[T]here's no bad day that can't be overcome by listening to a barbershop quartet;
this is just truth, plain and simple.
Chuck Sigars
Chart of the Day: The Apples and Oranges of Executive Orders
 |
| Courtesy of Mercatus Center |
Political Potpourri
With only a couple of weeks to go until the Louisiana Dec. 6 runoff, Cassidy continues to roll with the last 2 polls showing over 10 points leading incumbent Mary Landrieu. None of the recent polls show Landrieu picking up support over her 43% or so primary support, and the conventional wisdom is that incumbents polling in the 40's are dead meat--after all, they're already known, and undecideds usually break for the challenger. Democrats are talking how Landrieu could pull off a hat trick in winning Louisiana runoffs, but Cassidy has led her for months in pairwise polls, she just lost the Keystone filibuster vote, and next session she would serve in the minority. I am not that familiar with Louisiana politics, but barring an Akins-like gaffe in the final stages, Cassidy is on a roll.
The Dems have closed out 2 of the 7 undecided House seats to move the count to 244-186. I think Libertarian Republican said that the two California Democratic incumbents behind in the vote have retaken leads in post-election vote counting. Most attention is focused on Gabby Giffords' old seat, which led to former aide Barber's succession; McSally holds a thin lead over Barber heading for a recount. RCP rates the two Louisiana runoffs as likely GOP. So it looks like we're heading to 247-188, the best showing for the GOP since 1928 or 246-189, the best since 1946, if Barber magically pulls off the recount.
It looks like the forces hehind the inevitable Hillary Clinton 2016 candidacy are beginning to mobilize. They are worried about complacency; after all, Clinton was the favorite heading into 2008. They know it's difficult for an incumbent party to win a third straight Presidential lesson and argue that she has to avoid looking like the third term of Bill or Barry. She will need to fashion a left-wing populist spin on economics (it's the economy, stupid) to fend off challenges from the left. In terms of the GOP, they are most concerned with Jeb Bush (married to a Latina) who could cut into their Latino base and Rand Paul whose stands on civil liberties and a more restrained military have resonated with young liberals.
Personally, I think they're underestimating the challenges; it looks like they are buying into the hype of the "Obama recovery", which hasn't been all that favorable to the middle class. I suspect her odd "don't let them tell you businesses hire people" and the "we left the White House poor" nonsense are just the tipping point of gaffes. The identity politics and reliance on the alleged GOP "War on Women" didn't work for Colorado Senator Uterus. Clinton lacks a natural charisma, comes across as too strident and preachy and is a poor public speaker; she's also a bit too predictable. I'm not a Democrat but it looks like Jim Webb, former US Senator (VA), is the first to toss his hat into the ring. Former Gov. Schweitzer is a popular former Montana governor who could also pose as a candidate to the right of Clinton. Oddly, two-term VP Biden is on no one's radar. Don't underestimate Maryland's outgoing Governor Martin O'Malley, who can claim administrative experience in local and state government and run an anti-Washington campaign. Could we see yet another quixotic campaign from Jerry Brown? I expect to see at least one challenge from the left of Clinton, e.g., Vermont's Bernie Sanders. One of the reasons I mention this is Clinton has to avoid being pulled too much to the left to become unelectable or too much to the right to polarize her "progressive" constituency.
Entertainment Potpourri
Coming up in 2015 is the story of a 7-year-old boy whose father is off to serve in WWII and the boy tries to do everything he can to bring his Daddy home. The trailer is supposedly running in theaters, but I don't see a copy available on Youtube. If and when I find it, I'll embed it.
Just a short blurb not enough to publish on my software blog. I like to chronicle usability issues; familiar readers know I've owned a couple of older models iPod Shuffles. (In fact, I have an early post on songs you can find on my iPod Shuffle.) During my most recent move, I damaged my charger and figured I might as well upgrade to the most recent model (which costs around $50). I knew Wal-Mart (and Sam's Club) carries them, but I couldn't figure out where they were selling them in the computer/audio department. (I recently discussed a similar relocation issue for computer paper.) Ironically I managed to find them selling a higher capacity Eclipse unit for a third of a cost. Of course, my iTunes software didn't interface with this unit, and even though I could pick and copy individual tracks to the new player, I was not happy with the idea of recreating new playlists up to hundreds of songs. I started looking at other players, and it turns out a past player I've used, MediaMonkey, not only recognized my Eclipse but imported my iTunes playlists, and all I had to do was right-click on the playlist's selected tracks and send them to the Eclipse. The unit's screen even lets me read the title of the current song.
I'm still watching Hallmark Channel's holiday movies (except for other weekday programming offset both sides of the noon hour). One of the things I don't like about cable movies is all the predictable business bashing and demonization of the well-to-do. Typically the "good guys" are "progressives" championing the environmentally-conscious architect, protecting the historic site, home or small business from ruthless capitalists; occasionally you'll see some sort of variation of a redemptive Scrooge-like persona, a Secret Santa who lives a simple life or a corporate lawyer who ends the rat race and volunteers or opens an obscure small business, the enlightened careerwoman who suddenly realizes that she wants love and a family.
I mention in a prior post my distaste for the Santa legend and how I might tweak stories. In this context, let's briefly consider the classic Dickens' "A Christmas Carol" which has probably spawned dozens of related variations. I would myself tweak the classic story in many ways, but just to give a slice: I never liked the way Dickens let the romance with Belle die; there are creative alternatives. For example, they marry, maybe even have a son, who is sent to boarding school. The son comes to clerk under his his judgmental father; Belle decides to leave him. Another alternative is Belle becomes pregnant with Scrooge's child, but she breaks up with Scrooge, and they reconcile in old age. Or we could do a modern alternative where a workaholic with an alienated wife and children has a three-part dream featuring his marriage and family; he sees how he's repeating the same pattern of his alienated father; he sees his son reject joining his company, sees his wife sell his business to some corporation which takes it over and wipes away every vestige of his name.
EconPop and the Treasure of the Sierra Madre
Marriage & Children
HT Godfruits.com
Soldier Daddy is His Son's Hero
Second-Time Soldier Daddy
Father-To-Be
The Nine Months
Mother and Son Dancers
Don't Throw It All Away
15 Years Lost Wedding Ring Found
Facebook Corner
(IPI). Should state employees receive stronger protection of their constitutional rights than the rest of us? That’s what one judge effectively said yesterday, in an order ruling that the modest reforms to Illinois’ pension systems enacted last year violate the state constitution’s pension clause.
The bottom line is that this judicial whore is applying a double standard with respect to property rights--the public parasites, including "progressive" judges, are "more equal" than taxpayers. Most businesses transitioned into defined contribution plans (e.g., 401K) decades ago. Why? Because pension plan costs would soar with longer periods of retirement and a bumper crop of Baby Boomers. In reality, taxpayers are being asked to bail out the promises made by corrupt, economically illiterate political whores to self-serving union greed. Public pensions often assume 8% or more returns, twice the return of most companies with pension plans. (Lower returns generally require additional employer contributions.) In the case of Illinois, we have roughly 40% of the liabilities funded--5 years into a stock market induced by Fed monetary policy. You need to be more than 100% funded, because the inevitable stock market corrections may chop 20-30% off the base. So future taxpayers are being told they will have to not only pay their own fair share, but make up for decades of unsustainable promises, underinvestment and underperformance.
As I've pointed out in past comments, a huge percentage of Illinois public employees get back ALL they paid into the system within 20 months into up to 30 years or more in retirement. Just assuming for the sake of argument the state matched teacher contributions--that's another 20 months--together just over 3 years into retirement. Where is the funding for the remaining 27 years going to come from? Future taxpayers; it's a breach of good faith because prior legislators illegally shifted their burden to future taxpayers.
Wow I see a lot of ill informed people on here. First off let's get something straight. State workers are tax payers too. Many State workers are not eligible foe Social Sec. State workers used to pay for all their pension plan, the State was in need of funds and saw this big pot off gold sitting there that they couldn't get their hands on. So they came to the workers and offered to make the payments in exchange for no benefit increases. This allowed the State to get their hands on the money and place IOU's in the fund. Where did all that money go you ask. Into pork barrel projects that all you complaining about State workers benefited from. The truth of the matter is it's been the State workers money that has been stolen from them that this State has been living on for a long time. So guess what it's your turn to pay up. We're tired of carrying all you winy asses by ourselves. Quit hating on others for having something you don't, if you want it apply. Or better yet go tell your boss you're tired of him making 600 times more than you do and then organize and do something about it. Why do you think they want to bust the Unions. It's so your lamb like ass won't want what you deserve to have.
First, economically-illiterate "progressive" trolls are hardly the ones who should be talking about "ill informed" voters. It takes 5 private-sector employees to support every public parasite, and all the taxes paid by the parasites ultimately were at the expense of the private sector. Second, the maximum social security payment is just over $2600/month, even for millionaires and employers who paid over 12% of the maximum tax base into the 6-figures for decades; on the other hand, there are literally thousands of state pensioners drawing over $100K/year. Third, many, if not most, state retirees are paid everything they put into retirement within 20 months. Even if the state fully matched their contributions, that's just 40 months. Where are you going to find the money to pay up to 30 years or more? Only public school math can result in "progressive" delusions: we have an unsustainable pension system, because of the payouts. Nobody has "earned" a multi-million dollar lifetime payout, PERIOD. And as for the fascist's accusing us of envy when he clearly wants to steal from the economically productive job creators who finance the perverse state empire--go to hell.
(Mike Lofti). To all who are trying so terribly hard to tarnish Rand Paul for his vote on the NSA "reform" bill, you might want to cover up-- your ignorance is showing. As the sausage was being made, our good neocon hawks amended it to literally do the opposite of the bill's stated purpose. Even the House author voted against it. Yes, Rep. Justin Amash voted against his own bill. So, if you really believe Paul was wrong for voting against the bill, I suppose you're the same folk who believe the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act protects patients and is totally affordable. Funny though, most who are trying to attack Paul for voting against the bill are the same folks who brought you the NSA in the first place. What's that tell ya?
Ron Paul is the real deal. Rand is just a corporate shill of a republican. No comparison.
Ron is just a crank who never did anything of consequence in his legislative career. Rand is a better, less strident politician.
(Mike Lofti). Tennessee moves to sue President Obama over #ExecutiveAmnesty!
Sure waste more time and tax payer money. How about just doing your f-ing job and come up with something.
OP seems to think that challenging the unconstitutionality of the Fascist-in-Chief's legislative edict is a "waste" of time and effort. Listen, troll, the issue isn't Obama's ends: it's the means; FYI: both FDR and Clinton had executive orders reversed in court.
(Mercatus Center). Funding the federal government’s operations outside of the regular budget process—and thus outside of limits intended to restrain spending—is a practice that has been abused in recent years: http://bit.ly/1yNUlwm
Jimmy Carter - the guy all the righteous right-wingers love to hate -- pushed the idea of zero-base budgeting. Every few years, every federal budget line item would need to justify itself from scratch -- not justify the increase but justify everything.
Then, the right's poster boy RR blew the deficit up even further with military spending. Look at what people do -- not what they say.
Oh, really, the idiotic "progressive" trolls spamming Mercatus' thread... Carter did NOT invent zero-based budgeting; he implemented a variation in Georgia, not the US government. He never balanced the budget and added $288B to the national debt. He in fact added two new cabinet posts: energy and education. Whereas it is true the same Democratic-controlled House never balanced a budget over decades, including over Reagan's Presidency, the end of the Cold War over the Reagan/Bush Administrations allowed the Defense budget to decrease over the 1990's.
Political Cartoon
 |
| Courtesy of Chip Bok via Townhall |
Glen Campbell, "Try a Little Kindness"
