Experience teaches slowly and at the cost of mistakes.
James A. Froude
Note: because of a 20-hour Internet outage, yesterday's post was published behind schedule.
Tweet of the Day
Under Obama, we're #(Twenty)1 on personal freedom. Down from #9 when Obama took office. http://t.co/KQ42EiVoyi
— Ronald Guillemette (@raguillem) November 19, 2014
Chart of the Day: We're #(Twenty)1 Under Obama |
| Via the Washington Examiner |
Landrieu Fails to Connect on Her 'Hail Mary' Pass Due to Dem Filibuster on Keystone XL Pipeline
Some Dem senators joined the Republicans on runoff-bound Landrieu's likely last chance to prove to Dec. 6 that she is able to deliver for Louisiana voters.but fell one vote short of overcoming a Democratic filibuster. On the other hand, the House recently passed its version led by Congressman Cassidy, Landrieu's opponent. I've made it clear where I stand (see my comments in FB Corner below); the fact is that oil/gas pipelines crisscross the US--there is no legitimate argument against this pipeline in particular. This is mostly a protest vote against the use of fossil fuels.
I see in RCP, the latest poll puts Cassidy ahead of Landrieu, ahead of today's vote, by 21. Cherokee Lizzie Warren, thought a future Presidential contender darling of "Progressives", won a Senate leadership post. A couple of other notable notes: Pelosi will continue being the face of House Democrats next session, and Gallup recently saw, in the aftermath of the Gruber "stupidity of the American voters" revelation, the favorability of ObamaCare reach a record low of 37%.
Some Notes During My Internet Outage
Nothing like a libertarian-conservative going through the latest issues of Time--this magazine is clearly tailored to a "progressive" audience. The coverage was fairly predictable--if there's anything worse than the GOP in the eyes of "progressives", it's the Tea Party. So a key point was how McConnell and various groups, like the US Chamber, quashed the suicidal Tea Partiers this time around. If there's anything "progressives" like, it's something like "diversity", so some focus on new faces of the GOP. Another talking point (not one I think Time discussed here) was the 2010 bumper crop of GOP senators (including Pat Toomey, Rand Paul and Mark Rubio). Will McCain run again? I could have sworn in his last campaign he said it would be his last, but the rumors are he's hinting at another go. I suspect he'll be primaried. And, of course, we've waited years to get another shot at Harry Reid. The GOP has more seats at risk, so flipping a handful of seats to regain the Senate is certainly doable. I'm not ready to even think about 2016 yet, but I'm working on a related one-off post which I'll probably publish over the weekend: I do think 2016 is a change election and I would not bet on an Obama resurgence over his lame duck period. I think there is Obama fatigue out there. The Dems have been running the same old same old ideological and special interest campaigns, and I believe that the people want to see new, fresh ideas.
One Time piece actually noted how Hillary Clinton's net favorables dropped heavily over the year, and if she redoes her 2008 campaign, just adding, "Oh, by the way, I was Obama's Secretary of State", she may find herself in a bad spot. One note is that some liberals are starting to look at Rand Paul, who is seriously different from most potential contenders. At any rate, the pro-Clinton contingent reacted in the next issue: one worried about GOP dirty tricks although describing her as eminently qualified; another predicted she would blow away the competition. Hillary Clinton served 8 years in the Senate and one term as Secretary of State. She is certainly competent, but has she accomplished anything? Hardly. Her favorables are under 50--not a good sign, and she really didn't help the Democrats she stumped for in the midterms. Is she the favorite to win the nomination? Yes. But the GOP will run against her being a third term of Obama.
Oh, and Time pointed out only 1 GOP President won a majority vote since the 1990's--Bush's second term. Let me point out that Gore and Bush essentially tied in the popular vote (and an argument can be made an early Gore "victory" called in Florida may have discouraged other Bush votes), and Clinton never won a majority, just a plurality.
I also listened to some Cato Institute presentations on the challenge over the administration of subsidies tied to state exchanges. Some "Progressives" presented the usual talking points over an alleged drafting error, plus you had warnings to the GOP over the votes of their state voters if the federal exchanges aren't allowed subsidies--be really careful of what you wish for. Look, there are 5 million or so enrolled in ObamaCare, a small percentage of overall voters, and most of those are probably already Democrats. It's not clear the GOP would take the heat if the Dems didn't provide subsidies correctly. One interesting point was former Sen. Nelson (Nebraska) wanted state exchanges to avoid the appearance of single-payer. But the discussion of subsidies to everyone ignores the explicit carrot and stick approach used to bully states to take Medicaid expansion, all or nothing (struck down hy SCOTUS). You also have low earners excluded from the exchanges in terms of subsidies, because the Dems wanted them in Medicaid and as we know, some states opted out of the teaser trial we'll pick up your share of the Medicaid expansion/extortion. I'm not going to debate the issue in detail here except to point out the Dems argued that the State could by rulemaking, etc., make healthcare more affordable, not necessarily through subsidies (even as they added expensive new benefit mandates). But as I've argued elsewhere, all the sophistic arguments that all exchanges are treated the same is not tenable--there would be no reason to identify the exchanges separately. The liberal commentators also felt Scalia would let the administrative branch have its own way (i.e., the IRS rules) as a matter of judicial philosophy; I would not count on that.
Facebook Corner
(Reason). Oh, and as a reminder: California raised its minimum wage to $9 an hour in July. It goes up to $10 an hour in 2016.
Say it ain't so, Joe... Not the People's Democratic Republic of California... Better keep on the War on Drugs and supporting the prison industrial complex and crony public unionists... Apparently Jerry Brown is balancing his budget on the backs of the prisoners...
(Reason). Do you support building the Keystone XL pipeline?
Let me see. Even with expanded US production, with crackpot environmentalists kicking and screaming every step of the way, we still import about a third of our oil. Now where should we get that third? From the stable, pro-American Middle East, Africa, Russia or socialist Venezuela, or from our peaceful neighbor Canada which is one of our biggest trading partners? This is so hard to figure out--it's not like Canada has alternative customers like heavily populated net importers China and India.....
Let's put it this way: would I prefer the US be vested in oil exporters in a less reliable, secure region, possibly requiring US military commitments, or from our stable neighbor from the north? The Senate Democrats and the Economic-Illiterate-in-Chief are selling out to their environmentalist special interests. Not to mention helping Warren Buffett get even richer as his railroad subsidiary is gushing money transporting oil that could be more economically transported through pipelines. Think that shipping oil from Canada or elsewhere by means other than pipelines are more ecologically friendly? Get real.
No. TransCanada is trying to trample property owners rights with eminent domain.
Since 1938, eminent domain for interstate pipelines has rested with the federal government. Easements usually allow from 25 to 150 feet strips of land for the pipeline plus road and/or station access to the pipeline. The pipeline operators usually negotiate easement rights with property owners and only resort to eminent domain when negotiations for lease or purchase fail; as per the Constitution, the property owner is guaranteed fair compensation. The easement usually involves only a minor percentage of owner property and, in the case of the Keystone Pipeline, buried 4 feet underground. Other than perhaps the construction phase, the owner is minimally inconvenienced and generally well-compensated. We are not talking about condemning a widow's property to build a shopping mall.
Political Cartoon
 |
| Courtesy of Michael Ramirez via Townhall |
Glen Campbell & Bobbie Gentry, "Let It Be Me"
