- Home
- About Us
- Contributors
- Departments
- Topics
- Back Issues
- Weekly Archives
- AmSpecBlog
- Subscribe
- Newsletter
- Advertise
- Donate
- Contact Us
- Daily Digest
- Templeton Essays
- Jan 4–10 11–17 18–24 25–31
- Feb 1–7 8–14 15–21 22–28
- Mar 1–7 8–14 15–21 22–28 29–31
- Apr 1–4 5–11 12–18 19–25 26–30
- May 1–2 3–9 10–16 17–23 24–30 31
- Jun 1–6 7–13 14–20 21–27 28–30
- Jul 1–4 5–11 12–18 19–25 26–31
- Aug 1 2–8 9–15 16–22 23–29 30–31
- Sep 1–5 6–12 13–19 20–26 27–30
- Oct 1–3 4–10 11–17 18–24 25–31
- Nov 1–7 8–14 15–21
Saturday, May 16, 2009
Video: Interview With Florida Conservative Candidate Marco Rubio
Posted by on 5.16.09 @ 6:06PM
Javier Manjarres of the Conservative Republican Alliance interviews the former Florida House Speaker whose 2010 Senate campaign has sparked a grassroots uprising against the GOP elite:
"My grandfather was a big Ronald Reagan fan . . ."
Celebration in Utah
Posted by on 5.16.09 @ 9:44AM
A politically active friend in the Beehive State reports a gleeful mood among colleagues over the apparent pending departure of Gov. Jon Huntsman Jr. -- a Schwarzeneggar/Crist clone on global warming -- because of his selection by President Obama as ambassador to China. His message:
A great day for Utah - how can we ever thank the people of China?!
Friday, May 15, 2009
Be a Murtha Not a Flake?
Posted by on 5.15.09 @ 4:48PM
Just before the House voted on Republican Rep. Jeff Flake’s most recent request for an ethics investigation of Democrat Rep. John Murtha and other senior appropriators, the Democrat leadership’s Rep. Chris Van Hollen sent a pointed message to his members to ensure they would once again vote “to table another Flake resolution.” His e-mail’s subject line was: “Don’t be a Flake.” The Democrats defeated the Flake resolution and killed the Ethics Committee referral.
Be a Murtha Not a Flake?
By Asher Embry
Tell us, noble Democrats, what lesson we should take?
Your leaders send you messages which say: “Don’t be a
Flake.”
They mean: If bulls like Murtha let their ethics
judgment lapse,
All Dems must stick together, keep transgressions under
wraps.
First Rangel showed how four apartments all stay rent
controlled;
And how to sucker AIG donations big and bold.
On why he paid no taxes on his beach house, he plays dumb;
Should we have seen tax cheating was the plague of Dems to come?
Who knew Jack Murtha, king of pork, was such a family man;
Made sure to steer big money to the firm his nephew ran.
Let’s not forget his airport -- just three Dulles flights each
day;
Most always fewer flyers than the staff from TSA.
Indictments swirl around like bees though not one’s stung them
yet;
Will they escape complicity? We’ll gladly take that bet.
Dems won the House three years ago and last year in a romp,
Because they promised everyone they’d come and “drain the
swamp.”
But au contraire, their grime has left a ring
around the bath;
Let's hope that come next year they’ll feel election voters’
wrath.
(You can read more of Asher Embry's Political Verse at www.politicalverse.com.)
Turnabout
Posted by on 5.15.09 @ 4:40PM
It is not true that now-Democrat Arlen Specter plans to change his name to Arlene in a bid for the feminist vote.
Kristol is Right That Cheney is Right
Posted by on 5.15.09 @ 4:22PM
Bill Kristol has a wonderful column out explaining why the GOP should thank its lucky stars that Dick Cheney is out there in the public arena fighting on behalf of strong tactics against terrorism. Writes Kristol: "Dick Cheney--Darth Vader himself, Mr. Unpopularity, the last guy you'd supposedly want out there making the case--stepped onto the field. He's made himself the Most Valuable Republican of the first four months of the Obama administration." Bingo.
At a lunch in the Veep's residence for about eight conservative writers about 10 days before Cheney left office, we asked Cheney why he had not been more active in the past eight years in fighting in public to defend himself and the administration he served. He explained that the more he was out in public, the more the media would try to drive a wedge, whether real or imaginary, between him and the president, and also the more chances there would be for his public statements to be interpreted (wrongly) as a way to supplement his private advice to the president. For the president to fully and without reservation trust that private advice would remain private, etc., Cheney said it was not wise for him to be front and center. (He explained all this far more clearly than I just have.)
What struck me was just how non-egocentric Cheney's attitude was. This was a man who really believed that his own image was of secondary importance. This was a man who really believed that Number Two should defer to Number One. And this was a man who thought "big picture" rather than focusing on his immediate personal perspective. It was admirable as could be.
I happened to disagree with Cheney. I thought that his ability to concisely and forcefully frame issues was so important and could be so useful to the administration that it should have overriden those other considerations, especially in light of the administration's weak communications performance for much of its two terms. (Yes, Tony Snow and Dan Perino did good jobs behind the podium every day toward the end of Bush's term, but the overall communications strategy behind the press secretaries was weak even with those highly competent and likable people doing the most public work.) I think Cheney could have helped the president make a far better case than was otherwise made.
Even so, as I say, I admired Cheney's decision not to so publicly engage -- or at least admired the reasoning behind the decision.
But Kristol today helps explain why a different decision might have warded off lots of grief: because Cheney is darn good at making his case. He's also a patriot of the first order and a man of old-fashioned virtues. Conservatives are fortunate to have him out there making his case.
Napolitano Ditches Dumb 'Terrorism' Report
Posted by on 5.15.09 @ 4:22PM
After defending the controversial DHS report that labeled all conservatives, libertarians, and returning veterans as potential right-wing terrorists umpteen times, Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano quietly dropped the report in the circular file.
That was the report, apparently inspired by the paranoid conspiracy theorists of the radical left-wing Southern Poverty Law Center, that told police to keep an eye on people opposed to enlarging the redistributive state and spreading the wealth around.
Barton: Waxman Has No Nuts on Energy Bill
Posted by on 5.15.09 @ 3:56PM
Straight talk from Rep. Joe Barton of Texas: "We'll see which of us has the other by the nuts next week."
The National Debt Road Trip
Posted by on 5.15.09 @ 3:48PM
From the guy who brought us the video visualizing the proposed Obama budget cuts with pennies, a great retort to the absurd argument that conservatives can't criticize Obama for his unsustainable spending because George W. Bush was fiscally irresponsible:
Smoot-Hawley by Stealth
Posted by on 5.15.09 @ 3:03PM
Looking up from their particular circle of Hell, Senator Reed Smoot (R-Utah) and Representative Willis C. Hawley (R-Oregon) must be laughing.
They must realize that President Obama and congressional Democrats are infinitely clever Alinsky students, saying one thing in front of the TV cameras and then doing the opposite behind the scenes. Together, the Obama administration and liberal lawmakers have in a sense revived by stealth the disastrous Smoot-Hawley tariff that exacerbated the Great Depression by encouraging other countries to erect trade barriers.
During the election campaign, after some policy fine-tuning and unexpected drama that took the campaign off-message, Obama begrudgingly conditionally endorsed free trade. Or so it seemed.
His statement came a few months after that bit of intrigue with economic advisor Austan Goolsbee, who now serves Obama in the White House. Goolsbee caused a furor on both sides of the 49th Parallel by telling the Canadian consul general in Chicago that Obama's anti-free trade rhetoric was just the candidate playing up to his left-wing base. Goolsbee said Obama's words were "more reflective of political maneuvering than policy," Fortune reported.
Then, after blasting NAFTA (North American Free Trade Agreement) as "devastating" and "a big mistake," Obama backtracked. "Sometimes during campaigns the rhetoric gets overheated and amplified," he conceded to a Fortune reporter last summer. "Politicians are always guilty of that, and I don't exempt myself," he said.
Of course Obama also needed to genuflect before Big Labor and Big Green so he added the potentially critical proviso that he favors "opening up a dialogue" with trading partners Mexico and Canada "and figuring out how we can make this work for all people."
It was enough to get most of his trade policy critics to back off.
And it was all for show.
Now we learn, courtesy of the Washington Post no less, that buried deep in the must-pass-right-now-or-the-Apocalypse-will-come stimulus package from February there was a hidden trade bill. (The stimulus legislation also erased the Clinton era welfare reforms, but that's another story.)
The stimulus package's "buy American" provisions applying to funding recipients have been denounced even by the loathsome Toronto Star (known in Canadian conservative circles as the Red Star) as part of "a plague of protectionist measures in the U.S."
Too bad, Toronto Star. Perhaps you shouldn't have endorsed Obama. The November 2, 2008 editorial lauded Obama's "fairer tax structure [that] helps working families and small business," and his tax hikes in some areas "to fund health care, education, infrastructure, green initiatives and the military."
Meanwhile, protectionism has come to America, and only now have we begun to notice.
Panetta vs. Pelosi
Posted by on 5.15.09 @ 3:02PM
Obama's CIA director says that Nancy Pelosi was told the truth. Can't be good for her credibility.
There's A Doctor in the House
Posted by on 5.15.09 @ 2:43PM
Will there also be a new one in the Senate? Dr. Rand Paul, son of Ron, has announced he is forming an exploratory committee to run for U.S. Senate from Kentucky if Sen. Jim Bunning retires. The Senate already has one "Dr. No" in the person of Tom Coburn -- will Kentucky elect another?
Same-Sex Marriage in New Hamphsire
Posted by on 5.15.09 @ 1:13PM
New Hampshire Gov. John Lynch, a Democrat who campaigned as a defender of traditional marriage, has said he will only sign the legislature's same-sex marriage bill if it contains stronger religious liberty protections. Some marriage traditionalists regard this as a good-faith position on the governor's part, others see it as an attempt to straddle on a controversial issue.
You're Entitled
Posted by on 5.15.09 @ 12:24PM
To an 81 percent tax increase. Aren't unreformed entitlements grand?
Unions and 'Greed'
Posted by on 5.15.09 @ 11:59AM
The Communications Workers of America have been engaged in contract negotiations with AT&T, which this week announced its "last, best and final offer" to the union.
The company noted that its offer would maintain "one of the most robust health care plans in the nation" and increase wages "at a time when many U.S. employers are seeking wage concessions or freezing wages." Not enough, says CWA:
"This contract offer by the Company does not even come up to the status quo, and they are attempting to run rough-shod over your elected Bargaining Committee and circumvent the bargaining process. This contract offer is substandard for a company that just made $12.9 billion in profits last year, and is already on track this year to do just as well, despite a down economy."
Ah. So the problem, according to the union officials, is that AT&T made a profit! Even though the price of AT&T stock has declined 37 percent (from about 40 to about 25) in the past year, CWA insists that stockholders are reaping too much profit:
Thursday, union leaders delivered a petition with 3,500 names on it declaring "corporate greed" and calling on the company to settle on a fair labor agreement.
"It's all about jobs. It's all about keeping jobs in Connecticut," said union president Bill Henderson. Over the last four years, AT&T has shipped out 1,000 Connecticut union jobs out of state, to places like Ohio and Michigan, he said.
"Corporate greed" = profit. Can't have that, can we? The job of Democratic politicians is to reinforce this kind of atavistic mentality, and Connecticut Attorney General is mulling a Senate campaign against Joe Lieberman, so he's only too happy to parrot the CWA line:
Blumenthal showed up to the rainy sidewalk, where a couple dozen workers gathered, clad in red and holding umbrellas. He joined their rallying cry.
"This issue is about service and jobs," said Blumenthal.
"You can't have good service if you don't have people providing that service," said the attorney general . . .
CWA's political action committee collected $7.6 million in the 2008 election cycle, and 98% of its contributions went to Democrats. But only profitable corporations -- not unions or Democrats -- are ever guilty of "greed."
Orwell meets ManBearPig
Posted by on 5.15.09 @ 11:18AM
With the YouTube hits soaring I want to draw your attention to this CEI project, which - although you have to watch closely - even has a cameo appearance by ManBearPig, from the 2006 South Park episode where Al Gore visits a grade school and scares the kids by concocting a new threat to mankind-a beast that is "half man, half bear, half pig". Hmm, sounds like Gore's new pet, the Waxman-Markey energy tax-n-ration bill getting voted out of committee next week.
It's a shame to even have to point out the Orwellian nature of global warming policies. But at least we star you-know-who as Big Brother in this telling. Click here to see the video and tell your Congressmen that you're not happy. Send the video on to others. All that good stuff that our betters find so troubling.
A Fissure in the Grand Alliance?
Posted by on 5.15.09 @ 10:59AM
On Monday, along with others, I raised questions about the mystery $2 trillion in savings that the health care industry pledged in a deal with Obama. At the time, despite the absurdity, the agreement nonetheless seemed like a public relations coup for the White House, evidence of the grand alliance among insurers, doctors, hospitals, drug companies and unions for national health care. But now I see this New York Times report:
WASHINGTON — Hospitals and insurance companies said Thursday that President Obama had substantially overstated their promise earlier this week to reduce the growth of health spending.
Mr. Obama invited health industry leaders to the White House on Monday to trumpet their cost-control commitments. But three days later, confusion swirled in Washington as the companies’ trade associations raced to tamp down angst among members around the country.
After meeting with six major health care organizations, Mr. Obama hailed their cost-cutting promise as historic.
“These groups are voluntarily coming together to make an unprecedented commitment,” Mr. Obama said. “Over the next 10 years, from 2010 to 2019, they are pledging to cut the rate of growth of national health care spending by 1.5 percentage points each year — an amount that’s equal to over $2 trillion.”
Health care leaders who attended the meeting have a different interpretation. They say they agreed to slow health spending in a more gradual way and did not pledge specific year-by-year cuts.
“There’s been a lot of misunderstanding that has caused a lot of consternation among our members,” said Richard J. Umbdenstock, the president of the American Hospital Association. “I’ve spent the better part of the last three days trying to deal with it.”
Nancy-Ann DeParle, director of the White House Office of Health Reform, said “the president misspoke” on Monday and again on Wednesday when he described the industry’s commitment in similar terms. After providing that account, Ms. DeParle called back about an hour later on Thursday and said: “I don’t think the president misspoke. His remarks correctly and accurately described the industry’s commitment.”
I find this via Michelle Malkin, who cites it as another example of Obama inflating the promises of private industry, as he did with Caterpillar during the stimulus debate. But I'm not so ready to pin this one on Obama. If you go back and read the actual letter the groups sent him on Monday, it states:
As restructuring takes hold and the population's health improves over the coming decade, we will do
our part to achieve your Administration’s goal of decreasing by 1.5 percentage points the annual
health care spending growth rate—saving $2 trillion or more.
All of the groups met with Obama in the White House on Monday, and flanked him as he gave a speech touting the proposed savings, which were then blasted all over the news. And somehow, amid all of this, his claims went unchallenged by the groups until now. A much more likely explanation is that the groups received a lot of complaints from their members over the agreement, and so now they are trying to backtrack.
Whichever side you choose to believe, however, this episode is sure to breed mistrust among the players. And remember, the fact that all of these groups were coming together to cooperate was seen as evidence that the environment is a lot different this time than it was in 1993/94, when the industry groups actively opposed HillaryCare. But Monday's publicity stunt will have backfired if public finger pointing starts to break this alliance apart.
Gallup: More Americans Pro-Life Than Pro-Choice
Posted by on 5.15.09 @ 10:18AM
For the first time since Gallup began asking the question in 1995, more Americans now identify themselves as pro-life than pro-choice, by a 51 percent to 42 percent margin. Certainly, there should be a note of caution about the survey since some people may define the term "pro-life" a lot differently than others. A minority of the population stakes out the absolutist positions, with 23 percent saying abortion should be illegal in all circumstances, and 22 percent saying it should be legal in all circumstances; by contrast, 53 percent of those polled say that it should be allowed "only under certain circumstances." That leaves a wide range of possibilities. Does that mean they think abortions should be allowed during the first trimeste? Only in cases or rape/incest? Or only if the life of the mother is in danger?
With that said, this polling result does undercut the favored media narrative that the reason why the GOP is losing is that it's been captured by social conservatives who are overly obsessed with abortion.
Thursday, May 14, 2009
Duh!
Posted by on 5.14.09 @ 7:36PM
Bloomberg News reports
President Barack Obama, calling current deficit spending "unsustainable," warned of skyrocketing interest rates for consumers if the U.S. continues to finance government by borrowing from other countries.
"We can't keep on just borrowing from China," Obama said at a town-hall meeting in Rio Rancho, New Mexico, outside Albuquerque. "We have to pay interest on that debt, and that means we are mortgaging our children's future with more and more debt."
Holders of U.S. debt will eventually "get tired" of buying it, causing interest rates on everything from auto loans to home mortgages to increase, Obama said. "It will have a dampening effect on our economy."
The president pledged to work with Congress to shore up entitlement programs such as Social Security and Medicare and said he was confident that the House and Senate would pass health-care overhaul bills by August.
"Most of what is driving us into debt is health care, so we have to drive down costs," he said. [...]
And whose bright idea was it to submit a $3.6 trillion FY2010 budget to Congress that would generate cumulative deficits of $9.3 trillion between 2010 and 2019, put the government's bailout program on steroids, and (secretly) abolish welfare reform all while pushing for national bankruptcy-inducing universal health care?
The president doth protest too much.
More Details on Dems Health Care Plans
Posted by on 5.14.09 @ 5:49PM
James C. Capretta has posted slides from a 6-hour meeting held today by the Senate Finance Committee outlining options for health care legislation. Capretta provides a good summary of why the situation is as bad as imagined -- including proposals for four variations of a new government-run plan and subsidies that would extend to people at 400 percent of the poverty line.
But it's worth highlighting the regulatory regime, which would force insurers to cover those with preexisting conditions while determing how much they can charge, and mandating what type of coverage they have to offer:
All plans must provide
• Primary care and first dollar coverage for preventive care; emergency services; medical / surgical care; physician services; hospitalization; outpatient services, day surgery and related anesthesia, diagnostic imaging and screenings, including x-rays; maternity and newborn care; prescription drugs; radiation and chemotherapy; mental health and substance abuse services
• No lifetime limits on coverage or annual limits on benefits
It's ironic that the above is included on a slide entitled, "Making Coverage Affordable," because these are the very policies that when enacted at the state level, have driven up the cost of insurance coverage by 20 to 50 percent, according to the Council for Affordable Health Insurance. They also deny younger, healthier, Americans the ability to choose high-deductible policies with cheaper monthly premiums.
Following the meeting, Charles Grassley, who Democrats and the White House are actively courting, wrote on Twitter, "public option (backdoor to Canada health system) scares me."
Yes, Medicare Is a Problem
Posted by on 5.14.09 @ 4:01PM
Robert Reich opines:
Social Security is a tiny problem. Medicare is a terrible one, but the problem is not really Medicare; it's quickly rising health-care costs.
I see this via Tyler Cowen, who correctly responds that, "if Medicare were less generous, much less would be spent on health care."
A good demonstration of that point is to check out a pair of studies by MIT economist Amy Finkelstein, who found that in the first five years of Medicare's implementation, U.S. hospital spending soared 37 percent without a "discernible impact on elderly mortality." Medicare did reduce the out of pocket medical expenses of the elderly, but the result has been a massive burden on the younger generation that is threatening to bankrupt our country.
As it pertains to the current health care debate, there's an argument to be had about what government's role is in providing health care to Americans, but if we're going to have that debate, it would be nice if the other side were honest about the costs of what they're proposing. Simply put, providing subsidized health care to everybody will not lower spending, it will drastically increase spending unless the government rations care, which the other side isn't willing to admit either.
I was chatting with a friend of mine about the entitlement crisis the other day, and he compared Obama to Nero, fiddling while Rome burns. But personally, I think we'd be better of with Nero -- Obama isn't fiddling, he's dousing everything with kerosene.
Derailing Government Run Health Care
Posted by on 5.14.09 @ 1:15PM
The New York Times has a story about a meeting between David Axelrod and Congressional Democrats aimed at tailoring a message to respond to GOP attacks on their health care proposals. This article's implication is that the GOP's offensive is more robust than the impression I have gotten recently, especially from Senate Republicans (see my piece from yesterday).
The main thing to keep in mind is that the Democrats have the votes to pass health care legislation, the momentum, grassroots organization, and for now, support of the special interest groups. The only way to derail the ObamaCare Express would be to generate tremendous public opposition and/or for the coalition of special interests to break apart once details start emerging. There are definitely fault lines. Most notably, it'll be hard to get insurers to go along with legislation that includes the creation of a government-run plan that would be designed to drive them out of business, yet liberals are insisting on such an approach.
There's no doubt in my mind that the American people would be opposed to the Democrats' health care goals if they truly understood that it would inevitably lead to a government takeover of the health care system, rationing, longer wait times, broad-based tax increases, and unsustainable government debt. But the problem is that I don't have much confidence in the ability of GOP messaging machine to beat the Obama messaging machine. Republicans have yet to win any major battle against Obama, the public still trusts Obama more, and the media is on his side. Barring an unforeseen scandal or international crisis that distracts Obama and erodes public confidence in him, this is likely to continue to be the case as the health care debate heats up over the next few months.
Of course, I hope I'm wrong about the GOP's messaging, and expect to spend this year doing everything I can to expose the flaws in the government-run approach to health care. And it would also help if grassroots conservatives started to show the same level of passion about the health care issue as they have on issues such as immigration and the Fairness Doctrine.
GOP Stands for Grand Old Paleos
Posted by on 5.14.09 @ 12:02PM
Well, not exactly. But I do have a contrarian piece in the American Conservative arguing that some paleo ideas could be dusted off by the Republicans as they seek to come to grips with why they lost power without moving left. Daniel Larison and Richard Spencer respond. I'll have more to say later.
The Ring Heard 'Round The World
Posted by on 5.14.09 @ 11:09AM
In case you missed it, here's the video of cell phones going off during a WH press briefing and Robert Gibbs confiscating the phone of Human Events reporter John Gizzi. Gizzi explains the episode here: Gibbs was late, he says.
Daily Must-Reads
Posted by on 5.14.09 @ 10:20AM
- Wow, this is a kind "thank you" for their shared dinners: George Will calls Obama [spoilers] "corrupt." (Washington Post)
- Sorry newspapers, nothing we can do for you (Politico)
- Soda next? Stop taxing the only things worth living for (Reason)
- Writers' works are hard to catalogue when they don't exist in any physical way (The American Scene)
- Anti-abortion animus as evidence that there is no Catholic culture (Crunchy Con)
- War-hawk Democrats and others are just biding their time until the next danger (NRO)
- The raving arch-conservative wingnuts at The Washington Post (EconLog)
- Everyone knows it, Obama included: he can't remain popular in a terrible economy (The New Republic)
It's Only Money, Part XXXVIII
Posted by on 5.14.09 @ 5:21AM
Don't worry, be happy.
Freddie Mac yesterday reported that it lost $10 billion in the first three months of the year, as investments in mortgages continued to fall in value at the federally run housing finance giant.
The disclosure automatically prompts a $6 billion investment from the Treasury Department to keep the company solvent, bringing Freddie Mac's bailout total to $51 billion in the first nine months of its government rescue.
Wednesday, May 13, 2009
Why We Hate Lawyers!
Posted by on 5.13.09 @ 8:52PM
Despite years of legal reform, the bizarre lawsuits continue to be filed. Reports ABC News:
Coffee too hot? Or perhaps the dry cleaners lost a favorite pair of pants? Maybe, like one Colorado inmate who hurt himself rappelling down a jail wall claimed, sheriff's officials made escaping a little too easy.
Those are a few of the allegations in controversial lawsuits that have been filed recently.
Hundreds of lawsuits are filed every day in the United States, for claims ranging from legitimate to ridiculous. A survey of 34 state court systems found 433,000 new tort cases in 2006, down from 547,000 in 1997, according to the National Center for State Courts.
A woman famously sued McDonald's in the early 1990s after she spilled scalding coffee on her legs. A jury awarded her more than $2 million, which was reduced by a judge. A Michael Jordan look-alike sued Nike and Jordan for $862 million because he found it distressing to be mistaken for the basketball star. He dropped his suit after a wave of negative news articles.
"When people bring suits they often sue for the moon," says Phillip Howard, chairman of Common Good, a legal reform coalition. "Some people will bring suits over any accident or perceived slight and the broad effect of that is that people in society go through the day looking over their shoulders."
The good news? At least the total number of lawsuits is down.
The Democrats Just Don't Like to Pay Their Taxes
Posted by on 5.13.09 @ 7:14PM
Now it's an Illinois political ally of President Barack Obama rather than one of his appointees. Observes Guy Benson:
Scandal-plagued Cook County (Chicago) Board Chairman Todd Stroger, whom Barack Obama endorsed, has joined an esteemed group of fellow Democrats. Move over, Tim Geithner, Tom Daschle, Nancy Killefer, Charles Rangel, Kathleen Sebelius, and Hilda Solis: There's a new tax cheat making headlines!
According to the Chicago Sun-Times, Stroger owes the IRS nearly $12,000 in unpaid taxes. This development is especially delicious considering Stoger's decision earlier this week to block a measure aimed at relieving Chicagoans' tax burden. He vetoed a rollback of an unpopular sales tax hike that pushed the Cook County rate to 10.25 percent, the highest in the nation. His veto flies in the face of a 12-3 County Board vote earlier this month to repeal the rate increase.
Perhaps the IRS should stop auditing us common folk. Just look at the returns of any Democratic politician calling for tax hikes on the rest of us. That's probably the best sign of unpaid taxes!
The Definitive Essay on Obama, Abortion, and Notre Dame
Posted by on 5.13.09 @ 6:36PM
Joseph Bottum has written it at First Things.
It's all there. Including quite a bit you probably don't already know.
The Deadly Virus of Gersonism
Posted by on 5.13.09 @ 4:13PM
Striving diligently to become an even worse columnist than David Brooks, former Bush White House speechwriting chief Michael Gerson endeavors to secure his berth on the Jeb Bush '12 juggernaut:
The party, says Bush, faces "dramatically changing demographics, especially Hispanics in swing states," the "alienation of young voters" and an unprecedented drop in support among college graduates.
"Trying to be all things to all people isn't going to work," Bush contends. The goal is "not to redefine our beliefs, but to recognize challenges and adapt," particularly on the issues of national security, health care, education, the economy and the environment. Republicans need to "focus on creating policies relevant to today -- not things relevant 20, 30 or 40 years ago."
This column -- as usual, no brief excerpt can capture the absolute wretchedness of large-scale Gersonism -- is based on Gerson's "recent conversation" with the former Florida governor. Given what his former White House colleagues say about Gerson, we can be sure that his primary interest was to offer himself as a 2012 campaign operative for Jeb.
And given what wonders the Bush family has wrought for the GOP over the years (among them, boosting the insipid Gerson to the Washington Post op-ed page) the only reasonable response for conservatives is the firm resolution: NO MORE BUSHES!
If You Take A Sip, They'll Tax Your Drink
Posted by on 5.13.09 @ 4:05PM
Eager to find ways to finance health care legislation that, according to some estimates, will cost roughly $1.5 trillion over 10 years, Congress is mulling taxes on alcohol, tobacco, and even soda. To proponents, such moves are a win-win situation, because they raise revenue and make people more healthy. For now, let's set aside the debate over how effective they are, or the fact that they are regressive taxes, because I think there's something more fundamentally important here. This is another indication of how more government begets more government, and specifically, how increasing the role of government in health care adds a societal dimension to individual behavior, and thus gives the state an opening to regulate people's consumption of sugary beverages in the name of fiscal prudence.
Sadly, states have increasingly leaned on such taxes to fill budget shortfalls because smokers and obese people have been villanized by the media. Congress already hiked the cigarette tax to finance S-CHIP earlier this year, and down in Florida, Charlie Crist is poised to sign a $1 a pack increase in the cigarette tax, though we'll see if he buckles under pressure from conservatives.
Meanwhile, it would be really nice to hear from some of those libertarian Obama voters given the prospect of federal nanny state taxes to pay for national health care.
The End of Christian America? Naaah.
Posted by on 5.13.09 @ 2:11PM
I wrote a commentary on The End of Christian America for the Acton Institute. As you can tell from the title of this blog post, I'm a little skeptical.
Here's a clip:
Christian America is busy dying again.
If you believe some partisan historians, it was dead before the American Revolution, or at least, nobody important was a Christian by then. The Founders had all moved on to deism. Then again, maybe Christian America died at the Scopes Trial during the 1920s when Clarence Darrow pinned down the non-theologian, non-scientist politician William Jennings Bryan with the power of hostile cross-examination. If it wasn’t dead by then, it was really dead by the late 1960s when every other religion book seemed to be about either the death of God movement or “secular” Christianity. The most memorable volume of the period was Harvey Cox’s The Secular City, which put a happy face of the death of public Christianity and heralded a new, more mature age of secular community.
Meanwhile, a host of prominent sociologists of religion sagely assured the public (and each other) that public faith simply could not co-exist with a world full of technological wonders like conveyor belts, cathode ray tubes, and time and motion studies. The great sociologist Peter Berger imagined tiny groups of believers huddled together against the coming of the 21st century.
Ensign: If Passed, Card Check Would Be "Almost Impossible" to Repeal
Posted by on 5.13.09 @ 1:31PM
Sen. John Ensign, speaking to bloggers on a Wednesday afternoon conference call, said that if Democrats were successful at passing the Employee Free Choice Act, the chances of repealing it should Republicans eventually return to power would be "pretty slim to non-existent."
Overturning the legislation would probably require 63 to 64 Republicans in the Senate, Republican control of the House of Representatives, and a Republican President, making the prospect "almost impossible," Ensign said.
In the face of erroding support for EFCA, proponents are talking about various compromise measures, including ditching the controversial provision that would deny workers the right to a secret ballot election on unionization, while mantaining the binding arbitration measure. But the arbitration part is just as worrisome, he said.
Ensign said that unions would never negotiate if they knew that a government arbiter would eventually step in and dictate to employers the terms of a labor agreement. Such a provision would drive up the cost of labor, and force technology companies to move jobs overseas, he predicted.
Asked about Arlen Specter, who came out against EFCA but has left the door open to some form of compromise, Ensign said he was worried that Specter could change the bill slightly and claim he stuck to his vow.
"We're very nervous about some of the public statements he's made," Ensign said. "We hope he honors not just the leter of his pledge, but the intent of the pledge."
Pop Queen Has A New Cross To Bear
Posted by on 5.13.09 @ 12:09PM
Okay, so I can only imagine it's bad enough being saddled with the latent guilt of playing a major part in resurrecting the mega-mulleted career of Billy Ray Cyrus--even if he is your father and the two of you are unnaturally close--but now Miley Cyrus is supposed to sit idly by while an investment analyst (ab)uses her as an analogy for our achy-breaky economy? Here's Doug Kass of Seabreeze Partners on CNBC today:
“I think stocks are ahead of fundamentals. I would call the [rally] a 'Miley Cyrus' recovery. It’s very popular now, but in both cases, Miley Cyrus and the stock market may not have much talent underneath, which is reflected by prices. And perhaps, it won’t be enduring.”
You're about as talented as an economic apocalypse seems like a lot to throw at a teenage girl, even if you're not a fan!
Next He'll Be Trailing Alan Keyes
Posted by on 5.13.09 @ 12:07PM
New York Gov. David Paterson is probably toast. The latest Quinnipiac poll shows him losing to former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani by 22 points. That's bad enough, but the reality is he probably won't even make it to the general. The same poll shows New York Attorney General Andrew Cuomo beating him by 45 points in the Democratic primary. The Houston Rockets did better last night against the Lakers.
Marriage Middle Grounds
Posted by on 5.13.09 @ 11:37AM
Beginning an interesting series of posts on the marriage debate, Austin Bramwell asks: "Do marriage traditionalists really want to deny same sex couples the right to enter into enforceable agreements for the sharing of property and income? Do advocates of marriage equality really want the government telling people what marriage norms they should adopt? My answer to both questions is no."
That's true of most normal people, but I don't think it applies to the activists involved. The movement for same-sex marriage is designed to reshape marriage norms so that the broader society will be compelled to recognize same-sex couples as married. And while I think marriage traditionalists have been less interested in restricting the contract rights of same-sex couples, some defense-of-marriage amendments arguably would have that effect. Moreover, most social conservative activism on gay rights issues has been aimed at returning homosexuality to the marginal status it had as recently as the 1970s and '80s -- allowing supporters of same-sex marriage to frame the issue in a way that makes their success more likely.
Mission Code Name: Bleed You Dry
Posted by on 5.13.09 @ 11:17AM
Whenever the President uses the word dime in a sentence, Paul Sand writes, start watching yours. A pattern is emerging...
Social Security vs. National Security
Posted by on 5.13.09 @ 11:00AM
Michael Lind of the New America Foundation has written a delicious article denying the Social Security crisis, which he calls an "imaginary problem." There's all sorts of nonsense in the piece, but I just wanted to focus on one of his proposals:
If you want to be revenue-neutral, the Social Security shortfall of about 2 percent of GDP between now and mid-century could be patched with general revenue funds diverted from defense, if without endangering our safety we could gradually lower defense spending from its present wartime level of about 4 percent of GDP to 2 percent, which is more than most other advanced industrial countries spend on defense.
Let's just set aside the debate over whether we're currently at war and focus on the numerous factual errors in his statement. Historically, spending 4 percent of our economy on defense was not a "wartime level," in fact, it's more compatible with peacetime. For instance, during the Carter years, defense spending averaged 4.8 percent of GDP. It was only during the 1990s, after the Cold War, that we cashed in the so-called "peace dividend" that defense spending dramatically fell, but even then it didn't dip below 3 percent of GDP. If we slashed military spending to 2 percent of GDP, it would represent the lowest level since 1940, when we were caught unprepared for WWII. As for Lind's claim that cutting defense spending to 2 percent of GDP would be "more than most other advanced industrial countries spend on defense," I just wonder what countries he has in mind. In reality, that would place us 79th in the world, according to the CIA World Fact Book, putting us in a tie with Estonia, Uzbekistan, Seychelles and Finland -- and well behind the UK, France, Russia and China.
As absurd as Lind's piece is, I'm actually glad that he raised this issue, and I hope more liberals do the same. I think we should have an honest and open debate about the tradeoffs involved here, and Americans can decide whether they want to cut defense spending in half to save Social Security. And keep in mind, this doesn't even take into account Medicare and Medicaid, which are far more serious fiscal problems. But I'm also glad he raised the issue, because I've long been frustrated with national security hawks who are always pushing for more military spending while either ignoring the entitlement crisis or openly embracing big government domestic programs. At some point, they need to process the fact that as mandatory entitlements increasingly dominate the budget, the federal government will have no choice but to cut into defense spending, which is the largest chunk of the discretionary budget. They no longer have the luxury of being national security conservatives and not economic conservatives. If we don't rein in entitlements, it will not only cause financial chaos, but make us more vulnerable to our enemies.
John Murtha's Magic Touch, Continued
Posted by on 5.13.09 @ 9:03AM
Far be it for President Barack "new politics" Obama to interfere with Washington's fabled ways.
The Federal Aviation Administration, after reviewing concerns about a project at a regional airport named after Rep. John P. Murtha (D-Pa.), has decided to go forward with plans to use $800,000 in stimulus funds to repave the airport's alternate runway.
Late this afternoon, a spokesperson for the Department of Transportation confirmed that the department had completed its review and would be releasing the funds for the Johnstown, Pa., airport project.
DOT spokesperson Jill Zuckman said the review was undertaken after a "senior policy" official at DOT decided he wanted to reconsider the project, but she declined to identify who that was or detail the reason for the reconsideration. She said the runway's concrete hasn't been replaced in many years and is in need of repaving.
"The bottom line is it deserved the money based on the merits," Zuckman said. "It's not an earmark."
The FAA had notified the John P. Murtha-Johnstown airport authority that the project was under review, and authority board members said press reports about other federal funding steered to the quiet regional airport was leading the FAA to reconsider the repaving project.
Daily Must-Reads
Posted by on 5.13.09 @ 8:47AM
- Jeff Jacoby to Colin Powell: Get the @#%$ out of the GOP (Boston Globe)
- Can American cities accomodate the middle class and families? (The American)
- Via Cafe Hayek: Somebody goes into the bowels of the beast, Wal-Mart (NY Post)
- Rod Dreher: "The storm is coming..." for real (Crunchy Con)
- Trouble in the GOP's powerful gay faction (The New Republic)
- Licenses are just like protectionism and minimum wages (Growthology)
- From the Dept. of Invidious Comparisons (Rat Traders)
The Looming Liberal-Caused Social Security Disaster
Posted by on 5.13.09 @ 12:53AM
Since everyone else on the AmSpecBlog is writing about Social Security, I might as well too.
FDR's proudest accomplishment, the national Ponzi scheme known as Social Security, is significantly closer to collapse than it was last year - and liberal groups have a lot to do with this fact, but more on that in a moment.
The old age entitlement program reported that program costs will exceed tax revenues in 2016, one year sooner than projected in last year's report. The Old-Age and Survivors, and Disability Insurance (OASDI) Trust Funds will be exhausted in 2037, four years sooner than projected last year. "Over the 75-year period, the Trust Funds would require additional revenue equivalent to $5.3 trillion in today's dollars to pay all scheduled benefits," according to the program's board of trustees.
"The worsening of the long-range outlook for the Social Security program is due primarily to the recent economic downturn and faster reductions in mortality than previously assumed," said the trustees.
But the trustees left out an important fact: liberal activism has helped to bring Social Security to the brink.
In 2005 as the defeat of President George W. Bush's campaign to reform Social Security, the so-called third rail of American politics, drew nearer, liberal groups savored their approaching victory. "We're putting the power back into the third rail," gloated Toby Chauduri, a spokesman for the Campaign for America's Future.
Social Security has not been reformed because politicians lack the political will to take action. And why do they lack the will to act? In part because they have been urged not to take action by left-wing groups opposed to putting Social Security on a sound financial footing.
These groups were effective both in keeping Democratic lawmakers in line and in scaring the bejeezus out of Republican lawmakers sympathetic to Social Security reform.
Some of the key liberal groups that have fought Social Security reform tooth and nail are the AFL-CIO, AARP, AFSCME, Campaign for America's Future (CAF), CAF affiliate Institute for America's Future, International Brotherhood of Teamsters, MoveOn.org and USAction.
Remember that during the Bush era fight in Congress, the AFL-CIO, mindful that many investment firms managed labor-controlled pension fund assets, suddenly decided that protecting Social Security was Big Labor's "fiduciary duty."
The New York City Employees' Retirement System wrote threatening letters to investment houses warning that if they backed major changes to the program, labor would take their position into consideration when deciding whether the firms would continue to manage the assets of union pension funds. Translation: Support Social Security reform and lose some huge clients. Labor officials also launched a PR offensive against the firms in the media to make sure they didn't back reform.
So, never forget how Social Security got to where it is now.
Tuesday, May 12, 2009
Steve Lonegan vs. Chris Christie Debate Liveblogging
Posted by on 5.12.09 @ 8:00PM
I'll be liveblogging this debate tonight. Stay on this link and just hit refresh.
8:03: I'd comment on Christie's speech, but I'm a little distracted by what the heck is happening in the background. It looks like a live feed of a Predator's helmet.
8:04: Lonegan is racing through his speech, but hitting hard points. Stumbling a little, but at least he didn't read off his notes.
8:04: Christie is having a problem figuring out whether he wants to look at the camera or the moderator.
8:05: Lonegan notes that property taxes, business taxes, corporate taxes are too high.
8:06: Christie emphasizes government spending is the problem, not the property taxes.
8:08: Zero-based budgeting --I don't know what that is, but it sounds a little bit like a dental apointment to have to go through every year.
8:08: All the state agencies should have "One affirmative action program, if that" according to Lonegan. Yikes.
8:09: WILL THEY PLEASE STOP GOING SO FAST.
8:09: Flat tax! Lonegan suggests a 2.9% flat tax, libertarian heads *explode*.
8:10: Christie: My first action as a freeholder was to make a motion to do something. I'm not the least bit clear on what the heck he's talking about, but it sounds like he was a real trailblazer.
8:11: Oh snap, steve lonegan diss!! "I'm surprised after such a good record, you weren't reelected after your first term."
8:12: "What Steve doesn't know is that I fought the status quo." Good rebuttal.
8:12: THEY ARE STILL GOING TOO FAST. WHAT IS THIS, THE NORTHEAST?!
8:13: Weird mealy-mouthed stance from Christie -- he would veto legislation authorizing gay marriage, but he thinks it should be decided by the people. Uh?
8:14: Lonegan hits Christie for his no-bid contract judgments, noting that Christie would be in big trouble if he got hit for this in the general election by Corzine. Christie responds that something needed to be done.
8:18: Christie believes in universal school vouchers. Lonegan rebuts that if you allow them to go to other districts, then no one would be going to any of the schools and the system would be decimated.
8:20: Lonegan looks much much more comfortable talking policy. While Christie tried to make himself sound like a crusader, he sounded a little disjointed in his rhetoric.
8:22: Christie continues pushing the flat-tax-as-tax-hike story. Says that Forbes, a flat tax advocate, endorsed him.
8:23: Lonegan gets laughs for saying that Forbes supported the bailout. He also notes that other taxes that would be eliminated (small business and corporate taxes that chase away businesses). Again, he's in comfortable territory explaining this.
8:24: WHY DO THEY HAVE TO GO SO FAST. THIS IS NOT THE LIGHTENING ROUND.
8:26: Lonegan jabs Christie on his stance on the council on affordable housing, which changed from December from being in favor of it to being against it entirely.
8:28: Lonegan explains why you shouldn't cry for public employees getting laid off, because his tax cuts will lead to increased jobs. Christie simply suggests that everyone's losing jobs, and it would be unfair not to ask public employees to share in that sacrifice. WHAT?!
8:33: Christie supports tyranny, i.e. the progressive tax code, according to Lonegan. Lonegan, according to Christie, wants to raise taxes using a flat tax. I think there was a Reagan reference in there. Do a shot.
8:34: Lonegan notes that the reason why people don't have health insurance is because they don't want it, like his daughter who may have swine flu. But wait! He also wants tort reform to end ridiculous lawsuits in New Jersey. Somebody needs to tell him that New Jersey is *all about the ridiculous lawsuits*.
8:37: Christie claims his doctors think he knows too much about medicine during an unfortunate behind-the-back camera angle. The patron saint of irony snickers.
I'm giving up attempting to liveblog this. This is way too fast for me to be anything but super-snarky. Which may be entertaining. Lonegan is much better prepared for this debate. He is in much better command of the policies he's espousing, whereas Christie is spacing out his speech to fill time. It looks like an oral exam and Christie was up all night after a semester of drinking in the parking lot. Which may actually be a recommendation for his ascent in New Jersey politics.
I'll watch this when archived and make up timestamps. Call me when they mention Reagan again.
Obamaflation Update
Posted by on 5.12.09 @ 6:20PM
Back in February, I wrote about how the unprecented level of debt being created to finance government spending would inevitably lead to inflation once demand for U.S. Treasury bonds subsided and the Fed was forced to print money to buy up the debt. With the market choking in debt, we're already starting to see an erosion in demand. In other words, the early stages of that process are underway, and sooner than I would have expected.
Fox Business reports today:
While the stock market is floating at levels way above its early March lows, the Treasury market has been showing signs of weakness as investors, who flocked to the safety of government debt at the height of the credit crisis last fall, have now turned their attentions elsewhere.
This leaves the U.S. Treasury Department, and in essence the U.S. taxpayer, with a prospect of steadily rising costs of borrowing -- especially as the Congressional Budget Office projects a record deficit for the upcoming budget year.
From its mid-December low of around 2.06%, the yield on the benchmark 10-year Treasury bond has risen steadily to 3.18%. Meanwhile, the yield on the less-heavily traded 30-year bond has risen from around 2.5% to 4.19% in Monday trading. Bond yields increase as bond prices, and therefore demand, decrease.
Bond yields have been increasing as investor demand to purchase record amounts of U.S. government debt has been subsiding. Last week, bond prices fell after an auction of $14 billion in 30-years failed to meet expectations.
"These large auctions are starting to stress the system," said Tom DiGaloma, head of fixed-income trading with Guggenheim Partners. "There have been too many auctions held too frequently, and the size of the auctions is growing too fast for the market to handle."
While supply and demand always work in tandem, traders and investors said the main issue in the bond market right now is too much supply. The U.S. government has been issuing debt at a quickening pace in recent months, in part to pay for increases in government spending like $787 billion economic stimulus package, but also to take advantage of lower-than-usual bond yields.
The Fed has already been forced to purchase government bonds to prop up Treasury prices. Add the looming entiltement crisis (now looming closer) and trillions of new spending on Obama administration intiatives such as health care, and the inflationary pressure will only become more severe.
And remember, the Fed won't want to slow down the economy by raising interest rates, and even if they were willing to, they don't have any options if the market simply doesn't have an appetite for more debt. The only option is to print, print, print. And so the inflationary spiral continues. Unless, of course, we stop spending trillions of dollars that we don't have.
Another Day, Another Pelosi Explanation
Posted by on 5.12.09 @ 6:11PM
Another day, another Pelosi explanation of what she knew about the “torture” she so abhors -- and when she knew it. On top of everything else, she’s upstaged by her nemesis, Rep. Jane Harman.
Nancy Pelosi is No Paul Revere
(with apologies to Longfellow)
By Asher Embry
Listen, Pelosi, and you shall hear,
Of the CIA briefings and what they made clear.
On the fourth of September, Two Thousand and Two
Zubaydah’s tough treatment was detailed for you.
You’re feigning of shock now is just cavalier.
It’s hard to believe that you simply forgot,
When you said so emphatically that you “were not”
Ever told that the CIA used EIT’s,
Did KSM sing ‘cause we said “pretty please?”
There’s no one who really thinks that’s what you thought.
Face it, dear Nancy, we think it’d be wise,
To stop digging holes when you’re caught telling lies.
You’ve a good many reasons this happened, you say;
But did no one explain they can’t change every day?
It does come back to haunt, when you politicize.
The outrage is not what we did to our foes,
But the fact that our secrets you’d gladly expose.
You criticize Bush but it surely must chafe,
That he and his plans did in fact keep us safe.
While you, when it mattered, didn’t even oppose.
Perhaps the “Truth Hearings” you so want to
see,
Should explore the effects of your hypocrisy.
(You can read more of Asher Embry's Political Verse at www.politicalverse.com.)
The Fiscal Tsunami Grows
Posted by on 5.12.09 @ 5:27PM
The red ink is truly frightening. Uncle Sam's fiscal situation continues to deteriorate. The deficit this year will run at least $1.8 trillion. The latest increase in the expected deficit dwarfs the president's pitiful half percent budget "cut." Reports Associated Press:
The government will have to borrow nearly 50 cents for every dollar it spends this year, exploding the record federal deficit past $1.8 trillion under new White House estimates.
Budget office figures released Monday would add $89 billion to the 2009 red ink -- increasing it to more than four times last year's all-time high as the government hands out billions more than expected for people who have lost jobs and takes in less tax revenue from people and companies making less money.
The unprecedented deficit figures flow from the deep recession, the Wall Street bailout and the cost of President Barack Obama's economic stimulus bill -- as well as a seemingly embedded structural imbalance between what the government spends and what it takes in.
As the economy performs worse than expected, the deficit for the 2010 budget year beginning in October will worsen by $87 billion to $1.3 trillion, the White House says. The deterioration reflects lower tax revenues and higher costs for bank failures, unemployment benefits and food stamps.
Just a few days ago, Obama touted an administration plan to cut $17 billion in wasteful or duplicative programs from the budget next year. The erosion in the deficit announced Monday is five times the size of those savings.
For the current year, the government would borrow 46 cents for every dollar it takes to run the government under the administration's plan. In 2010, it would borrow 35 cents for every dollar spent.
But even this estimate is far too low. For instance, Fannie Mae continues to run up losses, and expects to need another $110 billion this year. Freddie Mac has yet to report its latest figures. Explains the Washington Post:
Fannie Mae reported yesterday that it lost $23.2 billion in the first three months of the year as mortgage defaults increasingly spread from risky loans to the far-larger portfolio of loans to borrowers who have been considered safe.
The massive loss prompts a $19 billion investment from the government to keep the firm solvent, on top of a $15 billion investment of taxpayer money earlier this year.
The sobering earnings report was a reminder of the far-reaching implications of the government's takeover in September of Fannie Mae and the smaller Freddie Mac. Losses have proved unrelenting; the firms' appetite for tens of billions of dollars in taxpayer aid hasn't subsided; and taxpayer money invested in the companies, analysts said, is probably lost forever because the prospects for repayment are slim.
But the government remains committed to keeping the companies afloat, because it is relying on them to help reverse the continuing slide in the housing market and keep mortgage rates low.
Even as the government bailout of banks appears to be leveling off, the federal rescue of Fannie and Freddie is rapidly growing more expensive. Fannie Mae said that the losses will continue through at least much of the year and that it "therefore will be required to obtain additional funding from the Treasury." Analysts are estimating that the company could need at least $110 billion.
Finally, there's the latest news on Social Security and Medicare, which, of course, is awful. But the official statistics aren't the end of it. Economist Lawrence Kotlikoff warns that Social Security's official projected unfunded liabilities may underestimate actual liabilities by almost one-fourth. That means taxpayers will be stuck with a bill not just for trillions, but trillions and trillions. The actual numbers are too terrible to behold and should make one weep.
But don't worry. The president plans on cutting $17 billion. If Congress is willing to go along with the cuts, that is. Don't worry, be happy.
Single-Payer Protesters Disrupt Senate Hearing
Posted by on 5.12.09 @ 5:16PM
Via Marc Ambinder, check the 5:30 mark.
Medicare, Social Security: Too Big To Fail?
Posted by on 5.12.09 @ 3:56PM
The deteriorating financial condition of Social Security and Medicare -- whose trust funds are stuffed with government IOUs, not real assets -- should give people pause about growing our welfare state even further. The United States is going broke even without a European-style welfare state. Medicare attempts to control costs by reducing payments to doctors and hospitals, contributing to cost-shifting, but still is in even worse shape than Social Security. But we are still supposed to believe that larger programs loosely based on the ones running out of money will be financially viable and will even cut costs.
The entitlements crisis makes the annual federal budget deficit -- revised up to $1.84 trillion, nearly four times the previous record, and above $500 billion for a decade -- seem trivial by comparison. But when the federal government finds itself in a hole, no matter how deep, its solution is always to keep digging.
Trustees Say Entitlement Crisis to Hit Sooner Than Expected
Posted by on 5.12.09 @ 3:49PM
The Social Security Board of Trustees releasted its latest report on the health of the Social Security system, and has projected that the cost of benefits will exceed payroll tax revenues in 2016 -- a year sooner than last year's report.
If that isn't depressing enough, "Medicare's financial status is much worse," the Trustees conclude. "As was true in 2008, Medicare's Hospital Insurance (HI) Trust Fund is expected to pay out more in hospital benefits and other expenditures this year than it receives in taxes and other dedicated revenues. The difference will be made up by redeeming trust fund assets. Growing annual deficits are projected to exhaust HI reserves in 2017..."
This is the financial time bomb on top of which Obama has signed or proposed trillions in new spending, including pushing for national health care, the cost of which is likely to be around $1.5 trillion over the next ten years.
Florida Conservatives Slam NRSC Crist Endorsement
Posted by on 5.12.09 @ 2:07PM
The National Republican Senatorial Committee's endorsement of Gov. Charlie Crist for the Florida Senate seat, which Phil blogged about earlier, has drawn an angry reaction from the Florida-based Conservative Republican Alliance.
"In case the NRSC forgot, it was Governor Crist that openly supported the Obama 'stimulus' plan, and gave the plan political cover here in Florida," CRA chairman Javier Manjarres said in a press release. "Why does the NRSC issue an endorsement without even waiting to find out where the respective candidates stand on the issues?"
Manjarres, who supports Marco Rubio in the Republican primary, cited this ad as evidence that Crist can expect a strong conservative challenge:
Amazing: Republicans Doing Stuff
Posted by on 5.12.09 @ 12:55PM
The fact that we're seeing mainstream media profiles talking up Indiana Gov. Mitch Daniels as a 2012 presidential possibility -- indeed, someone who can "save the GOP" -- should make some jittery Republicans rethink what it will take for the party to recover. Daniels didn't govern as "Democrat lite." He didn't take a series of poll-tested positions designed to appeal to voters. In fact, his budget-cutting was often deeply unpopular. But he was nevertheless willing to take some political risks and see them through to fruition.
Daniels was nevertheless re-elected at the same time Barack Obama was carrying Indiana in the last presidential election. He isn't perfect -- the Cato Institute's annual report card gives him a B for 2008 -- but his approach is pretty much the opposite of the crowd-pleasing, risk-averse strategy some counsel in response to Obama's popularity. And the way Republicans in Washington for the most part governed after the late 1990s. After Newt Gingrich was rebuffed over the government shutdown, Republicans were afraid to take too many risks lest they lose power. But the end result was they ultimately lost power anyway and don't have much to show for the brief moment when they had unified control of the federal government.
This is Janeane Garofalo's Brain on Drugs
Posted by on 5.12.09 @ 12:42PM
Cocaine? Meth? Marijuana? Thorazine? Or is Janeane Garofalo just weird?
What is wrong with Garofalo in a new Fox video in which a reporter challenges her characterization of Tea Party protesters as racists?
Why does she go up to the camera lens and come close to pressing her nose against it?
To recap, the left-wing Garofalo previously said of the anti-Big Government protesters:
This is about hating a black man in the White House. This is racism straight up. That is nothing but a bunch of teabagging rednecks. And there is no way around that. And you know, you can tell these type of right wingers anything and they'll believe it, except the truth. You tell them the truth and they become -- it's like showing Frankenstein's monster fire. They become confused, and angry and highly volatile. That guy, causing them feelings they don't know, because their limbic brain, we've discussed this before, the limbic brain inside a right-winger or Republican or conservative or your average white power activist, the limbic brain is much larger in their head space than in a reasonable person, and it's pushing against the frontal lobe. So their synapses are misfiring.
Garofalo seems to know a lot about psychopathology. I wonder why.
It's Only Money!
Posted by on 5.12.09 @ 11:01AM
The deficit this year will be $1.8 trillion. But no worries. Only essential programs are being funded.
Reports Cybercast News Service:
The National Institute of Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism (NIAA), a part of the National Institutes of Health (NIH), will pay $2.6 million in U.S. tax dollars to train Chinese prostitutes to drink responsibly on the job.
Dr. Xiaoming Li, the researcher conducting the program, is director of the Prevention Research Center at Wayne State University School of Medicine in Detroit.
The grant, made last November, refers to prostitutes as "female sex workers"--or FSW--and their handlers as "gatekeepers."
"Previous studies in Asia and Africa and our own data from FSWs [female sex workers] in China suggest that the social norms and institutional policy within commercial sex venues as well as agents overseeing the FSWs (i.e., the 'gatekeepers', defined as persons who manage the establishments and/or sex workers) are potentially of great importance in influencing alcohol use and sexual behavior among establishment-based FSWs," says the NIH grant abstract submitted by Dr. Li.
"Therefore, in this application, we propose to develop, implement, and evaluate a venue-based alcohol use and HIV risk reduction intervention focusing on both environmental and individual factors among venue-based FSWs in China," says the abstract.
The research will take place in the southern Chinese province of Guangxi.
Daily Must-Reads
Posted by on 5.12.09 @ 9:45AM
- Deval Patrick is apparently comfortable enough in his new job to stop showing up for work (Boston Globe)
- It's turning 1984 in England's bedrooms (Reason)
- A little international perspective for American liberals and conservatives (Aid Watch)
- Obama's culture war end run (NY Times)
- Petraeus -- what can't he do? (The New Republic)
NRSC Endorses Crist For Senate
Posted by on 5.12.09 @ 9:25AM
The National Republican Senatorial Committee Chairman John Cornyn has endorsed Charlie Crist for U.S. Senate in Florida over the conservative favorite, Marco Rubio:
“I am pleased today to endorse Governor Charlie Crist for the United States Senate. With his record of reform in Florida, I know that Governor Crist will bring a fresh perspective to Washington in our efforts to fight for lower taxes, less government, and new job creation for all Americans. Charlie Crist is a tireless advocate on behalf of all Floridians and one of only three Governors who earned an ‘A’ from the CATO Institute for his efforts to restrain spending and cut taxes last year.
“While I believe Marco Rubio has a very bright future within the Republican Party, Charlie Crist is the best candidate in 2010 to ensure that we maintain the checks and balances that Floridians deserve in the United States Senate. Governor Crist is a dedicated public servant and a dynamic leader, and the National Republican Senatorial Committee will provide our full support to ensure that he is elected the next United States Senator from Florida.”
FLASHBACK: Just last week, Cornyn told the Politico he would stay out of the race, saying, "I don't think it's the proper role of the NRSC or folks in Washington to try to tell Floridians who their nominee should be, so I think that will have to work its way out."
What a Future Ex-Democrat Looks Like
Posted by on 5.12.09 @ 6:59AM
Back in November, I predicted: "The yawning gap between Hope and reality will produce a bumper crop of ex-Democrats." Yet the crop had already been sowed and, at The American Thinker, ex-Democrat "Robin" explains that her conversion began more than a year ago:
In February of 2008, I saw a new client, a bright and sensitive young woman who came in looking like she just escaped a war zone. In some ways she had; she had innocently shared with others at her job that she voted for Hillary rather than Obama. Immediately she was being targeted for abuse that put her in fear for not only her job, but her life.
We both suddenly became aware that something had grown really dark in the Democratic Party. I started hearing about many other incidents where loyal Democrats were being physically and emotionally threatened for supporting Hillary.
A projected federal deficit of $1.8 trillion, borrowing 46 cents for every dollar they spend. The Secretary of Heath and Human Services announces she'll save $2 trillion in health care costs, but the numbers don't add up. It's mere "political theater," as Megan McArdle says. The "Underpants Gnome" approach. There are only two things standing in the way of health care reform, says Cato's Michael F. Cannon: Math and politics. Obama and the Democrats may have the political power, but they can't overcome the math problem.
Three words: It Won't Work. (And the fundamentals still suck.) The American people are not stupid, not even most Democrats, and that "yawning gap between Hope and reality" grows wider every day.
Once you begin to doubt, once you begin to question whether the Party you have loyally supported is genuinely committed to its oft-declared aims of "social justice" -- and whether the Party's actual policies could ever bring about such a hypothetical condition -- you'll be an ex-Democrat in no time.
Killing Off American Comedy
Posted by on 5.12.09 @ 6:48AM
There are many maladies to ascribe to the Obama presidency. One of the most important is to kill off critical media thinking and, perhaps even more seriously, political comedy. I don't care of the comedienne at the White House Correspondent's Dinner makes fun of Rush Limbaugh. But I do care if she doesn't make fun of the president.
Explains my Cato Institute colleague Gene Healy:
A lot of folks are upset over comedienne Wanda Sykes's attack on Rush Limbaugh at Saturday's White House Correspondents' Dinner. She called Rush a "traitor," and said "I hope his kidneys fail." Limbaugh aside, though, there were deeper problems with Sykes's routine: it was the work of a courtier comic: embarrassingly sycophantic and unfunny.
Sykes began her routine by gushing to the president "you're so likable," and spent most of her time savaging Obama's critics. For her grand finale, she took on people who complained that the president didn't get a rescue dog: "Look, the man has to rescue a country that's been abused by its previous owner. Let him have a fresh start with a dog." Edgy stuff! Lenny Bruce would be proud.
A solitary flop at stand-up is no big deal, but Sykes isn't the only comic who has trouble making fun of Barack Obama. Jon Stewart's been a lot less amusing since his guy got elected.
Tearing into Jim Cramer makes for good TV, but Stewart's painful earnestness hardly provides the yuks. Comedian Jackie Mason--who summed up Bill Clinton with one razor-sharp line: "at least Nixon had the decency to twitch when he lied"--says that his fellow comics have fallen prey to "hero worship."
I pray this phase passes quickly. We've just passed the first 100 days and it's already boring.
The Murtha Name: A License to Pick the Taxpayer's Pocket
Posted by on 5.12.09 @ 4:13AM
It's nice when your uncle is a powerful member of Congress. Money just seems to magically flow into your bank account. Reports the Washington Post:
Robert C. Murtha Jr. has made a sizable living for years working with companies that rely on Pentagon contracts over which his uncle, Rep. John P. Murtha (D-Pa.), holds considerable sway.
He has maintained that his uncle played no role in his defense-related work, much of it secured without competition. Newly obtained documents, however, show Robert Murtha mentioning his influential family connection as leverage in his business dealings and holding unusual power with the military. The documents add to mounting questions about Rep. Murtha, whose use of federal earmarks to help favored defense companies and whose relationship with a former lobbying firm are under scrutiny by federal investigators.
The congressman has used his control over Pentagon funds to build a hub of defense-related industry in his congressional district and has also received generous campaign donations from the companies.
Robert Murtha, an engineer, benefited from some of the defense contracts when companies brought him in to manage a small portion of the work. Even when the main contract shifted to a new company, he continued to be paid as part of the team. Some former business associates and employees told The Washington Post that they thought the role played by Robert Murtha's companies was unnecessary.
The younger Murtha is shocked, shocked by people's suspicions. According to the Post: "Robert Murtha, 49, recently told The Post that it is "unfortunate" that some will assume his family ties led to government contracts."
Well, I'm sure it is just a coincidence. It could happen to anyone ... named Murtha.
Monday, May 11, 2009
Steele Steps in It, Romney Edition
Posted by on 5.11.09 @ 3:38PM
Michael Steele has stirred up controversy again, this time for delivering a critical analysis of Mitt Romney's presidential campaign. The background is that he was guest hosting Bill Bennett's radio show when a caller named "Jay" phoned in and suggested Romney would have defeated Barack Obama if liberals hadn't raided the Republican primary and made John McCain the nominee. Steele pushed back:
Yeah, but let me ask you. Ok, Jay, I'm there with you. But remember, it was the base that rejected Mitt because of his switch on pro-life, from pro-choice to pro-life. It was the base that rejected Mitt because it had issues with Mormonism. It was the base that rejected Mitch, Mitt, because they thought he was back and forth and waffling on those very economic issues you're talking about. So, I mean, I hear what you're saying, but before we even got to a primary vote, the base had made very clear they had issues with Mitt because if they didn't, he would have defeated John McCain in those primaries in which he lost.
Now, I was critical of Romney during the campaign, agree that he was ultimately rejected by the base, and don't think he would have stood a chance against Obama. But Jay Cost is absolutely correct when he writes that, "none of these comments should be coming from the Chairman of the Republican National Committee." In my view, it's particularly inappropriate for Steele to bring up Romney's Mormonism.
We saw this with the controversies over his abortion and Rush Limbaugh comments. Steele does't seem to comprehend that being the chairman of the RNC is not about him, it's about representing an organization. So now, instead of focusing his attention on fighting Obama and the Democrats, Steele will have to spend the next few days putting out another intra-party fire.
The Mystery of the $2 Trillion in Health Care Savings
Posted by on 5.11.09 @ 2:58PM
Kathy Sebelius, secretary of Health and Human Services, just held a conference call with reporters in which I hoped to learn more details about how the health care industry plans to save $2 trillion in projected health care costs over ten years.
In her opening remarks, Sebelius struck the same boastful tone that President Obama did in his appearance earlier.
"This is not just a photo op and a meeting today, but the beginning of a collaborative partnership that can transform the health care system," she said.
But when it came time for questions, she could offer little in the way of details about the so-called savings.
One reporter wanted to know what the pharmaceutical industry would do to contain the rising cost of prescription drugs.
"Well actually today was not an opportunity to talk to each of the groups in the room about their specific plans, but what I can tell you is that they were all urged to and made a commitment to put together a very specific list and to report back," Sebelius said. "We didn’t have time at this morning's meeting to go around and get the top three or four things they're each going to do."
And later in the call, another reporter asked what would specifically need to happen for families to save $2,500 on their health care costs, a claim being touted by the administration.
"Well the discussion today was if we were able to achieve the significant success that the stakeholders today felt was very achievable, we're talking about cutting 1.5 percent out of the rising cost of health care, about $2 trillion over the next decade," Sebelius explained. "So, that would achieve the kind of individualized savings of $2,500 per family."
That's like saying, if I had a million dollars I'd be a millionaire.
The Obama administration continues to demonstrate its mastery of what Daniel J. Boorstin once called the pseudo event.
Negotiating Our Surrender
Posted by on 5.11.09 @ 2:49PM
The health care industry is promising cost reductions. My Cato Institute colleague Michael Cannon warns us that the health care industry is not negotiating its surrender. Rather, it is negotiating our surrender--or at least the surrender of our money.
So it may be that the industry's overture is actually an effort to cook the books by ganging up on the CBO: "See, you silly number-crunchers? Even the industry believes these reforms will reduce spending."
What's in it for the industry? Universal coverage gives them a huge revenue boost in the short term - and then every lobbyist at today's White House media event will fight those spending reductions over the long term.
The industry isn't negotiating its surrender - they're negotiating the surrender of even more of our money.
First Lady Denied Bail
Posted by on 5.11.09 @ 1:24PM
The so-called first lady of the communist Khmer Rouge regime, that is. A word of advice to those who find themselves in a legal bind: telling members of the court they will be "cursed to the seventh circle of hell" will not inspire a sympathetic consideration of your bail request.
But consult your lawyer on that.
Shock: Tobacco is Dangerous!
Posted by on 5.11.09 @ 1:18PM
I'm sure most of you are unaware that using tobacco is dangerous. You've been closeted away for the past half century, with your ears stuffed and eyes covered. So Congress is moving forward on legislation allowing the Food and Drug Administration to regulate tobacco. Reports the Washington Post:
After 15 years of debate, tens of millions spent on lobbying and a roller-coaster legislative history, public health advocates say they believe Congress is finally ready to regulate tobacco -- and their opponents privately agree.
This week, a Senate committee will take up its version of a bill that passed the House by a comfortable margin last month. Supporters say they have more than the 60 votes needed to make the legislation filibuster-proof when it reaches the Senate floor sometime after Memorial Day.
The sponsors, Rep. Henry A. Waxman (D-Calif.) and Sen. Edward M. Kennedy (D-Mass.), with help from party leaders, have pushed the legislation onto a fast track. And President Obama, himself a smoker who has struggled to quit, has said he intends to sign the bill -- a reversal from President George W. Bush, who sought to kill it.
The legislation would give the Food and Drug Administration broad powers over the manufacturing and marketing of tobacco, a product used by 20 percent of Americans yet largely unregulated.
The very idea of tobacco regulation strikes some as nonsensical: Take a product that, if used as directed, will kill a third of those who use it and place it under the control of an agency charged with protecting public health. But advocates say FDA oversight is the best hope for reducing the 400,000 deaths each year from tobacco use.
I don't like tobacco. Even when lots more people smoked, I wouldn't let them smoke in my house. My grandfather was a heavy smoker, which we suspect contributed to the cancer which killed him. I wish my friends who smoke would quit.
But if liberty means anything, it is making choices and balancing risks. Lawmakers shouldn't act like national nannies, treating us like irresponsible children. They should let us make our own decisions about our own lives.
They aren't about to, however. Indeed, their determination to micro-manage our lives seems insatiable. Which is why these days I just laugh when I hear someone refer to America as "the land of the free." No longer.
Democrats' Healthy Habits
Posted by on 5.11.09 @ 1:17PM
Sen. Tom Harkin and Sen. Max Baucus want to give incentives for “healthy” behavior as part of the Democrats' “health care reform.” It depends on what the meaning of “healthy” is.
Democrats’ Healthy Habits
By Asher
Embry
Well, here comes Harkin’s “Nanny State!”
As Democrats deliberate,
And plot their brand new health care laws,
They’ll try to “fix” each person’s “flaws”;
Incentivize how we behave.
Just don’t refuse; the costs are grave.
They’ve made a list as is their wont,
Of things to do and those we oughtn’t.
There’re incentives if we stay smoke-free,
Eat right, avoid obesity.
They want our bodies strong and trim;
Make sure we daily use the gym.
But as we’re talking Democrat,
We know their list won’t stop at that.
They’ll legislate to have their say;
Make sure we live our lives their way.
Rewards, they surely will provide,
To those who take a same-sex bride.
They’ll give incentives if we use,
A Prius or pay union dues.
Watch Olbermann on our TV,
Mock protesters with bags of tea.
Read Newsweek and the New York
Times.
(Scratch out a living peddling rhymes?)
They’ll want us all to emulate,
The leader who they celebrate:
Accept all Venezuelans’ books,
Give Chrysler lenders dirty looks.
Hurl slurs about returning vets,
Add trillions more in yearly debts.
Negotiate with any mullah;
Bow in front of King Abdullah.
Put Grey Poupon on all your burgers;
Find U.S. homes for hostile Uighurs.
They’ll also make reward-invoking:
If no one photographs you smoking.
Know the cherished final goal that’s
Desired most by Democrats:
The best way to improve your health?
They’d say: Let Dems remove your wealth.
(You can read more of Asher Embry's Political Verse at www.politicalverse.com.)
Obama Offers No Specifics on Health Care Savings
Posted by on 5.11.09 @ 12:49PM
President Obama just made official the agreement with the health care industry that I posted about earlier, but he offered us no more detials on how money will actually be saved. All that we know is that a bunch of special interest groups are supposed to squeeze $2 trillion in savings out of the projected costs of the health care system over 10 years. But we can't actually say precisely what health care costs will be 10 years from now, and they aren't giving us any specifics. They say we'll save $2 trillion, but it may as well be $10 trillion because it's a completely made up figure.
As Cato's Michael Cannon put it:
I smell a rat. Lobbyists never advocate less revenue for their members. Ever. If they did, they would be fired and replaced with new lobbyists.
With that said, it's important not to lose sight of the political value of what just took place at the White House, as Obama called for an "aggressive" push for health care reform this year, flanked by leaders of groups representing the insurance industry, doctors, hospitals, pharmaceutical companies, and unions.
"Reform is not a luxury that can be postponed, but a necessity that cannot wait," Obama said.
Noting the presence of AHIP, the largest health insurance industry group, Obama said, "It is a recognition that the fictional television couple, Harry and Louise, who became the iconic faces of those who opposed health care reform in the '90s, desperately need health care reform in 2009. And so does America."
The big test will be how long this alliance will hold up, especially when it comes to the creation of a government-run option, which the Obama administration supports and insurers oppose vigorously.
The Edwards Doomsday Scenario
Posted by on 5.11.09 @ 12:25PM
George Stephanopoulos says he has spoken to former staffers of John Edwards who claimed they hatched "doomsday" strategy to end his campaign if it looked like he was actually going to win the Democratic nomination, since his affair might have jeopardized the Democrats' general election chances. I have no idea if this is true or just self-serving, after-the-fact nonsense but it does raise a question: What kind of people work on a campaign they think would be a disaster for their party and country if it were successful?
This entire Edwards spectacle has been revolting. First, Edwards decides to run for president while behaving in such a manner, as if the country was in such dire need of his services. His wife, suffering from cancer that is incurable and likely terminal, plays a starring role in that campaign. Then Edwards is disgraced and Elizabeth Edwards is extending her 15 minutes of fame by continuing to keep this personal tragedy in the public spotlight. Now we hear about Edwards staffers who were preparing a kamikaze mission in the event that their sales job in Iowa succeeded in reviving the flagging presidential campaign for which they worked.
Is there anyone with any decency in this political circle? The level of self-absorption on display here -- and remember, the Edwardses have children -- is almost unbelievable, even by Washington standards.
Carter Country
Posted by on 5.11.09 @ 11:47AM
What fun would it be to dash back in time and relive Jimmy Carter's energy policies without a visit from the maestro himself? E&E Daily reports that the former president will advise Congress in a Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing tomorrow on the Great Leap Backward.
First Congress trot out Al Gore again, then Carter...can John DeLorean be far behind in this "Back to the Future" witness queue of success stories? Hmm, his DMC-12 didn't advance beyond prototype until the 1981 model year, stepping on the joke, so instead, surely state-owned Chrysler will revive the Gremlin and Pacer while we're rehashing the Seventies.
Writes the trade publication:
"Facing an Arab oil embargo 30 years ago, Carter encouraged Americans to turn down the thermostat and embrace conservation measures."
Funny, our new president says:
"We can't drive our SUVs and eat as much as we want and keep our homes on 72 degrees at all times ... and then just expect that other countries are going to say OK," Obama said. "That's not leadership. That's not going to happen," melding Carter's energy policies with another of his notions, leadership-means-what-others-approve of.
E&E continues:
Carter will likely tell lawmakers tomorrow that returning to his conservation efforts and energy policies would enhance national security, a tenet that has been championed by organizations like the Energy Security Leadership Council....
In the years since his presidency, Carter has remained in touch with the nation's energy situation. He has planted paulownia trees near his house in Georgia. Paulownia trees are among the fastest growing in the world and can be converted to ethanol.
And tomorrow he is likely to urge lawmakers to act quickly in changing the way the nation gets its energy, echoing statements he made in the 1977 speech: "If we fail to act soon, we will face an economic, social and political crisis that will threaten our free institutions. But we still have another choice. We can begin to prepare right now. We can decide to act while there is time."
Looks like we failed to learn from history. Heck, even Carter's National Security Advisor Zbigniew Brzezinski is now an unpaid advisor to President Obama. You remember, Z-Big, oh he of counseling Carter that Islamic terrorism was a flash in the pan and nothing to get all in a lather about.
What's next, trouble with Iran?
Thanks for Clearing That Up
Posted by on 5.11.09 @ 11:31AM
John McCain advises Republicans to be "inclusive" without betraying "fundamental principles." Of course, exactly how to do that is precisely what is at issue. He then allows, "Maybe I didn't do a good enough job communicating with the American people."
Maybe not. I'm willing to bet that a Republican candidate who supported abortion and same-sex marriage but was as inept economically as the party's 2008 standardbearer would have done at least as badly -- probably worse. Even if the candidate was as hip as, say, Meghan McCain.
Manchester Mayor Frank Guinta Announces Run for Congress
Posted by on 5.11.09 @ 11:09AM
Frank Guinta, the Republican mayor of Manchester, just announced on a conference call that he would seek Democrat Carol Shea-Porter's 1st Congressional seat in New Hampshire. This is likely to be the best chance the GOP has for retaking the seat once held by Jeb Bradley.
As Real Clear Politics noted last week:
What makes Guinta's candidacy so enticing is his home field advantage in the Queen City. Though Manchester is a majority Democratic city, he won a second term in 2007 by nearly eight points, and raised record funds in the process. Manchester also played a key role in Shea-Porter's last win. She carried every ward last year and took the city by 5,000 votes -- accounting for 40% of her reelection margin in the 1st Congressional district. No wonder Republicans hope Guinta's special appeal for the city's voters could be the X-factor in next year's House race.
A Guinta campaign adviser said that the greater Manchester area accounts for 37% of the vote in the House district and Guinta's popularity and standing in the city will "be a huge advantage."
Taking the King's Shilling
Posted by on 5.11.09 @ 10:50AM
Once a soldier accepted the King's shilling, it was said, he was bound to serve the crown. Uncle Sam is no different. You want Washington's stimulus money? Well, forget cutting the pay of the Obama administration's labor union allies.
Reports the Los Angeles Times:
Officials in the governor's office say a politically powerful union may have had inappropriate influence over the Obama administration's decision to withhold billions of dollars in federal stimulus money from California if the state does not reverse a scheduled wage cut for the labor group's workers.
The officials say they are particularly troubled that the Service Employees International Union, which lobbied the federal government to step in, was included in a conference call in which state and federal officials reviewed the wage cut and the terms of the stimulus package.
California Secretary of Health and Human Services Kim Belshe said she could not recall another instance in which the federal government invited a significant stakeholder group into such government-to-government negotiations.
"The involvement of a stakeholder in this kind of state-federal deliberative process is unusual at best," she said. "This was really atypical and outside any norm I am familiar with."
In addition to several state and federal officials, participants in the April 15 conference call included an SEIU associate general counsel in Washington, a lobbyist for SEIU in California and a representative from SEIU's policy staff in California, according to a list provided by the Schwarzenegger administration.
With the massive explosion of federal spending, and dramatic expansion of welfare clients dependent on Washington's largesse, political interference in economic decision-making will only climb. Hang onto your wallets: who knows where we are going to end up!
White House Boosts 2009 Deficit Forecast $89 Billion
Posted by on 5.11.09 @ 10:21AM
This is something you should start getting used to -- the Obama administration revising deficit projections upward. Today, the White House said that the federal government's 2009 deficit would reach $1.84 trillion, or $89 billion higher than initially expected.
There are a few ways to put the new numbers in perspective. The $1.84 trillion now brings the administration's deficit projection roughly in line with the CBO estimate that the White House previously claimed had too grim a view of the economy. Also, the $89 billion upward revision represents a sum more than five times the value of the budget cuts President Obama promoted last Thursday as part of his new era of fiscal responsibility. Last week, he said of the $17 billion in cuts that, "even by Washington standards, that should be considered real money."
Daily Must-Reads
Posted by on 5.11.09 @ 10:09AM
- The Yankees are crying because the taxpayers who paid for the stadium don't want to pay an arm and a leg to go to it (Wall Street Journal)
- Wolfram Alpha edges closer to challenging Google (Wired)
- Coffee isn't terrible for you, which is good since you don't have a choice whether to drink it or not (Boston Globe)
- A little budget pessimism, just in case you weren't resigned already (NewMajority)
- Live free or die... or change your state motto (Cafe Hayek)
- Uh-oh, social conservatives: Gary Becker thinks you are a deadweight (Becker-Posner Blog)
Health Care "Game Changer"?
Posted by on 5.11.09 @ 9:25AM
The White House is expected today to announce a major agreement in which the major players in the health care industry pledge to reduce the expected rate of growth of health care by $2 trillion over the next 10 years.
Policywise, there are reasons the be skeptical, as the Washington Post reports:
Despite such heady predictions, many aspects of the plan remain unclear. The groups did not spell out yesterday how they plan to reach such a target, and in a letter to Obama they offer only a broad pledge, not an outright commitment.
In addition, White House officials said, there is no mechanism to ensure that the groups live up to their offer, only the implicit threat of public embarrassment. And it would be difficult to track whether they come up with the promised savings, other than the imprecise measure of comparing current projections of health-care cost increases with future actual costs.
Furthermore, it's important to draw a distinction between a reduction in the rate of growth in overall health care costs and the reduction in the rate of growth of government spending on health care. If legislation, as expected, dramatically expands the role of government, then government spending will rise even if projected costs decline for the sector as a whole.
With that said, politically this is a major development, one which may very well be the "game changer" the White House is touting it as. I wrote a few months ago that while conservatives had a lot of allies in the private sector in 1993 and 1994, that they'd be alone like Gary Cooper in High Noon this time around, and it's now coming to pass.
Most Americans who pay attention to the news today won't care about all the details. All they'll see is the major industry groups (American Medical Association, the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America, the American Hospital Association, and America's Health Insurance Plans) and the Service Employees International Union coming together under the leadership of President Obama. Remember, in 1993/94, it was the predecessor group of America's Health Insurance Plans (AHIP) that took out the famous "Harry and Louise" ads opposing HillaryCare.
The theatrics of this alone will create a lot of momentum for health care reform and put pressure on Congress to get something done this year. Conservatives, and those who advocate a free market or consumer-driven approach to health care, will be further marginalized as obstructionists. Say what you want about Obama, but he continues to find creative ways to out-maneuver his opposition.
Eternal Adolescence
Posted by on 5.11.09 @ 7:32AM
"Each day, as I take various pills, I realize that without those pills I might not be alive - and, if I were, life would not be worth living. Yet those who produce these medications are under constant attack from people who produce nothing." --Thomas Sowell
Obamacentric News
Posted by on 5.11.09 @ 7:25AM
If a natural disaster -- a flood, an earthquake, a cyclone -- struck some far-off corner of the globe, the immediate reaction of the elite press would be to ask, "What does this mean for Obama?" Everything that happens in the world is now viewed through the Obama prism. Case in point, a headline in the New York Times:
The Jobless Rate, Slow to Improve, Tests Obama
On the economy, President Obama has a timing problem. Congressional Democrats may have a bigger one.
Nearly four months into his presidency, Mr. Obama has begun to describe a pivot from economic crisis to economic recovery. From stabilized consumer spending to higher construction spending, he said last week, "the gears of our economic engine" are "slowly turning once again."
The problem is that those gears are unlikely to churn out many new jobs anytime soon. . . .
So economic hardship is not of interest in its own right, but only insofar as it affects the political prospects of the Democratic Party. So if you're out of work, the only question the New York Times cares about is, "Cui bono?"
As to the prospects for recovery under current policy, I can only repeat what I've been repeating for months: It Won't Work. But who cares about the 539,000 people who lost their jobs in April? What matters to elite journalists is that Obama's approval rating is at 60% and which celebrities attended the White House Correspondents dinner.
Chavez and CITGO Plunder Venezuela's Oil Service Sector
Posted by on 5.11.09 @ 12:47AM
Venezuela's socialist strongman Hugo Chavez ordered the expropriation of some 60 oil service companies and assisted government-owned oil company PDVSA (parent of CITGO) in looting those firms unfortunate enough to have invested in the workers' paradise.
"To God what is God's, and to Caesar what is Caesar's," said the Venezuelan president as he stole at least a dozen oil rigs, more than 30 oil terminals, and more than 300 boats. "Today we also say: to the people what is the people's," said Chavez, who is a hero to his American friends and admirers including actors Sean Penn, Danny Glover, Kevin Spacey, Ed Asner, singer Harry Belafonte, and supermodel Naomi Campbell.
Ana Maria Ortiz and I profiled the pro-terrorist Chavez and his American buddies in Organization Trends last year.
Sunday, May 10, 2009
Arbeit Macht Frei
Posted by on 5.10.09 @ 4:59PM
Entrance to the Auschwitz concentration camp
* * * * *
Whoever arranged the security for the Embassy of the Federal Republic of Germany during yesterday's "Shortcut to Europe" walking tour of European Union embassies in the nation's capital, didn't seem to be a history buff.
If only for public relations reasons, the guards on security detail at the black iron gates of the embassy compound should have refrained from separating the men from the women. As the guard demanded everyone line up according to sex, a chill ran down my spine.
Not funny, Germany. Your embassy needs a PR advisor -- badly!
- Obama's Vision Through History
- The Right of Conscience in the Age of Obama
- Breaking Fast With Bill Safire