to their minivan, only to discover that its front and rear passenger-side tires had been slashed.

To make matters worse, as their minivan slowly hobbled away on two flat tires, with a McAlester police car following behind, the protesters were unable to find anyone in town who would repair their vehicle, according to policeÂ…

I love that no one would fix their tires. Fine Americans in that town.

You can catch a glimpse of them slinking away at about 1:09 of this video (there may be some NSFW language in the video. These freaks bring that out in people).

There was some talk that maybe the church's case before the Supreme Court would be handed down today but not yet.

*Many free drinks at their favorite establishment.

Posted by: DrewM at 02:51 PM | Comments (40)
Post contains 182 words, total size 1 kb.

At Hot Air, who links Phillip Klein's piece suggesting that focusing on earmarks is a way of diverting attention away from the real tough choices, about defense and entitlements.

His suggestion is that this lessens the chances that serious cutting will be done to anything, because the forces of fiscal discipline might be appeased by a largely symbolic ban.

Not so fast on that, I think. Consider: It is natural that before we get to the tough stuff (and after that-- the really tough stuff) we have to get to the easy stuff, right? Thus, the easy stuff does not fix all of our problems -- not even close -- but it is nevertheless a necessary first step before the also-necessary second and third steps may be had.

Consider, second: Many people persist under the wrongheaded belief that the budget may be cut by trimming only the easy stuff -- foreign aid, stuff like that. Cutting that sort of stuff is necessary, too -- and partly just to focus the mind of the folks who don't understand the depths of the hole we're in on just how deep we're down. That is to say, we have to cut this sort of stuff first, so we can then turn to such people and say, "Look, we've cut the easy stuff; we're still in a big hole. Can you now focus on the more difficult cuts?"

Chances are most will be on board... but only once we've demonstrated the useful, but quite limited and insufficient, nature of these first tentative steps.

Consider, third, and this is most important: Seniors and near-seniors are loathe to give up a dime (check out any thread on entitlement reform). While they often seem to be absolutist, sometimes there is a hint of potential compromise expressed, obliquely.

Statements are made along the lines of "Why should I agree to give up a dime while there is all this waste in other areas of the system? I paid into this; I am more deserving of this than someone who paid in nothing to get their government subsidy."

And indeed they are. Which means that if there is going to be any sort of entitlement reform at all that touches either seniors or near-seniors, it must first be demonstrated to them that all waste and unnecessary spending has been eliminated from the system, to suggest to them that:

1) Others have made to give up first, before they are asked to give up anything;

and

2) That they will be asked to give up the least amount possible.

That is, they want savings to come first and most from other sectors of government spending. Which is reasonable.

Now, if we demonstrate that to them -- that we have cut and cut vigorously from all other areas first -- they may agree to necessary reforms to Medicaid and Social Security.

Then again, they might not, but I do know that any sort of plan for budgetary solvency that seniors will buy into may not come out of their hides as a manner of first resort. They definitely will not accept that, and I don't blame them.

As far as entitlement reform, then, slashing other areas of wasteful spending is a necessary but not sufficient step towards convincing seniors of the need and fairness of some sorts of reform to the two biggest areas of federal spending. They may still not agree after we've cut in all other areas of government, but I know for damnsure they will never agree before we've made such cuts.

This is progress. One step, then another, then another, then another.

We are still imposingly far from our destination. But such is the case for all long, hard slogs.

But standing in place will never get us there. One step seems to get us no closer, but in fact it does get us slightly closer, which encourages the next step, which encourages the third.

The alternative is just to throw our hands up and say "It's too long a trek" and just accept that we're going into some kind of chaotic default/bankruptcy/civil war in fifteen years and so we might as well agree to Obama's further second and third stimuli because, hey, we ain't gonna pay any of this back anyhow! Might as well have as big a party as we can for five years, before the bills start coming due.

This is the natural way to attack a big problem: Easiest stuff first, somewhat harder stuff next, hard stuff next, forbiddingly hard stuff last. There is nothing strange or duty-evading about this sequence. People ought to be cautious about always warning about the direly-difficult stuff on the horizon coming next, as that just makes people reluctant to do what's currently on the agenda, figuring, "Hell, we'll never do any of that anyway; let's all give up."

Yes, the tough stuff will have to be gotten to. After the easier stuff. Let's take care of all the easier stuff first before worrying so much about the tough stuff we give up completely.

In another thread, Balrog of Morgorth said he thought it was impossible that we'd ever cut 5% of fed workers' salaries and fire/attrit 10% of them.

Here's why it's quite possible: Seniors. At some point it's going to start coming down to hundreds of thousands of federal workers versus millions and millions of seniors having to give something up. Now, put like that: Who wins? Who's got more political juice and who's got less?

Not to be a dick about this, but seniors are going to be our greatest allies for cutting everything else, all the stuff that must be cut anyway, which they're going to insist be cut first, leaving them for last (and leaving them with as little pain as possible). When we've taken care of all of that we can then talk to seniors, too.

But we've got to get all this other stuff done first, anyway, so let's just start doing it.

Earmarks Are A Lot More Costly Than Their Stated Cost: AmishDude notes, for like the third time in the comments (and each time I wanted to put it in a main post), what might be called the Broken Windows Theory of Budget Criminality.

The problem with earmarks is not that they cost too much in and of themselves, but they are used as bribes for Congressmen to sign on to much bigger projects.

Without the Cornhusker Kickback and the Louisiana Purchase, Obamacare would never have happened. Multiply that by 100 for all the wretched spending bills that get through Congress.

As far as the symbolic stuff -- Corporation for Public Broadcasting, National Endowment for the Arts -- cut that too. Just because it's pennies doesn't mean it shouldn't be cut. In fact, if the best argument is that it's too miniscule, then it shouldn't have been in the budget in the first place. Moreover, lots of stuff is justified by comparison. "We have X, why not Y?" Cut it all.

As with real street-crime, a permissive attitude about small-bore crimes encourage major heists; fix the windows, make the neighborhood look more respectable, and arrest the turnstile-jumpers and three-card-monty scammers, and serious crime drops.

Similarly-- stop the small-beans budgetary crime and you'll have less highway robbery, too.

That's all true -- but it should also be noted they do have a real cost, too, in the billions, and we should never get to the point where we just blow off a "billion here, a billion there, and pretty soon we're talking real money."

Amish is right, but even if he weren't -- billions and billions are real money.

Posted by: Ace at 12:56 PM | Comments (202)
Post contains 1299 words, total size 8 kb.