Newt at the Alabama GOP Presidential Forum

Hopefully last night was enough to put Newt over the top. Come on, Mississippi and Alabama, just win a couple for the Nipper:



(h/t The Right Scoop)

While We Are All Paying for Sandra Fluke to Have Sex, Maybe We Should Pay for These Too

Allysia Finley has a nice piece in the Wall Street Journal today about the other benefits that people could argue should be mandated by the government along with contraception:

• Fitness club memberships. Most doctors agree that exercising is one of the best ways to prevent disease. However, gym memberships can run between $240 and $1,800 per year. Such high prices force us to choose between exercising and buying groceries. While we could walk or jog outside, many of us prefer not to. Therefore, employers should be required to pay for workers' gym memberships. Doing so might even reduce employers' health costs, which is why many companies already subsidize memberships. Those that don't are limiting our freedom to exercise.

• Massages. Stress raises the risk of heart disease, obesity, depression and a host of other maladies. About one half of Americans say they're stressed, and studies show that health costs for stressed-out workers are nearly 50% higher than those for their chilled-out counterparts. According to the Mayo Clinic, a great way to reduce stress is to get a massage. However, since few of us can afford massages, it is imperative that employers be required to cover weekly massage treatments or hire in-office masseuses. Think of the millions of new jobs this mandate will create in the therapeutic field, too.

• Yoga classes. Like exercise and massage, yoga reduces stress and can relieve back pain, osteoarthritis and even menopausal symptoms. Yoga is also one of the best exercises for pregnant women since stress raises the risk of birth defects, which in turn increase health costs. While we could practice yoga with the aid of a DVD or Web video, classes offer social benefits that enhance our psychological well-being.

• Coffee. Studies show that coffee can ward off depression, Alzheimer's disease, type 2 diabetes and sleepiness—which makes it one of the most powerful preventive treatments. Workers who drink java are also more productive and pleasant. While many offices have coffee makers, some employers—most notably those affiliated with the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints—continue to deny workers this essential benefit. All employers should have to provide workers with freshly brewed coffee. Oh, and workers must also be able to choose the kind of coffee regardless of the price.

Republicans might argue that requiring Mormon charities to serve coffee is a violation of "religious liberty" since the Mormon church's doctrine proscribes coffee, but this argument is a red herring. Leading medical experts recommend drinking coffee. Moreover, 99% of adults have drunk coffee at one point in their lives (including most Mormons).

• Salad bar. Studies also show that eating a lot of salad helps people maintain a healthy weight, which is key to preventing diabetes, heart disease and hypertension. Admittedly, mandating that employers include a free salad bar in their cafeterias would primarily benefit healthy eaters (women like myself) and raise prices for workers who subsist on junk (most men). However, such a mandate is necessary to expand our access to healthy food. Nanny-state conservatives who oppose this mandate merely want to ban salad and control what we eat.

The point is that once you start down the road of "well, of course, _____ should be free" it really is hard to stop.

What a Poorly Worded Headline: "Egypt’s parliament to vote on stopping US aid"

As if Egypt was sending aid to the US. No, that country's Islamist parliament is voting on cutting off their nose to spite their face, yup, ending US aid to itself. And it's not as if their economy was booming or something and they didn't need the money, in fact, it is just the opposite.

I do realize the vote is mostly symbolic, but I have to ask, why are we sending them aid again? It doesn't seem to be gaining us any goodwill, in fact it seems to be doing the opposite.

Boy, getting rid of Mubarak was such a brilliant move. Thanks Obama.

My Favorite Daydream Nation Track

Just had to post this, it's such a great song:

Newt Teaches Obama a Lesson on Energy

Newt really makes Obama look like a dumbass:



(h/t Conservatives with Newt)

Video of IDF Taking Out Terrorist Rocket Launch Squad

Got what they deserved:

Obama's Only Negative Is That There Are Too Many Positives?

Academy Award winning documentary filmmaker Davis Guggenheim made a fool of himself last night on Piers Morgan when talking about the documentary of Obama he just made (h/t Weekly Standard):

Piers Morgan: "Most documentary makers balance these movies with the negative as well as the positive. What are the negatives in your movie about Barack Obama?

Davis Guggenheim: "Well, I mean the negative for me was, there were too many accomplishments. I had 17 minutes to put them all in there."

Piers Morgan: "Oh, come off it! You can't say that with a straight face. Come on."

Davis Guggenheim: "I'm looking at you right now with a straight face."

Piers Morgan: "The only negativity about Barack Obama is there are too many positives?"

Davis Guggenheim: "That was the negative -- excuse me, that was the negative for me."

Piers Morgan: "Oh."

...

Piers Morgan: "But where do you find fault in him, personally?"

Davis Guggenheim: "I -- you know, I don't. I don't, frankly."

Piers Morgan: "He's a perfect human being?"

Davis Guggenheim: "Well, no. but I'm really quite in awe of him, as a leader, and the choices he's made."

Piers Morgan: "I mean, I'm only asking because you are a well-known documentary maker, and this would be the first movie, I guess, you've made where it's all completely positive. And even you personally don't see any negative at all in the guy. Do you think you were the right guy to make this? I mean, are you dispassionate enough to make a Barack Obama video?"

Davis Guggenheim: "But, Piers, you haven't seen the movie. You've only seen the trailer."

Piers Morgan: "Well, I've asked you to list all the negatives and you said the only negative was you couldn't put enough positives in."

Davis Guggenheim: "Well, that's true. That's true."

Here is the video:

Don't Pin Your Hopes On A Brokered Convention Saving the Day

I've noticed a lot of talk and a lot of hope being pinned on a brokered convention as possibly our last best hope to keep Romney from being nominated.  My advice:  don't bet on it.  Oh sure, Romney might very well be denied enough delegates to ensure the nomination before the convention (all it probably takes is Newt or Santorum dropping out and endorsing the other) but I fail to see the possibility of him not being nominated in Tampa in such a scenario. 

Based on both his hard bound and total delegate lead, it seems very likely that he will remain the leader going into the convention whether or not he gets to the magic number of 1144 delegates.  For those of you who haven't sunk into the weeds (there actually is a nice short and sweet primer here), hard bound delegates are the delegates that are legally bound to vote for you at the convention, at least on the first ballot.  For those that aren't hard bound, as a candidate you can never be sure you are going to get their vote.  For example, CNN is currently counting 7 delegates for Romney, Paul and Santorum because of the results of the Iowa caucus and are including them in their total delegate count (note that other sites will sometimes have different totals).  But the actual delegate allocation doesn't even exist yet.  What happens in Iowa is that the caucuses pick delegates for county conventions who then pick delegates for congressional district conventions who then pick delegates for the state convention, which is set for June 16th.  So we won't even know what the Iowa delegation will look like for another 3 months and it wouldn't surprise me if either Romney, Paul or Santorum end up with many more or fewer delegates than they were initially supposed to.

Anyway, back to my point, if you calculate the number of delegates that either Newt or Santorum would need from now on just to catch up with Romney you will see how difficult it would be.  On a hard bound basis, I calculate that there are 1,206 delegates to be chosen and Romney currently has a lead of 219 delegates over Newt and 232 over Santorum (he is behind Newt because of his wins in caucuses that don't have hard bound delegates).  So from here on out, Newt would have to beat Romney by over 18 points and Santorum needs to beat Romney by over 19 points just to catch up with him (to get the nomination each would actually have to get over 87% of the hard bound delegates from now on).  I don't really see either beating Romney 60-40, especially when you have states like New York coming up, a big state where Romney is currently leading by 15 points.  On a total delegate basis the numbers get a smidge easier, at least for Santorum, who needs to beat Romney by 16 points to catch him (Newt needs to beat him by 20 points).  So as you can see, barring an epic meltdown, it seems very likely that, even if he is not the official nominee, Romney will at least be the leader and possibly be very close to the magic number of 1144.

At that point, the brokers at the convention will have to decide one of two things, twist enough arms and make enough deals to get Romney over the top or go with someone who isn't running (I don't think the brokers will ever favor a Newt or a Santorum at the convention, especially if they are behind Romney in the delegate totals).  And to get Romney over the top might not even be very hard at all.  First, there will be the Ron Paul delegates.  I actually agree that there is something fishy going on between Romney and Paul.  It probably won't take much additional cajoling to make Paul delegates suddenly vote for Romney.  Second, all those unpledged delegates will be linked to the establishment in one way or another, otherwise they probably wouldn't be delegates in the first place.  And if the establishment can do anything is make promises and collect on favors.  And given the unattractiveness of the alternative, they will be promising a lot. 

Now, to the alternative.  What about picking some consensus candidate who is not Romney and running him under the GOP banner?  There are two major problems with that.  First, the calendar.  The GOP convention is supposed to start on August 27th, just 10 weeks before election day on November 6th.  That is 10 weeks to fundraise for the campaign and introduce the candidate to America.  That will make first impressions and first interviews that much more important and unfortunately people's first impressions will be of backroom deals and questions of fairness from the press.  Instead of the economy or Obamacare or Iran being the main issue, it's going to be "what exactly was the process whereas you were selected to be the GOP nominee despite doing zero campaigning over the last year and a half and having received zero actual votes from GOP voters".  You can see it now can't you?  It would be a public relations disaster.  And let's not forget how pissed off all the Newt, Santorum, Romney and Paul people will be that after all their hard work, a usurper, who had zero vetting and participated in zero debates, got the nod.  10 weeks might not be enough for their wounds to heal and vote for the nominee.

The second major problem is that there isn't a wonderful, magical Republican who can come in, unite the establishment and the Tea Party (as well as economic, social and foreign policy conservatives), be credible with the media and with enough national exposure already to hit the ground running.  They just don't exist.  Sarah Palin?  No way the establishment will go for that.  They hate her as much, or even more, than they hate Newt.  The two of them make the establishment batsh*t crazy, which is why we love them but unfortunately, that doesn't lead to a nod at a brokered convention.  Jeb Bush?  I think a good number of the party will bolt on having another Bush carry the GOP banner.  It just stinks of elitism and dynasticism.  Like we are some banana republic or hereditary monarchy.  Paul Ryan?  While eloquent and with national exposure, he is also just a Congressman with zero administrative or foreign policy experience, who has had some questionable votes in the past which will upset many in the Tea Party.  He voted for both TARP and the auto bailouts for heaven's sake.  Chris Christie?  Please.  He is pretty much a guy who thinks like Mitt Romney but pretends to be a Newt Gingrich.  He is very questionable on global warming, abortion and he has raised fees.  Plus, he has only been Governor for a total of 2 years at this point.  Mitch Daniels?  While economically conservative, there is a lot of question as to what he actually thinks about social issues and foreign policy issues (he wants a social "truce" and might be a Dick Lugar foreign policy Republican).  I do realize that pretty much all of these candidates would be better than Romney, but would the brokers at the convention think that they will be a better candidate than Romney given that they are unvetted, have zero dollars in their _____ for President fund and all have their own flaws that would have to be papered over real quick?  I don't think so.

Now I am not saying you should give up.  Personally, I would still rather see a brokered convention than a Romney walk to the nomination simply because at least there would be a chance, albeit minuscule, of something good happening.  I just won't get my hopes up.

The Case Against the Federal Reserve's Recent Actions

Jim Grant gives a great CNBC interview and thinks that capitalism would be a great alternative to what we have now:



(h/t Zerohedge)

A Not So Super Tuesday

I think last night was probably pretty close to what I would have considered to be the worst case scenario.  Newt only won his home state of Georgia, Santorum won in Oklahoma, Tennessee and North Dakota and Romney took the rest (Massachusetts, Vermont, Virginia, Ohio, Alaska and Idaho).  I was hoping that Ron Paul would have been able to unite the not-Romney vote in Virginia and then take some of the small caucuses as his small devoted following could definitely tip the scales in states where a thousand votes can decide things.  Imagine what the stories would have looked like this morning if Ron Paul had taken Virginia, Alaska, Idaho & North Dakota while Newt took Georgia, Tennessee & Oklahoma?  People would have gone nuts, Santorum would have been all but finished and this race would be wide open.  As it stands now, Romney has a near 100% chance of being the nominee.  It would take a historically epic meltdown for him not to be.  We'd practically have to find out that he is an active White Supremacist, had a sexual affair with Barney Frank and/or find out that he is, as many have suspected, an android (preferably all three) for him to be denied the nomination at this point.  Money, organization and an automatic vote from Mormons (which helped flip usually very conservative western states to his side) have really proven to be insurmountable.  The constant splitting of the conservative vote hasn't helped either.  Santorum's strategy of sticking around, despite abysmal vote tally's after Iowa, to wait for Newt to be destroyed, has helped him vault to the #2 position but also seems to have helped Romney become the nominee.  I'm sure Santorum supporters could say the same thing about Newt sticking around but I really don't think Santorum could unite the party like Newt.  Santorum does well in states with lots of social conservatives while Newt has a more broad Reaganesque message which could potentially unite economic, social and foreign policy conservatives under one candidate.

I'm sure there will be some uber die hard Newt supporters who will attack me for not having enough faith.  Yes, I realize that Newt is not to be underestimated and that people have left him for dead before but I just don't see how he can be the nominee at this point.  We've had 23 contests and he has won a grand total of 2 of them.  He's underperforming what Mike Huckabee did in 2008 at this point who had won 6 of the first 31 contests.  Other than getting a nice big check from Fox to start his own show, Huckabee doesn't have much to show for that performance politically.  Let's say Newt wins in Alabama and Mississippi.  Then what?  Santorum isn't dropping out, so how does Newt get victories outside the deep South?  Heck, given his loss in Tennessee, which borders his home state of Georgia, I don't think even Alabama and Mississippi are done deals.  The most he can hope for is a denial of a majority of delegates to Romney and a brokered convention.  But the power brokers aren't going to go with Newt no matter what, they friggin hate him with a passion I've never seen.  Plus historically they have favored a more moderate candidate at conventions anyway, whether or not they personally like him.  In 1952, the very conservative Robert Taft got the shaft (with some delegates actually stolen from him at the convention) in favor of the RINO Eisenhower, who historically wasn't even a Republican.  In 1980, these power brokers were trying to get a co-Presidency agreement between Reagan and Gerald Ford to water down Reagan's conservatism.  If we have a brokered convention this year, we know Paul will go with Romney given his collusion with him this year anyway and Romney will walk away with the nomination one way or the other. 

What about Santorum?  He doesn't have much of a chance either.  He just has very little appeal outside of social conservative heavy states.  He just can't get to 1,144 without winning in the northeast and California and I find it hard to believe he will have a chance at that.  And again, a brokered convention is not going to nominate someone like him.

It seems all that is left for me to do is to decide who to vote for in the fall.  It definitely won't be Obama but it won't be Romney either (I decided that months ago).  I've never voted for a liberal in my life and I am not starting now.  The Libertarian Party might be getting another voter, despite my complete disagreement with them on foreign policy.  At least they believe in small government, unlike Obama and Romney.

Hamas Gives Israel Green Light to Strike Iran?

A Hamas official has been quoted as saying they won't have Iran's back if Israel decides to strike.  Pretty amazing.  You would think they would at least stay quiet to have some sort of deterrent effect, albeit limited:

Senior Politburo member in Gaza Strip Salah Bardawil said that Hamas "will not do Iran's bidding in any war with Israel, and will not launch rockets at Israel at Tehran's request."

"If there is a war between two powers, Hamas will not be part of such a war," Bardawil was quoted as saying. Hamas is not part of military alliances in the region. Our strategy is to defend our rights."

Analysts said that this somewhat surprising stance illustrates the rift between Hamas and Iran – its key financial patron; as well as Gaza-rulers' realignment with Egypt's new ruling party, the Muslim Brotherhood.

A second, anonymous Hamas source, told the British newspaper that the group "will not get involved in any war between Iran and Israel."

The Obama Volt

Truly awesome satire, that is both funny and completely true:

Chevy Volt - Building a Better Tomorrow from Ben Howe on Vimeo.

(h/t ZeroHedge)

Israeli Officials: Meeting with Obama was Lame

According to senior Israeli officials, Obama is clearly not going to do anything and is more worried about his re-election chances and the price of oil:

Israeli state officials were disappointed Tuesday with the results of the Netanyahu-Obama meeting at the White House on Monday. "There were no surprises," a senior state official said. "It was clear from recent months that there are differences between ourselves and the Americans. We have different perspectives when it comes to the question of time and red lines."

It was claimed that the Americans view the Iranian issue in the context of the upcoming presidential elections. "It's a bad message for the issue and a good message for the Iranians," a state official said.

...

"They won't tell us what to do. They have no interest in giving a red light or a green light because then they take responsibility for the situation. That is why we're in the grey zone now."

"As of yet, there is no decision to attack but we'll see what tomorrow brings," a senior official close to the talks with the Americans said. "Right now we are certain the Americans won't do anything and we need to decide what to do."

Referring to Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's meeting with US President Barack Obama, he added: "The meeting was important because now everything is out in the open: The Americans want oil prices not to go up because it's bad for their economy."

The issue of oil rates also drew criticism from some state officials. "Oil prices? Come on. You have to consider the fate of the Western world and history. It's better to pay more for oil this year than to pay the cost for a nuclear Iran.

The Video of Bibi's Awesome AIPAC Speech on Iran

Looks like Israel has made up its mind:

Glick: Obama is Trying to Delay Israel Long Enough For Their Attack Window to Close

Another very astute analysis of Obama's AIPAC speech from Caroline Glick:

While he didn't pick a fight with Israel on Sunday, his speech did mark a clear attempt to undermine Israel's strategic position in a fundamental - indeed existential - way. As many commentators have noted in recent weeks, Israel and the US have different red lines for the Iranian nuclear program. These divergent red lines owe to the fact that the US has more options for attacking Iran's nuclear installations than Israel. 

From Israel's perspective, Iran's nuclear program will reportedly become unstoppable as soon as the Iranians move a sufficient quantity of enriched uranium and/or centrifuges to the Fordow nuclear installation by Qom. Since Israel reportedly lacks the ability to destroy the facility, Israel's timeline for attacking Iran will likely end within weeks. The US reportedly has the capacity to successfully bomb Fordow and so its timeline for attacking Iran is longer than Israel's.

The reason this is important is because it tells us the true nature of Obama's demand that Israel give more time for sanctions and diplomacy to work. When one recognizes Israel's short timeline for attacking, one realizes that when Obama demands that Israel give several more months for sanctions to work, what he is actually demanding is for Israel to place its survival in his hands. Again, once Iran's nuclear project is immune from an Israeli strike Obama will effectively hold the key to Israel's survival. Israel will be completely at his mercy.

Read the whole thing.  Once again, Obama's AIPAC speech is nothing more than an illusory chest thumping in support of Israel that is worth precisely the paper that it is printed on and doesn't mean what you think it means.  Remember in 2008, the last time he ran for the Presidency, he said he supported an "undivided Jersalem" at AIPAC?  Well that support lasted about a week.

Personally, I was also disturbed by this passage from yesterday's speech:

Already, there is too much loose talk of war.  Over the last few weeks, such talk has only benefited the Iranian government, by driving up the price of oil, which they depend on to fund their nuclear program.  For the sake of Israel's security, America's security, and the peace and security of the world, now is not the time for bluster.

Oil prices?  Really?  That makes me think that Obama is too chicken to attack Iran in an election year because he is worried about what oil prices might do.  The higher they go, the lower his odds of getting re-elected.  One marine logistics and services CEO thinks oil could go up to $440 a barrel in the event of conflict with Iran (essentially a quadrupling in price).  At that level, Obama could kiss his election goodbye.  And it is pretty obvious that given a choice between his re-election and a nuclear Iran, Obama would choose his re-election.

Newt Schools David Gregory on Meet the Press

He so needs to be the nominee:

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

(h/t Conservatives with Newt)

Obama Hates Israel

Watch this video from the Emergency Committee for Israel which extensively catalogs Obama's war on Israel:



(h/t Legal Insurrection)

The Cost of Obamacare Just Jumped by $111 Billion

The scariest thing about this jump is that Obamacare isn't even in full effect yet!:

Ways and Means Committee Chairman Dave Camp (R-Mich.) is asking about a spike in the estimated costs of subsidies to help people buy private insurance — a central, and expensive, component of the new healthcare law.

The administration's budget request this year included $111 billion more for subsidies than its request last year. The difference falls across the same seven-year window.

"This staggering increase in health insurance exchange subsidy spending cannot be explained by legislative changes or new economic assumptions, and therefore must reflect substantial changes in underlying assumptions regarding the program's utilization and cost," Camp wrote Friday in a letter to Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner.

...

Camp's letter cites Congressional Budget Office scores of two bills that passed since the White House submitted its last budget. Together, the bills were expected to cut the cost of exchange subsidies by about $9 billion, he said, making the White House's projected increase all the more surprising.

It's Do or Die Time for Conservatives and Libertarians. Time to Unite Behind One Candidate and Defeat Romney

It's time to stop dilly-dallying. Super Tuesday is upon us and with that, the nomination race could be all but over unless conservatives and libertarians finally unite behind one candidate, a candidate who can beat both Romney AND Obama. That candidate needs to be Newt.

Among the not-Romney's he is the only one who can unite the party. Economic conservatives like him because he balanced the budget and reformed welfare. Defense hawks like him because he is the most hawkish of the lot. Social conservatives, when they can get past his personal life, like him for his strong record on issues like abortion. And libertarians, like the Libertarian Party's nominee in 2008, Bob Barr, like him because he is economically libertarian and not over the top on social issues.

Can anyone honestly say the same thing about Santorum? He goes out of his way to attack individual freedom and libertarianism and completely blew his chance to be the nominee by focusing on social issues instead of the economy (probably because his economic policy record isn't really that great). Who attacks prenatal diagnostics? Or the idea of contraception? Or says he wants to vomit over a rather non-controversial (and somewhat revered) JFK speech? He has proven himself to be quite a bit more gaffe prone and offensive than Newt, despite the fact that people thought he was a "safer" option. Even I was offended by some of the stuff he said and I am a Pro-Life registered Republican. It's really not surprising that his support is crumbling like it is. See the latest tracking data from Gallup (Santorum's popularity is in dark green, Romney's is black [matches his soul], Newt's is orange and Ron Paul's is light green):

Santorum is just not ready for prime time. He is simply too divisive, offending gays, women, parents, protestants and libertarians (in total about 80-90% of the electorate). Unfortunately, he retains enough support to possibly give Romney a majority of the states on Super Tuesday. His conservative backers need to wake up quickly, bite the bullet and go with Newt. As the brilliant Thomas Sowell wrote:

Newt Gingrich is the only candidate still in the field who can clearly take on Barack Obama in one-on-one debate and cut through the Obama rhetoric and mystique with hard facts and plain logic.

Nor is this just a matter of having a gift of gab. Gingrich has a far deeper grasp of both the policies and the politics than the other Republican candidates.

Can anyone really argue with that?

I think Ron Paul supporters (the historically Republican ones, not the liberals who are just visiting the GOP for this election in order to support Paul) need to wake up as well. They are not furthering libertarianism at all by supporting Paul any more. He's made his point and has shown that he is a force to be reckoned with but supporting Paul on Tuesday just increases the chances that the most statist candidate, Mitt Romney, is nominated. Do you really want to be responsible for nominating the only Governor, Republican or Democrat, to enact a socialist universal healthcare system in their states? Newt isn't a libertarian but he is the man who did the most to wound the leviathan in the last 30 years. Why not vote for him and give this country a chance? It clearly won't with either Romney or Obama.

Finally, Newt is simply the most electable candidate in the race right now. As I mentioned earlier, he can unite the party, has a great grasp of both politics and logic and can actually explain conservatism in a way that others can understand and agree with.  Santorum and Paul are both to extreme to get almost any independents over into the fold. 

Sure he has baggage but I think most of it will go away.  Freddie Mac? Let's see Obama bring that up when he received over $126,000 in bribes, err I mean donations, from Fannie and Freddie while he was in or seeking office (he was the #2 largest recipient in Congress, #1 was the notoriously corrupt Chris Dodd). Nancy Pelosi? Let's see Obama make an issue out of that one or Newt's opposition to cramming down the Ryan plan. 

It's time for believers in small government and personal liberty to unite behind Newt, otherwise we will once again have a Nixon vs. McGovern sort of choice in the fall.  And the stakes are just too high this election for that.

Santorum's Support Seems to be Collapsing

This chart from Gallup is probably making people in the Santorum campaign panic, at least a little. Santorum's popularity is in dark green, Romney's is black (matches his soul), Newt's is orange and Ron Paul's is light green:

If these were stock charts, I would say that it would make sense to lighten up on Romney as there is a lot of resistance at 36%, that Santorum still has a ways to go down (probably to 18%) and that Newt could be a buy as he has formed a base and seems to be trending up a little. Ron Paul looks like a value trap. A stock that you can make a good fundamental argument why it should go up but never goes anywhere.