Warning: Today’s blog post is definitely a rant. Those of you who read this blog for the dry, rational rational tone I usually take in my writing may want to look away.

Tonight Obama gave a speech in which he declared that he would not sign a health care bill that increased the size of the deficit. It’s good to see that we finally have a President that can admit he’s made a mistake and back down from a debate.

… okay, so I’m poking fun of him. He did say he wouldn’t sign such a bill, but unless he’s just completely insane, that’s exactly what he’s planning to do.

And yes, for the record, that makes him either a liar, criminally stupid, or completely insane.

Let’s take a look at the cold reality of the situation:

According to his speech, he wants a $900 billion health care reform bill for the next 10 years. That roughly means he wants $90 or so billion a year.

According to the CBO, the plan to reduce the payroll tax exceptions (AKA “the plan that taxes health insurance”) on health benefits would raise a hair over $45 billion a year – about half of what Obama would like to spend on this bill. The rest, Obama claims, will be made up for with savings in Medicare and Medicaid.

In 2008, we spent $204 billion for Medicaid and $386 billion for Medicare, for a total of $590 billion. That means that if the President taxes your health insurance benefits and cuts the Medicare and Medicaid budgets to pay for the rest, he has to cut them by 7.6% to make everything work.

The last time Obama tried to find just $100 million in savings, he actually failed to meet his own deadline. He complained at the time that saving money was hard. Protip: Saving 0.003% of your total budget is not hard. But just in case it is, I can only imagine how difficult saving four hundred and fifty times that amount every single year is going to be.

I’m just thankful that Medicare and Medicaid costs aren’t spiraling out of control and that the system isn’t severely strained by changing demographics, longer life spans, and the rising care of health care.

Oh wait, they are? Snap. Maybe it will be harder than I think. Honestly, it sounds like a full time job to me. I think Obama might have to hire some more Czars. It’s a good thing Congress gets to approve cabinet level officials, because with all these new people coming into power a few of them might turn out to be complete whack jobs or something.

The Aristocrats.

This installment of Ask Janus comes not from a reader, but from the comments section of about half the political articles I’ve read over the last week. Lately there have been a few common themes in what I’ll charitably call the “public discourse” about President Obama and his administration. Specifically, people have been throwing around accusations that he and others in his cabinet have are Socialists or Communists. My problem, and the problem other people are having with this, is that these two words do not describe the same thing. You’re either a Communist or you’re a Socialist – you really can’t be both.

So, today’s blog entry answers the question, “What is the difference between socialism and communism?”

The roots of communism and socialism can be traced back to the same proto-philosophy that evolved from Rousseau and Babeuf. It finally coalesced into a true ideology when the Communist Manifesto was published in 1848 by Marx and Engels who argued for a perfect society in which there would be a absolute equality, all decisions would be made through direct democracy, there would be zero oppression, and everyone would have access to everything society had to offer. In other words, a land of milk and honey.

Unfortunately, there were a few minor sticking points with this dream: there were governments in place that rather liked the way things were and human nature which acted to undermine the practical reality of such a dream. To that end, those who took up the goals laid out in The Manifesto had to take a more pragmatic approach to accomplishing their goals. In the end, it wasn’t Marx and Engels who created the first collectivist state, but rather Social Democrats in Europe and the Soviets in Russia. The results of these first leaders resulted in the three very different ideologies we know today.

Communism (with a capital C) as we know it in the real world was first brought to us by the Russian revolution of 1917 which resulted in Lenin and the Soviets coming to power. Because of the nature of the revolution, the breed of communism established in the USSR was very, very different from the communism advocated by it’s creators. It was a totalitarian dictatorship in which the party had everything and the people had nothing. It did abolish private property and it did enforce collectivism, but the nature of the political system resulted in gross mismanagement of the economy. Instead of everyone having everything, no one had anything. This created an equality of sorts, but it hardly improved the situation of the workers.

Each of what I’ll refer to as “the revolutionary Communist movements” that followed resulted in the same sort of system. The workers united, overthrew the government, and were then placed under the control of either a dictatorship or an oligarchy in the form of a totalitarian single-party system. These Communists weren’t advocating a philosophy or an economic model, they were advancing a political agenda which included, at least in part, those philosophies and models into it’s regime.

Socialism as we know it came into being in the democratic parliaments of Europe between the World Wars. The oldest political party in Europe, Germany’s Social Democratic Party (or SPD for short) is actually still in power, currently leading a coalition with the CSU and CDU which controls the German parliament. The SPD also currently holds leadership of five of the eight state governments.

Socialists, democratic socialists, and social democrats (themselves each a separate philosophy) do not advocate Communism or authoritarianism. Instead they work within a democratic system to produce changes that they believe advance the cause of the working class. Their main tools are inherent to the system. There are more workers than there are bourgeoisie. More people means more votes means control in a democratic process. By mobilizing popular support, they seek to control the government and thereby reform the free market system.

The reforms they push are designed to move the state closer to the ideal communism that Communists seek to create through revolution. State control of industry, minimum wage laws, mandated work hours, universal health care, welfare, tight controls on employment decisions, huge subsidies, and protectionist trade polices, are all aimed at transforming society through the power of the economy instead of through the dictates of government.

As strange as it may seem to an American reader, socialists actually work best in democracies and do not advocate dictatorship. Many of them are actually under the misguided impression that socialism and capitalism are not incompatible. They believe that free choice and free market forces can actually exist side by side with a degree of distortion to the free market which will result in a successful mixed economy that delivers both a fair and equal society and the prosperity and freedom of capitalism.

Socialism has traditionally been seen by communists as a steeping stone to true communism, the idea being to establish an intermediary system to more easily transition from a free market capitalism driven democracy to a communistic society in which there would be no need for government. Socialists, on the other hand, tend to view Socialism as both the means and the end – that is to say, Socialists tend to believe that socialism is a perfectly valid philosophy in it’s own right. To Socialists, Communism is an aberration. To Socialists, Communism is a corrupted form of true communism that is just as abhorrent, if not more so, than any other system.

So there you have it. In a nut shell, the difference between communism and socialism. In the name of the greater conservative movement, go forth and troll – but troll them with the style and grace that education brings. The next time a liberal demands you to explain it to them, do so, and make them look like a complete and total moron.

Welcome to the newest segment on The Blog of a Secular Conservative, This Week In The News. Regular readers will notice that I’ve committed to increasing the number of posts I make from two to three entries a week. Despite the new post rate, I don’t really have any more free time now than I used to.

The answer is something of a compromise: linking to the work of others. I’ve never really enjoyed doing it much, but it doesn’t take up the same kind of time a detailed post does and I do come across some interesting things from time to time. So, I’m committed to not spamming you all with irrelevant rehashing of what you’ve already read a dozen times before, and I’m committed to bringing you something interesting to read one more day a week.

The result will be this column. A blog entry of all the interesting things I’ve found throughout the week that I feel are worth sharing with you. I hope you enjoy. If you have any feedback about the new stuff, or anything else for that matter, I’m always listening. You can reach me by leaving a comment, sending me an email at janus at secular conservative dot net or messaging me on twitter @janusthemad.

This Week In The News

Speaking of controlled burns, the AP released a story the other day that dovetails nicely with the blog entry I wrote Wednesday.

· Feds failed to clear brush in LA wildfire area

The most disgraceful story I’ve seen this week is about not just Charlie Rangel, but about his staff as well. It really highlights not just his own corruption, but the corruption in Washington in general.

· Rangel-ing: Charlie Pays ‘Angels’ In Ethics Probe
· Staff As ‘Forgetful’ As The Boss

The biggest debate currently going on in this country is over health care reform, and there are a lot of stories on it. I’ll start with the contempt our elected officials have been showing their constituents because it’s just more evidence that our leaders are being children.

· (Video) Rep. Jim Moran (D-VA) Demands to See Constituent’s ID Before Allowing Town Hall Question
· (Video) Rep Baron Hill (D-IN): ‘This is MY Town Hall Meeting. I Set the Rules‘

And then there are the dueling talking heads:

· Nancy Pelosi outlines August plan of attack
· House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-MD) on Health Bill: No Tax Hike, No Deficit Spending, Fully Paid For Or ‘I’m Not Going to Vote For It’
· Tom Cobern (R-OK): What I Learned From the ‘Mob’
· Karl Rove (R): Obama and the Perfect Political Storm

And I honestly don’t see how we’re going to save money with a nationalized system when there’s stuff like this going on:

· Medicare pays 4 times suppliers’ wheelchair cost, report says

Interesting:

· China’s Exports, Not Altruism, Fund U.S. Deficit: Caroline Baum
· As hybrid cars gobble rare metals, shortage looms
· How Many Solar Panels Would It Take to Power The Entire World?
· Coal Plant Buries U.S. Taxpayers’ $1.5 Billion Along With CO2

Scary:

· Disappearance of Privacy Board From White House Web Site Raises Questions
· Microsoft pushes for single global patent system
· Will Boeing move to Beijing?

And lastly, just plan baffling:

· Ahmadinejad’s Imam: Islam Allows Raping, Torturing Prisoners
· Fire chief shot by cop in Ark. court over tickets

This blog entry is another installment of Ask Janus. Today, we’re talking about wildfires and trying to figure out if environmentalists are actually making the wildfires we experience every year worse by opposing controlled burns.

Every year wildfires spread across the country destroying homes, closing roads, filling the air with haze and smoke, laying waste to public land, and costing tax payers millions of dollars to quell the flames. The LA times reported that last year alone, California had over 2,000 wildfires, which burnt 1.4 million acres of land. Putting out those fires used up approximately half of the $1.4 billion in federal money and cost another $1 billion in state funds.

Naturally, with stakes this high, the people want something done about it – and that something, obviously, is to put out the fires. Now.

As snap decisions go, wanting to put out fires is a pretty good one. As is so often the case though, solutions offered in haste tend to be imperfect ones. I’m not saying we should be letting homes burn, but I am asking that we look at the unintended consequences.

The simple fact of the matter is that fire is a part of the natural process. By putting out fires for whatever reason, we interrupt that process. In nature, lightning will spark a wildfire every 5 to 10 years. It’s completely natural and happens just like clockwork. When allowed to occur, they burn away the accumulated leaves, twigs, and other waste on the forest floor. Five or ten years later, the next forest fire that sweeps through is very small because there is little in the way of accumulated fuel. Frequently, these fires are so mild that they don’t even reach into the canopy of the forest, leaving the trees virtually unharmed. The process is such a predictable and frequent occurrence, that certain plants, like the Sequoia Tree, depend on it. Without these regular, mild fires, the seeds of the Sequoia Trees do not sprout, thereby threatening the trees by preventing them from reproducing.

When we interrupt this process we allow tree litter and ground plants to become much deeper, thicker, and denser than they normally would ever become if left to their own devices. The effect of such accumulation is as obvious as it is ironic: It makes fires far more intense. Think about it for a second: leaves burn. Burned leaves disappear. The more leaves there are, the more intense the fire. What we’re left with is a choice: a little fire every 5 or 10 years or an absolute holocaust every 20-30 years.

The ideal solution to this problem comes in a process called “prescribed burns” or “controlled burns”. It’s a process that quite literally fights fire with fire. In a controlled burn, workers thin out densely packed undergrowth and create a fire break (basically a cleared area with nothing flammable in it to prevent the fire from spreading) then wait for an ideal time. When the wind, weather, and conditions on the ground are just right, a fire is intentionally started which is then closely watched. These controlled burns use up all of the fuel which accumulates to create the really intense, unstoppable fires we’ve come to dread.

Regardless of it’s benefits, there are problems with controlled burns. Politically, it’s a hard sell. Few people understand the benefits of controlled burns, and, frankly, it’s a boring subject. Not many people really even want to know the ins and outs of federal land management. To up the difficulty another notch, the arguments against controlled burns are hard to counter. You can’t really argue against the fact that fires destroy habitat. You can’t really argue against the fact that smoke lowers air quality (I would probably argue that carbon is carbon, you can’t stop forest fires forever, and eventually it’s all going to go up into the atmosphere or biodegrade into methane anyway, but that’s not really the point). You can’t really argue against the fact that accidents can happen and no one really wants to take responsibility for an uncontrolled controlled burn. You don’t even have to be a liberal to dislike the idea. As a conservative, the cost is probably the biggest factor for me. Clearing undergrowth, bringing in heavy equipment (frequently in areas with no roads), cutting fire breaks, and paying fire crews for their time and equipment is not cheap.

Despite all of that, there’s still a pretty solid consensus among foresters and conservationists: controlled burns are a vital part of our land management best practices.

Contrary to popular belief, animal populations are not decimated by controlled burns. Animal instinct guides animals away from fire, the forest grows back in a matter of months, and the size of a controlled burn is tiny compared to either human expansion into the area or an uncontrolled fire fueled by decades of tree litter. Controlled burns do not kill trees (they do in fact live and continue to provide habitat, unlike with say logging or strip mining) and without competition, undergrowth grows back at a surprisingly fast rate.

Intense regulations and government oversight require an almost obscene number of hoops to be jumped through ensure that precautions are taken in the extreme. Permits are given not for a specific day, but when all of the requirements are met. Even after a permit is obtained, the burn isn’t carried out until wind and weather permit – and with fire fighting crews present.

But most importantly of all, they lessen the ferocity and scope of wildfires that threaten populated areas. Without dangerous levels of fuel, fires can be more easily stopped. Without dangerous levels of fuel, fires actually burn themselves out without human intervention. Without dangerous levels of fuel, a simple lightning strike or a camp fire or a cigarette butt doesn’t destroy thousands of acres of homes and trees.

My own personal opinion on controlled burns is pragmatic. I believe that state and federal land that borders developed areas be thinned or cleared where required and undergo controlled burns whenever fuel builds up to unsafe levels. Those levels can be (and currently are) figured out by land management services such as the U.S. Forestry Service. I believe that natural wildfires should be allowed to burn their natural course when they can be kept away from these areas. This would placate both of my conservative tendencies by spending as few tax dollars as possible while still limiting property damage while still encouraging the natural order of the forest by letting it play out where we can and controlling and duplicating where we can’t.

While I was in the process of moving, one of my older posts was being spread over twitter, being retweeted a countless number of times. That same post is also one of the most common ways people find this blog on google.

Unfortunately, I hadn’t updated it in a while, so instead of creating a new post for today I’ve decided to spend some time updating it and giving it some tender loving care. If you haven’t seen it lately, the big list of elected officials on twitter is up to 229 people. On it, I’ve included both conservatives and liberals, state politicians and national politicians – anyone I can find that was elected and on twitter.

If you use twitter and haven’t seen it in a while, head on over and check it out – and if you know someone I missed, please let me know so I can put them up. You can reach me by leaving a comment (I do read them all), emailing me at janus at secular conservative dot net, or contacting me on twitter @janusthemad.

… and yes, I do keep my readers in mind when I decide what to focus on around here, so if you’d like to make a request, Ask Janus, or just have something to say about the blog in general, I’d love to hear that too.