Even though you know a thousand things, ask the man who knows one.
Turkish Proverb
Reid's Hypocritical War on Senate Minority Rights:
Latest Nominations to Jackass of the Year 2011
My list of new nominations to an already long list to my tongue-in-cheek Democrat Hall of Infamy include: Elizabeth Warren for her pathetic defense of class warfare policies. [Elizabeth Warren also made a personal attack on Scott Brown, noting at least she didn't take off her clothes for money while going to college. Scott Brown ad libbed "thank God" to a media reporter on Warren's pathetic uncivility resulted in predictable overreactions by hypocritical politically correct feminists and Democrat partisans. Warren has no alternative but to engage in ad hominem attacks because she is on the wrong side of the issues. What's worse? Scott Brown posing in a covered nude shot or the current President whom did illicit drugs around the same age?] I wouldn't have responded as Scott did; Elizabeth Warren is a nasty piece of work, and it's always prudent to take the higher road. But any regular reader of my blog and Political Humor feature knows I love to ad lib, and this is a play on words waiting to happen, e.g., "I also would have been one of those people paying her to keep her clothes on..." [The "joke" was how she paid her way through college, and she replied that unlike Brown, she kept her clothes on.].
President ("in name only") Barack Obama and House Minority Nancy Pelosi, in an abandonment of the principles of responsible leadership, have lent moral support to a ragtag group of malcontents, a contrived, leftist-coordinated Politics of Envy motley crew.
Harry Reid, who strongly opposed the use of the nuclear option (i.e., limiting minority senator rights) when it came to the Democrats' abusing minority rights to prevent floor votes on judicial nominees in the mid-2000's (leading to the Gang of 14), hypocritically decided to engage in the same to restrict Republicans' rights to offer amendments. The trigger point was Minority Leader Mitch McConnell's attempt to politically embarrass the President by forcing Democrats, many of whom have misgivings over relevant tax hikes, to vote, on the record, on the President's job bill as originally specified. This is particularly stupid because most political observers expect, with Democrats having to defend two thirds of the seats up next year, that control of the Senate will flip to the GOP, with the open North Dakota seat almost a certain flip, with Missouri, Virginia, Montana, New Mexico, Connecticut, Nebraska, and Wisconsin seats, among others, in play. (To Nelson's (D-NE) credit, he was the only Democrat to put Senate tradition over partisan politics.) Reid is playing with fire; he is wielding a double-edged sword. He didn't pull this stunt when in the last session Dems held 60 votes--now he pulls it, with 7 fewer votes? Penny-wise, pound-foolish.
Don't Pass the Stimulus v. 2 Bill: The President's Press Conference
Part 1
Okay, I don't feel like repeating myself, but let's briefly review the "you can put lipstick on a pig, but it's still a pig" so-called American Jobs Act: it involves many of the same concepts in the original stimulus bill (the euphemistically named "Recovery Act") and/or the Tax Relief, Unemployment Insurance Reauthorization, and Job Creation Act of 2010: infrastructure boondoggles, a further expansion of this year's payroll tax holiday, state bailouts (tied to funding politically favored public worker groups, like police, firemen and teachers): I've pointed out money is fungible so state and local governments will play games versus make the hard spending cuts necessary), and unemployment insurance. In addition, Obama wants funding to include class warfare tax hikes.
I've made it clear I am opposed to the bill. But from a pragmatic standpoint, if I was the GOP leadership, I would insist on a phased approach to restoring the original payroll taxes (and certainly not increase the existing 2-point cut, which Obama wants to do), a plan for replenishing this and any subsequent year's missing contributions to the trust funds and a commitment to long-term entitlement reform; for unemployment compensation, I would freeze the maximum term at 2 years (not the 3 Obama wants to expand to), and I would flatten the payments to give people more of an incentive to take on, e.g., part-time work. As to state bailouts and picking and choosing public sector occupations: this whole concept is a non-starter. If you are going to allow something like this, it should be more of a loan, with interest rates varying by risk (e.g., higher rates for higher unfunded pension liabilities).
As for infrastructure: I'm definitely willing to make a long-term commitment, which differs from Obama's approach. I want to see some lockbox protections for the highway fund, I want to see more spinoffs of things like toll roads and bridges to the private sector, more national asset sales or leases, improved royalties for natural resources, and a more independent function for evaluating infrastructure projects, including the feasibility of any relevant operations (e.g., high speed rails), In particular, I would like to see more emphasis on nonpartisan inputs of experts, e.g., civil engineering appraisals, and cost-sharing with states or localities where relevant.
Let me comment on various Obama statements:
Our economy really needs a jolt right now...This is not a game; this is not the time for the usual political gridlock. But this jobs bill can help guard against another downturn... It will boost economic growth; it will put people back to work. This is what independent economists have said -- not politicians. This jobs bill will have a significant effect for our economy and for middle-class families all across America. [Without the bill] there will be fewer jobs; there will be weaker growth.It's hard to know where to start. The last thing the economy needs is an activist government picking and choosing winners and losers in the economy, getting individuals and businesses hooked on payroll tax cuts without commensurate entitlement reforms. The more permanent you make things like payroll cuts, the more difficult to return to the original payroll tax, but what you're really doing is expanding unfunded liabilities and pushing up the day of reckoning. If Obama pushes the cut from 2 points to 3 points--half the worker contribution to social security--the more difficult to restore it. Workers will absorb a 3 point tax increase. We saw similar distortions when the car clunker program ended. Just as in the clunkers case, we gave away tax money for people whom had planned to purchase new cars anyway; in this case, Obama is trying to bribe companies to hire people--whom were going to hire people anyway. It increases volatility and uncertainty.
As for Obama, he's engaging in the picking and choosing of "independent economists"; economist models are notoriously unreliable, but keep in mind that state aid, infrastructure, unemployment compensation and a payroll tax cut are basically keeping in place existing funding, not really new spending which would stimulate economic growth. The spending is basically half of what the prior stimulus bill was. Independent economists chosen by Bloomberg suggest modest effects, with some suggesting it might buffer the economy from a recession.
I had a chance to meet a young man named Robert Baroz....In the last few years, he's received three pink slips because of budget cuts. Why wouldn't we want to pass a bill that puts somebody like Robert back in the classroom teaching our kids?This is deliberate distortion by the President which has been debunked by the media. Baroz was at a White House function, but never personally met the President. "Robert back in the classroom" seems to suggest that Robert has been unemployed as a teacher; in fact, he's been employed as a teacher the last 3 years. He may have been notified he was on a list to be paid off, but funding for his position came through each time. Incidentally, I don't have high regard for a Master's in education; there's little evidence of incremental student performance benefit. Its principal value seems to be rationalizing paying a teacher more.
We've got millions of laid-off construction workers who could right now be busy rebuilding roads, rebuilding bridges, rebuilding schools. This jobs bill gives them a chance to get back to work rebuilding America. Why wouldn't we want that to happen? Why would you vote against that?How many reasons do you want, Mr. President? Let me start off with just a few off the top of my head. (1) Even if we accept your claims at face value (which I don't), it would be done cheaper and more effectively by the private sector (i.e., not as subcontractors, but as owners via some competitive bid process). (2) It involves moral hazard. We certainly shouldn't be bailing out state and local governments We should be paying for infrastructure on a consistent, nonpartisan basis, and we should not set future expectations. (3) You are asking for NEW money; if the spending on infrastructure is important, find the money elsewhere in the budget. (4) We don't need a government that only looks out for preferred occupations (teachers, police, firefighters, construction workers, etc.) Even if we assumed an activist government was necessary, why are some occupations more equal than others?
The proposals in this bill are not just random investments to create make-work jobs. They are steps we have to take if we want to build an economy that lasts.You're totally off-base here. I agree education is key (it depends on the nature and extent of education), but more important is a minimal government which doesn't compete for investment dollars, raising my costs. Big Education has "invested" in things like lowering the student/teacher ratio with little to show in student achievement over the past 40 years. We need to cut the bloat in education--the best thing would be to completely privatize the education system, getting rid of unaffordable, unsustainable, self-indulgent collective bargaining agreements at the expense of the unrepresented taxpayer. Second, since when do you think expanding federal government involvement in education and other things, which exceeds the government's core competencies, is more important than scaling back federal rules and regulations, unconstitutional acts like ObamaCare which heaps huge costs on businesses, or getting unsustainable entitlement programs under control?
We have to have the best transportation and communications networks. We have to support innovative small businesses. We've got to support innovative manufacturers.STOP PICKING AND CHOOSING! We need innovation, whatever scale business. The way to get businesses to innovate is by doing the exact opposite of what you are doing: you minimize the government footprint; you shorten time to get a drug approval or a patent/trademark; you streamline regulation; you enable companies to find funding for ventures vs. compete with them for resources.
This jobs bill is fully paid for by asking millionaires and billionaires to pay their fair share. Some see this as class warfare. I see it as a simple choice: We can either keep taxes exactly as they are for millionaires and billionaires, with loopholes that lead them to have lower tax rates in some cases than plumbers and teachers.The well-to-do, which ALREADY pay a disproportionate amount the tax burden, are being discriminated against in a way that I believe is unconstitutional. Already nearly 1 in 2 workers have no federal income tax burden. Echoing an argument I recently heard elsewhere, international trade rules allow deduction of the VAT (a kind of consumption tax) but we have an Alice in Wonderland policy that rewards people for consumption and penalizes savings and investment. Barack Obama is deliberately lying to the American people (something Warren Buffett implicitly acknowledged recently, saying he wasn't talking about millionaires but someone at the very high end.) There are a very few people whom get a disproportionate amount of their income from capital gains, like Warren Buffett. It depends on what constitutes the higher income.IF THIS IS LEGITIMATE, we have the rule of law in place: EVERYONE must pay their fair share.
Political Humor
"Sarah Palin announced that she will not run for president. The reason? She couldn‘t find her birth certificate." - Jay Leno
[The endorsement by Barack Obama didn't help...]
There’s a bill in Florida to repeal the state ban on dwarf tossing. Is this what Republicans mean when they say they want smaller government? - Jimmy Kimmel
[No. Of course, the Democratic idea of small government is Barbara Mikulski (4'11"), Barbara Boxer (4'11"), Robert Reich (4'10") and Dennis Kucinich (5'7").]
Musical Interlude: My Favorite Groups
Moody Blues, "Nights in White Satin". There are few pop songs I consider truly iconic classics: off the top of my head, The Beatles' "Yesterday", the Mamas and the Papas' "California Dreamin'", the Beach Boys' "Good Vibrations", Eric Clapton's original "Layla", the Righteous Brothers' "Unchained Melody", Led Zeppelin's "Stairway to Heaven"...
