Is Beauty for the World?

Is Beauty for the world to see?
Or is it a secret only for me?

I enter my secret garden and tred lightly
but I still leave broken things behind.
How can I let in armies, if I'm unkind?

Would that secret garden, not be a secret;
and folks take off their jackboots at the door,
and put on winged sandals to walk the floor.

When I open up my secret garden to the world,
I risk barbarian invasion.
Incoming blind, destructive,
turning my garden to a dusty swirls.
All the beauty in my secret garden,
trampled by unthinking boots.

But is that garden really mine?
I claim it with my effort and mind,
But keeping it a secret breeds barbarian children,
who clamor at the door.
"Let me in! Let me in!"
I want to see this beauty once more.

Let's teach our children to grow up,
and take off their shoes, put on slippers,
and leave them at the door.

Christopher H. Holte

Faulty Assumptions and Verification

Paul krugman today writes in his article "Macrofoundations (Wonkish)"

"John Quiggin has a fun post debunking the notion, all too common among economists, that macroeconomics — the study of inflation, depressions, and all that — is somehow flaky and unworthy of the field’s grandeur, that only microeconomics, derived rigorously from rational behavior, is real science. Keynesian macro, in particular, is often regarded with intense distaste, and a lot of economists would like to ban it from the field."

Some Economists have come to that conclusion because of dogmas that haven't worked and their unwillingness to deviate from faulty assumptions, which are microeconomic assumptions:

"Quiggin points out, rightly, that almost all microeconomics depends crucially on the assumption that the economy is at full employment; this assumption is false, but what makes it not too false in normal times is the existence of stabilization policies, monetary and fiscal, that usually produce fairly quick recoveries from slumps. Macro is what makes micro work, to the extent that it does."

Every rational endeavor depends on observation, assumptions and verification. When assumptions are faulty, the results will be faulty. That is why we verify, debate, argue and sometimes have to change our minds. Krugman continues:

"I would add that macro is the only reason anyone listens to all those microeconomists who think they’re being rigorous. To see why, we need to think about the history of thought."

Because of the unwillingness to challenge authority, or even verify authority, science and scientists keep getting stuck. The unwillingness to verify has allowed dogma and faulty faith to substitute for reason, due to reasonable seeming theories turning out to be faulty:

"If you go back to the state of American economics in the 1930s and even into the 1940s, it was not at all the model-oriented, mathematical field it later became. Institutional economics was still a powerful force, and many senior economists disliked mathematical modeling. When Paul Samuelson published Foundations of Economic Analysis in 1947, the chairman of Harvard’s economics department tried to limit the print run to 500, grudgingly accepted a run of 750, and ordered the mathematical type broken up immediately."

And he continues:

"So why did model-oriented, math-heavy economics triumph? It wasn’t because general-equilibrium models of perfect competition had overwhelming empirical success. What happened, I’d argue, was Keynesian macroeconomics."

The thirties were a catastrophe not only for the nation but for mainstream economists like Von Mises, Hayek, and their classical counterparts all over the world. Their response to failure was to double down on their theories, but others challenged those theories by trying to examine assumptions and model out cause and effect.

"Think about it: In the 1930s you had a catastrophe, and if you were a public official or even just a layman looking for guidance and understanding, what did you get from institutionalists? Caricaturing, but only slightly, you got long, elliptical explanations that it all had deep historical roots and clearly there was no quick fix. Meanwhile, along came the Keynesians, who were model-oriented, and who basically said “Push this button”– increase G, and all will be well. And the experience of the wartime boom seemed to demonstrate that demand-side expansion did indeed work the way the Keynesians said it did."

Of course the reality of the models is that they too are based on assumptions, and the underlying assumptions are either things that can be held fixed, or they tend to blow up the models. Sometimes we can hold a variable fixed for calculation purposes, but we always have to be aware of the assumption and treat it as a modeling risk. Still, Keynesian concepts worked within the realm of those assumptions. Krugman continues:

"It’s not an accident that Samuelson, even as he was raising the math level of microeconomics, was a key figure in the triumph of Keynesian economics. Nor was it at all an accident that his intro textbook, in its 1948 edition and for a long time thereafter, started with macro, and only got to micro later. The perceived success of macroeconomics did double duty, establishing the bona fides of a model-oriented approach and also suggesting that full employment was not too bad an assumption — given the right monetary and fiscal policies."

Given the right monetary AND fiscal policies. Without responsible officials, again, the assumptions blow up. Krugman continutes:

"Oh, and economists who are upset that the public seems to judge the profession by its success at macro diagnosis and prediction are missing the point: it has always been thus, and purists who disdain macro are making mock of the only reason anyone takes them at all seriously."

So much for "praxeology." He continues:

"The academic enterprise of economics as we know it, in other words, rests on a macro foundation, and in fact a Keynesian foundation — and economists who denounce all of that as witchcraft are busily sawing off the branch they’re sitting on."

Of course the other reason the micro-economists folks don't like admitting they depend on macroeconomics is that most of them are conservatives who feel "in their bones" that the old classical assumptions always hold. That is why they jumped all over Friedman's ideas and monetarism. It was classical economics with a monetary stick they could wave like a magic wand.

http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/10/26/macrofoundations-wonkish/?_r=0

Stochastic Disease Reality Versus propaganda points

A friend shared with me an article in German. My German isn't that good, but thankfully Google translate is much better than older translation routines and so I can share it. The article is titled[http://www.neues-deutschland.de/artikel/837196.verharmloste-strahlenfolgen.html]:

Ärzteorganisation IPPNW kritisiert UN-Bericht zur AKW-Katastrophe von Fukushima

Google Translates this as:

"Medical organization IPPNW criticizes UN report on the nuclear disaster in Fukushima"

The article summary tells us:

"The medical organization IPPNW submitted on Friday criticized the Fukushima report of the UN Committee on the effects of radiation."

Essentially IPPNW notes that almost all our officials and their employed experts make their reports based on outdated assumptions and inadequate data largely because the scientists are forced to rely on unclassified and deliberately downplayed propaganda points about the effects of radiation in generating "stochastic" [statistical] disease. In the Russian roulette of radiation effects, the odds are worse for people than officials -- burdened by secrecy laws and a punitive nuclear security state -- will admit. "The United Nations Committee on the Consequences of Radiation (UNSCEAR)' annual report on Fukushima" was characterized by the "The organization International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War (IPPNW ) as:

"targeted misinformation to the public."

They protested the reports claim that UNSCEAR's claim that:

"no apparent increase of cancer in the affected population could be expected , which may be associated with radiation exposure."

... is misinformation. IPPNW disputes the claim that:

"Although UNSCEAR admits an increase of cancer cases indicates,...that this would not be noticeable in the statistics because of their small numbers."

The IPPNW Angelika Claussen, chair of the German section, protests this finding saying:

"this statement is untenable.

And she notes how previously "very rare thyroid cancer was diagnosed in 18 children exposed to radiation in the region, with another 25 suspected of having this disease", while the normal "long-term average" in the area "indicated only one previous case expected." The IPPNW report is protesting that the UNSCEAR report underplays the massive risk of "stochastic" effects from radiation exposure in the form of increased risk of cancer. And the IPPNW investigators found that authorities were blocking systematic health checks and excluding sub-contractors from the measurements.

The article points to a failure to collect blood samples. It notes:

"they had to find in their journey through the mainly affected areas that the authorities block systematic health checks with blood [checks] 'spot.' Where this would have made on your own doctors , a significant accumulation of radiation- induced weakening of the immune system probably had been found . The pediatrician Alex Rosen , deputy chairman of the German section of IPPNW criticized , because even in the UNSCEAR report , especially the poor data base . Had been used mainly to the International Atomic Energy Agency ( IAEA), the operating company TEPCO and the Japanese nuclear authorities , although particular TEPCO repeated manipulations and inconsistencies were noticed . There are no data received from independent measurements in the report. Is also ignored , that in work in Fukushima Daiichi nuclear plant after the disaster were used to a considerable extent employees of subcontractors that do not appear in the statistics.

So IPPNW is protesting deliberately left out data, and "manipulations and inconsistencies" in data collection and reporting. The report under reports the impact of radiation on the immune system and on Leukemia incidence. The article continues:

"How bad it is with the independence of UNSCEAR , has for Rose mere fact that the main radiation leukemia " expert " is a scientist who worked more than 30 years in the nuclear fuel manufacturer British Nuclear Fuel and also as a retiree or for the reprocessing plant at Sellafield operates."

This is not to impeach him as a science, but it does point to his probable partisan bias against admitting stochastic risks and that the man cannot possibly be a trained expert on Leukemia.

"Rose also sees shortcomings in other scientific methodology which partly goes from outdated assumptions since the 1950s . So it incorrectly assumed in the report of a threshold dose below which there will be no radiation damage. The radiobiological research has shown that such a threshold does not exist. In addition, embryos and fetuses were in the dose -response relationship simply equated with children , although in these the immune system is not yet fully emerged and they are particularly sensitive to radiation because of increased rates of cell division . In addition, an Australian study has 680 000 children in whom a CT scan was performed , compared with non-irradiated one million children. The absorbed radiation dose while about 4.5 millisievert ( mSv ) per 100 000 children have caused nine additional cancer cases. Such studies simply ignored the UN Committee , criticized Angelika Claussen , although UNSCEAR run out of loads comparable in Japan . But instead of a long-range evacuation had increased only in Japan, the annual allowable radiation exposure limit for children to 20 mSv."

So it is likely that embryos and fetuses are more susceptible to radiation than even small children.

And worse, instead of evacuating affected areas, Japan just raised the exposure level allowed for small children, expectant mothers, and others -- with predictable if "stochastic" results. Which the world governments are now denying.

[One] problem the IPPNW believes exists is the fixation on th[os]e [cancers] triggered by radioactive iodine thyroid exposure, although it is known that large quantities of radioactive isotopes with half-lives of around 30 years much longer-lived radioisotopes of cesium -137 and strontium -90 leaked continuous with leaking cooling water escape into the sea. Chronic exposure to these radioactivity can lead to leukemias , lymphomas and solid tumors.

Thyroid Cancers due to radioactive iodine are only the tip of the stochastic iceberg, as strontium and cesium poisoning initiates leukemias, lymphomas and solid tumors in affected populations. The IPPNW predicts:

The IPPNW expected in the coming years 10000-20000 additional cancer cases in Japan based on the determined by independent measurements of radiation levels around Fukushima. According to the roses is still a conservative estimate that emanates throughout Japan for one additional cancer case per 10 mSv lifetime dose of radiation.

10,000 to 20,000 future cancer cases; leukemia, lymphoma and solid tumors, in addition to the already expected thyroid abnormalities and tumors. And that is the real conservative estimate.

I believe the article gives the Atomic Energy and UNSCEAR scientists more credit than they deserve. Secrecy laws forbid them to tell the truth or they lose access to funds and contracts -- but I believe that makes them cowards, not merely blind, but cowards, because minimizing the effects of a deadly disaster makes them mass murderers or accessories to mass murder.

We did it to ourselves in the 50's and 60's. The Russians did it to themselves and the rest of us with Chernobyl and other disasters. Someday we'll see the real statistics on the effects of open air testing on our population.

Corrupt judges on the Supreme Court

When Sandra Day O'Conner retired CNN came out with an article talking about the relatively low salaries of Supreme Court Justices. http://money.cnn.com/2005/07/01/news/newsmakers/salary/ and they claimed:

"But one thing they won't get a chance to do is make a boatload of money in the process."

If only. 

It is true that they should make a really good salary, and they do, but do we really want their salary to be competitive with corporate Americans. The article continues:

"Whoever replaces O'Connor will undoubtedly have one of the finest legal minds in the country. He or she will also have a paycheck of less than $200,000 a year, compared with an average of over $5 million for corporate executives.

You can look up their salary, it's up to 223,000$ now and the articles will still tell you it is fixed, not that much, etc.... But that turns out to not be true. It might have been true for relatively honest people like Sandra Day O'Conner, but it is not necessarily even true about them. So we get the advertizing about our saintly judges (from same article):

'There is a motivational force that is not money," said Paul Hodgson, a compensation specialist at the Portland, Maine based research group the Corporate Library, in explaining why people become civil servants. "If you're a lawyer and you're not motivated by money, that would probably seem like the most important job there is."'

Sure, we are supposed to play the violin for them.

"Hodgson said the compensation discrepancy is especially acute for Supreme Court justices because, unlike many other high-level public employees, their lifetime appointment means they will most likely not return to the lucrative private sector."

But this becomes meaningless if they are able to break judicial ethics rules and receive outside compensation From the Private sector as these rule changes made possible. Paying officials too much makes them vulnerable to ego inflation, but paying them too little or giving them license to make unlimited outside income makes them susceptable to bribery!

Actually the compensation discrepancy is an issue because every time the government fails to pay officers the officers make up any discrepancy (real or perceived) with corruption. No wonder Kennedy ruled in a case that applied to lower courts that:

"That speakers may have influence over or access to elected officials does not mean that those officials are corrupt. And the appearance of influence or access will not cause the electorate to lose faith in this democracy"."

But Kennedy and the other Judges exempt themselves from those rules!

Bribery is defined! under title 18 as:

" directly or indirectly, corruptly gives, offers or promises anything of value to any public official...or ...give anything of value to any other person or entity, with intent— "

And all this to:

"(A) to influence any official act..."

Bribery isn't just piling a heap on goods on a desk. It also takes more subtle forms such as making deals while playing golf. Or simply attending the same functions and paying ones wife! Are we to believe that the Supreme Court can exempt itself from the appearance of corruption?

So the Heritage foundation doesn't employ Clarence Thomas' wife in order to influence Clarence Thomas? When the Supreme Court made it's Massey ruling, which it cited in it's corrupt Citizens United decision, the mere appearance of possible corruption, and not even a smoking gun of evidence of such influence was enough for them to rule that the Judge should have recused itself. So how do we excuse Clarence Thomas? We shouldn't. Open Secrets notes:

"U.S. Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, for instance, made headlines last month for failing to disclose years' worth of income his wife had earned -- including more than $686,500 between 2003 and 2007 from the Heritage Foundation."

Heritage Foundation campaigned for Thomas to get on the Supreme Court, and now they reward him, directly, by employing his wife. This isn't just the appearance of corruption. According to Title 18 a case can be made this is the reality. Pay in such a case can be presumed to be indirect gift for the sake of influencing his decision making. Of course with our Supreme Court Justices they were selected, groomed, and rewarded on the basis of such influence over a long period of time. One can say that these corrupt organizations pretty much created them in the first place. So it's no wonder the Supreme Court pretends that just because there is obvious influence and association between organizations like Heritage foundation and the Judges and politicians they create and maintain, and the wealthy individuals who pay Heritage Foundation to promote their personal seditious and corrupt purposes -- that just because there is the appearance of corruption (which is what they were saying in the Citizens United Case) doesn't mean there is the reality. Oh, no Thomas' hiding his wife's income was just an accounting error!

But of course though one can look up the disclosure statements of Supreme Court Justices, one can't know whether they are corrupt or not unless they disclose their income.

Open Secrets reports a relatively modest list of "outside incomes" for the Justices for instance:

Rank	Name	Grand Total	Member Total	Spouse Total	Dependent Total
1	Stephen G. Breyer	$46,812	$46,812	$0	$0
2	Antonin Scalia	$45,655	$45,655	$0	$0
3	Clarence Thomas	$26,955	$26,955	$0	$0
3	Samuel A. Alito	$26,955	$26,955	$0	$0
5	Anthony M. Kennedy	$26,500	$26,500	$0	$0
6	Ruth Bader Ginsburg	$23,000	$23,000	$0	$0
7	Elena Kagan	$15,000	$15,000	$0	$0
7	John G. Roberts	$15,000	$15,000	$0	$0

But do you see Clarence Thomas' spouse reported, no? All of them have net worth in the millions.

Rank	Name	Minimum Net Worth	Average	Maximum Net Worth
1	Ruth Bader Ginsburg	$5,415,015	$14,265,007	$23,115,000
2	Stephen G. Breyer	$4,760,058	$10,647,529	$16,535,000
3	John G. Roberts	$2,680,039	$4,542,519	$6,405,000
4	Sonia Sotomayor	$1,225,010	$3,477,505	$5,730,000
5	Antonin Scalia	$1,885,023	$3,142,511	$4,400,000
6	Clarence Thomas	$715,014	$1,317,507	$1,920,000
7	Elena Kagan	$600,017	$1,080,008	$1,560,000
8	Samuel A. Alito	$380,006	$740,003	$1,100,000
9	Anthony M. Kennedy	$330,004	$515,002	$700,000

Oh well. So we aren't talking "quid pro quo" corruption are we. We are talking influence cultivated over a period of years; such as Kagan's involvement with Goldman Sachs, or the Gang of Five and the Federalist Society.  Maybe some of the influences are benign. Kennedy gives speeches for the Annenberg and Colonial Williamsburg foundation. But Thomas' relationship to the Heritage foundation is a scandal, and he doesn't ever recuse himself from decisions where his opinions just happen to match theirs.  So the point? Separate and privileged access are the heart of corruption, and denying that is itself corrupt. There are two kinds of corruption, one is legal corruption, and the other is when a process is degraded. In the second sense, the mere appearance of corruption is itself corrupt.

This article is a follow on to an earlier post on "Corruption, Racketeering and the Supreme Court: http://holtesthoughts.blogspot.com/2013/10/corruption-racketeering-and-supreme.html

Related Posts:

A Corrupt Court, Tuesday, June 26, 2012: http://holtesthoughts.blogspot.com/2012/06/corrupt-court.html

A corrupt decision blind to corrupt access and influence October 8, 2013: http://holtesthoughts.blogspot.com/2013/10/a-corrupt-decision-blind-to-corrupt.html

Corruption, Racketeering and the Supreme Court, Wednesday, October 16, 2013: http://holtesthoughts.blogspot.com/2013/10/corruption-racketeering-and-supreme.html

Corrupt judges on the Supreme Court. October 23, 2013: http://holtesthoughts.blogspot.com/2013/10/corruption-judges-on-supreme-court.html

Corrupt Court and Undue Influence and access according to Founders, Thursday, March 27, 2014: http://holtesthoughts.blogspot.com/2014/03/corrupt-court-and-undue-influence-and.html

The Expected Corrupt Decision by a corrupt court, Saturday, April 5, 2014: http://holtesthoughts.blogspot.com/2014/04/the-expected-corrupt-decision-by.html

Is Quid Pro Quo the only kind of corruption that Government can regulate. April 5, 2014: http://holtesthoughts.blogspot.com/2014/04/is-quid-pro-quo-only-kind-of-corruption.html

Undue influence and Dependency Corruption or why the Supreme Court Decision was so corrupt, April 21st, 2014: http://holtesthoughts.blogspot.com/2014/04/undue-influence-and-dependency.html

Managing energy on spying

To: <aclu@aclu-md.org>;
Dear Susan Goering

I've been researching the regime setup for internal spying and have found that the culprit is as much local as national. I'm glad to see the national organization noticed this: https://www.aclu.org/spy-files/more-about-fusion-centers

The relationship between NSA/FBI, Private organizations, and the Fusion Centers that Homeland Security let each Governor setup to pass on the tools that formerly had been exclusively with NSA to FBI, State and local police and private companies sabotages the value of protesting NSA.  Stopping NSA from spying on us won't stop the spying unless we reform the secret organizations that have been spun off including The Domestic Security Alliance Council (DSAC) which is coordinating spying from the FBI.

Unless we understand how spying has metastasized, reigning in NSA, will just shift the center of domestic spying to the FBI, and worse, or even shift it to private actors including the DSAC and it's Networked members, including Maryland's MCAC.

These organizations include (Related to Maryland):
http://www.gohs.maryland.gov/ii_sharing_accomplishments.html
http://www.mcac.maryland.gov/
National participation from MCAC:
http://www.nfcausa.org/default.aspx/MenuItemID/117/MenuGroup/Home+New.htm
Further reading:http://www.zcommunications.org/fusion-centers-and-the-maryland-spying-scandal-by-anthony-newkirk.html

http://www.dsac.gov/Pages/index.aspx
http://www.ise.gov/annual-report/section1.html#section-5

I'd like to participate in protests against NSA but I think it confuses the issue as NSA is the least guilty organization. Moreover, there are legitimate security concerns and so I'm not even sure that prohibition is either possible nor wise. We certainly need changes to how we manage tele-comm information and a lot less use of secrecy laws to prevent whistleblowing and enable misuse of that information.

Christopher H. Holte

Corruption, Racketeering and the Supreme Court

Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations And the Supreme Court

Anyone who has studied corruption and racketeering in America will certainly find the reasoning in the Citizens United Case specious at best, and astoundingly corrupt at worst, not for the corporate personhood provisions, but for the corrupt deliberate obtuseness of Justice Kennedies opinion that;

“That speakers may have influence over or access to elected officials does not mean that those officials are corrupt. And the appearance of influence or access will not cause the electorate to lose faith in this democracy.”

The Southern Empire Strikes Back

Punishing present day people for mythical infractions

I lost touch with my Southern side when I realized that most of what they'd tried to teach me was mallarky and myth. Now that I'm older have more appreciation for the value of myth and legend, but less tolerance for it's abuse so I'm even less sympathetic to my Southern Ancestors. But what worries me most are historic mythical grudges. These Grudges can last for millennium and the people who believe in such grudges can get revenge for deeds and infractions that never occurred, or that were very different in actual attributes from the myth they've handed down. In fact such myths can spread from people to their neighbors. In this case a lot of Northerners have come to accept Southern myths and legends and so it's not entirely a regional myth anymore. Thus a lot of what is motivating the Tea Party, even it's northern branches, is Southern Revenge "Revanchism" seeking based on myths about race, class and the civil war. In fact the debt ceiling fight is largely about folks seeking to punish bankers, the North, and that "black man in the white house" for mythical infractions. I'm not a psychologist, but this lunacy has to be fought. Southerners want to Punish Obama for being black, for being President, for the slight of "Lincoln freeing the slaves" and for the fear that the USA is becoming a Brown nation and might one day be ruled by other brown people.

Ironically Southern Republicans are fighting to avenge mythical crimes committed by Northern Republicans.

Setting up a Trap to setup a coup

The basic strategy for the Tea Party folks has been to use the debt ceiling law to setup a legal trap so that Southerners can degrade the reputation of the President on Racist arguments, and maybe setup an impeachment battle. The way they are doing it, is by refusing to authorize spending, which in turn starves the government, makes it impossible for the President to legally do his job. Then as soon as he tries to do his job he'll be caught in a Catch 22 trap. If he finds a way to pay his bills he'll be in violation of the Debt Ceiling law. If he doesn't then he'll be in violation of the 14th amendment and other laws passed by congress making him legally liable for their failure. The 14th amendment says in part:

"4. The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void."

Unfortunately it doesn't say "congress shall" or "the President sell" thus the 14th amendment sets up a constitutional fight. Congress passed a law requiring the President to keep spending within limits in 2011 [http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/31/3101A], this was known as "sequestration" and the amount in it is less than the amount the Government appropriated, so we've been in a debt crisis since sequestration went into effect.

If the country defaults, the President will be breaking the law, if it doesn't default he will be breaking the law. So in either case we have a constitutional crisis coming.

Impeachment

When Andrew Johnson became President after Lincolns' assassination. The Northern Senators who were abolitionists were in a fight with Johnson, who was a Southern Congressman before he became Vice President. They found excuses to impeach Johnson, that in retrospect were entirely political and had nothing to do with his personal ethics. They succeeded in impeaching Johnson. I think some of the Republicans want to impeach Obama and this is one method for them to get to that.

It looks like it is failing. Thank God if it does. Republicans are talking about "fairness" but it is nowhere to be found in their actions.

Are they doing this unnecessary debt ceiling fight to destroy the USA as a means to get back at the Federal Government, and the Republicans, for mythical deeds from the 1860s? Are they planning to impeach Obama to get even with the impeachment of Andrew Johnson? If so they are subversives and insurrectionists using sedition and treachery to undermine the Federal Government. They are breaking their oath to uphold the constitution and they are breaking the law. I have trouble believing, but it looks like it might be true, that the "Southern Strategy" has allowed Southern revanchists (folks seeking revenge) to take over the Republicans and in that way get back at both the USA and the Party of Lincoln by making both unrecognizable?

The Plot

Rachel Maddow's blog quotes an Op Ed from Ted Cruz from September:

"If Senate Republicans stay strong and hold true to their previous commitments to defund Obamacare, we will force Democratic Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid to make a choice: keep the government open, or shut it down in the name of funding a glitch-riddled health care takeover that is killing jobs, wages, and health care benefits all across the nation."

"http://maddowblog.msnbc.com/_news/2013/09/23/20658242-ted-cruzs-shutdown-scheme-takes-shape"

But that was the advertized plot. In January 2013 (beginning of year) DeMint gave a speach in which he claimed that the USA wouldn't default on anything if we didn't raise the debt ceiling and that we needed the discipline of not raising it.

http://www.myheritage.org/news/video-jim-demint-on-raising-the-debt-ceiling/

Republicans have been trying to impeach Obama since 2008 without ever having a good enough excuse. Fortunately for me the Atlantic Wire lays out the quandary they are setting up.

"Rep. Louie Gohmert, known for his colorfully erroneous perceptions of basically everything in politics, over the weekend suggested that if the government defaults on its debts, it could lead to the impeachment of President Obama. He's sort of got a point — but it may be the case that preventing default would guarantee that Obama commits a high crime or misdemeanor."

More: http://www.theatlanticwire.com/politics/2013/10/obamas-options-avoid-default-impeached-if-you-do-impeached-if-you-dont/70524/