- 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, September 12, 2009
Buchanan Churchill Debate to Air on C-SPAN Sunday at 9 P.M. Eastern
Posted by on 9.12.09 @ 1:57PM
To follow up on R. Emmett Tyrrell's Thursday column, "Is Pat Buchanan a Crank?" word comes that Sunday night at 9 (and midnight) Eastern time, C-Span will air the Churchill debate that took place Septmber 3 at the Methodist Central Hall, Westminster -- "This House believes Churchill to have been more of a liability to the Free World than an asset" -- pitting Pat Buchanan, Norman Stone and Nigel Knight against Anthony Beevor, Richard Overy, and Andrew Roberts. We're told some 1,800 people attended, things got quite heated, and it should make for great TV.
450,000 and Counting
Posted by on 9.12.09 @ 12:22PM
Stacy McCain has called in to report that according to Barbara Espinosa, who'll be blogging from the event at Vodkapundit, attendance at today's Washington, D.C. freedom takeover has been "metered" at 450,000.
Health Care Nationalization Still Behind
Posted by on 9.12.09 @ 10:42AM
The president has rallied his base behind his health care plan, but a plurality of Americans remains against his proposal to nationalize the medical system. Explains Rasmussen Reports:
Americans are now closely divided over the proposed health care reform plan following President Obama's speech to Congress Wednesday night, although a plurality of voters are still opposed. All of the gains have come from Democrats, but the president has rallied his base and generated a significant increase in enthusiasm among supporters of the plan.
New Rasmussen Reports national polling - conducted over the two nights following the speech - shows that 47% of Americans now favor the plan proposed by the president and congressional Democrats. That's up from 43% at the end of August and from 44% earlier this week.
Forty-nine percent (49%) of voter remain opposed to the plan, but it marks the first time opposition has fallen below 50% in weeks.
It will be interesting to see if his new-found support remains solid, or peels off, returning opinions to roughly where they were before his speech. In any case, the president has failed to move the majority of Americans into his camp--and for good reason, given the many dangers of increasing federal control over health care.
Re: Census Bureau Severs Ties with ACORN
Posted by on 9.12.09 @ 10:30AM
Here's the Saturday morning round-up on the Census Bureau story for the formerly mainstream media, checking out their home Web pages:
Washington Post, New York Times, USA Today, CBS News, CNN Sucks -- story isn't there. WashPost did run a piece about the Big Government expose' in DC.
MSNBC, to its credit, posted a link to an AP version of the story near the top of their homepage. Some of the others above have the AP story too, but they don't headline it on their homepages. This is significant because all the major news organizations have an auto-feed of wire service stories to their sites -- MSNBC just took the trouble to link it from their homepage.
Fox News of course has followed the story all along, and the Washington Times ran the AP version.
And kudos to ABC News (top of their homepage) and reporter Jake Tapper. Unlike the other lazy and indifferent bureaus listed above, Tapper stayed on the story doing original reporting, crediting Fox News and Big Government for their scoops, embedded one of James O'Keefe's YouTube videos in his story, and got a response that no one else did:
Census Bureau spokesman Stephen Buckner said officials in the bureau, which is part of the Department of Commerce, had been concerned with news reports about ACORN for awhile and “had been monitoring them.”
Buckner said recent videotapes posted on BigGovernment.com and broadcast on Fox News -- showing a young man and young woman pretending to be a pimp and prostitute, declaring themselves such and apparently able to secure the help of ACORN employees in Washington D.C. , and Baltimore, in obtaining housing – was “the tipping point.”
It was “cumulative,” Buckner said, “but certainly the recent activity didn’t help.”
So clearly O'Keefe and Hannah Giles (who portrayed the prostitute in the video) are to be highly praised for exposing the extreme depths of criminality that ACORN accepts and spurring action by an extremely important government agency. That most of the traditional news organizations are ignoring the fact that this group, vital to the election of President Obama, was exposed as a child sex trafficking facilitator and then cut loose by the Census illustrates how morally bankrupt many in the formerly mainstream media are.
Finally, to follow up on my post yesterday about this, I addressed the allegation that ACORN made about O'Keefe and Giles (or some others attempting to "smear" the group) testing offices in Philadelphia, Los Angeles and New York. O'Keefe yesterday denied that he had any part in other efforts:
So far CNN has only reported on the breaking story on blatant ACORN CORRUPTION from angles that attempt to extricate the government funded “community organizing” enterprise from the extreme crime we caught on videotape.
First CNN pushed the false ACORN line that “[t]his film crew tried to pull this sham at other offices and failed.”
To set that record straight please check the Washington D.C. tape we dropped today at BigGovernment.com, which is also being aired on your cable news competitor with curiously higher ratings.
Now that ACORN lied to you, Jonathan Klein (CNN's president), what are you going to do?
Also yesterday, ACORN housing president Alton Bennett and executive director Mike Shea released a statement, which said in part:
“This video tape is slanted to misinform the public about ACORN Housing. The people who made this tape went to at least five other ACORN Housing offices where they were turned away or where ACORN Housing employees responded by calling the police. That is not mentioned on the tape – it is part of a long-term plan to smear ACORN Housing for political reasons and provide entertainment in the process.
Considering my instincts to trust more what I see with my eyes rather than what child trafficking voter fraud perpetrators tell me, I request that ACORN provide copies of police reports and eyewitnesses. If you've got it on video, even better.
Friday, September 11, 2009
Census Bureau Severs Ties With ACORN
Posted by on 9.11.09 @ 8:00PM
The video activism of James O'Keefe and Hannah Giles has borne fruit:
The Census Director has sent a letter to the National Headquarters of ACORN notifying the group that the Census Bureau is severing all ties with the community organizing group for all work having to do with the 2010 census. ACORN had previously been tapped to help with low level data gathering. A copy of the Director's letter has been sent to Congress and relevant committees, as well as ACORN.
This latest news comes as two more ACORN officials were fired Friday after a second video surfaced showing staffers in the community organizers' Washington office offering to help a man and woman posing as a pimp and prostitute acquire illegal home loans that would help them set up a brothel. . . .
More at the link. I just got off the phone with Christian youth leader Doug Giles, whose 20-year-old daughter played the role of the prostitute "Kenya" in the now-famous videos.
"A lot of young activists just caught fire," said Giles. "I'd like to take credit, but it was all Hannah."
Giles said he has received an overwhelming response, entirely positive except for one negative e-mail from a "knucklehead."
As for the "community organizer" group exposed by the video at Andrew Breitbart's BigGovernment.com, Giles said jokingly, "Those ACORN people are sweating in their nut-sacks."
Remembering 9/11
Posted by on 9.11.09 @ 4:26PM
I was remiss in not writing a 9/11 remembrance this year, so I offer, as an admittedly weak alternative, my columns from this site for each of the past two years. From last year, I say that President Bush deserves some thanks. I wrote that as somebody who was sharply criticizing him on other matters while most conservatives were still singing his praises. From two years ago, I say that the "American mind" must recapture its original understanding that we are a nation united by more than divides us, especially the accurate conviction that "We are not aggressors, but defenders of freedom and justice." God bless America. Actually, God HAS blessed America. May He continue to do so, and may those who have chosen to be our enemies reconsider their hatred and abandon their evil. May they come to understand that our blessings are not a curse on anybody else, but an inspiration. And may our own leaders likewise appreciate that we have nothing for which to apologize, but much for which to be both proud and profoundly grateful.
Bad Time to be a Liberal
Posted by on 9.11.09 @ 3:08PM
It's tough being a liberal these days. Your buddies control the White House and Congress. But the people don't like your name and you have to hide behind the alternative "progressive." Even worse, the most positive political label out there is Ronald Reagan.
According to Rasmussen Reports:
"Progressive" is becoming more of a dirty word, but all political labels - except "being like Ronald Reagan" - are falling into disfavor with many U.S. voters, according to a new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey.
"Liberal" is still the worst and remains the only political description that is viewed more negatively than positively. Being like Reagan is still the most positive thing you can say about a candidate.
The pain. The agony. What's a good liberal to do?!
Next City for ACE
Posted by on 9.11.09 @ 2:14PM
On Tuesday I reported about the Alliance for Climate Education's indoctrination efforts of high school students in five metro areas: San Francisco, Los Angeles, Chicago, Houston and Boston. This week ACE is advertising to hire "educators" in their next target city, which is Washington:
ACE is seeking a dynamic, energetic individual to give presentations on climate change to high school students in Washington, D.C. The Senior Educator will eventually be responsible for managing day-to-day operations, fostering relationships with schools and local ENGOs in D.C., and identifying opportunities for and delivering lively, multimedia presentations to students in an assembly format. The educator is responsible for setting up school appointments, traveling to area schools, conducting presentations to a group of 200+ students and faculty, following-up with students and faculty after presentations, refining/revising program content and working in close collaboration with other staff in realizing ACE’s goals and priorities. The D.C. Senior Educator will also help develop the overall organizational strategy for supporting the collective youth voice and determining how it can be a more relevant part of the overall climate movement.
Just what the public schools exist for: letting advocacy groups in to take kids out of their classes to get recruited for a "movement."
O'Keefe's ACORN Expose' Moves to DC
Posted by on 9.11.09 @ 12:36PM
Glenn Beck is extremely angry (so am I) over the formerly mainstream media's complicity in ACORN's widespread lawlessness. After yesterday's revelations of the group's willingness to facilitate prostitution, child trafficking, tax evasion, etc., etc. in Baltimore, the lackeys for the community organizer-in-chief made the story about Fox News and conservatives in an uproar. Starting with the Baltimore Sun:
ACORN, which provides services to the needy, emerged as a target of Republicans during the 2008 presidential campaign, when it was accused of submitting fraudulent voter registration cards in several states. Although officially nonpartisan, the organization tends to serve poor and minority communities that traditionally vote Democratic.
Posted online Thursday, the video made waves, particularly in conservative circles. Although it first appeared on a Web site called Big Hollywood (actually Big Government), (ACORN-Maryland lead organizer Stuart) Katzenberg said it was part of a "coordinated" campaign by FOX News to damage ACORN. He could not offer evidence to support his claim, and a spokeswoman for FOX News said the allegations were without merit.
CNN Sucks casts doubt about the veracity of the Big Government videos and that not every ACORN chapter supports prostitution and trafficking:
The video footage -- which has been edited and goes to black in some areas -- was recorded and posted online Thursday by James O'Keefe, a conservative activist. He was joined on the video by another conservative, Hannah Giles, who posed as the prostitute in the filmmakers' undercover sting....
Scott Levenson, a spokesman at ACORN's national offices said, "The portrayal is false and defamatory and an attempt at 'gotcha journalism.'
"This film crew tried to pull this sham at other offices and failed. ACORN wants to see the full video before commenting further," Levenson said.
The conservative filmmakers unsuccessfully attempted similar ruses at the group's offices in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, Los Angeles, California, and New York, Levenson said.
Since when do news organizations that follow AP style fully spell out state names after major cities? Looks to me like they want O'Keefe's and Giles's efforts to look like they failed in five places, not three -- if indeed that's what happened. The Stylebook calls for Philly and L.A. to be identified alone -- after all, everyone (except for those in Jay Leno's "Jaywalkers" segments) knows what states they are in.
As for the New York Times and Washington Post, they both failed to devote any reporting resources to the story and instead ran limited AP versions. All outlets (as far as I can tell) other than Fox News and conservative talk radio largely ignored the story for a full day (a lifetime in Webville) and when they did cover it, they made the story as much about O'Keefe and Giles as it was about ACORN. It all gives the impression of the left-media being dragged into yet another story it didn't want to cover.
And today, here we go again. O'Keefe and Giles traveled down to DC and found more ACORN trafficking and prostitution enablers. Sick.
And for you in the formerly mainstream media, that's Baltimore, Maryland, and Washington, District of Columbia. We'll check out what you have to say in the a.m.
Anti-Abortion Activist Killed in Michigan
Posted by on 9.11.09 @ 11:58AM
More here. Brace yourself for the firestorm of media outrage over incitement by left-wing commentators.
Daily Must-Reads
Posted by on 9.11.09 @ 11:46AM
- British government fudges numbers to conceal that "Mohammed" is a more popular name than "Thomas" (mail.uk)
- David Shuster: Republicans "all white males with short haircuts" (NewsBusters)
- South African politicians called skeptics of track star's gender "racist and sexist" but sources allege that South African champion runner Caster Semenya has no womb or ovaries (SkyNews)
- Transferring money to the coasts, the federal government has dumped $1 billion in sand over ten years for beach-goers (Fox News)
ConUNdrum
Posted by on 9.11.09 @ 11:30AM
The Heritage Foundation pulled together a handful of authors, including me, John Bolton, David Rivkin, and Kim Holmes and others, for a book "ConUNdrum: The Limits of the United Nations and the Search for Alternatives". My chapter addresses the problems of multilateral environmental agreements, emphasizing but not limited to Kyoto and its process.
The book, just in time for the Obama administration's push for ratification of the Law of the Sea Treaty and acceptance of Kyoto II, was just published by Rowman & Littlefield.
There is a press round table on the book at the National Press Club on September 15th from noon to 1:30. Here was the Heritage roll-out event video.
Rasmussen Finds Little Movement After Obama's Speech
Posted by on 9.11.09 @ 11:22AM
A Rasmussen poll released this morning found that Obama received a negligible bump from his speech on Wednesday, with support for Democratic health care legislation now at 46 percent, up from 44 percent before the speech. A majority of 51 percent are still opposed, according to the poll. Perhaps most interestingly, all of the bump came from an increase in support among Democrats. We'll have to see how this plays out in other polls, but my guess is that before the speech some liberals had turned against the effort fearing that Obama was going to formally ditch the idea of including a government-run plan, but by reiterating support for it, he probably solidified support from his left flank. Of course, if he ultimately drops the governemnt plan, as everybody expects, then support from liberals could evaporate.
Obama Last and First
Posted by on 9.11.09 @ 11:20AM
A Reaganite friend, who shall remain nameless but is amused to be
targeted for something of this nature, forwards this newest
e-mail. Yes, it's real, name changed to protect the innocent.
From: President Barack Obama <info@barackobama.com>
Date: September 9, 2009 10:26:36 PM EDT
To: XXXX
Subject: Not the first, but the last
Reply-To: info@barackobama.comXXXXX --
I just finished laying out my plan for health reform at a joint session of Congress. Now, I'm writing directly to you because what happens next is critical -- and I need your help.
Change this big will not happen because I ask for it. It can only come when the nation demands it. Congress knows where I stand. Now they need to hear from you.
Add your voice: Ask your representatives to support my plan for real health reform in 2009.
The heart of my plan is simple: bring stability and security to Americans who already have health insurance, guarantee affordable coverage for those who don't, and rein in the cost of health care.
Tonight, I offered a specific plan for how to make it happen. I incorporated the best ideas from Democrats and Republicans to create a plan that's bold, practical, and represents the broad consensus of the American people.
We've come closer to real health reform in the last few months than we have in the last 60 years. But those who profit from the status quo -- and those who put partisan advantage above all else -- will fight us every inch of the way.
We do not seek that fight, but we will not shrink from it. The stakes are too high to let scare tactics cloud the debate, or to allow partisan bickering to block the path. Your voice, right now, is essential.
See my full plan and call on your representatives to support it:
http://my.barackobama.com/SupportReform
Ours is not the first generation to understand the dire need for health reform. And I am not the first president to take up this cause, but I am determined to be the last.
Thank you,
President Barack Obama
Musings From the 9/11 Generation
Posted by on 9.11.09 @ 9:29AM
Some thoughts from Peggy Noonan on the "9/11" generation -- today's college students and young adults who were in their pre-teen years when America's invincibility ended.
I was in my mid-teens at the time, so I can relate to much of the material Noonan catalogs. Even back then, I was an avid follower of politics and world events ... probably one of the few kids to watch the nightly news and read Drudge. But 9/11 heightened my interest in world affairs like no other event could.
For some in my generation, it was, in many ways, a tragedy that broke our selfish shells and prompted more concern for the world beyond our own shallow lives. For the first time, we realized there was more to life than popularity and prestige, cars and cash, music and MTV. We were reminded of the frailty of human life and our own mortality. We took God and eternity seriously. If only for a time.
Time -- eight years now -- has washed much of that away, but some of us still remember the lessons learned.
"So teach us to number our days that we may get a heart of wisdom." -- Psalm 90:12, ESV.
What Has Amtrak's Interim IG Been Up To?
Posted by on 9.11.09 @ 6:55AM
Remember Fred Wiederhold, the Amtrak inspector general who retired abruptly in June? He was replaced by "interim" IG Lorraine Green, the head of human resources who has spent 12 years in management of the taxpayer-subsidized rail service -- and will return to management when her IG stint concludes.
"What kind of independence is that?" one Capitol Hill source said of Green's anomalous position as temporary head of the IG office.
In her "interim" role, Green has reportedly hired three consultants to prepare a report about the Amtrak IG's office. According to someone familiar with the contract, each of the consultants is paid $140 per hour, and limited to a maximum of $75,000 each for three months of work, due to conclude at the end of this month.
Michelle Malkin reports in her latest syndicated column that Amtrak has effectively neutered its "Office of Security Strategy and Special Operations" -- a special passenger-rail ant-terrorism security task force:
According to multiple government sources who declined to be identified for fear of retribution, OSSSO's East Coast and West Coast teams have not worked in a counterterrorism capacity since the summer. Their long arms were put under lock and key after the abrupt departures of Amtrak Vice President for Security Strategy and Special Operations Bill Rooney and Amtrak Inspector General Fred Weiderhold.
Read the whole thing. The "fear of retribution" part is what's disturbing. My own sources tell me that career staffers in the Amtrak IG office are very afraid of Green.
Sen. Charles Grassley (R-Iowa) has tasked his staff to investigate the apparent pattern of pressure against inspectors generals, at Amtrak, Americorps, the International Trade Commission and "SIGTARP" Neil Barofsky, whose job is to watchdog the TARP bailout funds. Grassley's staff now have reportedly finished the main part of their investigation and are expected to prepare a report to be delivered later this fall.
PREVIOUSLY:
- Aug. 7: Senators Seek Answer From ITC About IG
- July 28: IG-Gate Update: 'No Doubt' Political Pressure Led to His Firing,Walpin Says
- July 26: SIGTARP Neil Barofsky vs. Geithner's 'Black Hole' Bailout
- July 24: IG-Gate: Why the Matsui Question Matters
- July 23: IG-Gate Update: Did Dem Congresswoman Intervene With Obama in Walpin Case?
- July 22: SIGTARP Barofsky Shows Why Watchdogs Are Important
- July 21: IG-Gate: Democratic Staffers 'Useless' in Investigations, SayRepublicans
- July 20: IG-Gate: Connecting the SIGTARP Dots
- July 20: Behind Closed Doors
- July 17: Amtrak IG: Important Background
- July 14: IG-Gate: Sincere Doubts
- July 14: The Little Scandal That Could
- July 9: Democrats Question AmeriCorps Official's Stonewall on IG Case
- July 1: Malkin on IG-Gate: Does the Endangered Species Act Include Watchdogs?
- June 26: Grassley: Amtrak 'Systematically Violated' IG Law
- June 25: Eleanor Acheson: Lobbyist
- June 25: Obama Plays Hardball With Watchdogs
- June 23: Amtrak IG Probe: Who Is Eleanor Acheson?
- June 19: IG-Gate: Domino Theory
- June 18: AmeriCorps Scandal Won't Go Away Soon
Could ACORN Video Maker Be Prosecuted Under Maryland Law?
Posted by on 9.11.09 @ 4:38AM
James O'Keefe's blockbuster investigative video exposing ACORN's willingness to accommodate prostitution, illegal immigration and tax fraud has already gotten two Baltimore ACORN employees fired.
However, Baltimore blogger Jeff Quinton points out, O'Keefe may be vulnerable to prosecution under a Maryland law forbidding surreptitious recording. He quotes a First Amendment site:
Under Maryland's Wiretapping and Electronic Surveillance Act, it is unlawful to tape record a conversation without the permission of all the parties. See Bodoy v. North Arundel Hosp., 945 F.Supp. 890 (D. Md. 1996). Additionally, recording with criminal or tortuous purpose is illegal, regardless of consent. Md. Code Ann., Cts. & Jud. Proc. § 10-402.
Disclosing the contents of intercepted communications with reason to know they were obtained unlawfully is a crime as well.
Maryland is a heavily Democratic state and Maryland resident Linda Tripp was prosecuted under this law for recording her conversations with Monica Lewinsky. If you don't think they'd do it to O'Keefe, you don't know much about Maryland Democrats.
What was demonstrated by O'Keefe's project? He explains:
Hannah Giles and I took advantage of ACORN's regard for thug criminality by posing the most ridiculous criminal scenario we could think of and seeing if they would comply -- which they did without hesitation.
The most ridiculous part of the scenario? That 20-year-old Hannah Giles -- daughter of nationally known Christian youth leader Doug Giles -- was a skanky prostitute named "Kenya." Hannah is a very respectable young lady, whom I mentioned in an AmSpecBlog post in July. So you have to shake your head at the credulity of the ACORN employees who were so stunningly eager to help "Kenya" and her pimp get a mortgage for a brothel. Hot Air's Ed Morrissey writes:
Neither of the two [ACORN workers] bat an eyelash at human trafficking while advising them to evade taxes and prosecution for their crimes.
Why? It may have something to do with the "By Any Means Necessary" radicalism of ACORN. If these "community organizers" believe that the status quo constitutes systemic social injustice, isn't indifference to the law ingrained in their ideology? Can tax fraud be a sort of civil disobedience? It may also be that the 11 ACORN workers charged in Florida on charges of fraudulent voter registrations believed that election laws were unjust, and thus could be ignored righteously.
What O'Keefe calls "thug criminality," ACORN calls "social justice" and, in the Age of Obama, guess which definition applies? But if Democrats push for prosecution of O'Keefe, demanding rigorous application of the Maryland law against secret recordings, this would not be surprising.
You can't accuse liberals of not having standards. In fact, they have two standards -- one for them, and one for everybody else.
Thursday, September 10, 2009
Disgusting? Hysterical? Typical? You decide.
Posted by on 9.10.09 @ 4:32PM
On the heels of that reprehensibly tone deaf yet illustrative WWF ad, we see this headline in the Washington Independent:
Kerry Marks Eve of 9/11 Anniversary With Push for Climate Legislation
Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.) kicked off the new campaign on Thursday to create a national security push to pass climate change legislation. Climate change, Kerry argued, will likely trigger some of the most critical threats to national security in the future, and should be addressed with aggressive action this year.
His speech was the keynote address at a conference that the American Security Project, a bipartisan national security think tank, hosted at The George Washington University. The event was titled, not so subtly, "The Day Before," and marks the eve of the eighth anniversary of the 9/11 attacks. Kerry, chair of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, is working with Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) to coauthor a Senate climate bill this year.
"Eight years ago today, on September 10th, 2001, America experienced one last moment of complacency before plunging into crisis," said Kerry. "That day, the world was already being transformed, but too few knew or understood the new era we were about to enter."
"Once again the world is being upended, and too few are taking action," he continued. "The latest science warns that we have a ten-year window - at most - to prevent catastrophic, irreversible climate change. That means we are once again living in a ‘day before' moment that cries out for action."
Kerry outlined the threats that climate change poses to national security, from increased drought, severe storms and rising sea levels in the United States to strains on resources, population displacement and increased international conflict abroad. The impacts will strain the United States' military and humanitarian capacities, he said.
The real lesson of "the day before," ladies and gentlemen, is that when we see a threat on the horizon, we can't afford to wait until it arrives. Unless we take dramatic action - now - to restrain global climate change, we risk unleashing an aggressive new challenge to global stability, to the livelihoods of hundreds of millions, and yes, to America's national security.
[...]
You know, the 9/11 Commission report found that in the lead-up to the attacks, we suffered from a "failure of imagination." We need to close the "imagination gap" on climate change and help people to envision a new kind of threat.
Obama's Self-Mythologizing
Posted by on 9.10.09 @ 4:21PM
Pete Wehner hits the nail on the head in this commmentary. Especially when he writes:
He is also a man of astonishing arrogance. “I am not the first President to take up this cause [health care],” Obama said last night, “but I am determined to be the last.”....
What is most remarkable, and in some ways most unsettling, is that President Obama seems to believe all this. Even as he has, in the span of eight months, lost more support than any president before him, he continues to view himself in almost mythical terms. None of this, of course, was ever warranted.
I agree. This president's self-regard is boundless. It also is profoundly dangerous. When he realizes that he won't get his way, there is no telling how he will respond. He seems to be able to justify, in his own mind, any of his own actions. It's even worse than when Nixon said "if the president does it, that means it's legal." I think Obama thinks that "if I, Obama, do it, that means it's moral and justifiable no matter what." That's scary.
Obama's Problem With the Left
Posted by on 9.10.09 @ 1:48PM
As I noted yesterday, Obama needs to begin the process of getting liberals to accept less out of health care legislation if he wants to get something passed, even if it means giving up his coveted government option. In one sense, he did that last night, by telling the left that the government-run plan was not the only part of his proposal, and they should be open to compromises, such as the creation of non-profit co-ops. But while liberals are happy this morning, it isn't because they're willing to accept such a compromise, it's because he once again dodged the issue by maintaining his support for the government plan.
Following the speech liberal activist group USAction praised Obama, but like others on the left, reiterated that a government plan was a must.
"We support the President in his call for genuine health care reform and that means fixing the real health care challenges that the American people face," William McNary, the group's president, said in a statement. But he also warned that, "Without a public health insurance option, the health insurance companies win and the American people lose."
It remains to be seen whether Obama can contain the backlash among liberals should he and the Democratic leadership formally dump the government plan, and then actually convince liberal members of Congress to vote for scaled-back legislation.
ACORN and Underage Illegal Alien Sex Slaves
Posted by on 9.10.09 @ 12:55PM
Yes, you read the headline right.
Two young, enterprising undercover investigative journalists posed as a pimp and a prostitute and sought the help of ACORN's Baltimore office to set up a brothel.
They told ACORN employees that 13 underage girls from El Salvador were waiting offshore and ACORN was only too happy to help them figure out how to launder money, commit tax fraud, and commit who knows how many other crimes.
The videos, along with commentary, are posted at Andrew Breitbart's new website, Big Government. (Fox News is reporting on it too.)
Pimpin' ain't easy, but ACORN's got to do it.
Meanwhile, a separate article of mine about ACORN's other adventures in criminality and subversion will be posted on Big Government this afternoon.
Daily Must-Reads
Posted by on 9.10.09 @ 11:37AM
- California Assemblyman resigns after accidentally telling the tales of his sexual adventures on radio (Los Angeles Times)
- ICC in Hague, Netherlands is investigating possible war crimes by American soldiers (Reuters)
- Telegraph.uk: Contraception cheapest way of fighting climate change. It seems that genocide, killing first-borns, and castration would also be cost-efficient in cutting emissions if one wants to keeping thinking outside-the-box.
- A lawless city. In Detroit, in at least 70% of homicides, no one is even arrested (Detroit News)
Schill Should Chill
Posted by on 9.10.09 @ 11:24AM
That's what a Rasmussen poll of Massachusetts voters discovered about the potential Senate candidacy of the Red Sox 2004 postseason hero. Just 26 percent of those polled believe Curt Schilling should run. By the way, someone needs to tell the Rasmussen folks that Schilling is not a Republican.
Specter Calls for Censure of Joe Wilson
Posted by on 9.10.09 @ 10:43AM
Sen. Arlen Specter, angling to win over liberals as he tries to fend off a primary challenge from Rep. Joe Sestak, has called for the censure of Rep. Joe Wilson for shouting "You Lie" during President Obama's speech to a joint session of Congress.
"Rep. Wilson apologized immediately afterward but I don't think that’s adequate," Specter wrote on Twitter this morning. "There ought to be a reprimand or censure of Rep. Joe Wilson to discourage that kind of conduct in the future."
Elsewhere, the Politico reminds us that Harry Reid called President Bush a liar, and refused to apologize.
Another Presidential Speech Question
Posted by on 9.10.09 @ 10:36AM
If a president gives a major speech that includes specific policy recommendations for health care reform, and the next day different media outlets and factchecking sites have conflicting reports on whether or not he lied, doesn't that mean that he is either A) a liar or B) inarticulate?
Presidential Speech Question
Posted by on 9.10.09 @ 10:15AM
Is a president who articulately spouts nonsense really that big of an improvement over a president who inarticulately spouts nonsense?
Just asking...
Conservative Leaders Speak Out on Obama's Health Care Speech
9.10.09 @ 9:55AM
Once again President Obama is making up "facts" to suit his purpose. In his speech, Obama claims the government-option inside the so-called insurance "exchange" would not adversely affect private coverage. But there can be no government-option without subsidies. Those subsidies directly reduce the competitive environment he claims to desire. But all the spin in the world cannot hide the fact that he continues to call for a massive government intervention into healthcare that will lead to greater government control over the most fundamental decisions an individual ever makes.
William Wilson, President, American for Limited
Government
***
Pres. Obama made many promises about the health care bill he will sign, paid for by savings from cutting out waste and fraud from existing government programs. But Americans won't be fooled by rhetoric. If it won't use taxpayer funds for abortion - put it in writing in the bill. If it will protect doctors from being forced to end patients' and unborn babies' lives - put it in clear, no-nonsense language in the bill. If it will cut waste and fraud - prove that government can and will do it before creating new government programs. If it allows people to keep the plan they have, then let it allow people to choose the plan they want.
Wendy Wright, President, Concerned Women for
America
***
I would not support a government mandate no matter whether one has apparent choice.
Mathew D. Staver, Founder & Chairman, Liberty
Counsel
***
"The President's policies, especially his effort to turn America's health care into a massive government-run program, are putting a strong wind into conservative sails. Obama would have been able to sign his government-run health care plan by the 4th of July if it were not for a combination of a real people's rebellion at Tea Parties and town halls, plus conservatives' using new and alternative media, including talk radio, cable TV, the internet, and direct mail."
Richard Viguerie, Chairman,
ConservativeHQ.com
***
Independent experts all agree that the legislation proposed would result in millions of Americans losing the health care coverage they have-the Congressional Budget Office believes several million, the Urban Institute 47 million, and the Lewin Group as many as 114 million.
Alfred Regnery, Publisher, American Spectator
Presidential candidate Barack Obama repeatedly stated on the
campaign trail that any overhaul of healthcare should be
negotiated publicly and televised for all to see. In his stump
speech he would say it should be televised with a big table and
seats filled with doctors, nurses, insurers, and other interested
parties. Then he would joke, as President, he would get the
biggest chair. Not behind closed doors, candidate Obama said, but
he would bring all parties together and broadcast those
negotiations on CSPAN. We suggest the President keep his
pledge.
Deep six this unread, misunderstood piece of gobbledegook that
scares seniors and start over.
Jim Martin, President 60 Plus Association
***
Any such plan should, at the minimum, must maintain current public protections from forcing taxpayers to pay for abortion -- this can only be done by specifically excluding it, something none of the current plans being discussed do. There should be no government mandates. Families (and businesses) should not be faced with massive fines if they fail to follow the orders of Washington on health insurance. Enough with the Nanny State!
Tony Perkins, President, Family Research
Council
***
It is time to start over. Instead of government "options" that lead to government control of health care, the President should work with both moderate Democrats and Republicans on free market proposals to improve health care options for all Americans.
David McIntosh, former Member of Congress, Indiana
Scattered Thoughts on Joe Wilson
Posted by on 9.10.09 @ 8:50AM
Rep. Joe Wilson has garnered headlines for shouting "You Lie!" when President Obama said last night that health care legislation would not cover illegal immigrants. A few scattered thoughts:
1) I understand Wilson's temptation. I've been known to shout similar things at my television when Obama speaks, especially when the subject is health care.
2) On the merits, Obama is right that current legislation says that government benefits won't be available to illegal immigrants, but since it doesn't specify enforcement mechanisms, there is concern that people who managed to get into this country illegally and stay in this country illegally would figure out a way to collect benefits illegally.
3) If this were Britain, heckling the chief executive during remarks to the legislature is standard operating procedure.
4) This isn't Britain, and in American politics the expectation is that the president gets to deliver his spiel to Congress while the opposition party sit on its hands.
5) With that said, in 2005, the Democrats loudly booed and hissed President Bush when he delivered his State of the Union address, prompting CBS White House Correspondent John Roberts to remark, "I've never heard the minority party shout at the president during the State of the Union address." At the time, liberal Media Matters called out the media for suggesting it was unprecedented, noting that Republicans had done to the same thing to Clinton.
6) Whatever the case, two wrongs don't make a right. By shouting as he did, Wilson made the undecided viewier more likely to side with Obama, it portrayed Republicans as being childish, and distracted from legitimate criticism of the speech.
7) All the media focus on the two-word shout of a little known Congressman on a night when the President gave a 50 minute address suggests to me that Obama didn't make any news or deliver all that good of a speech.
UPDATE: Note change to "chief executive" from "head of state," per comments.
Draft this Brit to Run in America
Posted by on 9.10.09 @ 5:49AM
Tired of choosing between wimpy RINOs and hard-core lefties? The Brits have an answer.
LifeSiteNews reports on Doncaster Mayor Peter Davies:
The recently elected mayor of Doncaster, in South Yorkshire, has infuriated Britain's politically powerful homosexualist lobby by attempting to withhold local funding for this year's Gay Pride celebrations. The funding for this year's event in June went through, but Mayor Peter Davies, a member of the English Democrat party and the father of Tory MP Philip Davies, has scrapped all future funding for the annual Gay Pride event.
"I'm not a homophobe," he said, "but I don't see why council taxpayers should pay to celebrate anyone's sexuality."
Davies is only the second mayor of Doncaster to have been elected directly by a popular vote rather than by council members. He campaigned on a popular platform, that has reportedly alarmed the political classes on both the Labour and Tory sides of the House, in which he pledged to "stamp out political correctness" in every area of Doncaster's local government.
To accomplish this, Davies has recruited the group Campaign Against Political Correctness (CAPC) to consult on his planned reforms. A spokesman for the CAPC, John Midgley, said that "people are crying out" for an end to the wave of politically correct policies in Britain. "We commissioned a survey by ICM," Midgley said, "that said 80 per cent of people are fed up to the back teeth with it."
Davies promised to end council funding for "politically correct initiatives" and to "scrap politically correct non-jobs" such as "community cohesion officers" and "encourage the former employees to seek meaningful employment."
In his first week in office, Davies fulfilled his promises by cutting his own salary from £73,000 to £30,000; reducing the number of councillors from 63 to 21, saving the town £800,000 a year. He immediately announced plans to reduce council tax by 3 per cent and got rid of the mayoral limousine. He ended a "twinning" arrangement with five towns around the world, which he described as "just for people to fly off and have a binge at the council's expense."
While campaigning earlier this year, and in the midst of a national pandemic of violent youth crime, Davies, who is a retired school teacher, called for harsher punishments for "young thugs." As a founding member of the Campaign for Real Education, Davies has pressed for restoration of traditional methods in schools that he says will reduce crime and restore Britain's once-legendary public order.
We need an army of these guys in America!
Wednesday, September 9, 2009
Obama's Speech
Posted by on 9.9.09 @ 9:41PM
I'm working on a longer piece on this so I'll make this post brief. Overall I thought it was a well-delivered speech and I wouldn't be shocked if he receives a slight boost from it -- depending on how many people actually watched it -- but I don't really see this changing the bigger picture. More or less, the same arguments he made tonight he's been making for months. He said that we have to act now, that his plan will help everybody get covered, that it will curb insurance industry absuses, that it won't add to the deficit, that it isn't a government takeover, that his Medicare cuts won't mean reduced benefits, and that he won't increase taxes. The American people have been hearing this for months, and they haven't been buying it, so I don't see why that will change with one speech. The most significant part, I think, came when he talked about the government-run plan. While expressing support for it, it's pretty clear that he was trying to sell the left on the idea that a "trigger" or co-op could be an acceptable substitute, but I don't think that is ultimately going to satisfy the left. Taken altogether, I think that the speech may create a day or two of good feelings, but once we return to hashing out the details and get into the specifics, he'll be faced with all of the same problems that have plagued the effort all along.
Conservative Ideas
Posted by on 9.9.09 @ 9:03PM
This morning at the Washington Times, here was our Pre-sponse to the president's mendacity. We listed at least eight good ideas for reform that Obama has ignored. We could have listed many, many more.
"We Will Call You Out"
Posted by on 9.9.09 @ 8:55PM
"If you misrepresent what is in this plan, we will call you out." So sayeth The One. I guess he is going to be talking to himself a lot. Or rather calling himself out a lot. Because every single speec he has made about this plan has directly misrepresented not just viewpoints about the plan, but basic facts about it.
.... and now he brings up the ghost of Teddy Kennedy. You knew this was coming. Cue the violins. Please. Give. Us. A Break.
"What drove him was something more." Maybe he ought not use that verb.
Not Gonna Add One Dime to Our Deficit
Posted by on 9.9.09 @ 8:47PM
Who does this man think we are? Does he think we are absolute idiots, unable to use even the slightest logic? How can he possible say his plan will not add a dime to the deficit? Sheer common sense says that all his promises will cost a mint. Sheer logic shows that his plans don't add up. And the Congressiaonl Budget Office, which surely UNDERestimates the costs, says it will add a mind-bending trillion dollars to the deficit.
He then says "I will protect Medicare." Oh, is that why he has actually proposed half a trillion dollars in "savings" from Medicare? That number CANNOT be squared with anything other than cutbacks of actual benefits.
If I had a chance to look Obama in the face and talk to him, I would calmly but pointedly chew him out and call him out for the liar he is.
Call Me Cynical and Irresponsible
Posted by on 9.9.09 @ 8:36PM
"It is a lie, plain and simple." re: death panels
"This too is false." re: covered illegals
"No federal dollars will be used to fund abortions."
This man lies like the worst rug Jim Traficant has ever worn. Every responsible, respectable analyst who has looked into the abortion claim has agreed that Obama is lying about this. His plan DOES cover abortions.
ANd it has no enforcement mechanism to keep from covering illegals. And there IS good reason to believe, as Charles Lane of the Post wrote, that this could lead fairly easily to denial of care based on cost concerns.
In short, our president is a horrendous liar. Moreover, my wife says, from some personal knowledge, that some of his claims "are despicable in and of themselves."
I have trouble even listening to this self-important charlatan.
He said many of those who argue against his plan are "cynical and irresponsible." Call me cynical and irresponsible, then. Proudly so. Because what he says is black is white. What he says is white is black. And what he says is cynical and irresponsible is idealistic and thoughtfully responsible.
Play Obama Healthcare Bingo Tonight
Posted by on 9.9.09 @ 5:03PM
To help get you through Obama's speech tonight, Americans for Tax Reform has prepared printable bingo cards filled with common terms and phrases used by the President.
SC Republicans Gunning for Sanford
Posted by on 9.9.09 @ 5:02PM
Sixty-one South Carolina House Republicans signed a letter calling on Gov. Mark Sanford to resign. Sanford has been unable to stem the bleeding since his unannounced multiday absence from the state to visit his mistress, which has since prompted bizarre press conferences and inquiries into his use of state funds.
An Alternate Vision
Posted by on 9.9.09 @ 4:54PM
I recently got together with Greg Conko of the Competitive Enterprise Institute to co-author a paper outlining the problems with the Democratic health care proposals and offering alternative, market-based, solutions to our nation's health care woes. The paper can be viewed online here.
Newschannel 8 Examines Obama's Desecration of 9/11
Posted by on 9.9.09 @ 4:44PM
I was on (Washington, D.C. area) Newschannel 8’s “Federal News Tonight” last night to talk about the Obama administration’s effort to greenwash the meaning of 9/11.
TAS published my three articles on the topic Aug. 24, Aug. 31, and Sept. 1.
Here's the video:
Baucus Breathing Tax Breaks Obama Pledge
Posted by on 9.9.09 @ 4:31PM
If you make less than $250,000 a year -- a lot less, running from $249,999 all the way down to unemployment -- you would face a $750 a year tax for simply drawing a breath. Unlike car insurance, where one must own a car to pay car insurance, Montana Senator Max Baucus, the Democrat who chairs the Senate Finance Committee, is determined to tax you for, literally, having the audacity to breathe without health insurance. Details of the plan, obtained by the Associated Press, show that the Baucus Breathing Tax would go as high as $3800 for those families who fail for whatever reason to breathe without following the Baucus directive to get health care.
This would be a breach with President Obama's pledge that he would never raise taxes on anyone earning under $250,000.
Word to the wise: don't hold your breath.
There Is No Right To Strike Against The Public Safety By Anybody, Anywhere, Any Time.
Posted by on 9.9.09 @ 4:12PM
On a distantly related note to that Rasmussen Poll showing dwindling public support for unions, we should reflect on the fact that is was on this day exactly 90 years ago that the majority of Boston's police officers (1,100 out of 1,500) abandoned their posts and went on strike after Boston Police Commissioner Edwin Upton Curtis objected to the unionization of the force.
After robbery and rioting erupted in the wake of the strike, Massachusetts Governor Calvin Coolidge summarily fired all of the 1,100 participating policemen and replaced them with unemployed World War I veterans.
Shortly afterward, American Federation of Labor President Samuel Gompers telegraphed Coolidge claiming that the strike was justified because "the right of the policemen" had been denied. Coolidge responded to Gompers thusly: "Your assertion that the Commissioner was wrong cannot justify the wrong of leaving the city unguarded. That furnished the opportunity, the criminal element furnished the action. There is no right to strike against the public safety by anybody, anywhere, any time."
These actions and this telegraph propelled Coolidge to a level of national prominence that arguably facilitated his selection as Warren G. Harding's running mate in the 1920 presidential election, which of course paved the way for Coolidge's own assumption of the presidency upon Harding's death in 1923 - a fact that Coolidge acknowledged in his autobiography.
With Card Check on the horizon, we should stash this one away in the already bulging "Where is Coolidge When We Need Him?" file.
Deval Patrick's Slayer or Savior?
Posted by on 9.9.09 @ 3:26PM
Barring a miracle, Massachusetts Republicans may not have any realistic chance of winning Ted Kennedy's Senate seat but they did have a pretty good shot at taking the governorship away from Deval Patrick. Unless Tim Cahill stops them. I reported in July that Cahill, a Democrat-turned-independent state treasurer, may run for governor as a fiscal conservative. Today he decided to take the plunge.
Cahill could effect the race in one of three ways. First, his support -- strong in polls being taken right now -- could melt away as the election approaches. Massachusetts has no tradition of strong independent or third-party challenges when there is a competitive race between two major-party candidates. When the Republicans failed to run a serious candidate for Senate against Kennedy in 2000, Libertarian Carla Howell got 12 percent of the vote. But in 2002, when there was a competitive race between Republican Mitt Romney and Democrat Shannon O'Brien, Howell got only 1 percent of the vote for governor.
Some people point to Ross Perot as an exception to this rule. He got 23 percent of the vote in Massachusetts in 1992. I don't count him as an exception. George H.W. Bush got just 25 percent to Bill Clinton's 52 percent. There wasn't a competitive Republican in that race. Both GOP candidates for governor, Charlie Baker and Christy Mihos, have the potential to be competitive.
The second possibility is that Cahill could become the anti-Patrick candidate and it will be the Republican nominee whose support melts aways as people realize they are not an effective way to oust the incumbent. It's possible -- Cahill was won two statewide races, is a current statewide officeholder, has millions of dollars on hand, and seems poised to be able to take away some of the GOP's issues. On the other hand, both Baker and Mihos have enough sway with GOP activists to keep the party from informally supporting Cahill. And the extent of Cahill's fiscal conservatism is still something of a question mark.
The third scenario -- the one borne out by the last round of polling I've seen on this question -- suggests that Cahill and the Republicans will divide the anti-Patrick vote. That means that Cahill's entry into the race could carve up the opposition just enough to let an unpopular incumbent governor sneak back into office. Only time will tell.
Supreme Court Poised to Overturn Ban on Corporate Campaign Expenditures
Posted by on 9.9.09 @ 2:59PM
Today the Supreme Court heard arguments again in the Citizens
United case, in which a documentary critical of Hillary
Clinton couldn't be aired on direct tv during the primaries
because it was funded with corporate expenditures. After
today's argument, the Court appears poised to overturn
Austin, the case which held that a ban on direct
corporate expenditures to influence elections does not violate
the First Amendment. Justice Roberts is perhaps the swing
vote in this case, and through questioning he elicited the
government's admission it was abandoning the reasoning behind the
decision in Austin and inventing three new reasons to
uphold the opinion, which clearly undermines the stare
decisis value of the case.
Justice Kennedy is generally the swing vote on the Court, but he dissented in Austin and his questions in this case focused on the distinction in Buckley between contributions to candidates and direct political expenditures; the overbreadth of a ban on corporate expenditures when most corporations are small businesses with no distinction between the individual and the corporate entity; and the ongoing chilling effect on speech if the law's application must be litigated case by case.
Justice Sotomayor made a bold statement about the Court possibly having made its first mistake in giving rights of personhood to corporations, but generally asked questions about deciding the case on narrower grounds.
Also of note, the Solicitor General, arguing on behalf of the Federal Election Commission, was asked to defend or abandon its earlier statement that books published with corporate money could be banned. General Kagan stated that "the government's position has changed." This prompted Ted Olson to say "the government's position has changed" is the theme of the FEC's case, as by the end of the argument it was no longer clear what media they thought might be covered by the law, what what type of corporation might be covered, and what rationale should uphold Austin.
Daily Must-Reads
Posted by on 9.9.09 @ 12:58PM
- Director Oliver Stone pals around with Hugo Chavez in Venice while promoting movie that portrays the ruler as a hero for the poor. Stone is seeking to interview Ahmadinejad for his next project (Guardian.uk)
- Protesters in Laramie upset over "Cheney International Center" on Wyoming campus (AP)
- Honduran interim government refuses to back down after U.S. State Department pulls the plug on aid (Miami Herald)
- Russia to sell 100 battle tanks to Venezuela as Chavez postures against Colombia, United States (RIA Novosti)
Tom Friedman Certainly Has His Drawbacks
Posted by on 9.9.09 @ 12:28PM
While I've often thought that Tom Friedman's thinking is muddled, I have never before thought of it as depraved. But what other conclusion can one draw from this?
Watching both the health care and climate/energy debates in Congress, it is hard not to draw the following conclusion: There is only one thing worse than one-party autocracy, and that is one-party democracy, which is what we have in America today.
One-party autocracy certainly has its drawbacks. But when it is led by a reasonably enlightened group of people, as China is today, it can also have great advantages. That one party can just impose the politically difficult but critically important policies needed to move a society forward in the 21st century. It is not an accident that China is committed to overtaking us in electric cars, solar power, energy efficiency, batteries, nuclear power and wind power. China's leaders understand that in a world of exploding populations and rising emerging-market middle classes, demand for clean power and energy efficiency is going to soar. Beijing wants to make sure that it owns that industry and is ordering the policies to do that, including boosting gasoline prices, from the top down.
Our one-party democracy is worse. The fact is, on both the energy/climate legislation and health care legislation, only the Democrats are really playing.
"One-party autocracy certainly has its drawbacks!" Just last week Xie Changfa was sentenced to 13 years in prison for the crime of attempting to organize a political meeting. Apparently, in Tom Friedman's mind, the "drawback" of Chinese democrats being treated like violent criminals is outweighed by the benefit of central-planning that serves ends Tom Friedman likes.
Matt Welch is dumbfounded ("One almost doesn't know where to begin"), while Jonah Goldberg notes that Friedman's line of thinking has a long and unsavory pedigree.
Washington Post Goes Supply Side
Posted by on 9.9.09 @ 12:18PM
Today the economy/business section of the Washington Post has a news story that, in parts, reads as if it could have been written by Art Laffer:
In this new era of frugality, well-to-do shoppers have gone into hiding and stowed away their splashy logos. But they may hold the key to a consumer recovery.
Affluent shoppers are the most important segment of consumer spending, which in turn drives the national economy. The top 20 percent of the nation's households -- with income of at least $150,000 -- account for 40 percent of all spending, according to government data. That makes them a crucial spoke to any turnaround.
Of course, at no point in the article does the author draw a connection between spending among affluent Americans and tax policy. But if Obama follows through on his promises, it's this very segment of the population that will see their taxes go up substantially as the Bush tax cuts expire at the end of next year. And if the House Democratic health care bill passes -- along with its additional income tax surcharges on the wealthy -- the top tax rate would hit over 57 percent in some states, according to the Tax Foundation. The analysis also found that the top rate would be over 50 percent in 39 states, and no lower than 47.3 percent in any state.
Whether or not it's fair, the reality is that the wealthy have more flexibility to adjust their behavior in response to changes in the tax code. If the key to the economic recovery, as the Post acknowledges, is to encourage wealthy Americans to spend more money, raising their taxes doesn't exactly seem like sound policy.
Latest Updates on the Obamanomics Disaster
Posted by on 9.9.09 @ 12:07PM
Evidence of the failure of Obamanomics -- addressed today in my special report -- continues to accumulate daily, beginning with the auto bailout:
The federal government is unlikely to recoup all of the billions of dollars that it has invested in General Motors and Chrysler, according to a new congressional oversight report assessing the automakers' rescue.
The report said that a $5.4 billion portion of the $10.5 billion owed by Chrysler is "highly unlikely" to be repaid, while full recovery of the $50 billion sunk into GM would require the company's stock to reach unprecedented heights.
"Although taxpayers may recover some portion of their investment in Chrysler and GM, it is unlikely they will recover the entire amount," according to the report . . .
Meanwhile, Andrew Coulson of the Cato Institute reports that the stimulus spending on public schools is actually likely to impede economic growth:
The president has committed $100 billion in new money to the nation’s public school systems, and required that states accepting the funds promise not to reduce their own k-12 spending. The official argument for this measure is that higher school spending will accelerate U.S. economic growth. But a July 2008 study in the Journal of Policy Sciences finds that, to the authors’ own surprise, higher spending on public schooling is associated with lower subsequent economic growth. Spending more on public schools hurts the U.S. economy. . . .
The fact that more schooling without more learning is not a recipe for economic growth is confirmed by the independent empirical work of economists Eric Hanushek and Ludger Woessmann. Their key finding is that academic achievement, not schooling per se, is what matters to economic growth.
Based on this body of research, the president’s decision to pump $100 billion into existing public school systems is likely slowing the U.S. economic recovery.
And the price of both gold and oil are rising as the dollar declines, indicating that the Obama administration has not neglected the crucial inflation component of the Carter-era "stagflation" formula.
What Obama Needs to Do Tonight
Posted by on 9.9.09 @ 11:34AM
Ever since the beginning of this year's health care debate, it was clear that there were two basic ways President Obama was going to be able to pass major health care legislation. The first way was that the force of his personal popularity, huge majorities in the House, overwhelming public support, the cooperation of industry groups, a fractured opposition, and an overall air of inevitability would help him to win over moderate Democrats -- and maybe even some Republicans -- thus allowing him to sign a sweeping bill with a strong government-run plan modeled after Medicare. If that strategy failed, the second way was that he would have to be able to convince his own side to accept a scaled back bill that did not include a government-run plan.
At this point, it's become quite apparent that the first option is no longer an option. Obama's own approval ratings have plummeted over the past several months, as has support for his health care effort. The opposition has become united, and activists campaigning against reform have out-hustled his much-vaunted campaign apparatus, as well as the well-funded unions and liberal activist groups. The air of inevitability is gone, and not only has the effort failed to attract Republican support, but Democrats are running away in droves. The Hill reported yesterday that 23 House Democrats said they would vote against health care legislation in its current form. Since that article was published, Democrat Mike Ross -- who just before recess agreed to a compromise in committee that included a government plan -- released a statement telling his constituents, "An overwhelming number of you oppose a government-run health insurance option, and it is your feedback that has led me to oppose the public option as well." On the Senate side, Kent Conrad has said there simply are not the votes for the government plan, and he called the focus on it a "wasted effort."
If Obama has any hope of passing meaningful health care legislation he's going to have to start the process of convincing liberals that they'll have to be less ambitious. Policywise, he has to argue that if liberals were to drop their insistence on a government-run plan, Democrats could pass a bill that bars insurers from denying coverage to those with preexisting conditions, mandates that everybody purchases insurance, expands Medicaid, and provides subsidies for individuals to purchase government-designed insurance policies on a government-run exchange. Obama will have to persuade liberals that this moves the ball down the field, covers millions of uninsured, and doesn't rule out the possibility that a government-run plan gets introduced on the exchange at some point down the road. Politically, Obama will have to make liberals understand that if the health care effort is a total failure, it would be devastating to Democrats' electoral prospects next November.
I don't think this will be easy for Obama. From the point of view of liberals, their support for an optional government-run plan was itself a compromise, because what they really want is a fully government-run, single-payer system. Without the government plan, they believe, there will be no way to control costs or check the power of the insurance industry. While many pundits have treated the debate over the so-called "public option" as a sideshow, to liberals who are actively fighting for Obama's health care agenda, it is the most essential element of reform.
So, winning over liberals is not the easy path, but it's the only path now left to Obama. And if Obama is going to convince liberals to accept less, tonight would be a good time to start.
And the Majority Leader Will Marry It
Posted by on 9.9.09 @ 10:43AM
Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) is threatening to move forward on an energy bill by the end of the month. So far, the legislation has been hobbled by her partner Sen. John Kerry's (D-Mass.) hip problems, Ted Kennedy's death, the focus on health care reform -- and the little problem that they lack the votes to pass cap and trade. Boxer insists that none of this will ultimately be a problem and they will be able to get it done.
Ruth Marcus: Please Hire a Factchecker
Posted by on 9.9.09 @ 10:33AM
In the course of admonishing everyone "Let's End the Fear-Mongering Over Abortion," The Washington Post's Ruth Marcus seizes on two arguments to discredit those who warn that ObamaCare will fund abortions with taxpayer funds. The arguments are:
The controversy has two dimensions: First, if a public plan is created, should abortion be among the covered services? Second, even without a public plan, should the private insurance plans available on the exchanges be allowed or required to cover abortion -- even though government funds would go to subsidize some, but not all, of those obtaining insurance this way?
The only Senate measure produced so far is silent on the subject. In the House, an amendment offered by Rep. Lois Capps (D-Calif.) nicely threads these narrow-eyed needles.
Ruth Marcus: this shouldn't be hard to follow. Abortion is, in the United States post-Roe v. Wade, a legal health care procedure. If a bill proposing a new form of publicly-funded health insurance is "silent" on abortion, then it follows that it includes provisions for taxpayer funding of abortions.
The Capps amendment does not nicely thread anything. Instead, it segregates funds from premiums and taxpayers, and reimbursement for abortions would only come out of the premiums funds. Obviously this is merely an accounting trick. The Capps amendment, furthermore, is only attached to the House Energy and Commerce Committee bill, and is by no means guaranteed to apply to the finished bill.
These are some pretty feeble excuses to slander your opponents as "fear-mongering." But Marcus thinks that they're good enough, and continues:
It is hard to imagine how to craft a more sensitive approach [than the Capps Amendment] -- other than telling women who purchase insurance through the exchanges entirely with their own money that they cannot obtain abortion coverage.
Then again, that would be perfectly fine with some of the critics. Others are happy to seize on any argument, however misleading, that might derail the larger enterprise.
1. Yes, it would be perfectly fine for pro-lifers if women were not able to obtain abortion coverage through the exchange. Marcus presents this as a slander, but really it follows logically if you think that human life begins before birth. It would be more intellectually honest of her to credit her opponents with continuity of thought.
2. That ObamaCare would fund abortions with taxpayer funds is not "any argument." In fact Marcus herself says as much in this same essay. She says, in the fifth paragraph, "But I respect those who fervently believe that abortion is the taking of human life, so I am sensitive to concerns that their tax dollars not be used to pay for the procedure"
If you're going to write an article with the sole purpose of concluding that your ideological enemies are "fear-mongers" and staking out the moral high ground for yourself, you would be better off not contradicting what you wrote merely 10 paragraphs earlier.
UPDATE:
National Right to Life's Douglas Johnson has an exhaustive and detailed explanation of both how the administration's reform generally and the Capps amendment specifically would directly fund abortions here.
The Ever-Lovable United Nations
Posted by on 9.9.09 @ 8:11AM
Ronald Reagan pulled the U.S. out of the UN Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization because of its misbehavior, particularly support for media censorship. Too bad Ronald Reagan isn't still president--the U.S. might need to withdraw again.
The Washington Post writes about leading candidate Farouk Hosni of Egypt:
Over his career, Hosni has accumulated a long record of opposing exchanges with Israel, repeatedly saying normalization must await resolution of the Palestinian issue and warning that opening up to Jewish culture would be dangerous for Egypt. But his most notorious sally came in May last year, when he told an Islamist member of the Egyptian parliament that he would personally burn any Israeli books found in Egyptian libraries.
Hosni apologized for the remark three months ago, as his campaign for the UNESCO post gathered speed. In a statement published in Paris, he attributed it to a hot temper and an Arabic-language metaphor that sounded worse than it was. But for his opponents, particularly Jewish activists and intellectuals, the evocative image of book-burning would not go away, and they said it disqualified him for the job.
Bernard-Henri Lévy, the French philosopher; Claude Lanzmann, the producer of a landmark film on the Holocaust; and Elie Wiesel, the writer and Holocaust survivor, issued a joint statement charging that Hosni's election would be a "shipwreck" for already troubled UNESCO and calling on the organization to "spare itself the shame" of choosing such a leader.
"Mr. Farouk Hosni is the opposite of a man of peace, dialogue and culture," they said. "Mr. Farouk Hosni is a dangerous man, an inciter of hearts and minds."
The Simon Wiesenthal Center, an international Jewish group dedicated to tracking down former Nazis, said that, given his background, the prospect of Hosni as director general poses "a major threat to the very values of UNESCO."
Attacking from another angle, Reporters Without Borders, the Paris-based journalism watchdog, said Hosni had failed to demonstrate his support for the freedom of expression that is one of UNESCO's main missions.
"This minister of Hosni Mubarak has been one of the main actors of censorship in Egypt, unfailingly trying to control press freedom as well as citizens' freedom of information," the group said.
Well, what is the United Nations if not predictable!?
Big Labor has a Big Job
Posted by on 9.9.09 @ 4:22AM
Labor unions like to use Labor Day as an opportunity to celebrate their exploits, but the American people aren't convinced. According to Rasmussen Reports:
Forty-five percent (45%) of Americans believe that labor unions make our country weaker, while just 26% say unions make the nation stronger.
A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that only 13% believe organized labor has no impact on America, and 16% are not sure.
Nearly one-out-of-two Americans (48%) also think unions have outlasted their usefulness. Twenty-nine percent (29%) disagree, and 23% are undecided.
The public's distrust is well placed. Unfortunately, large labor unions have an interest quite apart from that of their workers--check the outsize compensation awarded so many union officials. indeed, many labor leaders use their positions to promote their ideological fantasies, which in most cases reflect economic policies which would make workers worse off.
Worse than Useless: Germans in Afghanistan
Posted by on 9.9.09 @ 3:00AM
Remember those times someone has offered to "help" and you've said no thanks. It's about gotten to that point with the German military in Afghanistan. My friend Josh Foust offers an unsparing critique of what the largest European member of NATO brings to the security table:
On November 6, 2007, a group of Afghan militants exploded a bomb at a sugar factory in Baghlan Province while visiting members of the Afghan parliament and a local school were on a tour. Nearly eighty people died, including dozens of children and six parliamentarians, making it one of the deadliest insurgent attacks of the war. Five months later, in March of 2008, the German KSK had located the man they believed responsible for the attack. As they closed in to capture him, his security forces spotted them and the man escaped. While the KSK could have shot and killed the militant commander, they did not-Germany's rules of engagement did not permit them to do so.
The incident in Baghlan, and Germany's inability to manage its aftermath, is part of a years-long pattern of mismanagement and confusing command decisions by the German Army in Northern Afghanistan. Responsible for nine provinces, the German Army has faced growing criticism of its refusal to participate in combat over the last few years, and its latest action-calling in an air strike in Kunduz that is reported to have killed dozens or more civilians siphoning fuel from a hijacked truck-has drawn sharp condemnation from the international community.
Some of these incidents boggle the mind. In 2005, for example, a local German unit refused for hours to assist an Alternative Livelihoods crew that had been struck by an IED in Badakhstan Province. Even though some of the men were bleeding out onto the road, it was dusk and therefore deemed too dangerous to mount a rescue operation. After much hectoring from the UN and the U.S. they eventually reached the stricken men.
If NATO can't act as an effective back-up to the U.S. in Afghanistan, it isn't clear what value the organization has for America. The alliance certainly doesn't advance U.S. interests in Europe, where Americans get to defend Europeans, who prefer to fund their welfare states than their militaries, against largely phantom threats.
Tuesday, September 8, 2009
Obama Floats Soda Tax
Posted by on 9.8.09 @ 9:20PM
In an interview with Men's Health published Monday, President Obama suggested that a tax on such items as soda and sugary drinks should be put on the table, saying "I actually think it's an idea that we should be exploring."
Obama then acknowledged the political reality of enacting such taxes while providing a glimpse of where he personally stands on the issue: "Look, people's attitude is that they don't necessarily want Big Brother telling them what to eat or drink, and I understand that. It is true, though, that if you wanted to make a big impact on people's health in this country, reducing things like soda consumption would be helpful."
Putting aside the fact a soda tax would violate Obama's central campaign promise not to raise "any form" of taxes on families making less than $250,000 a year, his statements indicate his support for use of the tax code as a tool to reward and punish certain behaviors as he sees fit.
This incident also reminds us of Obama's habit of giving a verbal head-fake to Americans' innate limited-government sentiments while simultaneously pushing to expand the role of government.
Exhibit 1: On February 24, in his first address to a joint session of Congress, Obama claimed he doesn't believe in "bigger government": "As soon as I took office, I asked this Congress to send me a recovery plan by President's Day that would put people back to work and put money in their pockets, not because I believe in bigger government -- I don't -- not because I'm not mindful of the massive debt we've inherited -- I am."
Two days later, Obama released his budget, which not only doubles the debt in the next ten years but calls for a government-run "cap and trade" energy regime.
Exhibit 2: On March 30, in a speech on the state of the auto industry, Obama said: "Let me be clear: the United States government has no interest or intention of running GM."
But just the day before, Obama fired GM CEO Rick Wagoner.
Exhibit 3: On June 16, in an interview with the Wall Street Journal, Obama said: "I think the irony ... is that I actually would like to see a relatively light touch when it comes to the government."
But just the day before, in a speech to the American Medical Association, Obama called for a government-run "public option" as a pillar of healthcare reform.
The Baucus Middle Class Tax Hike
Posted by on 9.8.09 @ 5:33PM
Among the many new taxes proposed by Max Baucus's health care proposal is a mandate requiring that individuals purchase health insurance. While his proposal would provide sliding scale subsidies to lower-income Americans, those subsidies would cap out at 300 percent of the federal poverty level. What the Baucus proposal means in real terms is that a family of four with a household income above $66,150 would face a tax of $3,800 if they do not obtain health care, while an individual with income above $32,490 would face a tax of $950.
Defending Trutherism
Posted by on 9.8.09 @ 4:54PM
Of all of the possible responses from liberals in the wake of the Van Jones resignation, about the oddest is the impulse among some to actually excuse the 9/11 truther position, harkening back to a time when the far left was viewed by the general public as completely radicalized and out of the mainstream. Earlier this afternoon, I debated FireDogLake's Jane Hamsher on the Van Jones fiasco on MSNBC. Before we were cut off for a Reid/Pelosi health care press conference, she argued that he shouldn't have been forced to resign, dismissing his support for an investigation into whether the government had prior knowledge of 9/11 as not a big deal. Over the weekend, Hamsher blasted the White House for letting Jones hang out to dry, arguing:
Now he's been thrown under the bus by the White House for signing his name to a petition expressing something that 35% of all Democrats believed as of 2007 -- that George Bush knew in advance about the attacks of 9/11.
How Not to Become an Influential Conservative Intellectual
Posted by on 9.8.09 @ 4:18PM
Trying to curry favor with liberals? Bad idea. Borrowing liberal arguments to attack fellow conservatives? Much, much worse:
The upstart who desires to gain a reputation as an "innovative" thinker is welcome to seek employment outside conservative politics, if he is not content to find new ways to celebrate old verities or new arguments with which to eviscerate liberals.
Instead, what we see over and over -- see [David] Brooks' disastrously influential "National Greatness" as a textbook example -- is an enthusiastic race to get ahead of the Zeitgeist, to become the Promethean author of a new Welltanschauung, to establish one's place as the founder of Some Other Conservatism.
Wise men are not deceived by these pretentious intellectual hustlers. When a self-described conservative begins slinging around words like "creativity" and "progress" in political discourse, it is not generally taken as evidence of doughty resolve. Rather, it is wise to suspect such a person of being what the Brits would call a trimmer.
That's from a much longer essay, inspired by Dan Riehl's discovery that certain Young Turks are borrowing their ideas from Sam Tanenhaus, a liberal Democrat whose advice to Democrats was quite the opposite of what the Young Turks are trying to do to the GOP.
Economic Trends to Ignore and to Worry About
Posted by on 9.8.09 @ 2:43PM
In a ThinkMarkets post yesterday, NYU's Mario Rizzo blew up the Obama administration's arguments that the stimulus is lifting, not hurting, the economy. Claims that the stimulus is working would seem to contradict the evidence Harvard's Greg Mankiw presents in graph form, which shows that unemployment has increased even further than the administration's baseline estimate. In other words, unemployment is worse than the administration predicted it would be without the stimulus:
The light blue line is the administration's baseline unemployment prediction, the dark blue line is their prediction for unemployment with the stimulus in place, and the red dots are what actually happened.
Of course, without knowing what would have happened to the economy in the absence of the stimulus, the administration can make any claim they want. Thus they can say that they have "created or saved" millions of jobs even when unemployment is worse than they said it would be without their actions because they can also claim that they "misread the economy" when they made their predictions.
As Rizzo shows, that's nonsense. The argument for the stimulus was a technocratic one: they claimed that their superior forecast showed the necessity for a stimulus. Now they are saying that their models enable them to identify the specific effects of the stimulus but not the underlying trends, which were worse than they anticipated. So which is it? Do they have the expertise required to forecast economic trends and examine the much narrower effects of the stimulus package? Or neither? It can't be one and not the other if they're using the same technical model.
Meanwhile, central banks' quantitative easing programs do seem to be having the results they were supposed to. In the UK, the Bank of England's quantitative easing program seems to have hit the economy in August, as seen by banks' increased willingness to lend out funds instead of holding them as reserves at the BofE. Unfortunately, it seems that the increase is all in...mortgage lending.
The author of that blog notes the danger the BofE faces: continue quantitative easing and risk sparking another housing bubble, or withdraw the easy credit and risk a double-dip recession.
And that seems to be exactly the same trade-off that the Fed is navigating right now. Their response, however, has been to begin to draw down the quantitative easing. As one Austrian economist points out, the Fed's quantitative easing program has lifted stocks and price inflation, but now the Fed is in fact has allowed the money supply to decrease. Is Bernanke less worried about deflation and a double-dip than inflation or a housing bubble?
Re: Kennedy Seat
Posted by on 9.8.09 @ 1:54PM
Jim offers a good analysis of why Ted Kennedy's Senate seat is unlikely to fall into Republican hands unless a "novelty candidate" like Curt Schilling runs. Of course, as Jim says, Schilling would have to register as a Republican first (to be called a Republican, but not necessarily to gain their support), "finesse the social issues" and "aggressively painting the Democratic nominee as too far to the left."
Over the weekend Schilling attempted to explain "What I Believe" at his 38Pitches.com blog, where he did appear to finesse the abortion and gay marriage issues, but whether he has the stomach to go after an opponent is questionable. Some excerpts:
On the Bush Administration: "it appears to me that as an Independent, which I will always be, I’ve always tried to vote for the right team more so than the right person. I believed in Dick Cheney, I believed in Colin Powell, I believed in Condoleezza Rice. I voted as much, if not more, for the team President Bush had assembled as I ever did for the man. It’s the reason I voted for his father, it’s the reason I voted for Bill Clinton."
It's not a given that he would register Republican, as some think.
A mixed bag on spending, taxes and corruption: "Taxes? Sure I’ll pay them, regardless of the number. Would I prefer lower taxes? Sure, who wouldn’t? But I’ll pay, whatever they are, because that’s the cost of being able to live in this country and I’ve never had a problem with that.
Having said that I live in a state where I can’t drive 1/2 of a mile without a torn up road, or on a major highway without paying a toll, a large toll. How in the hell is this state broke? How in the hell has a state with supposedly as intelligent a voter base as Massachusetts allowed itself to be run into the ground by entrenched and often times corrupt ‘me first’ politicians? How did that happen? All the way down to the community level our papers are littered with stories, daily, of unethical behavior, scandal and outright criminal acts, BY OUR ELECTED OFFICIALS!." (and I love this comment: "I’m not even close to a Rhodes Scholar or Ivy League graduate, but I also know I’m watching many people with those exact credentials run this state, and this country, into the ground.")
Finessing the social issues with a states-rights argument: "I’m pro-life (with exception to rape, incest or terminal consequences to mom or child during birth) and against Gay marriage. However, let me be very clear on both of those issues. Those issues are so far beyond the scope or responsibility of one person to legislate it’s laughable. The state you reside in should be the body that determines BOTH of those laws. Because I’m pro-life should have nothing to do with your belief or your opinion. The constituents you work for should be the people that decide those laws in the state they live in, period."
Guns: "I am absolutely for the 2nd Amendment. But I also think this country has become so beholden to special interest and lobbyists that we have completely sacrificed the safety and well being of the individual American citizen. Why should our Police Officers have to worry about automatic weapons? What logically thinking human would think it’s ok that a ‘citizen’ to carry a weapon capable of discharging 1000 rounds a minute? I understand one thing, that’s big business, and big business is what we’ve allowed to take over in far too many places and in far to many areas that the people need to take back."
Term limits, at least for himself: "To be clear I have no ambition to enter into a life of politics, or to be a career politician, none. I am flattered that some people felt I’d be the right person for this. None of that means I would, or will, attempt to run for the vacant Senator’s seat here in Massachusetts. Were I to even consider this it would be for 1 term and 1 term only, and then only to do everything in my power to rid this state of the tired an unethical people that have run it into the ground and help it begin the healing process, and once again become a thriving state to live and work in."
Jim does call him a novelty candidate and I agree he would be, but he says he's seriously considering it. If he runs, I believe he would be formidable and whether he's a registered Republican or not, the party will likely rush to support him.
The Baucus Plan
Posted by on 9.8.09 @ 1:40PM
Max Baucus has unveiled his own attempt at health care legislation aimed at drawing broad support, but it's hard to see where the constituency is for this proposal. Though less expensive than other proposals, it still would reportedly cost about $900 billion over 10 years and include subsidies for individuals as well as a massive expansion of Medicaid. After months of trying to come up with a way to finance the legislation, his big solution is to tax insurers as well as high-end health care plans. The tax on insurers would almost certainly be passed directly on to consumers, while the tax on plans is vehemently opposed by unions who have negotiated generous health benefits for their members, often instead of salary increases. Meanwhile, the proposal doesn't include a government-run plan, but instead uses the co-op model that is viewed suspiciously by conservatives who see it as a "public option" by another name and skeptically by liberals who view it as a sellout to the insurance industry. Save Olympia Snowe, it's hard to see any Republicans getting behind the Baucus proposal, and it looks like a complete non-starter among the left.
Olbermann: Get Beck! Channels DeNiro as Capone
Posted by on 9.8.09 @ 11:03AM
OK. It's just too rich to pass on.
Here's Keith Olbermann over the weekend, blogging his fury over Glenn Beck's well-within the bounds revelations of Van Jones public record, much of which was delivered to Beck courtesy of Jones' quite public statements and actions. This excerpt (they are all over the place) has been taken from the website of our TAS colleague Robert Stacy McCain.
Here is Keith, the spittle practically visible on the computer screen:
Find everything you can about Glenn Beck, Stu Burguiere, and Roger Ailes. Tuesday we will expand this to the television audience and have a dedicated email address to accept leads, tips, contacts, on Beck, his radio producer Burguiere, and the chief of his TV enablers, Ailes…
Does this sound a tad familiar if you are a movie fan? Let's rack up this little riff from The Untouchables, the classic 1987 re-make of the old TV series based on the legendary G-Man Eliot Ness and his adventures with Chicago gangster Al Capone during the Roaring Twenties and early 1930s. In the film, Kevin Costner played Ness, with Robert DeNiro doing an outstanding turn as Capone, getting the notorious gangster's bullying nature and taste for violence down pat. Here is Olbermann on Beck…uh, sorry, I meant Capone on Ness…
"I want you to get this f… where he breathes! I want you to find this nancy-boy Eliot Ness, I want him DEAD! I want his family DEAD! I want his house burned to the GROUND! I wanna go there in the middle of the night and I wanna PISS ON HIS ASHES!"
What this sentiment betrays, as happens when a hard-core leftist lets the public mask slips, is that their authoritarian nature relentlessly propels them towards the personal destruction of their ideological opponents. Van Jones took himself down with a series of wildly nutty on-the- record remarks and actions. Beck never touched the guy's personal life -- was he a drunk? A cheat? A drug addict? In short: don't know and don't care. Mr. Jones private life is his own. His public record is not, and Beck concentrated his fire there. He continues to do his incredible research into the public record of others in the Obama administration, asking the American people in this 21st century communications web for help in this regard.
Olbermann, on the other hand, responds as above. Also, there is one notable difference between Jones and Beck. Jones was a government official, Glenn Beck is private citizen. Which means Olbermann has decided to threaten a private citizen for his actions in looking into the public record of a public official.
In a word?
Typical.
Dems Failed to Move Ball in August
Posted by on 9.8.09 @ 10:41AM
A new Gallup poll shows that, at best, Democrats did nothing to advance public support for their health care proposals during the August recess. According to the poll, a slight plurality of 39 percent said they would advise their member of Congress to vote against a health care bill compared to 37 percent who said they would ask them to vote for it. At the beginning of recess, 36 percent said vote against and 35 percent said vote for, so very little change. Remember, flash back to before the August recess, and this was being built up as the crucial phase for the health care debate, when Obama was going to have to build support for an initiative that was floundering. Now that he hasn't been able to move the ball forward in over a month, we're being told that the big event is really tomorrow's speech.
Don't Believe The Hype
Posted by on 9.8.09 @ 10:20AM
The media has been promoting Obama's Wednesday speech to a joint session of Congress as a major event that could shift the momentum in the health care debate, but I think it's important not to get too carried away. I have no doubt that Obama has the ability to make a great speech that could momentarily boost support for health care legislation just as Bill Clinton's speech did in September 1993, but no amount of rhetoric can change the fundamentals of the debate. The reason is that Americans may favor action on health care in the abstract, but get cold feet when they learn more about the details.
Once the pageantry of a major presidential address fades, lawmakers will still be stuck with the same set of problems that have plagued health care over the past few months. Liberals say that a bill can't get through the House without a government plan, while moderate Democrats say a bill can't get through the Senate with one. Any bill is likely to cost in the neighborhood of $1 trillion or more at a time of already unprecedented long-term debt, meaning paying for it will require a combination of tax increases and cuts to existing government programs. The major cost saving measures -- electronic medical records, preventive care, a Medicare advisory commission -- will not put a dent in health care spending, and in some instances, may exacerbate the problem. If you expand Medicaid, the governors will be up in arms about the cost to states unless the federal government picks up the tab -- but either way we'd be adding to our massive entitlement burden. As much as Obama says people can keep their health care if they like it, there's no way he can offer that guarantee, and some of the proposals actually would encourage businesses to change the coverage they currently offer. And all of this is playing out with the economy still weak and unemployment up to 9.7 percent despite Obama's promises during the stimulus debate. I can go on and on, but the point is that whatever Obama says tomorrow night, and no matter how grand it is, it won't change the big picture.
Daily Must-Reads
Posted by on 9.8.09 @ 10:19AM
- Congress likely to help in land grab for "Native Hawaiians" (Washington Times)
- "Didn't I tell you not to come in here McFly?" As a new school year begins in America, chivalry seems dead, high school boys are getting weak (Townhall)
- Boehner: It's time for Rangel to give up Chairmanship of Ways and Means (New York Times)
- Federal stimulus money being used to house sex offenders (Miami Herald)
Speaking of Social Issues in Massachusetts
Posted by on 9.8.09 @ 10:11AM
I have a short piece appearing in the forthcoming issue of Chronicles looking at whether Ted Kennedy could have survived politically in Massachusetts if he had remained pro-life like his sister Eunice. We're about to get a test case: Congressman Stephen Lynch of South Boston is reportedly going to throw his hat into the ring as a candidate for Kennedy's Senate seat today. Lynch is a pro-life Democrat.
The Kennedy Seat Will Stay in the Party, If Not The Family
Posted by on 9.8.09 @ 9:44AM
On Friday, Joe asked me what I thought about the idea of a Republican succeeding Ted Kennedy in Massachusetts. In theory, yes it's possible with an open seat, the right candidate, a divided Democratic primary, and effective get-out-the-vote operations in a low-turnout election. In practice, I think it is unlikely in the extreme.
First, the Republicans don't have much of a field to choose from. The only Republican who would start out with greater stature than any of the Democrats is Mitt Romney. Romney doesn't want to run and took positions in his 2008 presidential campaign that would come back to haunt him in a Senate race. Kerry Healey has said she won't run and didn't exactly light the world on fire in her 2006 gubernatorial campaign. Most of the promising Republican prospects of the 1990s -- Gloria Larson, Ralph Martin, Wayne Budd, Lucille Hicks, Peter Blute, Peter Torkildsen -- never panned out. They declined to strike while the iron was hot and in some cases have since drifted away from the party.
Bay State Republicans have exactly one promising state legislator -- Sen. Scott Brown -- who is said to be taking a serious look at the race. Brown can't run for every office and it isn't entirely clear that Republicans would hold his state senate seat if he went on to win something else. There is one other Republican -- Michael Sullivan, a former acting ATF director, U.S. attorney, Plymouth County district attorney, and state representative -- who is always brought up as a possibility because of his record as an anti-corruption prosecutor. Like Frank Cousins and the aforementioned group from the 1990s, he never runs.
Deval Patrick's unpopularity would seem to help the Republicans. But it hasn't yet translated into lower numbers for Barack Obama. And Massachusetts Republicans haven't been able to walk and chew gum since Weld-Cellucci and Joe Malone were simultaneously re-elected in 1994. Since then, the party has only been able to focus on gubernatorial candidates, often to the detriment of the rest of the ticket. In 2002, Mass. Republicans had a perfectly credible candidate for treasurer in Dan Grabauskas but all eyes were on Romney.
Finally, the 2008 Senate race against John Kerry was a disaster. The party's preferred candidate failed to even qualify for the primary ballot. The man who won the nod instead fought hard but went nowhere. Republicans had always held Kerry below 60 percent in previous races. Had they done so last year, Kerry's GOP challenger would be in the catbird seat. But that isn't what happened.
So you'd probably need a novelty candidate like Curt Schilling. But you'd also need him to be a competent candidate -- having actually registered as a Republican would help. And he or she would have to be able to finesse the social issues, a much bigger challenge in a Senate race, while also aggressively painting the Democratic nominee as too far to the left of the state's independent voters. A very tall order indeed. Probably too tall for the beleagured Massachusetts GOP.
Yellowstone Gets Stimulated
Posted by on 9.8.09 @ 9:30AM
I've just returned from a vacation out west, which among other places, took me to Wyoming where I saw the majestic Grand Tetons and spent time at Yellowstone. While we were driving through the parks, we kept hitting construction on the roads, in some cases major portions of the national park highways were closed, requiring significant detours. I kept wondering why the heck there were all these road closures and construction during the height of the tourist season. Sure enough, I passed a sign boasting "your tax dollars at work" -- encouraging me to visit Recovery.org. As if there weren't already enough reasons for me to oppose the Obama stimulus package.
Who Speaks for the Birds?
Posted by on 9.8.09 @ 9:28AM
The enviros don't like it when birds die. It is certainly un-PC for energy companies to kill birds. But wind power operators--now that is a different story!
Explains Robert Bryce in the Wall Street Journal:
ExxonMobil pleaded guilty in federal court to killing 85 birds that had come into contact with crude oil or other pollutants in uncovered tanks or waste-water facilities on its properties. The birds were protected by the Migratory Bird Treaty Act, which dates back to 1918. The company agreed to pay $600,000 in fines and fees.
ExxonMobil is hardly alone in running afoul of this law. Over the past two decades, federal officials have brought hundreds of similar cases against energy companies. In July, for example, the Oregon-based electric utility PacifiCorp paid $1.4 million in fines and restitution for killing 232 eagles in Wyoming over the past two years. The birds were electrocuted by poorly-designed power lines.
Yet there is one group of energy producers that are not being prosecuted for killing birds: wind-power companies. And wind-powered turbines are killing a vast number of birds every year.
A July 2008 study of the wind farm at Altamont Pass, Calif., estimated that its turbines kill an average of 80 golden eagles per year. The study, funded by the Alameda County Community Development Agency, also estimated that about 10,000 birds-nearly all protected by the migratory bird act-are being whacked every year at Altamont.
Altamont's turbines, located about 30 miles east of Oakland, Calif., kill more than 100 times as many birds as Exxon's tanks, and they do so every year. But the Altamont Pass wind farm does not face the same threat of prosecution, even though the bird kills at Altamont have been repeatedly documented by biologists since the mid-1990s.
Who will speak for all of the magnificant raptors being murdered every year by rapacious wind capitalists?
Martin Feldstein Warns that Obamacare Could Run $2 Trillion
Posted by on 9.8.09 @ 3:17AM
So much for a reform that pays for itself. Economist Martin Feldstein takes a hard look at "the exploding path of fiscal deficits," which would be made far worse by Obamacare. He writes:
For starters, $1 trillion of extra debt-financed spending would cause the government to pay about $300 billion of extra interest in the next decade. Moreover, the CBO's method of estimating the cost of such a program doesn't recognize the incentives it creates for households and firms to change their behavior.
The House health-care bill gives a large subsidy to millions of families with incomes up to three times the poverty level (i.e., up to $66,000 now for a family of four) if they buy their insurance through one of the newly created "insurance exchanges," but not if they get their insurance from their employer. The CBO's cost estimate understates the number who would receive the subsidy because it ignores the incentive for many firms to drop employer-provided coverage. It also ignores the strong incentive that individuals would have to reduce reportable cash incomes to qualify for higher subsidy rates. The total cost of ObamaCare over the next decade likely would be closer to $2 trillion than to $1 trillion.
Workers had better have gotten a good rest yesterday. They are going to be laboring into their next life to pay off all the federal debt.
Monday, September 7, 2009
There Is No Right To Strike Against The Public Safety By Anybody, Anywhere, Any Time.
Posted by on 9.7.09 @ 8:50PM
On a distantly related note to that Rasmussen Poll showing dwindling public support for unions, we might want to reflect on the fact that is was on this day exactly 90 years ago that the majority of Boston's police officers (1,100 out of 1,500) abandoned their posts and went on strike after Commissioner Edwin Upton Curtis objected to the unionization of the force.
After robbery and rioting erupted in the wake of the strike, Massachusetts Governor Calvin Coolidge summarily fired all of the 1,100 participating policemen and replaced them with unemployed World War I veterans.
Shortly afterward, American Federation of Labor President Samuel Gompers telegraphed Coolidge claiming that the strike was justified because "the right of the policemen" had been denied. Coolidge responded to Gompers thusly: "Your assertion that the Commissioner was wrong cannot justify the wrong of leaving the city unguarded. That furnished the opportunity, the criminal element furnished the action. There is no right to strike against the public safety by anybody, anywhere, any time."
These actions and this telegraph propelled Coolidge to a level of national prominence that arguably facilitated his selection as Warren G. Harding's running mate in the 1920 presidential election, which of course paved the way for Coolidge's own assumption of the presidency upon Harding's death in 1923 - a fact that Coolidge acknowledged in his autobiography.
With Card Check on the horizon, we should stash this one away in the already bulging "Where is Coolidge When We Need Him?" file.
Town Halls For Me, But Not For Thee
Posted by on 9.7.09 @ 8:50PM
On the heels of his characterization of those with reservations about the coming health care overhaul as "political terrorists," Congressman Baron Hill (IN-9) reveals exactly how he feels about his constituents -- who, by the way, are not permitted to tape his town halls lest embarrassing clips show up on Youtube.
Oh, and apparently those pesky constituents are not going to tell Hill how to run "his" congressional office. One hopes that Todd Young, Hill's perspective opponent in next year's election, will soon put this clip to good use and the voters of Indiana will soon reclaim their congressional office.
Joe Kennedy Says No To Senate Campaign
Posted by on 9.7.09 @ 3:23PM
Former Congressman Joseph P. Kennedy II's decision not to run for Uncle Ted's Senate seat in Massachusetts means two things: That this Senate seat is likely to be held by a non-placeholding non-Kennedy for the first time since JFK beat Henry Cabot Lodge in 1952; and that the Democratic primary will open up.
If a Kennedy ran, the only other Democrats who would have been likely to run were Attorney General Martha Coakley and Congressman Stephen Lynch. By taking a pass on this Senate race, Joe Kennedy has potentially opened the competition up to include Congressmen Ed Markey, Michael Capuano, and John Tierney. Former Congressman Marty Meehan, now the chancellor of the University of Massachusetts at Lowell, is considered a longer shot, but he's still sitting on $5 million in campaign funds.
The Administration's "Sausage Factory"
Posted by on 9.7.09 @ 10:22AM
If you want to know what's going on behind the scenes with the administration's machinations to cram-down their global warming agenda on you, read my letter in today's Washington Times, here.
Re: Moving Van
Posted by on 9.7.09 @ 8:25AM
Confirming Chris's post about how Van Jones represents mainstream environmentalism (an oxymoron), The Washington Post today describes him as "a towering figure in the environmental movement."
Sunday, September 6, 2009
Van Jones: Victim of Right-Wing 'Terrorists'?
Posted by on 9.6.09 @ 6:37PM
That's right. If you have a problem with Marxists as policy "czars" in the White House, you're a terrorist and a member of a lynch mob, says one Obama supporter in a blog rant that speaks directly to the president:
I'm heartbroken over Van's departure because it's these little meaningless concessions that undermine people's faith in the system. You get folks all riled up about change. You empower a man who embodies that change. And they you let him be run out of office by [epithet] Glenn Beck? So Glenn Beck is running the White House now? . . .
How do you expect folks to continue to go to the mat for your agenda, when you so easily sacrifice our best and brightest at the whim of an illegitimate lynch mob? How do you expect the next generation to invest themselves in the political process when they see that despite their good works, they can be taken out over nonsense, especially when the double standard is so abundantly clear? How can you ask from us what you won't do for us? And when will you realize that you cannot negotiate with terrorists?
The liberal Firedoglake blog offers a similar portrayal of Jones as sacrificial victim. Hat-tip to Dan Riehl, who says:
They're beginning to panic because the American people are rejecting their new messiah. . . . Somehow they believed Obama was going to be able to hide who he was during the election, but everything would be good if he could only win.
Meanwhile, I've taken a stab at explaining what the Van Jones story is really about.
Moving Van, the Mainstream Green Man
Posted by on 9.6.09 @ 10:30AM
I'll admit, I'm surprised Van Jones is out of the White House. After all, they had already overlooked his batty theories about government involvement in creating economic growth.
I kid, of course. Van Jones is a radical, and is surely an extremist in the eyes of most Americans and, having been outed as such, he was quickly shown the door. On the heels of Jones saying that airing his flamboyantly serial outrageousness constituted "a vicious smear campaign", I suggest Jones will soon be busy spouting anew all of that which he spent a few days distancing himself from in attempting to keep that job.
But this isn't really the issue or the lesson to be drawn from l'affaire Jones.
The lesson not to be missed in the rush to "move on" is that Van Jones is fairly mainstream when it comes to modern environmentalism. By this I don't necessarily mean the suburban Volvo (or even Subaru wagon) drivers with bumper stickers advertising their empathy. I mean the movement environmentalists, the establishment groups driving the policy agenda.
Here's Exhibit A.
As Ground Zero smoldered, on September 14, 2001 Jones' fellow Bay Area greens (and Jones fans), the Earth Island Institute, threw a telling green tantrum on their website: "U.S. Responds to Terrorist Attacks with Self-Righteous Arrogance." Steeped in self-righteous arrogance, this bilge denied that the September 11 attacks represented an act of war. Rather, it was "an act of anger, desperation and indignation." We asked for it.
"This was not an 'attack on all American people,'" fumed EII - because those who died were mostly Pentagon and "multinational financial empire" types. Plus, we should get over it because "[t]his was not the sort of flat-out terrorism that targets random innocents at a disco or a beach."
OK, so someone whose belief system allows ready acceptance of don't cry for these people they worked for multinational corporations and the Pentagon all perpetuating a petroleum-based economy is not precisely the same as Bush killed these people perpetuating a petroleum-based economy for dark purposes, but they certainly are birds of a feather. Besides, before Jones was blaming the U.S. government for enabling 9/11 he spent a couple of years -- beginning on 9/13/01 -- touting a "chickens have come home to roost" line.
Note how, after EII's grotesque spasm - which was followed by backpedalling not unlike that now coming from Jones - one of its organizations, the "Bluewater Network", went on to draft California's global warming law according to the official author of the legislation, Assemblywoman Fran Pavley.
California's law is now in the process of being imported to the federal level, thanks to the administration employing Van Jones, and their congressional enablers. Van Jones, as batty and nasty as he is, is adored by these people for a reason. He represents them. He was no stranger to the White House and he was not chosen for this position in spite or in ignorance of his views. He was chosen for these views and his ability to proselytize about them. Just ask Obama senior advisor and administration-builder Valerie Jarrett.
Van Jones is gone - Obama proving just as able to throw him under the bus as his grandmother, Rev. Wright, and I'm guessing a few more staffers to come - but the shared philosophy stays. And this is something to bear in mind as the Van Jones agenda makes its way through federal agencies and Congress.
When Justice is Just
Posted by on 9.6.09 @ 6:56AM
In writing about Charles Manson follower and convicted murderer Susan Atkins, and her attempt to get out of prison on "compassionate release," my friend Chicago Tribune columnist Steve Chapman reminds us what justice is, or at least should be, about:
Even her prosecutor, Vincent Bugliosi, endorsed the idea. "She's already paid substantially for her crime, close to 40 years behind bars," he told The Los Angeles Times. "She has terminal cancer. The mercy she was asking for is so minuscule."
But the parole board unanimously refused. No doubt the board members recalled that in a 1993 parole hearing, Atkins acknowledged that when she had her own opportunity to grant clemency, she chose not to. Tate begged Atkins to spare her baby, to no avail.
"Compassionate release" already has a bad name in this country because it was the basis for Scotland's decision to free the only person convicted in the 1988 airline bombing over Lockerbie, which killed 270 people. Abdel Baset al-Megrahi was serving a life sentence but, afflicted with terminal prostate cancer, was sent home to Libya to live out his remaining time on Earth.
Scottish Justice Secretary Kenny MacAskill defended the decision by saying, "Our justice system demands that judgment be imposed but compassion available." He noted that the killer "now faces a sentence imposed by a higher power. It is one that no court, in any jurisdiction, in any land, could revoke or overrule. It is terminal, final and irrevocable. He is going to die."
If we are going to rely on the Almighty in these matters, though, I would prefer that pleas for clemency from convicted killers also be addressed to Him. The truth is we are all going to die, and if we prefer not to do it in prison, we have the option of not committing crimes whose punishment might get in the way of our last wishes.
People who commit a monstrous crime should do their time and spare the rest of us a request for the sort of compassion that they refused to grant others. The purpose of punishment is to, well, punish. In the case of Susan Atkins (and Abdel Baset al-Megrahi), she deserves to be punished until her last breath in this world.
Van Jones Resigns
Posted by on 9.6.09 @ 12:53AM
So said the WSJ at 12:40 a.m., citing an AP story, reporting on what "the White House said early Sunday," meaning within the last hour. As if maybe no one will notice?
- Advent Is Coming
- Obama's Vision Through History
- The Right of Conscience in the Age of Obama