Retired Spook writes in:

Your Czarishness;

Apropos our previous discussion on the pending financial disaster coming from Beijing, a recent Telegraph article contains a number of amusing (for given values of “amusing”) observations.

It appears that Professor Reynolds is correct, after all. Things that can’t go on forever, won’t. And “hope” is rarely a viable gameplan.

More and more, I’m investing in metals, especially brass, copper and lead. Seems like that’s going to be the only usable currency down the road a little ways.

Wasn’t it Cromwell who said “Put your faith in The Lord, but keep your powder dry”?

Best wishes,

Retired Spook

Not Ollie Cromwell, who was an idiot, but William Blacker in 1834 who attributed it to him but made it up himself. Where were we? Ah yes, of course, we should not be surprised: Gormogons predictions are as stunningly accurate as dumping a cup of a vodka Slimfast and being amazed there is liquid on the floor. Of course we are right, when we have such educated and entertaining followers.

Indeed, Retired Spook’s piece has been sitting in the Czar’s increasingly cluttered inbox for over a week, and in that time the situation in China has gone about how we expected it to: it is a Potemkin economy, and China cannot sustain it. When they are this over-leveraged and dependent upon a shrinking world economy, well, they begin selling off our debt to Belgium. Where does one even begin?

Actually, the solution is pretty clear: the American economy is poised to go bonkers, increasing production, reducing unemployment, and growing incomes. We just need someone else in charge who might, you know, focus like a laser on it rather than visit internet talk shows and draw up NCAA brackets.

Meantime, Operative BJ wants to ask whether failure to act is equal to action itself. Well, in Taoism, absolutely…or as absolute as a Taoist gets, anyway.

My Leige Lord,

This lowly one pleads forgiveness when responding to your most recent dissertation, but I approach to ask a question: is not inaction in the face of a wrong, an action in itself? Or, to speak plainly, if I have the ability to take an action to prevent or undo a wrong and I do nothing, haven’t I perpetuated that wrong?

I speak of the current Republican Party and of its leadership’s failure to address the growing list of wrongs in government. Or, perhaps not the Republican Party itself, but of senior members in that party and how the party pays homage to those senior members rather than its core beliefs (if it has any beliefs left). And how the Republican Party, by which I mean its leadership, does not take principled stands against such wrongs.

It is useless to discuss the precepts of party on the “other side of the aisle”, as their core principles require a continuing expansion of government. But this lowly one was hoping for more than just “go along to get along” from the Republican Party, which claims to be the party of Reagan, fiscal sanity, and social responsibility.

For example, Senators McCain, Graham, and others voted to end the “government shutdown” in October of last year, even while knowing that the “shutdown” would not have put the U.S. into “default”. Indeed, payment on the debt, as well as other mandatory payments, would have continued unabated. And as we now know, the “shutdown” actually had little real effect on the average citizen. So, at least those two senators (as well as a couple of dozen others) abandoned traditional Republican fiscally-conservative principles in order to support Democrat fiscally-insane spending. Does this inaction not count as action?

The Czar is not confident he would accept those terms: ending a shutdown is a concrete action.

Additionally, there is much to debate on the effectiveness of the shutdown, vis–à–vis whether it had zero effect on the average person. Certainly, it was a good policy idea; but when it became politically unsustainable, the Ted Cruz camp was embarrassed to reveal they had no Step 2…because frankly, they didn’t think Step 1 would work. But the Democrats figured it out and turned into a mess for everyone. But that’s not your point; this is:

By doing nothing to slow spending but instead by voting to continue spending, and by not standing to principle, I posit that the Republican Party – as now constituted and led – is allowing government to expand and allowing government power to increase. Does their inaction not count as action?

You propose that PPACA should be repealed and replaced with nothing, and in many ways I agree. However there were some issues with the previous “health care system” that needed to be addressed, such as the inability of many with pre-existing conditions to obtain insurance to cover ordinary problems not related to those conditions (e.g. an asthmatic child being refused coverage for team sports where he may suffer a broken bone – I know about this from personal experience). Repeal of the PPACA must be accompanies by simple under-10-page laws providing remedial solutions to those issues. Does the inaction – the failure to indicate how such prior issues would be ameliorated – not count as action?

Indeed, Your Majesty, the Republican Party is not calling for expanded government power. Some few Republicans have actually stood for reduction in the size of government, a reduction in spending on the federal level, and the elimination of many laws and the agencies that administer them (i.e. EPA, among others).

However, the rejection of “grass-roots” movements toward reduction in federal government power and control, as embodied by the TEA movement, sends the message that the Republican Party is not interested in those who support those movements. And it sends the message that the Republican Party is more interested in satisfying its “base” than in growing its “base” by adding those who are looking for an alternative to a “tax and spend” ideology. And finally, it sends the message that the Republican Party believes that it can win more “hearts and minds” by softening its stance on Conservative ideals than by adopting them. I fail to understand why.

So, my question remains: can inaction in the face of a wrong actually be an action in itself?

This minion pleads for mercy for asking the question – but would your inaction in not punishing me actually mean you are rewarding me for asking these questions?

Again, we cannot confuse policy with politics. The first asks “what is to be done?” The second asks “Great, now how do we do it?”

This always seems to come back to the shutdown, but the shutdown is over and done and we blew it. So what else do we do? The House has passed numerous bills to fix the economy, revamp the government, repeal Obamacare, and generally address the mess…only to see them die in a ridiculously useless Senate. Nothing meaningful is coming out of the House except policy.

The Senate, on the other hand, is all politics right now. And let there be no misunderstanding: a GOP-led Senate (which even the most senior Democrats seem to accept is inevitable now) can easily agree to take up all these bills and quickly pass them…only to see them suffer a veto on the odd Tuesday when this C-class celebrity president shows up to work. Right now, Republicans are good at policy, but stymied at politics.

Don’t fret—this is as intended by the Constitution. But no major reductions can begin until 2016 and unless a reasonably conservative Republican is elected president.

That’s a lot of waiting, and Godot might show up before all this happens.

The Czar of Muscovy

Божію Поспѣшествующею Милостію Мы, Дима Грозный Императоръ и Самодержецъ Всероссiйскiй, цѣсарь Московскiй. The Czar was born in the steppes of Russia in 1267, and was cheated out of total control of all Russia upon the death of Boris Mikhailovich, who replaced Alexander Yaroslav Nevsky in 1263. However, in 1283, our Czar was passed over due to a clerical error and the rule of all Russia went to his second cousin Daniil (Даниил Александрович), whom Czar still resents. As a half-hearted apology, the Czar was awarded control over Muscovy, inconveniently located 5,000 miles away just outside Chicago. He now spends his time seething about this and writing about other stuff that bothers him.