Quote of the Day
Principle -- particularly moral principle -- can never be a weathervane, spinning around this way and that with the shifting winds of expediency. Moral principle is a compass forever fixed and forever true.
Edward R. Lyman
Obama's Partisan Address from the White House: THUMBS DOWN!
Speaker John Boehner's Response: The Best Response Ever: THUMBS UP!
TRUE LEADERSHIP is in the House, NOT in the White House
"Balanced approach"? "Fair share"? "Compromise?" It isn't enough that the Demagogue in Chief has attempted to disingenuously co-opt the phrase "shared sacrifice". I could literally go through every freaking sentence of his address, which, once again, providing incontrovertibly demeaning the office of the Presidency by using the time not to unify the country, but to try to convince independents and moderates his approach was "centrist". In fact, he deliberately resurrected a divisive class warfare theme and cynically and explicitly tried to attack Republicans with a "divide-and-conquer" strategy aiming at House Republicans.
Where do you start? How about the perennial Bush bashing (once again) where Obama attempted to argue that the Republicans and Democrats were equally at fault when it comes to the deficit? I am not a GOP shill here because I am critical of the years under Bush; he added a prescription drug benefit to Medicare which already had large unfunded liabilities, and he almost never threatened vetoes over spending with earmarks for things like the Bridge to Nowhere (or its functional equivalent in Alaska). I do give him credit for attempting to address unfunded liabilities for social security early after his reelection.
But let's be clear: deficits were projected after the Clinton tax increases in the mid-90's. The Democratic-controlled House had not balanced its budget in decades. Clinton wanted to spend more than the GOP House allowed; the GOP also had been the heavy lifters in quashing Clinton's health care initiative. The GOP achieved a string of consecutive surplus years.
What have we seen starting with the Bush Administration? Despite experiencing the aftershocks of the 2000 stock market meltdown, 9/11, the Wall Street scandals (Enron, Tyco, etc.), and, of course, the 2008 economic tsunami, Bush over 8 years added roughly $5T to the national debt. Obama, over 2.5 years, less than a third of Bush's tenure, has already added $4T. He's had 3 consecutive years of $1.3T or more deficits. One can argue that a third of the first year could be attributed to Bush, but that's an unfair allocation because it assumes that decisions made under a majority Democratic Congress, deferred until after Bush left office, should be allocated to Bush. In fact, a significant factor in the housing bubble was Democratic legislation promoting home ownership at the expense of risk-based factors and the Democratic-championed GSE's (Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae) which dominated the housing markets using implicit government guarantees. I do agree that Bush and some Republicans allied with the Democrats in responsibility for dysfunctional government policies aiding and abetting the housing bubble.
But the fact of the matter is that Obama's own budget estimates showed at least a trillion dollars deficit a year for the indefinite future. And this is assuming that the doubtful cost savings in Medicare, the same types of cuts which have required infamous so-called "doc fixes".
So last year we spent almost $200B in interest expense--with what I regard an artificially low interest rate. This is given federal receipts of just over $2.1T. This is a ticking time bomb. So what happened last year after his own bipartisan commission came up with a plan which won all but 1 vote from Senators on the panel? Nothing. It has been business as usual. Nothing but accounting gimmicks and dubious and deferred cuts, no substantive cuts in any domestic program of the kind of hard choices we've been seeing at the state and local level. While Medicare's trust fund will be exhausted in just a few years, we are only hearing about things like a possible phased-in deferred age eligibility and dubious cuts to providers. In the meanwhile, while running $1.3T deficits, Nancy Pelosi and others are bragging about "free" health care program benefit mandates and doughnut fills.
What did we hear from Obama tonight? The same garbage about $170B or so add-ons (war spending and upper-income differential top bracket percentage). Never mind the Democrats have doubled or tripled the deficit subject to the same tax rates, subject to the same loopholes, etc. Never mind the fact that Obama and Democrats have added many of the loopholes with their crony incentives to green energy and the private jet incentives that Obama outrageously attempts to link to the GOP.
And then the address was full of the same old same old talking points. He talks about the loopholes, but even the increased projected increased tax revenues amount to roughly $80B a year over the coming decade. $80B vs. $1.3T? As McEnroe would say, "You can't be serious."
So, Mr. "President", where are your cuts? You want to continue the payroll partial tax holiday? Did you mind, with your "integrity", telling the American people there's no such thing as a free lunch? [Of course not.] That payroll partial tax holiday actually adds to relevant unfunded liabilities.
You claim that your "balanced" approach resolves the problem, but you offered no such solution when you asked for an increase in the debt ceiling, without cuts or tax hikes, earlier this year. Economic growth is slowing, and your "solution" is to tax job creators even more? This is CRAP. You are trying to add back the one compromise you've made during your Presidency on the Bush tax cuts last December--right when Boehner was ready to sign off on tax reform, claiming the only people paying over a third of their incremental income in taxes aren't paying their fair share--never mind half of lower/middle-class workers don't pay a single cent towards government operations and in fact a large number are net beneficiaries of government money. You are insisting that a default would be a disaster--but you won't accept a bridge agreement unless it's past next year's election.
And raising Ronald Reagan's name in trying to suggest Obama's approach is similar? Exactly what are you offering of substance, you hypocrite? After tax reform around 1986, the top tax bracket was around 28% versus 35% today? That's right: the same Democratic House that agreed to a top 28% tax bracket now insists that it's only fair that we push the top rate to nearly 40%, that higher-income people aren't paying their fair share.
I am sick and tired of a grossly incompetent, partisan President whom seems to think that the Democrats, including the Democratic-majority Senate which hasn't formulated its own budget as demanded by law for the second year running, are the "adults in the room". All we hear about are totally misleading phantom Draconian cuts to domestic programs, we hear the same President whom whacked about $500B out of Medicare funding to fund his "health care reform" argue that the Republicans, facing a $50T unfunded liability in senior citizen entitlements, are balancing the budget on the back of seniors. I MEAN, IS THERE A SINGLE PERSON IN AMERICA STUPID ENOUGH TO TAKE THIS PATHETIC EXCUSE OF A "LEADER" AT FACE VALUE?
America would have to be INSANE to reelect this incompetent demagogue to a second term. A second term of Obama is UNSUSTAINABLE.
Political Humor
Bank of America announced that it lost $9 billion in the second quarter. It’s not good. In fact, when I put my card in the ATM, it said, “Do you mind if I borrow this for a while?” - Jimmy Fallon
[I think Obama finally knows where to find his next Treasury Secretary...]
"Sarah Palin's son Track and his wife are having a baby. They haven't picked a name yet, but they do know it will be a verb." –Conan O'Brien
[Grandma Palin suggests 'Field'.]
Musical Interlude: My Favorite Groups
ELO, "Calling America". This is my last selection for ELO. My next group will be the Eagles.
Monday, July 25, 2011
Sunday, July 24, 2011
Miscellany: 7/24/11
Quote of the Day
I will speak ill of no man, and speak all the good I know of everybody.
Benjamin Franklin
Sunday Talk Soup: A Brief Response to Miscellaneous Talking Points
As a LEGITIMATE fiscal conservative, I have some preliminary comments to make before a more detailed discussion of today's Meet the Press, because I really don't hear any of the politicians, including the Republicans, doing a good job explaining things.
I started writing a segment on taxes--I've been advocating for some time a consumption tax to complement and/or replace an income tax. The knee jerk reaction from progressives is that consumption taxes are regressive. In broad terms, we are looking at tax burden and how to allocate it. In an excessively regressive system, the more wealthy population is less vested in the tax/government burden given its discretionary surplus. In an excessively progressive system, like we have now, the less wealthy population is less vested in the tax/government burden in absolute terms. There's a second major problem with an overreliance on an income tax system: to a certain extent, it is a less reliable generation of tax revenues because of accounting definitions and timing of economic events. So for example, because of whatever deductions, exclusions, etc., GE did not pay corporate income tax even though it was fully engaged and profitable on paper. A consumption tax is easier to implement and a more reliable cash flow.
I would not even be necessarily be adverse to ALL the Bush tax cuts expiring. When even the more ambitious plans only reduce the structural deficit by a third or so from current levels, we are still left with an unconscionable deficit to pass onto the next generation. But this ideological attempt to make an already excessively progressive tax burden even more so by a sham, politically convenient rationale of pretending one class (lower/middle class) is "more equal", when, in fact, three-quarters of the revenue are being ignored illustrates the disingenuous nature of Democratic economic policy. Money is fungible; you cannot coherently argue that only the 25% of increased tax revenue relevant to higher earners is relevant.
Obama saying his deal was an "extraordinarily fair" deal doesn't make it so. It's just more of the same "smoke and mirrors".
There was widespread discussion of a liberal point of view, not questioned by Gregory or even a limited inclusion of conservatives (are we surprised?) on the problem. There was the discussion of "compromise"; there was again this sophistic unchallenged assertion that Obama made concessions he didn't actually make yet. So let's go to the videotape and analyze this nonsense.
First of all, despite constant demagoguery of alleged GOP Draconian cuts in social safety net programs and entitlement programs, nobody from the Republican side has even raised real cuts in these programs--we are not talking about reducing social security checks by 10% (or cutting food stamps to a similar degree, etc.)
Second, President Obama himself has continually failed to back up the suggestions of his own deficit reduction commission. The only spending cuts he's discussed are things LONG PROPOSED BY THE GOP TO MAKE ENTITLEMENTS MORE SUSTAINABLE, like long-overdue actuarial-base eligibility adjustments. But few of these things reflect ACTUAL CUTS IN SPENDING NOW. We are not seeing personnel actions, and we are not seeing things like, say, an 8% across-the-board spending cut.
There was this nonsense being discussed as a quid pro quo by Doris Kearns Goodwin in others that, e.g., Obama is willing to deal some entitlement reforms in exchange, say, for class warfare tax hikes. The concept seems to be spending cuts alone are unfair.
What a load of crap! Let us remember with tax receipts down by over a third, the Democrats were in an absolutely uncontrolled spending frenzy. At one point the US Senate was down to 40 Republicans making it theoretically filibuster proof. Democrats extended unemployment compensation to an unprecedented 2 years. We had program increases not at, say, a modest 2 or 3% but more like 20 to 30%. Obama has constantly refused to rollback any of that windfall gain to his special interest constituencies. Where were liberals like Goodwin talking about "compromise" then, when there was no "compromise" on the stimulus package, none on ObamaCare, none on so-called financial reform. Apparently "compromise" is progressive-speak for conservatives making concessions on principles so Democrats can lock in ill-gotten gains during the 111th Congress.
Making entitlements solvent is NOT a political deal making chip. These are the Democratic policy crown jewels--something they did not shore up during the 111th Congress. These are Ponzi schemes with over $50T in unfunded liabilities. And the Democrats made it far worse by basically double-counting Medicare fixes in ObamaCare to fund a new entitlement. We haven't even begun to see that yet. Can the federal government really force medical providers to accept even lower payments which are already way under market?
When Obama and Democrats don't even come up with a budget or their own budget cut scheme to negotiations, in what sense is compromise possible? You have only one party making constructive proposals--the GOP. The Democrats have done zero about cutting spending except demagogue against phantom cuts.
Bill Daley can speak all he wants about uncertainty affecting business and the economy--that much is true. But when the Democrats start talking making conditions like no short-term fixes being acceptable, for essentially political purposes, they have implicitly put politics over that uncertainty. This continues to be one of the most anti-economic growth administrations in the history of the nation, one that has put 2000 page regulations into law and increased the role of the Fed when many of us believe that the Fed is part of the problem, not the solution. So don't lecture us on uncertainty.
I initially intended to write a more detailed critique, but this post is lengthy enough and I may continue in a subsequent post with more detailed claims.
Musical Interlude: My Favorite Groups
ELO, "Twilight"
I will speak ill of no man, and speak all the good I know of everybody.
Benjamin Franklin
Sunday Talk Soup: A Brief Response to Miscellaneous Talking Points
As a LEGITIMATE fiscal conservative, I have some preliminary comments to make before a more detailed discussion of today's Meet the Press, because I really don't hear any of the politicians, including the Republicans, doing a good job explaining things.
I started writing a segment on taxes--I've been advocating for some time a consumption tax to complement and/or replace an income tax. The knee jerk reaction from progressives is that consumption taxes are regressive. In broad terms, we are looking at tax burden and how to allocate it. In an excessively regressive system, the more wealthy population is less vested in the tax/government burden given its discretionary surplus. In an excessively progressive system, like we have now, the less wealthy population is less vested in the tax/government burden in absolute terms. There's a second major problem with an overreliance on an income tax system: to a certain extent, it is a less reliable generation of tax revenues because of accounting definitions and timing of economic events. So for example, because of whatever deductions, exclusions, etc., GE did not pay corporate income tax even though it was fully engaged and profitable on paper. A consumption tax is easier to implement and a more reliable cash flow.
I would not even be necessarily be adverse to ALL the Bush tax cuts expiring. When even the more ambitious plans only reduce the structural deficit by a third or so from current levels, we are still left with an unconscionable deficit to pass onto the next generation. But this ideological attempt to make an already excessively progressive tax burden even more so by a sham, politically convenient rationale of pretending one class (lower/middle class) is "more equal", when, in fact, three-quarters of the revenue are being ignored illustrates the disingenuous nature of Democratic economic policy. Money is fungible; you cannot coherently argue that only the 25% of increased tax revenue relevant to higher earners is relevant.
Obama saying his deal was an "extraordinarily fair" deal doesn't make it so. It's just more of the same "smoke and mirrors".
There was widespread discussion of a liberal point of view, not questioned by Gregory or even a limited inclusion of conservatives (are we surprised?) on the problem. There was the discussion of "compromise"; there was again this sophistic unchallenged assertion that Obama made concessions he didn't actually make yet. So let's go to the videotape and analyze this nonsense.
First of all, despite constant demagoguery of alleged GOP Draconian cuts in social safety net programs and entitlement programs, nobody from the Republican side has even raised real cuts in these programs--we are not talking about reducing social security checks by 10% (or cutting food stamps to a similar degree, etc.)
Second, President Obama himself has continually failed to back up the suggestions of his own deficit reduction commission. The only spending cuts he's discussed are things LONG PROPOSED BY THE GOP TO MAKE ENTITLEMENTS MORE SUSTAINABLE, like long-overdue actuarial-base eligibility adjustments. But few of these things reflect ACTUAL CUTS IN SPENDING NOW. We are not seeing personnel actions, and we are not seeing things like, say, an 8% across-the-board spending cut.
There was this nonsense being discussed as a quid pro quo by Doris Kearns Goodwin in others that, e.g., Obama is willing to deal some entitlement reforms in exchange, say, for class warfare tax hikes. The concept seems to be spending cuts alone are unfair.
What a load of crap! Let us remember with tax receipts down by over a third, the Democrats were in an absolutely uncontrolled spending frenzy. At one point the US Senate was down to 40 Republicans making it theoretically filibuster proof. Democrats extended unemployment compensation to an unprecedented 2 years. We had program increases not at, say, a modest 2 or 3% but more like 20 to 30%. Obama has constantly refused to rollback any of that windfall gain to his special interest constituencies. Where were liberals like Goodwin talking about "compromise" then, when there was no "compromise" on the stimulus package, none on ObamaCare, none on so-called financial reform. Apparently "compromise" is progressive-speak for conservatives making concessions on principles so Democrats can lock in ill-gotten gains during the 111th Congress.
Making entitlements solvent is NOT a political deal making chip. These are the Democratic policy crown jewels--something they did not shore up during the 111th Congress. These are Ponzi schemes with over $50T in unfunded liabilities. And the Democrats made it far worse by basically double-counting Medicare fixes in ObamaCare to fund a new entitlement. We haven't even begun to see that yet. Can the federal government really force medical providers to accept even lower payments which are already way under market?
When Obama and Democrats don't even come up with a budget or their own budget cut scheme to negotiations, in what sense is compromise possible? You have only one party making constructive proposals--the GOP. The Democrats have done zero about cutting spending except demagogue against phantom cuts.
Bill Daley can speak all he wants about uncertainty affecting business and the economy--that much is true. But when the Democrats start talking making conditions like no short-term fixes being acceptable, for essentially political purposes, they have implicitly put politics over that uncertainty. This continues to be one of the most anti-economic growth administrations in the history of the nation, one that has put 2000 page regulations into law and increased the role of the Fed when many of us believe that the Fed is part of the problem, not the solution. So don't lecture us on uncertainty.
I initially intended to write a more detailed critique, but this post is lengthy enough and I may continue in a subsequent post with more detailed claims.
Musical Interlude: My Favorite Groups
ELO, "Twilight"
Saturday, July 23, 2011
Miscellany: 7/23/11
Quote of the Day
Our obligations to our country never cease but with our lives.
John Adams
Democrats:
Spend-it-all-oholics Not So Anonymous
Run Into Credit Limit
American People:
We've Had Enough: We're Cutting You Off
Obama's Friday Temper Tantrum Continued
Notice to the GOP campaign committee: yesterday afternoon Obama got all the rope he needed to hang himself for next fall's election. When you get RCP home article titles like "President's Had Enough", "The President Finally Gets Mad", and "White House: Boehner Walked Out"--and those are the LIBERALS. They are positively THRILLED that Obama has found his inner partisan voice after playing this pretentious Referee-in-Chief/Adult-in-the-Room.
I ripped into the President in yesterday's post, but let's point out some other things: after trying to maintain this mystique as the unflappable, brilliant decision maker, condescendingly talking down the Congress, specifically the House Republicans, even below his own daughters, whom, after all, don't wait until the last minute to start on their homework and school projects, the same man with a super majority who waited until after he lost a historic mid-term election to make a deal on the Bush tax cuts, the same guy whom voted against raising the debt ceiling as a senator arguing against funding the federal deficit a mere fraction that has occurred under his watch as President, the same guy whom didn't have a problem with the Democrats failure to come up with a budget in 2010 or whose own budget didn't even win a single vote from a Democratic Senator. Oh, the emperor is wearing no clothes, and this time I'm not talking about Anthony Weiner in the middle of a NYC heat wave.
No, we have the Finger Pointer in Chief: oh, Speaker Boehner didn't return MY call. Speaker Boehner left the meeting. Waa-waa-waa! (Ignore that thing about Obama walking out on House Majority Leader Cantor; it's okay for Obama not to return phone calls or not submit a plan of cuts or to walk out on the Israeli Prime Minister--but I'm the freaking President of the United States! Everybody knows that the same rules don't apply to Democratic Presidents, just ask Bill Clinton...) Speaker Boehner won't play 'Obama Says': 'Cut this year's budget'--wait: I didn't first say 'Obama Says'. Obama Says, 'Show up at White House tomorrow at 11AM.'
RCP has a snippet of a FNC interview yesterday between Chris Wallace and Charles Krauthammer
So make sure you understand this Alice in Wonderland thinking: Obama is arguing a debt ceiling rise without debt reduction at all; he argues not raising the debt ceiling is financial Armageddon and he's talking about senior citizens not getting their monthly checks; he then agrees to a tentative deal with both additional revenues and cuts; and then at the last minute he poison-pills the compromise by introducing the class warfare tax hikes which are a non-starter, regardless of the context. And it's not just the Tea Party--the rank-and-file rejects this, period.
Speaker Boehner talks in terms of negotiating with Obama is like trying to nail Jello, or changing the goal posts (or rules in the middle of the game). Let's call it bluntly what it is: OBAMA NEGOTIATES IN BAD FAITH, PERIOD. He lacks integrity; he is not trustworthy. Obama helped sabotage immigration reform in 2007 by voting to strip Democratic concessions in the bill. This is little more than the same; if this guy doesn't get his way, he's going to sabotage it for the rest of us.
My mom once told me of a relative in her generation whom used to play board games--until it became clear he wasn't going to win. He would then overturn the game board so nobody won. Mom never told me his political affiliation, but I'm willing to believe he must have been a Democrat.
Political Humor
"There’s talk of splitting California into two different states. Apparently, this divorce between Arnold and Maria is bigger than we thought." - Jay Leno
[The first state will be called "Denial"; the other will be called "Confusion".]
"Philadelphia has a new plan to ticket pedestrians who text without looking up while they walk. As opposed to the previous punishment: lamp posts." - Jimmy Fallon
[And Philadelphia policemen will write tickets without looking up while they walk. And the TSA will check out your package without looking up as they work.]
Musical Interlude: My Favorite Groups
ELO, "Hold On Tight"
Our obligations to our country never cease but with our lives.
John Adams
Democrats:
Spend-it-all-oholics Not So Anonymous
Run Into Credit Limit
American People:
We've Had Enough: We're Cutting You Off
Obama's Friday Temper Tantrum Continued
Notice to the GOP campaign committee: yesterday afternoon Obama got all the rope he needed to hang himself for next fall's election. When you get RCP home article titles like "President's Had Enough", "The President Finally Gets Mad", and "White House: Boehner Walked Out"--and those are the LIBERALS. They are positively THRILLED that Obama has found his inner partisan voice after playing this pretentious Referee-in-Chief/Adult-in-the-Room.
I ripped into the President in yesterday's post, but let's point out some other things: after trying to maintain this mystique as the unflappable, brilliant decision maker, condescendingly talking down the Congress, specifically the House Republicans, even below his own daughters, whom, after all, don't wait until the last minute to start on their homework and school projects, the same man with a super majority who waited until after he lost a historic mid-term election to make a deal on the Bush tax cuts, the same guy whom voted against raising the debt ceiling as a senator arguing against funding the federal deficit a mere fraction that has occurred under his watch as President, the same guy whom didn't have a problem with the Democrats failure to come up with a budget in 2010 or whose own budget didn't even win a single vote from a Democratic Senator. Oh, the emperor is wearing no clothes, and this time I'm not talking about Anthony Weiner in the middle of a NYC heat wave.
No, we have the Finger Pointer in Chief: oh, Speaker Boehner didn't return MY call. Speaker Boehner left the meeting. Waa-waa-waa! (Ignore that thing about Obama walking out on House Majority Leader Cantor; it's okay for Obama not to return phone calls or not submit a plan of cuts or to walk out on the Israeli Prime Minister--but I'm the freaking President of the United States! Everybody knows that the same rules don't apply to Democratic Presidents, just ask Bill Clinton...) Speaker Boehner won't play 'Obama Says': 'Cut this year's budget'--wait: I didn't first say 'Obama Says'. Obama Says, 'Show up at White House tomorrow at 11AM.'
RCP has a snippet of a FNC interview yesterday between Chris Wallace and Charles Krauthammer
This is Obama at his most sanctimonious, demagogic, self-righteous and arrogant. ...he started out by summoning the leaders of Congress -- summoning them -- at 11:00.... In the American system, the executive and Congress are coequal.
[Obama] said "We have set forth a plan." He has set forth nothing. Nor has the Democratic controlled Senate. The Republicans offered a detailed plan. The Ryan plan in the House, and they offered Cut, Cap and Balance this time around... He has never once spoken about real cuts.
...Even at this late date where he says that the fate of the republic hangs on the debt ceiling extension, he said if given a short extension of, say, half a year I won't except it. Why? because he says I want this to go past election day. That is entirely self-serving and political, and he pretends he's the one who's not interested in politics.Consider the Jennifer Rubin Washington Post blog post, entitled "Boehner Runs Laps Around Obama Again". Boehner discussed the fact that he had a deal with Obama including a tax simplification component bringing in $800M in revenue, when Obama decided to throw his long-sought ideological class warfare tax hike he's been vowing to reinstate since the Bush tax cut compromise last December as an explicit condition to make the deal. Obama did this knowing that there is ZERO chance of the House approving that deal.
So make sure you understand this Alice in Wonderland thinking: Obama is arguing a debt ceiling rise without debt reduction at all; he argues not raising the debt ceiling is financial Armageddon and he's talking about senior citizens not getting their monthly checks; he then agrees to a tentative deal with both additional revenues and cuts; and then at the last minute he poison-pills the compromise by introducing the class warfare tax hikes which are a non-starter, regardless of the context. And it's not just the Tea Party--the rank-and-file rejects this, period.
Speaker Boehner talks in terms of negotiating with Obama is like trying to nail Jello, or changing the goal posts (or rules in the middle of the game). Let's call it bluntly what it is: OBAMA NEGOTIATES IN BAD FAITH, PERIOD. He lacks integrity; he is not trustworthy. Obama helped sabotage immigration reform in 2007 by voting to strip Democratic concessions in the bill. This is little more than the same; if this guy doesn't get his way, he's going to sabotage it for the rest of us.
My mom once told me of a relative in her generation whom used to play board games--until it became clear he wasn't going to win. He would then overturn the game board so nobody won. Mom never told me his political affiliation, but I'm willing to believe he must have been a Democrat.
Political Humor
"There’s talk of splitting California into two different states. Apparently, this divorce between Arnold and Maria is bigger than we thought." - Jay Leno
[The first state will be called "Denial"; the other will be called "Confusion".]
"Philadelphia has a new plan to ticket pedestrians who text without looking up while they walk. As opposed to the previous punishment: lamp posts." - Jimmy Fallon
[And Philadelphia policemen will write tickets without looking up while they walk. And the TSA will check out your package without looking up as they work.]
Musical Interlude: My Favorite Groups
ELO, "Hold On Tight"
Friday, July 22, 2011
Miscellany: 7/22/11
Quote of the Day
Those who hate you don't win unless you hate them, and then you destroy yourself.
Richard Nixon
Terror in Norway
My thoughts and prayers are with the at least 87 victims and their surviving families with respect to two suspected related major terrorist attacks in downtown Oslo and Utoya Island, at a liberal party young adult summer camp. There were 2 or more blasts in Oslo with at least 7 dead and 15 wounded, but the highest casualty count was on Utoya Island, roughly 19 miles northwest of Oslo, where a terrorist posing as a policeman doing a routine security check and opened fire with an automatic weapon, murdering 80 people, some as young as 16.
Police have taken into custody a right-wing extremist, 32-year-old Anders Breivik, on Utoya. Breivik is suspected to oppose the liberal state government. Breivik was allegedly seen in Oslo before the bombings, and he has purchased certain fertilizer for his farm-related business which could have been used as an ingredient in bomb making. It should be noted that there is an ongoing investigation, and we do not know what, if any, evidence is behind the speculation.
I have no doubt we will see some in the American liberal mass media will attempt to suggest a link between this (loner?) domestic terrorist and the Tea Party or other conservative movement or we'll revisit the 2009 HHS memo warning of domestic right-wing extremists.
The Debt Crisis Circus Continues
How politically inept can the Republicans be? Obama is all about posturing, symbolism and political spin. When you deal with a demagogue like Obama, you've got to be prepared to act like a demagogue. You don't do something POLITICALLY STUPID like Speaker Boehner and Majority Leader Cantor leaving talks. You finally had the PR upper hand a few days ago when a petulant Obama walked out on Cantor.
I consider myself as part of the real Tea Party, and there is not a single legitimate pro-market conservative willing to play games with Treasury defaults. That results in interest rate increases, aggravates the deficit (because we'll have to pay more interest overall), and likely slip the economy into recession. I swear to God if I hear one more Hannity absurdity about Republican Congressmen lacking the intestinal fortitude for using the debt limit for extort concessions from a President or Senate Democrats whom seriously believe they are in a no-lose situation, even to the point of going into default.
Anyone with a functioning brain knows that Obama has racked up $4T in national debt in just 2.5 years. Everyone knows that the Congressional Democrats over the last couple of years haven't even bothered to set up a budget, and the "budget" set up Obama didn't win a single Senate vote (including majority Democrat). His two "reduction" efforts amounted to a statistically nominal $17.1B in over $10T of spending. Obama's cuts are little more than gimmicks, things like deferred cuts in Medicare/Medicaid reimbursements to providers, cuts in budget increases, modest increases in eligibility criteria, phased in over time, etc.
Obama has had no scruples; he never asked for spending cuts or tax increases when initially pushing for a debt limit increase. With $1.3T or above in annual deficits, he insists that we can't cut at the expense of the overburdened middle class whom got most of the benefit of the Bush tax cuts (but almost half of which don't currently pay a penny towards federal government operations), but we do need that $70B from the upper income brackets in addition to their already footing the bill for most of federal income revenues. And he's willing to play "no deal" unless he gets his hands on that $70B. He's willing to take a default over class warfare tax hikes after arguing default was financial Armageddon. He's willing to take a default over, say, a 5 or 6-month debt limit deal, after arguing default was financial Armageddon. Why? Because he argues it would politicize the debt over the coming year. Even if we accept that transparent excuse for "I don't want to fight this again while running for reelection", any objective analysis draws one to the conclusion that the ceiling isn't intrinsically important--if's Obama's reelection.
I saw a news conference late Friday afternoon where Obama lapsed into complete demagoguery; nobody in my lifetime deserves an ass kicking more than this pathetic excuse of a "President". His lecturing Speaker Boehner as being irrational for not seeing things "the Obama Way" is utterly contemptible and disingenuous. I'm embarrassed for my country that people all over the world are seeing an elitist, condescending snake oil salesman without an ounce of integrity or leadership in his whole body masquerade as President of the United States.
How STUPID are the American people not to understand a political party that INCREASES the budget while revenues are falling off a cliff--and we are not talking about food stamps, welfare or some unemployment compensation which are expected in a recession: we are talking about throwing money at high speed trains, $100K-salary federal bureaucrats, bailouts of people whom bought a house they knew they couldn't afford, etc.--, which has, unlike every state and local government, refused to make any material cuts in spending, operations, etc., which passes 2000-page convoluted laws that nobody understands--even the people enacting them, which does ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to address badly underfunded entitlements to seniors JUST AS the largest generation, the baby boomers, are starting to retire--how could the American people trust Democrats anywhere near the US Treasury? I mean, would you leave your baby near an unprotected wall socket?
Obama dishonors the office he holds. I would use stronger language, but not in a blog. It used to be that however incompetent and wrong his political views, I and others were proud that we elected a minority President after a shameful history of slavery and Jim Crow laws. Instead, what we have is someone whom is little more than manipulative public-image obsessed populist whose only talent seems to be the ability to deliver a speech someone else writes for him. He has lived down to his paper-thin resume, and this country deserves better than the millions of voters whom gambled away the future of the country did so by putting their emotions over their sound judgment in electing the worst President in the history of the United States.
Political Humor
"A new study found that only 20 percent of high school seniors are proficient in geography. Students weren't really bothered by that number because only 3 percent of them are proficient in math." - Jimmy Fallon
[That's because the first question on the geography exam was to get to the test room using a map.]
"House Speaker John Boehner invited new congressmen over for pizza last night. Unfortunately, the delivery guy left when they spent 10 hours fighting over a plan to pay for it." - Jimmy Fallon
[Things are going so well between President Obama and Speaker Boehner that when President Obama orders pizza for his staff, he tells the delivery boy, "It's on the House."]
Musical Interlude: My Favorite Groups
ELO, "All Over the World"
Those who hate you don't win unless you hate them, and then you destroy yourself.
Richard Nixon
Terror in Norway
My thoughts and prayers are with the at least 87 victims and their surviving families with respect to two suspected related major terrorist attacks in downtown Oslo and Utoya Island, at a liberal party young adult summer camp. There were 2 or more blasts in Oslo with at least 7 dead and 15 wounded, but the highest casualty count was on Utoya Island, roughly 19 miles northwest of Oslo, where a terrorist posing as a policeman doing a routine security check and opened fire with an automatic weapon, murdering 80 people, some as young as 16.
Police have taken into custody a right-wing extremist, 32-year-old Anders Breivik, on Utoya. Breivik is suspected to oppose the liberal state government. Breivik was allegedly seen in Oslo before the bombings, and he has purchased certain fertilizer for his farm-related business which could have been used as an ingredient in bomb making. It should be noted that there is an ongoing investigation, and we do not know what, if any, evidence is behind the speculation.
I have no doubt we will see some in the American liberal mass media will attempt to suggest a link between this (loner?) domestic terrorist and the Tea Party or other conservative movement or we'll revisit the 2009 HHS memo warning of domestic right-wing extremists.
The Debt Crisis Circus Continues
How politically inept can the Republicans be? Obama is all about posturing, symbolism and political spin. When you deal with a demagogue like Obama, you've got to be prepared to act like a demagogue. You don't do something POLITICALLY STUPID like Speaker Boehner and Majority Leader Cantor leaving talks. You finally had the PR upper hand a few days ago when a petulant Obama walked out on Cantor.
I consider myself as part of the real Tea Party, and there is not a single legitimate pro-market conservative willing to play games with Treasury defaults. That results in interest rate increases, aggravates the deficit (because we'll have to pay more interest overall), and likely slip the economy into recession. I swear to God if I hear one more Hannity absurdity about Republican Congressmen lacking the intestinal fortitude for using the debt limit for extort concessions from a President or Senate Democrats whom seriously believe they are in a no-lose situation, even to the point of going into default.
Anyone with a functioning brain knows that Obama has racked up $4T in national debt in just 2.5 years. Everyone knows that the Congressional Democrats over the last couple of years haven't even bothered to set up a budget, and the "budget" set up Obama didn't win a single Senate vote (including majority Democrat). His two "reduction" efforts amounted to a statistically nominal $17.1B in over $10T of spending. Obama's cuts are little more than gimmicks, things like deferred cuts in Medicare/Medicaid reimbursements to providers, cuts in budget increases, modest increases in eligibility criteria, phased in over time, etc.
Obama has had no scruples; he never asked for spending cuts or tax increases when initially pushing for a debt limit increase. With $1.3T or above in annual deficits, he insists that we can't cut at the expense of the overburdened middle class whom got most of the benefit of the Bush tax cuts (but almost half of which don't currently pay a penny towards federal government operations), but we do need that $70B from the upper income brackets in addition to their already footing the bill for most of federal income revenues. And he's willing to play "no deal" unless he gets his hands on that $70B. He's willing to take a default over class warfare tax hikes after arguing default was financial Armageddon. He's willing to take a default over, say, a 5 or 6-month debt limit deal, after arguing default was financial Armageddon. Why? Because he argues it would politicize the debt over the coming year. Even if we accept that transparent excuse for "I don't want to fight this again while running for reelection", any objective analysis draws one to the conclusion that the ceiling isn't intrinsically important--if's Obama's reelection.
I saw a news conference late Friday afternoon where Obama lapsed into complete demagoguery; nobody in my lifetime deserves an ass kicking more than this pathetic excuse of a "President". His lecturing Speaker Boehner as being irrational for not seeing things "the Obama Way" is utterly contemptible and disingenuous. I'm embarrassed for my country that people all over the world are seeing an elitist, condescending snake oil salesman without an ounce of integrity or leadership in his whole body masquerade as President of the United States.
How STUPID are the American people not to understand a political party that INCREASES the budget while revenues are falling off a cliff--and we are not talking about food stamps, welfare or some unemployment compensation which are expected in a recession: we are talking about throwing money at high speed trains, $100K-salary federal bureaucrats, bailouts of people whom bought a house they knew they couldn't afford, etc.--, which has, unlike every state and local government, refused to make any material cuts in spending, operations, etc., which passes 2000-page convoluted laws that nobody understands--even the people enacting them, which does ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to address badly underfunded entitlements to seniors JUST AS the largest generation, the baby boomers, are starting to retire--how could the American people trust Democrats anywhere near the US Treasury? I mean, would you leave your baby near an unprotected wall socket?
Obama dishonors the office he holds. I would use stronger language, but not in a blog. It used to be that however incompetent and wrong his political views, I and others were proud that we elected a minority President after a shameful history of slavery and Jim Crow laws. Instead, what we have is someone whom is little more than manipulative public-image obsessed populist whose only talent seems to be the ability to deliver a speech someone else writes for him. He has lived down to his paper-thin resume, and this country deserves better than the millions of voters whom gambled away the future of the country did so by putting their emotions over their sound judgment in electing the worst President in the history of the United States.
Political Humor
"A new study found that only 20 percent of high school seniors are proficient in geography. Students weren't really bothered by that number because only 3 percent of them are proficient in math." - Jimmy Fallon
[That's because the first question on the geography exam was to get to the test room using a map.]
"House Speaker John Boehner invited new congressmen over for pizza last night. Unfortunately, the delivery guy left when they spent 10 hours fighting over a plan to pay for it." - Jimmy Fallon
[Things are going so well between President Obama and Speaker Boehner that when President Obama orders pizza for his staff, he tells the delivery boy, "It's on the House."]
Musical Interlude: My Favorite Groups
ELO, "All Over the World"
Thursday, July 21, 2011
Miscellany: 7/21/11
Quote of the Day
The one thing that doesn't abide by majority rule is a person's conscience.
Atticus Finch
The End of An Era: Space Shuttle Atlantis Retired
STS- 135 Mission Ends 7/31/11
The 135 missions during the 30-year shuttle era particularly focused on one of the most significant construction jobs in human history: the first international space station. As I have mentioned in past posts, I've served two short stints as a NASA contractor during this era, the first as a programmer/analyst while I lived in Houston during the early to mid 1980's and a few years back at Goddard Space Flight Center as a DBA.
I have some mixed feelings over this. In concept, I like the idea of privatizing certain government functionality, and certainly we need to question government spending across the board including NASA. I think manned space travel is very expensive, given expensive redundant layers of life support systems. (I remember mentioning that to a co-worker back in Clear Lake City (Houston), and he hushed suggesting those opinions are politically imprudent.) The basic issue I wanted addressed at that time was, given a fixed budget, more substantive, less costly unmanned missions get short shrift, i.e., get crowded out in favor of popular, largely symbolic manned missions
There needs to be more thought given than merely some predictable permutation of jingoistic or symbolic goals, the US or some other country being the Magellan of the solar system, i.e., the first flag on Mars, Venus, etc., the first wedding in space, the first baby born in space, the first baby conceived in space, etc. What price are we prepared to spend in Trivial Space Pursuit? The point is, I want to see some hardheaded rationale, of the type like there are certain manufacturing processes which are more feasible in space, there are abundant commodity sources on the moon which can be harvested more cheaply, after taking into account travel costs.
This obviously raises the more challenging question of issue of where we draw the line between the public and private sector in space initiatives. Have public policy and regulations impeded development of private sector initiatives?
I would like to see a more comprehensive national policy on space with more emphasis on things like economic interests (e.g., launching, operation, maintenance and security of satellites) and preventive global alert/defense against space events (e.g., a rogue asteroid on a collision course with earth). I want to see less emphasis on trying to sell space-based initiatives on multi-use purposes of ancillary products, technology or services, e.g., the urban legend underlying development of Tang as a breakfast drink. (Tang, in fact, was a preexisting, poorly-selling powdered drink first sold in 1959; it was chosen by NASA as a product which would mask the bad taste of safe drinking water being consumed by astronauts.)
Should Government Subsidize Contraception? Thumbs DOWN!
As if we didn't have enough things to dislike about ObamaCare, one of the chief selling points was "free" preventive care mandated to health care insurers. The basic idea is that if we can detect a catastrophic condition at an earlier stage when the condition can be managed more economically and perhaps contain lifelong costs, we can better manage overall costs. The megalomaniac delusion of ObamaCare that the progressive federal government, which can't even manage its own budget, could add onto its already unmanageable portfolio of ineptly managed, unresponsive goods and services is obvious to the majority of the American people. Not to ignore the fact that we are on the slippery source of seeing traditional individual liberties under a constant assault by condescending bureaucrats. For example, will the progressives mandate lab tests which could detect, say, early stage kidney disease?
Of course, we saw the Democrats co-opt the concept of federal-regulated and mandated "free" preventive care, and politicize it in accordance with their special interest political supporters. One of the 8 recommendations for "free" preventive care for women is the idea of "free" contraception. From the jump I have a problem with this, because I would argue that a healthy society is self-sustaining and should promote its continuation. We have an intrinsically perverse concept here: pregnancy is being treated as a disease.
There are a number of reasons that we pro-lifers object to this concept, including the funding of abortifacients (e.g., the "morning after" pill) and related questions whether religious-affiliated providers or pharmacists, as a matter of conscience, can be forced to subsidize and/or participate in something we believe is the killing of unborn human life.
Certainly family planning is a liberty issue; the federal government has no right to infringe on our rights to have a family and to dictate its size (like, say, China does). Pro-lifers (and certainly not libertarian conservatives) do not suggest that the government should demand a quota of at least 2 children by each female citizen, which really would be government interference in so-called reproduction rights.
But we don't expect the government to take responsibility for our individual actions, including sexual activities. We are expected to accept our own responsibility. There are a number of risks associated with sexual activities, including the fidelity and sexual history of one's partner, pregnancy and STD's. A man who has sexual intercourse with a woman of child-bearing age runs the risk of impregnating her and being responsible for his share of the time and expense in rearing a child. If he and/or his partner want to control for the risk of pregnancy or sexual diseases of the partner, they should both use relevant birth control techniques, including but not restricted to condoms, the pill, vasectomies, tubal ligations, etc. It is up to the sexual partners to weigh the costs and benefits of intimate activities and relevant technologies.
I've long pointed out there's no such thing as a free ride. The pill has been around for decades. My high school had condom machines available to guys. Since when has it become a federal responsibility to subsidize contraception? Clearly a woman doesn't have to engage in intimate behavior. The costs of condoms and pills are not excessive for almost any budget, especially when you compare that to the cost of raising a child.
It's one thing to talk about subsidizing catastrophic illnesses and conditions, but I don't think we should be subsidizing ordinary expenses period. Never mind the fact that women do not have to engage in sexual behavior resulting in pregnancy. We are essentially engaging in morally hazardous policies by lowering the costs for immoral or irresponsible sexual behavior.
Political Humor
"Texas Gov. Rick Perry says God is calling on him to run for president, and Michele Bachmann says God is calling on her to run for president. If God is so indecisive, he’s probably for Mitt Romney." - Jay Leno
[You would have figured by now Michele Bachmann would recognize Barack Obama's voice over the phone.]
"While testifying in parliament, Rupert Murdoch was attacked by a man who threw a pie and yelled insulting names. Murdoch immediately gave the man a show on Fox News." - Conan O'Brien
[I see former Cincinnati Democrat mayor Jerry Springer is taking his show on the road...]
Musical Interlude: My Favorite Groups
ELO (featuring Olivia Newton-John), "Xanadu"
The one thing that doesn't abide by majority rule is a person's conscience.
Atticus Finch
The End of An Era: Space Shuttle Atlantis Retired
STS- 135 Mission Ends 7/31/11
The 135 missions during the 30-year shuttle era particularly focused on one of the most significant construction jobs in human history: the first international space station. As I have mentioned in past posts, I've served two short stints as a NASA contractor during this era, the first as a programmer/analyst while I lived in Houston during the early to mid 1980's and a few years back at Goddard Space Flight Center as a DBA.
I have some mixed feelings over this. In concept, I like the idea of privatizing certain government functionality, and certainly we need to question government spending across the board including NASA. I think manned space travel is very expensive, given expensive redundant layers of life support systems. (I remember mentioning that to a co-worker back in Clear Lake City (Houston), and he hushed suggesting those opinions are politically imprudent.) The basic issue I wanted addressed at that time was, given a fixed budget, more substantive, less costly unmanned missions get short shrift, i.e., get crowded out in favor of popular, largely symbolic manned missions
There needs to be more thought given than merely some predictable permutation of jingoistic or symbolic goals, the US or some other country being the Magellan of the solar system, i.e., the first flag on Mars, Venus, etc., the first wedding in space, the first baby born in space, the first baby conceived in space, etc. What price are we prepared to spend in Trivial Space Pursuit? The point is, I want to see some hardheaded rationale, of the type like there are certain manufacturing processes which are more feasible in space, there are abundant commodity sources on the moon which can be harvested more cheaply, after taking into account travel costs.
This obviously raises the more challenging question of issue of where we draw the line between the public and private sector in space initiatives. Have public policy and regulations impeded development of private sector initiatives?
I would like to see a more comprehensive national policy on space with more emphasis on things like economic interests (e.g., launching, operation, maintenance and security of satellites) and preventive global alert/defense against space events (e.g., a rogue asteroid on a collision course with earth). I want to see less emphasis on trying to sell space-based initiatives on multi-use purposes of ancillary products, technology or services, e.g., the urban legend underlying development of Tang as a breakfast drink. (Tang, in fact, was a preexisting, poorly-selling powdered drink first sold in 1959; it was chosen by NASA as a product which would mask the bad taste of safe drinking water being consumed by astronauts.)
 |
| Courtesy of NASA |
As if we didn't have enough things to dislike about ObamaCare, one of the chief selling points was "free" preventive care mandated to health care insurers. The basic idea is that if we can detect a catastrophic condition at an earlier stage when the condition can be managed more economically and perhaps contain lifelong costs, we can better manage overall costs. The megalomaniac delusion of ObamaCare that the progressive federal government, which can't even manage its own budget, could add onto its already unmanageable portfolio of ineptly managed, unresponsive goods and services is obvious to the majority of the American people. Not to ignore the fact that we are on the slippery source of seeing traditional individual liberties under a constant assault by condescending bureaucrats. For example, will the progressives mandate lab tests which could detect, say, early stage kidney disease?
Of course, we saw the Democrats co-opt the concept of federal-regulated and mandated "free" preventive care, and politicize it in accordance with their special interest political supporters. One of the 8 recommendations for "free" preventive care for women is the idea of "free" contraception. From the jump I have a problem with this, because I would argue that a healthy society is self-sustaining and should promote its continuation. We have an intrinsically perverse concept here: pregnancy is being treated as a disease.
There are a number of reasons that we pro-lifers object to this concept, including the funding of abortifacients (e.g., the "morning after" pill) and related questions whether religious-affiliated providers or pharmacists, as a matter of conscience, can be forced to subsidize and/or participate in something we believe is the killing of unborn human life.
Certainly family planning is a liberty issue; the federal government has no right to infringe on our rights to have a family and to dictate its size (like, say, China does). Pro-lifers (and certainly not libertarian conservatives) do not suggest that the government should demand a quota of at least 2 children by each female citizen, which really would be government interference in so-called reproduction rights.
But we don't expect the government to take responsibility for our individual actions, including sexual activities. We are expected to accept our own responsibility. There are a number of risks associated with sexual activities, including the fidelity and sexual history of one's partner, pregnancy and STD's. A man who has sexual intercourse with a woman of child-bearing age runs the risk of impregnating her and being responsible for his share of the time and expense in rearing a child. If he and/or his partner want to control for the risk of pregnancy or sexual diseases of the partner, they should both use relevant birth control techniques, including but not restricted to condoms, the pill, vasectomies, tubal ligations, etc. It is up to the sexual partners to weigh the costs and benefits of intimate activities and relevant technologies.
I've long pointed out there's no such thing as a free ride. The pill has been around for decades. My high school had condom machines available to guys. Since when has it become a federal responsibility to subsidize contraception? Clearly a woman doesn't have to engage in intimate behavior. The costs of condoms and pills are not excessive for almost any budget, especially when you compare that to the cost of raising a child.
It's one thing to talk about subsidizing catastrophic illnesses and conditions, but I don't think we should be subsidizing ordinary expenses period. Never mind the fact that women do not have to engage in sexual behavior resulting in pregnancy. We are essentially engaging in morally hazardous policies by lowering the costs for immoral or irresponsible sexual behavior.
Political Humor
"Texas Gov. Rick Perry says God is calling on him to run for president, and Michele Bachmann says God is calling on her to run for president. If God is so indecisive, he’s probably for Mitt Romney." - Jay Leno
[You would have figured by now Michele Bachmann would recognize Barack Obama's voice over the phone.]
"While testifying in parliament, Rupert Murdoch was attacked by a man who threw a pie and yelled insulting names. Murdoch immediately gave the man a show on Fox News." - Conan O'Brien
[I see former Cincinnati Democrat mayor Jerry Springer is taking his show on the road...]
Musical Interlude: My Favorite Groups
ELO (featuring Olivia Newton-John), "Xanadu"
Wednesday, July 20, 2011
Miscellany: 7/20/11
Quote of the Day
You see things; and you say, Why? But I dream things that never were; and I say Why not?
George Bernard Shaw
Silhouettes' Tuesday Night Performance
America's Got Talent
I mentioned this performance in yesterday's post. Amazing!
Congressman West (R-FL) Is My Hero
Wasserman-Schultz Wins My Second Nomination
THUMBS UP!
The crass, unprofessional, uncivil DNC chair Congresswoman Debbie Wasserman-Schultz (R-FL) decided to channel her inner Alan Grayson, earning her second nomination this year for my tongue-in-cheek Jackass of the Year 2011, tying Anthony Weiner for that "honor":
Should we expect a shameless demagogue like Wasserman-Schultz, who was one of the chief promoters of ObamaCare, which is "funded" using $500B in Medicare savings (cuts in reimbursement, e.g., "Under Section 3401, Congress reduces Medicare payment updates for hospitals, skilled nursing facilities, home health agencies, and hospice care centers..."), which was also counted to shore up unfunded Medicare liabilities, i.e., double-counting (having your cake and eating it, too), to be honest about the fact that the very fact of ObamaCare constitutes perhaps the single greatest threat to the sustainability of Medicare, and that honorable Congressmen like Allen West are willing to confront the fact that the program is underfunded and we must address that core issue if there's going to be a future Medicare program?
I think one of the most unethical thing in the world is to do what Ms. Wasserman Schultz is, in fact, doing: lending a false sense of security that Medicare in its current form is sustainable in the long term. Do you remember Enron? When you see $50T in unfunded entitlement liabilities and realize we have a $14.5T federal debt but federal revenues of just over $2T a year, never mind the fact that Medicare/Medicaid reimbursements cover about 80% of market costs, how dare Wasserman Schultz open her mouth and criticize Congressman West for being the grown-up in the room?
This was not the first In fact, she launches her unprovoked personal assault behind his back (I guess you have to blame her parents for raising her that way and teaching her how to be a lady). It's bad enough I have to listen to this boorish, pathetic excuse of a woman constantly interrupt and talk over other guests and moderators on television interviews like Sunday talk soup; it is high time somebody finally stood up to her bullying tactics (because heaven knows her mother hasn't been washing her mouth out with soap) and gave her a taste of her own medicine:
I'm also not sure it is particularly useful to let Wasserman Schultz know her know her tactics are getting under his skin, and I'm more used to seeing military veterans exercise steely self-control.
I will say that the 5 Democratic Congresswomen on FNC pulling out the victim card over West's reaction to Wasserman-Schultz' personal attacks can blow it out their ears. Since when have these hypocrites spoken up over Wasserman-Schultz' repeated unprovoked boorish behavior? Are we to assume women politicians are "more equal" than male politicians? Where is the hypocrite Barack Obama on rebuking Wasserman-Schultz's uncivil tone? Remember the post-partisan, change-in-Washington rhetoric? Not only has Obama failed to support civility in politics, it's highly unlikely Wasserman-Schultz could have been named DNC Chair without Obama's tacit approval.
Political Potpourri
Gallup today put Obama at a 42% approval rating with a net disapproval at 6%. All recent polls I've seen have the President in net disapproval range with a high of 47% approval. More importantly, we are beginning (via RCP) to see Romney gain on Obama: a tie in Pennsylvania, small leads in North Carolina, Florida, Michigan, and New Hampshire, and just today two polls putting Romney at a tie or a 1-point lead with Obama nationwide.
I wish to comment on recent polls (e.g., here) which suggest to a certain extent Obama's faux-centrist rhetoric on the debt limit and class warfare rhetoric is to a modest extent working, but there are a few things to point out. First, there is a consistent pattern in most polls I've seen, e.g., people condemn Congressmen in general for the status quo, but they think their own Congressman is fine. It's not unexpected they could believe that taxes will have to be raised but they are already paying their fair share and so let somebody else ("the rich") pick up the load. No doubt if you pointed out that the Dems increased domestic spending 20-30% during the last Congress and then asked whether they approved of raising taxes to pay off last Congress' excesses, they would probably say 'no', that you need to rollback the spending.
Clearly the President is not credible on the budget--in fact, not a single senator, including all of the Democratic majority, voted for the President's budget. He is not showing leadership--he's basically posturing as Referee-in-Chief, condescendingly lecturing them over the bickering and slow process in coming to a solution. But the fact of the matter is that he knows if he proposed a legitimate proposal on his own, it's DEAD ON ARRIVAL, no better than his laughable budget. The fact of the matter Obama is not a referee--the funding of all of his programs gained last Congress is at stake. He has a vested interest in maintaining the status quo in spending. Almost everything he's said during this crisis is pushing tax increases, not funding cuts.
In fact, Obama's approval ratings are continuing to trend down, indicating Obama's handling of the debt crisis isn't helping. What's happening on the Republican side? First of all, there is uncertainty, and Obama is milking uncertainty over things like social secruity payments. Second, some Tea Party elements are playing chicken with default, and the Senate Democrats and Obama are implying they are standing firm because they believe a default will hurt the GOP more than the Democrats, and to a certain extent, I think that's true. I've mentioned this in an earlier post this week: the best strategy is to ink the best deal under current circumstances and then elect a Republican-controlled Senate and White House next year.
Some hardline positions (e.g., Rand Paul, Michele Bachmann) are bordering on political malpractice--and I'm far more of a fiscal hawk than any one of these people. Push this too hard, and you throw the next election to Obama and the rest of the Democrats. You need to win the war, not this battle.
Political Humor
"Republicans are no longer allowed to say that people are rich. You have to refer to them as 'job creator'. You can't even use the word 'rich'. You have to say, 'This chocolate cake is so moist and job creator.'" –Jon Stewart
[The job creator chocolate cake is served with top 2% earner milk.]
"President Obama said he turns 50 this week, but he actually doesn’t turn 50 until Aug. 4. This means that even he hasn’t seen his birth certificate." - Jay Leno
[AARP told Obama that he now qualifies for the early-birthday discount, 5% off any cake served before 5PM.]
Musical Interlude: My Favorite Groups
ELO, "I'm Alive"
You see things; and you say, Why? But I dream things that never were; and I say Why not?
George Bernard Shaw
Silhouettes' Tuesday Night Performance
America's Got Talent
I mentioned this performance in yesterday's post. Amazing!
Congressman West (R-FL) Is My Hero
Wasserman-Schultz Wins My Second Nomination
THUMBS UP!
The crass, unprofessional, uncivil DNC chair Congresswoman Debbie Wasserman-Schultz (R-FL) decided to channel her inner Alan Grayson, earning her second nomination this year for my tongue-in-cheek Jackass of the Year 2011, tying Anthony Weiner for that "honor":
Should we expect a shameless demagogue like Wasserman-Schultz, who was one of the chief promoters of ObamaCare, which is "funded" using $500B in Medicare savings (cuts in reimbursement, e.g., "Under Section 3401, Congress reduces Medicare payment updates for hospitals, skilled nursing facilities, home health agencies, and hospice care centers..."), which was also counted to shore up unfunded Medicare liabilities, i.e., double-counting (having your cake and eating it, too), to be honest about the fact that the very fact of ObamaCare constitutes perhaps the single greatest threat to the sustainability of Medicare, and that honorable Congressmen like Allen West are willing to confront the fact that the program is underfunded and we must address that core issue if there's going to be a future Medicare program?
I think one of the most unethical thing in the world is to do what Ms. Wasserman Schultz is, in fact, doing: lending a false sense of security that Medicare in its current form is sustainable in the long term. Do you remember Enron? When you see $50T in unfunded entitlement liabilities and realize we have a $14.5T federal debt but federal revenues of just over $2T a year, never mind the fact that Medicare/Medicaid reimbursements cover about 80% of market costs, how dare Wasserman Schultz open her mouth and criticize Congressman West for being the grown-up in the room?
This was not the first In fact, she launches her unprovoked personal assault behind his back (I guess you have to blame her parents for raising her that way and teaching her how to be a lady). It's bad enough I have to listen to this boorish, pathetic excuse of a woman constantly interrupt and talk over other guests and moderators on television interviews like Sunday talk soup; it is high time somebody finally stood up to her bullying tactics (because heaven knows her mother hasn't been washing her mouth out with soap) and gave her a taste of her own medicine:
Subject: "Unprofessional and Inappropriate Sophomoric Behavior from Wasserman Schultz"To be honest, I personally would have toned it down somewhat because it comes across as overly aggressive and disproportionate to Wasserman Schultz' business-as-usual dishonorable rhetoric; she probably can't exercise self-control--how she would brought up was the fault of her incompetent parents. She doesn't know how to act like a professional lady, to treat people she disagrees with with respect, to extend the same courtesy she has been extended to express her own flawed opinion unfettered, etc. Search this blog; I've probably noted Wasserman Schultz' boorish behavior on at least half a dozen times. This pushback is long overdue, and this in part is why I am less critical of Congressman West, not to mention the fact that this is not Wasserman Schultz' first unilateral personal attack on Colonel West.
Message (excerpt): "You are the most vile, unprofessional, and despicable member of the US House of Representatives...If you have something to say to me, stop being a coward and say it to my face."
I'm also not sure it is particularly useful to let Wasserman Schultz know her know her tactics are getting under his skin, and I'm more used to seeing military veterans exercise steely self-control.
I will say that the 5 Democratic Congresswomen on FNC pulling out the victim card over West's reaction to Wasserman-Schultz' personal attacks can blow it out their ears. Since when have these hypocrites spoken up over Wasserman-Schultz' repeated unprovoked boorish behavior? Are we to assume women politicians are "more equal" than male politicians? Where is the hypocrite Barack Obama on rebuking Wasserman-Schultz's uncivil tone? Remember the post-partisan, change-in-Washington rhetoric? Not only has Obama failed to support civility in politics, it's highly unlikely Wasserman-Schultz could have been named DNC Chair without Obama's tacit approval.
Political Potpourri
Gallup today put Obama at a 42% approval rating with a net disapproval at 6%. All recent polls I've seen have the President in net disapproval range with a high of 47% approval. More importantly, we are beginning (via RCP) to see Romney gain on Obama: a tie in Pennsylvania, small leads in North Carolina, Florida, Michigan, and New Hampshire, and just today two polls putting Romney at a tie or a 1-point lead with Obama nationwide.
I wish to comment on recent polls (e.g., here) which suggest to a certain extent Obama's faux-centrist rhetoric on the debt limit and class warfare rhetoric is to a modest extent working, but there are a few things to point out. First, there is a consistent pattern in most polls I've seen, e.g., people condemn Congressmen in general for the status quo, but they think their own Congressman is fine. It's not unexpected they could believe that taxes will have to be raised but they are already paying their fair share and so let somebody else ("the rich") pick up the load. No doubt if you pointed out that the Dems increased domestic spending 20-30% during the last Congress and then asked whether they approved of raising taxes to pay off last Congress' excesses, they would probably say 'no', that you need to rollback the spending.
Clearly the President is not credible on the budget--in fact, not a single senator, including all of the Democratic majority, voted for the President's budget. He is not showing leadership--he's basically posturing as Referee-in-Chief, condescendingly lecturing them over the bickering and slow process in coming to a solution. But the fact of the matter is that he knows if he proposed a legitimate proposal on his own, it's DEAD ON ARRIVAL, no better than his laughable budget. The fact of the matter Obama is not a referee--the funding of all of his programs gained last Congress is at stake. He has a vested interest in maintaining the status quo in spending. Almost everything he's said during this crisis is pushing tax increases, not funding cuts.
In fact, Obama's approval ratings are continuing to trend down, indicating Obama's handling of the debt crisis isn't helping. What's happening on the Republican side? First of all, there is uncertainty, and Obama is milking uncertainty over things like social secruity payments. Second, some Tea Party elements are playing chicken with default, and the Senate Democrats and Obama are implying they are standing firm because they believe a default will hurt the GOP more than the Democrats, and to a certain extent, I think that's true. I've mentioned this in an earlier post this week: the best strategy is to ink the best deal under current circumstances and then elect a Republican-controlled Senate and White House next year.
Some hardline positions (e.g., Rand Paul, Michele Bachmann) are bordering on political malpractice--and I'm far more of a fiscal hawk than any one of these people. Push this too hard, and you throw the next election to Obama and the rest of the Democrats. You need to win the war, not this battle.
Political Humor
"Republicans are no longer allowed to say that people are rich. You have to refer to them as 'job creator'. You can't even use the word 'rich'. You have to say, 'This chocolate cake is so moist and job creator.'" –Jon Stewart
[The job creator chocolate cake is served with top 2% earner milk.]
"President Obama said he turns 50 this week, but he actually doesn’t turn 50 until Aug. 4. This means that even he hasn’t seen his birth certificate." - Jay Leno
[AARP told Obama that he now qualifies for the early-birthday discount, 5% off any cake served before 5PM.]
Musical Interlude: My Favorite Groups
ELO, "I'm Alive"
Tuesday, July 19, 2011
Miscellany: 7/19/11
Quote of the Day
Leaders don't make excuses for inaction. They are first movers and early adopters. They make things happen.
W. Bennis, G. M. Spreitzer, and T. G. Cummings
Happy Birthday, Brayden Joseph Guillemette! Congratulations, Jason and Diana!
America's Got Talent:
Silhouettes' Performance of God Bless America
Thumbs UP!
At the time of this post, I haven't seen an embeddable video of this remarkable performance by the dance group, but I cast my vote for it and will include a video clip when available in a future post.
Political Quote of the Day
Why should we care? Because government spending is taken directly out of your pocket, or out of the economy. Spending is today's burden becaue every dollar consumed by our profligate government is one less that could fund productive advancement in the private economy. Every dime needlessly spent by government comes at the cost of efficiency in moving scarce resources to their most valuable use... So any policy that reduces personal freedom in economic decision making inhibits economic growth which forces people to suffer needlessly.
Dean Kalahar, "Government Spending, and the 18% of GDP Myth":
Two Thumbs WAY, WAY UP! Can I climb a flight of stairs first?
Dean Kalahar is implicitly criticizing even the Congressional Republicans aren't going far enough to cut the morally corrupt Barack Obama and his fellow Democratic legislative cronies doing everything in their power to protect and perpetuate their intergenerational and class warfare theft of 25.3% federal confiscation of and pissing away of our GDP and lower spending down to a saner 18%. Kalahar is challenging the Republicans that we need to go beyond that, suggesting that even 18% is excessive compared to the preponderance of past federal fiscal expenditures in American history and the government should be restricted to, at most, a tithing of our income. AMEN, AMEN, AMEN!
Henry Olsen, A GOP Dark Horse? Thumbs UP!
The author in this piece attempts to explain differences in conservatism and coalitions within the GOP. In particular, he distinguishes between dispositional and ideological conservatism.
Dispositional conservatives are concerned about the corrosive effects (including moral hazard and unintended consequences) of material changes to the status quo, including unproven policy initiatives, degraded cultural values or judicial activism. If and when change occurs, it should be incremental and manageable in nature: we have the ability to detect any dysfunctional effects or failures to achieve expected results and depending on the nature of feedback, kill the program outcome or make any necessary course corrections.
In my words, Olsen sees ideological conservatives as willing to embrace creative destruction to effectuate a paradigm shift, a reset or reboot of American politics back to a core of unalienable rights and relevant responsibilities of life, liberty and property; an unapologetic, proactive, strong common defense and promotion of democratic republican ideals; and a renewal of traditional institutions and values. We see local and state government as a proving ground for relevant conservative reforms which can then be promoted at the federal level to refashion this perverted, counterproductive, unsustainable albatross, this convoluted, unmanageable Frankenstein of failed liberal Democratic policies, the ring-after-ring rotting core of socially progressive policy deadwood, an overwhelming burden, smothering out the nascent flames, initially lit by our Founding Fathers, of our economy and the aspirations of free, self-reliant individuals. We cannot bide a second longer these progressive Democratic policy/drug pushers, led by the sophistical chameleon Pied Piper of Failed Liberalism, Barack Obama, brazenly attempting to hook younger generations on class warfare- and deficit-funded "free" goods and services provided by overpaid, incompetent, self-important, condescending, unresponsive, elitist federal bureaucrats, an undue dependence that saps the American spirit of its very vitality. (Ask me how I really feel...)
Where do I fit in this distinction? I think I'm a more pragmatic, realistic ideological conservative; unlike so-called Reagan conservatives whom conveniently ignore Reagan's flexibility on taxes and ability to deal with a Democratic House of Representatives (I am not a Reagan conservative, but I am a Reagan ally), I have the patience of a dispositional conservative to get where we have to go; I understand that there has been crony capitalism intermingling of the private and government sectors, and business can be frozen by analysis paralysis resulting from radical changes in government policies, something 111th Congress Democrats and Obama passing convoluted ObamaCare and financial "reform" still haven't grasped. But I also realize that if Democratic progressives rack up high-spending bills and run up a big budget, you're not going to balance the budget by nickel and diming your way.
But at the same time there are things I'm not going to do. In the case of the debt limit, I am not going to play a game of chicken with the pristine credit history of the federal government on the line. We are already paying high interest payments to sustain the national debt; a default could result in an explosion in interest rates across the economy. As a conservative, I know the Senate and the White House are led by extreme fiscal liberals. I have to make the best deal I can under the circumstances and bide my time until the next Congress so I can do bigger things. If I overplay my hand here, I not only put a half-measure at risk but I hand the fiscally irresponsible Democrats an ad hominem election issue. We have to win the election next year noting the best we could do under the circumstances and we need a strong mandate if we are going to leave to the next generation an America with a viable economic future: Barack Obama and his fellow Democrats must be stopped from stealing even more from the future and the piggy banks of America's children to fund their corrupt, ineffectual agenda promoting their own reelections and delivering to their special interests.
I'm also tired of media conservatives like Sean Hannity whom are misplacing their fire at Republicans like Mitch McConnell trying to find the best practical solution they can given the poor hand of cards they are holding. The media conservatives have no one but themselves to blame for misplaying their hand last year by nominating unelectable Senate candidates like Sharron Angle and Christine O'Donnell.
Olsen's article later goes on to suggest a rationale for why Republicans have a tendency to nominate candidates whom have paid their dues (e.g., G.H.W. Bush, 1988, Dole, 1996, McCain, 2008). He has an interesting analysis of McCain, showing how George W. Bush appealing to the ideologues with a more orthodox tax and other policies and to moderates and independents with his compassionate conservatism positions while McCain had blurred the line between parties. McCain responded in the 2008 election by aligning himself with Bush on major policies (including making the tax breaks permanent) and appealing to military conservatives, while retaining his appeal to moderates and independents.
Olsen implies that Romney should be the likely nominee but suggests that Romney could find himself knocked out early like Giuliani in 2008. He also implies that Palin and Bachmann would easily be dispatched by Obama in a 1964 or 1972-style election where the losing candidate was easily redefined as an extremist. (I agree that Palin and Bachmann have ZERO chance of beating Obama short of an event like the economic tsunami that propelled him into the White House. However, I think almost any Republican would win most of the McCain states given Obama's polarizing policies.)
He doesn't quite say this, but let me draw a line between the dots: he's suggesting that if a dark horse might succeed if he is able to reassure the interest groups that Obama has been intentionally manipulating during the debt crisis, e.g., seniors worried about their benefits. In my opinion, this suggests a Rick Perry and/or Marco Rubio, coming from Southern retirement states whom can soften Tea Party rhetoric regarding short-term impacts of necessary reforms.
Cut, Cap and Balance Passes 234-190: Thumbs UP!
I've indicated that I oppose a balanced budget amendment: I think the spending ceiling should be set by the legislature itself, not the Constitution. However, this distinction is more a matter of semantics in terms of the principles beyond the bill, which I fully support, so I would have voted 'aye'. (To be honest, I wanted more cuts and less cap, but one must be flexible as I outlined above.)
I know that Obama has threatened a veto, but would Obama really veto a bill and accept responsibility for a default that would raise interest rates across the economy, making even anemic growth unsustainable? Kiss goodbye to reelection. Still, I think like in the case of ObamaCare, you have to get through the filibuster rules of the Senate. My guess is that the Gang of 6 compromise which appears to be gaining bipartisan momentum and a signaled approval from Obama will likely prevail. My personal opinion: the House Republicans should declare victory, claim credit for any concessions in the Senate compromise and term the compromise a first step.
I do want to address the irresponsible media conservatives like Sean Hannity attacking Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell's "surrender" fallback legislation essentially allowing the President to raise the debt ceiling subject to Congressional approval, essentially making the President politically responsible for the debt increase. The issue here is not whether McConnell's measure is intrinsically good policy; of course it isn't. The last thing you want to do is give any President--never mind a spendthrift one like Obama--the ability to raise his own credit limit, without any guarantee of spending cuts. But Hannity's position is a complete departure from reality--not only does it make the Republicans look unreasonable but Obama is actually benefiting politically from unnecessarily polarizing positions and policies: if Hannity and unelectable politicians like Michele Bachmann have their way, they might as well surrender moderate and independent votes in the Presidential election next year. McConnell is trying to give Obama and Senate Democrats all the rope they need to hang themselves next fall; apparently Hannity has never played a game of chess where you sacrifice some pawns to gain a larger chess piece on the board.
So let me say this one more time to clueless conservatives: a default of our debt will cause major economic problems. Obama is desperate, knowing his handling of the economy will be THE big issue next fall; if he can somewhat co-opt the GOP, say, by trying to make them responsible for economic issues next fall because they were "unreasonable" or "inflexible" on raising the debt ceiling, he wins--maybe even brings along the Wicked Witch of the West Coast on his coattails. In short, Hannity, Obama is himself giving the GOP all the rope they need to hang themselves. McConnell is onto Obama's tactics and wants to turn the table on him. There's no way Obama can turn McConnell's deal without acknowledging to the American people he is unfit to be President, which we already know anyway.
Musical Interlude: My Favorite Groups
ELO, "Don't Bring Me Down". #3 on my short list and probably ELO's most mainstream rock track.
Leaders don't make excuses for inaction. They are first movers and early adopters. They make things happen.
W. Bennis, G. M. Spreitzer, and T. G. Cummings
Happy Birthday, Brayden Joseph Guillemette! Congratulations, Jason and Diana!
America's Got Talent:
Silhouettes' Performance of God Bless America
Thumbs UP!
At the time of this post, I haven't seen an embeddable video of this remarkable performance by the dance group, but I cast my vote for it and will include a video clip when available in a future post.
Political Quote of the Day
Why should we care? Because government spending is taken directly out of your pocket, or out of the economy. Spending is today's burden becaue every dollar consumed by our profligate government is one less that could fund productive advancement in the private economy. Every dime needlessly spent by government comes at the cost of efficiency in moving scarce resources to their most valuable use... So any policy that reduces personal freedom in economic decision making inhibits economic growth which forces people to suffer needlessly.
Dean Kalahar, "Government Spending, and the 18% of GDP Myth":
Two Thumbs WAY, WAY UP! Can I climb a flight of stairs first?
Dean Kalahar is implicitly criticizing even the Congressional Republicans aren't going far enough to cut the morally corrupt Barack Obama and his fellow Democratic legislative cronies doing everything in their power to protect and perpetuate their intergenerational and class warfare theft of 25.3% federal confiscation of and pissing away of our GDP and lower spending down to a saner 18%. Kalahar is challenging the Republicans that we need to go beyond that, suggesting that even 18% is excessive compared to the preponderance of past federal fiscal expenditures in American history and the government should be restricted to, at most, a tithing of our income. AMEN, AMEN, AMEN!
Henry Olsen, A GOP Dark Horse? Thumbs UP!
The author in this piece attempts to explain differences in conservatism and coalitions within the GOP. In particular, he distinguishes between dispositional and ideological conservatism.
Dispositional conservatives are concerned about the corrosive effects (including moral hazard and unintended consequences) of material changes to the status quo, including unproven policy initiatives, degraded cultural values or judicial activism. If and when change occurs, it should be incremental and manageable in nature: we have the ability to detect any dysfunctional effects or failures to achieve expected results and depending on the nature of feedback, kill the program outcome or make any necessary course corrections.
In my words, Olsen sees ideological conservatives as willing to embrace creative destruction to effectuate a paradigm shift, a reset or reboot of American politics back to a core of unalienable rights and relevant responsibilities of life, liberty and property; an unapologetic, proactive, strong common defense and promotion of democratic republican ideals; and a renewal of traditional institutions and values. We see local and state government as a proving ground for relevant conservative reforms which can then be promoted at the federal level to refashion this perverted, counterproductive, unsustainable albatross, this convoluted, unmanageable Frankenstein of failed liberal Democratic policies, the ring-after-ring rotting core of socially progressive policy deadwood, an overwhelming burden, smothering out the nascent flames, initially lit by our Founding Fathers, of our economy and the aspirations of free, self-reliant individuals. We cannot bide a second longer these progressive Democratic policy/drug pushers, led by the sophistical chameleon Pied Piper of Failed Liberalism, Barack Obama, brazenly attempting to hook younger generations on class warfare- and deficit-funded "free" goods and services provided by overpaid, incompetent, self-important, condescending, unresponsive, elitist federal bureaucrats, an undue dependence that saps the American spirit of its very vitality. (Ask me how I really feel...)
Where do I fit in this distinction? I think I'm a more pragmatic, realistic ideological conservative; unlike so-called Reagan conservatives whom conveniently ignore Reagan's flexibility on taxes and ability to deal with a Democratic House of Representatives (I am not a Reagan conservative, but I am a Reagan ally), I have the patience of a dispositional conservative to get where we have to go; I understand that there has been crony capitalism intermingling of the private and government sectors, and business can be frozen by analysis paralysis resulting from radical changes in government policies, something 111th Congress Democrats and Obama passing convoluted ObamaCare and financial "reform" still haven't grasped. But I also realize that if Democratic progressives rack up high-spending bills and run up a big budget, you're not going to balance the budget by nickel and diming your way.
But at the same time there are things I'm not going to do. In the case of the debt limit, I am not going to play a game of chicken with the pristine credit history of the federal government on the line. We are already paying high interest payments to sustain the national debt; a default could result in an explosion in interest rates across the economy. As a conservative, I know the Senate and the White House are led by extreme fiscal liberals. I have to make the best deal I can under the circumstances and bide my time until the next Congress so I can do bigger things. If I overplay my hand here, I not only put a half-measure at risk but I hand the fiscally irresponsible Democrats an ad hominem election issue. We have to win the election next year noting the best we could do under the circumstances and we need a strong mandate if we are going to leave to the next generation an America with a viable economic future: Barack Obama and his fellow Democrats must be stopped from stealing even more from the future and the piggy banks of America's children to fund their corrupt, ineffectual agenda promoting their own reelections and delivering to their special interests.
I'm also tired of media conservatives like Sean Hannity whom are misplacing their fire at Republicans like Mitch McConnell trying to find the best practical solution they can given the poor hand of cards they are holding. The media conservatives have no one but themselves to blame for misplaying their hand last year by nominating unelectable Senate candidates like Sharron Angle and Christine O'Donnell.
Olsen's article later goes on to suggest a rationale for why Republicans have a tendency to nominate candidates whom have paid their dues (e.g., G.H.W. Bush, 1988, Dole, 1996, McCain, 2008). He has an interesting analysis of McCain, showing how George W. Bush appealing to the ideologues with a more orthodox tax and other policies and to moderates and independents with his compassionate conservatism positions while McCain had blurred the line between parties. McCain responded in the 2008 election by aligning himself with Bush on major policies (including making the tax breaks permanent) and appealing to military conservatives, while retaining his appeal to moderates and independents.
Olsen implies that Romney should be the likely nominee but suggests that Romney could find himself knocked out early like Giuliani in 2008. He also implies that Palin and Bachmann would easily be dispatched by Obama in a 1964 or 1972-style election where the losing candidate was easily redefined as an extremist. (I agree that Palin and Bachmann have ZERO chance of beating Obama short of an event like the economic tsunami that propelled him into the White House. However, I think almost any Republican would win most of the McCain states given Obama's polarizing policies.)
He doesn't quite say this, but let me draw a line between the dots: he's suggesting that if a dark horse might succeed if he is able to reassure the interest groups that Obama has been intentionally manipulating during the debt crisis, e.g., seniors worried about their benefits. In my opinion, this suggests a Rick Perry and/or Marco Rubio, coming from Southern retirement states whom can soften Tea Party rhetoric regarding short-term impacts of necessary reforms.
Cut, Cap and Balance Passes 234-190: Thumbs UP!
I've indicated that I oppose a balanced budget amendment: I think the spending ceiling should be set by the legislature itself, not the Constitution. However, this distinction is more a matter of semantics in terms of the principles beyond the bill, which I fully support, so I would have voted 'aye'. (To be honest, I wanted more cuts and less cap, but one must be flexible as I outlined above.)
I know that Obama has threatened a veto, but would Obama really veto a bill and accept responsibility for a default that would raise interest rates across the economy, making even anemic growth unsustainable? Kiss goodbye to reelection. Still, I think like in the case of ObamaCare, you have to get through the filibuster rules of the Senate. My guess is that the Gang of 6 compromise which appears to be gaining bipartisan momentum and a signaled approval from Obama will likely prevail. My personal opinion: the House Republicans should declare victory, claim credit for any concessions in the Senate compromise and term the compromise a first step.
I do want to address the irresponsible media conservatives like Sean Hannity attacking Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell's "surrender" fallback legislation essentially allowing the President to raise the debt ceiling subject to Congressional approval, essentially making the President politically responsible for the debt increase. The issue here is not whether McConnell's measure is intrinsically good policy; of course it isn't. The last thing you want to do is give any President--never mind a spendthrift one like Obama--the ability to raise his own credit limit, without any guarantee of spending cuts. But Hannity's position is a complete departure from reality--not only does it make the Republicans look unreasonable but Obama is actually benefiting politically from unnecessarily polarizing positions and policies: if Hannity and unelectable politicians like Michele Bachmann have their way, they might as well surrender moderate and independent votes in the Presidential election next year. McConnell is trying to give Obama and Senate Democrats all the rope they need to hang themselves next fall; apparently Hannity has never played a game of chess where you sacrifice some pawns to gain a larger chess piece on the board.
So let me say this one more time to clueless conservatives: a default of our debt will cause major economic problems. Obama is desperate, knowing his handling of the economy will be THE big issue next fall; if he can somewhat co-opt the GOP, say, by trying to make them responsible for economic issues next fall because they were "unreasonable" or "inflexible" on raising the debt ceiling, he wins--maybe even brings along the Wicked Witch of the West Coast on his coattails. In short, Hannity, Obama is himself giving the GOP all the rope they need to hang themselves. McConnell is onto Obama's tactics and wants to turn the table on him. There's no way Obama can turn McConnell's deal without acknowledging to the American people he is unfit to be President, which we already know anyway.
Musical Interlude: My Favorite Groups
ELO, "Don't Bring Me Down". #3 on my short list and probably ELO's most mainstream rock track.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)