Here's Ryan's roadmap to the roadmap at WSJ.

Actual numbers: It cuts $4.4 trillion with a t through the next ten years, and $6.2 trillion if you compare it to Obama's farcical budget (which was supposedly going to bring the budget into balance... and yet Ryan's budget cuts another $6.2 trillion from that piece of shit and still isn't balanced until 2050. So, yeah, whatever, Obama's plan balances the budget, huh?)

What you'll notice is that it is comprehensive. It seems to punt on Social Security, stating vaguely that it will "force" policymakers to propose common-sense reforms. Which means it itself doesn't touch them.

But everything else is in there... including tax reform.

You want hard, enforceable caps on spending? It's got those. You want to empower the states in their administration of Medicaid ("Welfare reform," it's properly called here)? It's got that.

It's got everything.

Except Social Security reform. Ah well. 90% now is better than 100% never.

Allah has his own reaction to it and background too, but maybe most interesting is his clip of Rush Limbaugh, giddy over the proposal, and noting that it's "politically brilliant," in that there's so much here the Democrats "won't know what to focus on."

I don't know if that will work out the way he's thinking -- "comprehensive" bills are usually not stronger due to being comprehensive, but rather offer opponents the opportunity to pick among a menu of options for attacks, and then focus relentlessly on one or two things, bringing it all down.

So I don't know if it's politically brilliant, as he says, just due to it being so comprehensive and wide-ranging. (And seriously, talk about comprehensive -- if enacted, I think this would pretty much set federal spending for like the next twenty years.)

But it is definitely very strong in substance.

One graph says it all:

Posted by: Ace at 05:41 PM | Comments (58)
Post contains 326 words, total size 2 kb.

Stupid, ugly, twisted evil:

A pair of suicide bombers struck a shrine in Pakistan Sunday, killing 30 people gathered there and pressing a campaign of attacks against places of worship that extremists consider un-Islamic, officials said.

The practice of praying, singing and meditating at the shrines of holy men is widespread and much loved across Pakistan, but extremists consider it a dangerous deviation from the austere Islam they espouse.

Psychopaths don't need a reason to kill. They never have. They just need an opportunity.

Posted by: Ace at 03:50 PM | Comments (197)
Post contains 112 words, total size 1 kb.

Kristen from POWIP writes that recently Sauk County, WI, negotiated a deal with five different unions.

The local unions conceded to the county the powers to...

Implement a 0% pay increase each year

Hire and fire at will in the face of economic difficulty

Change or even abolish pay classifications

Deetermine type and level of healthcare coverage offered

Increase healthcare contribution levels over time

Set the level of pension contributions

Woah! Suddenly the unions are so reasonable it hurts, huh? When I was tipped about this post, I was confused, because reading this, I thought: My God, that's more than reasonable. I mean, they're pretty much giving the county everything it could want.

So... unions are the good guys, maybe?

Well, maybe, but not here.

The unions negotiated a contract for their members that gives their members nothing.

But, it is technically a contract that can be passed quickly.

Which means for the next 33 months, operating under this contract, while getting nothing from their union reps, union members will... retain the privilege of continuing to pay union dues.

What's the difference between the deal negotiated here and what they could have received from a Walker-regime county? Well, the Walker-regime county probably would have given them more... while the union members also weren't forced to donate to the union.

So the union bosses get to keep their phoney-baloney jobs, the members get doodly-squat.

Dan Collins writes:

[W]hatever the unions may say about rights to collective bargaining, they only thing that theyÂ’re concerned about, when push comes to shove, is that the state grant them the service of collecting their dues from them directly from the stateÂ’s employees. The employees must be in the unions as a condition of their employment, and must grant the unions the right to disburse political contributions ostensibly on their behalf but really without their consent to Democrats almost exclusively.

Posted by: Ace at 02:51 PM | Comments (114)
Post contains 352 words, total size 2 kb.

As nice as that would be-- even this wouldn't produce solvency.

But all of this needs to be done.

On Medicaid, Ryan will propose to block grant the program to states, which would save money, allow it to grow at a predictable rate, and give governors more flexibility over how it is implemented. This is a popular option among many governors who are struggling with Medicaid costs, and itÂ’s a proposal that has already attracted bipartisan support (at least intellectually speaking), as it was previously co-proposed with Alice Rivlin, the former Clinton budget director.

When it comes to Medicare, Ryan has previously proposed fundamentally reforming it to give retirees vouchers to purchase private insurance that would vary by income and health status. So, for instance, a poor and very sick beneficiary would receive a lot more than a very rich and healthy beneficiary. However, this reform would not kick in right away, as it only applies to those 55 and under. Thus, it would take time to produce savings and those wouldnÂ’t show up in the CBOÂ’s 10-year budget window.

And that's not some tiny voucher, either -- that's $11,000 per year to buy insurance with. And yet even such a sizable "golden" insurance policy would not be as costly as the current system. (It would also produce better results, as a nice bonus.)

I get this idea that the discretionary budget for 2011 is but one minor skirmish in a much greater war. But I don't think losing that skirmish helps us win the war; I don't think we can trade a loss here for a win on the bigger war. I think a victory in the smaller skirmish will make victory in the bigger war much more likely.

Posted by: Ace at 02:18 PM | Comments (81)
Post contains 312 words, total size 2 kb.

I missed/obscured the real story about KSM's trial in order to make a point.

The point I was trying to make was that It ain't easy. Despite what these simpletons thought. Only low-functioning assclowns could possibly believe leading a once-mighty nation is easy.

But in making that point, I didn't emphasize at all that this policy is against Eric Holder's choice, not per his choice.

And he wants you to know that too.

In stark language, Holder lambasted Congress for imposing restrictions blocking any detainees from being tried in the U.S., saying that the "unwise and unwarranted restrictions" undermine the U.S. in counter-intelligence and counter-terror efforts.

Expressing his disappointment in no uncertain terms, the attorney general said that as a native New Yorker, he knows as well as anyone the federal court's capacity to try the suspects. He added that he's intimately familiar with the cases, much moreso than congressional members -- or the public -- who opposed allowing the cases to be held in the United States.

"Do I know better than them? Yes. I respect their ability to disagree but they should respect that this is an executive branch function, a unique executive branch function," Holder said in a press conference.

Well Congress seems to have blocked it with the power of the purse so it seems to not be an entirely unique function, eh?

Too bad Holder won't be able to deliver civilian-trial victories like this one.

Posted by: Ace at 01:09 PM | Comments (109)
Post contains 248 words, total size 2 kb.

No, really.

A cop had said that women should avoid dressing like "sluts" to avoid sexual assault. So the women -- carrying signs that say "SLUTS SAY YES" -- are protesting their right to dress slutty.

This is always a bad topic. I remember getting very angry at commenters for suggesting that Lara Logan should have behaved differently in Cairo, or not gone at all. But they didn't mean to say she deserved it. I took it that way, but that's not what they meant.

They meant, really, just to note that the world remains dangerous, particularly for women, and that discretion is, as ever, the better part of valor.

And I'm sure that's what this cop meant, his poor word choice aside.

The problem is that these sorts of statements often seem to shift blame from perpetrator to victim -- even when they don't, and are meant innocently, even helpfully.

It is true: 99% of all rapists are men and 90% of all rape victims are women. That's a pile of risk that affects women (almost) nearly exclusively, and women should be (and of course -- are) aware of it.

So both statements are, alas, true: Rape is always the fault of the rapist, and caution can slightly lower the chances of rape. Both of these can be true without offense intended to the victim or potential victim.

My main problem with this Slutwalk is the triviality of it. I'd support such a walk, enthusiastically, in an oppressive, woman-hating Muslim tyranny. Because there's risk involved. It's not just attention-getting, validation-seeking, consciousness-raising acting-up. In that case, it would be real courage in the face of unspeakable evil.

Here, though? It's a bunch of privileged white girls (ooh, I went there, noting the race that makes up 95% of the protesters) essentially singing "You've got to fight for your right to parrrtay." Not really the same thing.

The cultural left is fond of this sort of pointless gesture; it's actually the only thing they do, pretty much. The sexual revolution was over 30 years ago, and the left won it (and by doing so, won it for young single men), but they're still parading around celebrating the same very stale victories.

Posted by: Ace at 12:57 PM | Comments (126)
Post contains 392 words, total size 2 kb.

A little disappointing.

Remember this guy?

He's not a climate-change-skeptic so much as a ClimateGate critic -- the distinction being he's calling what was done during ClimateGate ("hide the decline") anti-scientific, but that doesn't mean he's actually a skeptic of their claims. His gripe is proceduralist. (An important proceduralist critique but still about process.)

He slammed the ClimateGate temperature-finagelers but also notes, at the end, he's part of a special project to revisit the numbers with independent, uncompromised eyes and see if the temperature record really is as the warmists say.

Well, he's looked at 2% of the data and says that so far it's very close to what had previously been claimed.

The Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature project was launched by physics professor Richard Muller, a longtime critic of government-led climate studies, to address what he called "the legitimate concerns" of skeptics who believe that global warming is exaggerated.

But Muller unexpectedly told a congressional hearing last week that the work of the three principal groups that have analyzed the temperature trends underlying climate science is "excellent.... We see a global warming trend that is very similar to that previously reported by the other groups."

...

Muller said his group was surprised by its findings, but he cautioned that the initial assessment is based on only 2% of the 1.6 billion measurements that will eventually be examined.

Couple of notes:

It is one of the least disputed parts of global warming theory that the earth has warmed this much during this century. That does come up for dispute, yes -- but the bigger objection is that there is no sound evidence to demonstrate this minor variation in temperature is anything abnormal or unprecedented.

Still, disappointing -- I'd like to hear these numbers are false too. We'll see what his own adjustments and and assumptions and fudge-factors turn out to be.

Posted by: Ace at 12:11 PM | Comments (144)
Post contains 337 words, total size 2 kb.

He claims we need a way to hold people "accountable" for exercising their rights under the first amendment.

He claims there's precedent for this -- he claims during World War Two we outlawed provocations which "incited" the enemy.

Are you sure, Senator Graham? I don't remember Walt Disney being prosecuted for daring to insult the majesty of Naziism.

Graham deliberately lies here -- what people might have been prosecuted for was giving aid and comfort to the enemy, not insulting the enemy. That is what he now wishes we had laws to prosecute as a crime -- the crime of being impolite to one's enemies in war.

Sure, just like we did during World War Two, right, Linds?

Mark Steyn finds this all a sign of a lack of cultural confidence.

I find it more of a sign of the temptation of fascism. No matter what the nail, for a certain segment of the population the right tool for the job is always some more state control and forbiddance of unhygeinic thought.

Posted by: Ace at 09:59 AM | Comments (347)
Post contains 202 words, total size 2 kb.

Yes, they keep changing their positions. That indicates a flip-flop. But the more important thing, it seems, is that it keeps revealing how hollow, callow, naive and glib all their previous positions were; how superficial and poorly considered; how cheaply political their unending "everything Bush does is wrong" partisan seditions were; how their childish and empty their previous fantasias were.

We keep hearing from this crew how hard presidentin' is and how they must be given some leeway.

If only they'd appreciated the difficulties of presidential power while they were insisting we give it to them.

Attorney General Eric Holder today will announce that self-proclaimed Sept. 11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammad will be tried in a military commission, the CBS News Investigative Unit has learned. A source says the commission will be held at the Guantanamo Bay prison.

So glib. So glib. Everything before was so easy and all the answers were so obvious.

Posted by: Ace at 08:40 AM | Comments (201)
Post contains 178 words, total size 1 kb.

Many people insist that no nation will favor bondholders over taxpaying citizens if fiscal push comes to welfare-state shove. Well, Ireland is a good test case, and guess who got screwed? (Hint: it wasn't the bondholders.) I think people underestimate the amount of pressure governments are under to maintain their credit ratings, especially in this age of fiat money and global financial networks. (Via Mish Shedlock.)

People who think that the US states and Federal government will simply default if it comes down to servicing the debt or paying entitlements aren't paying attention. If it comes down to making bondholders whole or shorting Granny and Grampy on their Social Security checks, I guarantee you that Granny and Grampy are the ones who are going to get the shaft.

Also from Mish Shedlock is a good antidote to the "ZOMG China is going to surpass us!" hysteria.

Liam Halligan calls the US recovery a "sugar rush". I don't know that this is quite the correct metaphor -- we're like kids who see no huge changes in our day to day lives, so we assume all is well. Mom and Dad still feed us; we still have a roof over our head; the schoolbus keeps coming to pick us up. As far as we can tell, life is going on as normal. But what we don't see -- Mom and Dad's huge credit card debt, the car-repair bill that is now on the verge of going to collection, Mom's hospital bill, the ARM on the house that is about to adjust upward -- is the stuff that is about to shift our lives into an entirely new orbit. When everything finally collapses, it descends on us like a disaster out of blue, but that's only because we weren't paying attention. We preferred to let Mom and Dad deal with that stuff. It never occurs to us that maybe Mom and Dad are incompetent at managing their finances.

It's good to be the King. It's almost as good to be a friend of the King. His Majesty has many favors in his gift.

Who killed the Euro? Germany, in the study, with a candlestick.

Americans bemoaning their own economyÂ’s sluggish recovery should look on the bright side: itÂ’s worse in Europe. The International Monetary Fund projects growth of 3 percent for the United States this year but just half that for the euro zone. Even more striking is the extent of economic divergence within the euro area. While the German economy is currently growing at an annualized rate of around 6 percent, Greek growth in the fourth quarter of last year was minus 6 percent. So much for the convergence monetary union was meant to bring.

John Tamny asserts that it was a lack of economic diversification, not liberal governance, that is killing Detroit. I do agree up to a point, though when Tamny uses San Francisco as an example of a city where far-left government has done little harm, I have to laugh -- SF is, like the rest of California, boned. Detroit's collapse probably was caused by an over-reliance on the auto industry and the malign impact of unions; bad governance since the mid-1960's has prevented Detroit from recovering.

The delicate balance of supply and demand.

Via Andy in the sidebar: GOP proposes a (cumulative) $4 Trillion in cuts, Democrats howl in agony and insist that the world will enter a new dark age if such a horrendous thing should happen, it's nothing but a mean plot hatched by a bunch of stingy mean meanies, and by the way why does the GOP hate women, minorities, gays, and old people?

Speaking of hate: why does Obama hate the young? Savor the flavor:

Unemployment was 25.7 in February for teenagers and 15.7 percent for those 20 to 24 years old, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics. Recent college grads are despairing of landing anything above the fast-food counter, where they face stiff competition from millions of recent immigrants.

It's a land of dreams, son. Go to North Dakota -- there's less DOOM! there.
more...

Posted by: Monty at 07:31 AM | Comments (111)
Post contains 697 words, total size 5 kb.