Who could have EVER guessed that one of the most progressive, "Big Government" Democrats in Congress, a marginal former Presidential candidate who voted against the Democratic Party House Health Care Bill, passed several months ago on the grounds that it didn't far enough (re. public option, funded by "soak the rich" taxes), would flip his vote? Say it ain't so, Joe! (At least Kucinich held out long enough for a trip home on Air Force One and a photo op with the President in his home state...)
All of this is your typical staged political event, purposefully designed to lend a sense of inevitability for passage. Remember when Colin Powell waited until 2 weeks before the 2008 election to announce his support for Obama? It was obvious that Powell wanted his endorsement of Obama to have maximum effect. I'm sure that Colin Powell needed all that time to weigh the difference between a war hero with decades of military and foreign policy expertise, a bipartisan record in Congress, and 26 years of federal legislative experience with a first-term senator having a paper-thin record and no administrative experience, whom had expressed a willingness to meet with third-world despots unconditionally and whom had backed out of a prior commitment to abide by federal campaign funding for the general campaign... I was amused watching Powell on recent Sunday talk soup, clearly not backing away from his Obama endorsement, dismissing conservative claims on Obama being a one-term President.
Let me get this straight, General Powell. You believed in a military strategy using overwhelming force and were naturally reluctant to engage in war unnecessarily. Would you have pursued a political strategy, doing everything in your power, using every desperate, sneaky legislative tactic, to ram an unpopular bill through your own divided partisan colleagues, never mind steamrolling over minority party rights and down the nation's throat? If you were looking at a weak economy, would you make your top two legislative initiatives cap-and-trade and health care reform (to cover 30 million Americans choosing not to buy health insurance), both of which would commit to growth of the federal bureaucracy, large-scale spending and tax increases? Would you have spent nearly a trillion dollars on an ineffective stimulus bill? Is your idea of leadership instead of submitting your own health care proposal from the get-go, letting each house of Congress devise its own idiosyncratic approach to health care reform and then refereeing the ensuing food fight?
Political Potpourri
Today's Gallup poll shows Obama (for the first time?) at a net disapproval level: 46%-47%. Could it have something to do with the fact that nearly 1 out of 5 workers are unemployed or underemployed, while Obama and the Democrats pursue, using any arcane, unconventional legislative tactic possible, at any cost, passage a partisan bill which has lacked popular support for several consecutive weeks?
One of the odd things I've noticed in reviewing recent RealClearPolitics poll summaries are the inconsistent results in generic Congressional party polls. For example, Gallup has Dems leading by 3 points, but Rasmussen has the GOP ahead by 10. Personally, I do not believe with a weak economy and the long, bruising battle using unsavory political tactics and corrupt deals in ramming through an unpopular health care bill, that it bodes well for the mid-terms this fall. My guess is the GOP has trended ahead but not as much as Rasmussen suggests.
Some other interesting tidbits: California Republican gubernatorial candidate Meg Whitman, former eBay CEO, is ahead or even with two-term former governor, Jerry Brown, currently the California Attorney General and likely Democratic nominee, in recent polls. One poll (not Rasmussen) has former Wisconsin Governor Tommy Thompson (whom hasn't announced his candidacy) leading incumbent Democratic senator Russ Feingold by double-digits. Rasmussen has Illinois gubernatorial nominee Brady (who barely won in a crowded GOP field) ahead of Blagojevich successor Quinn by 10 points. It also looks like Republicans have a decent shot at flipping the gubernatorial seats in Ohio, Pennsylvania, Michigan and Wisconsin.
Thumbs Down: Senate Approves Final Jobs/Highway Bill 68-29
The Senate rammed through a composite spending bill, with a composite mix of retiring, temporary, re-election and New England liberal Republican senators joining in. This includes a temporary gimmick which provides employers a payroll tax break for hiring longer-term unemployed workers. There are a few problems with this approach: first, employers hire constantly on an ongoing basis; in essence, you are pushing on a string: hiring workers you would have hired without the incentive. Second, they hire primarily based on expected business prospects in a given economic environment; there are a number of expenses (training, etc.) in terms of bringing on a new employee and payroll taxes are just one of a number of cost factors. Third, a temporary tax cut is just that. We have seen this lesson over recent stimulus packages, when tax rebate checks were mostly banked than spent.
I do believe in broad-based, permanent business tax cuts. This administration has been talking energy tax hikes, health care tax penalties, and restoration of Clinton-era high income tax rates (on small businesses), e.g.:
It used to be a relative no brainer to elect S if you qualified. The highest corporate rates were higher than highest individual rates [i.e., under Reagan]. So if the corporation elected Subchapter S status the overall situation resulted in less current tax. After the tax changes in the early Clinton years, the highest individual rates (in the 40% range) [were] higher than highest corporate rates (generally 35%) and as a result the venture (corporation and stockholders combined) may actually pay more currently if the venture is profitable and elects S status.Hmmm. I wonder what motivated G.W. Bush to cut the highest tax bracket to, at most, 35%? And when progressives, in their self-righteous fury, rail over the "unfairness" of giving tax cuts to the people whom pay the most taxes... Well, isn't it obvious that the 40% or more of American workers who pay no income taxes are paying more than their fair share of national government operational expenses?
I decided to look at recent Oracle DBA job announcements focusing on long-term unemployed candidates--and, believe it or not, I haven't seen one yet...
Political Cartoon
Lisa Benson reminds us, unlike your IRA, 401K or pension plan, ingoing net payroll contributions (less outgoing payments) are not invested in real assets but are a captive loan to cover the federal operations budget, in particular, escalating entitlements and "stimulus" bills from progressive Democratic super-spending. These IOU's will be needed in the not-too-distant future to make up differences when contributions can't keep up with payments. Obama, of course, deferred resolving chronic entitlement solvency reforms so he could address the health care for some 30 million people whom can't be turned away from hospitals on an inability to pay.
Quote of the Day
I can’t write a book commensurate with Shakespeare, but I can write a book by me.
Sir Walter Raleigh
Musical Interlude: Goddaughter Songs
The Left Banke, "Walk away, Renée"
Kenny Chesney, "You Had Me From Hello" (tribute to former wife Renée Zellweger, based on her signature line from movie Jerry Maguire)
Fleetwood Mac, "Sara"
Hall and Oates, "Sara Smile"
Starship, "Sara"
