- 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, October 24, 2009
Thanks Be to Obama
Posted by on 10.24.09 @ 11:56AM
He's succeeded in the almost impossible task of making incompetent, unprincipled Republican politicians more popular than their Democratic counterparts.
According to Rasmussen Reports:
For the first time in recent years, voters trust Republicans more than Democrats on all 10 key electoral issues regularly tracked by Rasmussen Reports. The GOP holds double-digit advantages on five of them.
Republicans have nearly doubled their lead over Democrats on economic issues to 49% to 35%, after leading by eight points in September.
The GOP also holds a 54% to 31% advantage on national security issues and a 50% to 31% lead on the handling of the war in Iraq.
And that's just after nine months. Give the president a couple of years and see what happens!
Friday, October 23, 2009
The Gitmo Prison Blues
Posted by on 10.23.09 @ 3:30PM
Pearl Jam, R.E.M., and Trent Reznor of Nine Inch Nails are among the recording artists who are rocking mad that their music was used to break prisoners at Guantanamo Bay:
"At Guantanamo, the U.S. government turned a jukebox into an instrument of torture," said Thomas Blanton, executive director of the archive, an independent, nongovernmental research institute
Based on documents that already have been made public and interviews with former detainees, the archive says the playlist featured cuts from AC/DC, Britney Spears, the Bee Gees, Marilyn Manson and many other groups. The Meow mix cat food jingle, the Barney theme song and an assortment of Sesame Street tunes also were pumped into detainee cells.
They probably don't even get royalties.
"60 Minutes" to Take on Medicare/Medicaid Fraud
Posted by on 10.23.09 @ 1:40PM
On the main site today, I have a piece up about how the rampant fraud in Medicare and Medicaid undermines the Democrats' argument that we need a new government-run health program to increase efficiency. This Sunday, "60 Minutes" will tackle the issue, according to the CBS site:
MEDICARE/MEDICAID FRAUD - Medicare and Medicaid fraudsters are cheating U.S. taxpayers out of an estimated $90 billion a year using a billing scam that is surprisingly easy to execute. Steve Kroft investigates. Ira Rosen and Joel Bach are the producers.
Hate Crimes Bunk
Posted by on 10.23.09 @ 12:23PM
The U.S. Senate yesterday passed a bill, 68 to 29, that includes sexual orientation as a protected class in federal hate crimes laws. Most Republicans voted against it. The House approved the legislation prior, and it now goes to President Obama for his signature.
Here's the catch: the Democratic leadership attached the measure to a $680 billion defense appropriation bill, which includes additional funds for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. So, essentially, Reid and his cohorts dared conservative lawmakers to vote against the defense funding by including the hate-crimes bunk.
Granted, such tactics are nothing new. Republicans used them, too, when they held the reins of power. It shouldn't matter. Any bill, but particularly one dealing with constitutional implications as this one does, should be debated and voted on independent of other legislation, particularly major appropriations. To combine two separate issues is a time-tested political ploy practiced by both sides - but it's no less despicable.
That should be the headline in MSM papers this morning, or at least a significant part of the story. A pipe dream, I know.
As a side note, watch for this hate-crimes legislation to be one of the few bones that Obama throws to the homosexual activist crowd in the near term. He's sat on rescinding the military's "don't ask, don't tell" policy. Ditto on repealing the federal Defense of Marriage Act, which has enjoyed bi-partisan support for years and was signed into law by President Clinton in 1996. Signing the hate crimes bill will be a good way for Obama to shore up his extreme leftist base on this issue without costing too much political capital or diverting his attention from remaking the U.S. economy.
Is White House Admitting It's Not Focused on Afghanistan?
Posted by on 10.23.09 @ 11:40AM
Is the White House's response to Cheney's "dithering" comment a tacit admission that an increase in troops is the responsible call?
Gibbs' own words:
"I think it's pretty safe to say that the vice president was for seven years not focused on Afghanistan," Gibbs said. "Even more curious given the fact that an increase in troops sat on desks in this White House, including the vice president's, for more than eight months."
So it's wrong to ignore a request for an increase in troops? Thank you for admitting that.
Well, last I checked, Mr. Cheney isn't in office anymore. He's somewhere on a fishing trip, or traveling or something; but to be sure, he's out of the picture. So, Mr. Obama now has a chance to do the responsible thing and act with sufficient urgency.
After all, in September of last year, then Senator Barack Obama criticized President Bush for having "not enough urgency" on Afghanistan:
"The most substantial increase will come when an additional Army brigade is deployed five months from now -- in February, after the President has left office," Obama said. "His plan comes up short -- it is not enough troops, and not enough resources, with not enough urgency."
Okay, now. The former President has left the office. You're on the hook now, Mr. Obama.
Act.
WWF Extends Dire Consequences Deadline
Posted by on 10.23.09 @ 11:04AM
The World Wildlife Fund, in a press release on May 15, 2007:
Sustainable energy and technology can curb climate change and meet projected growth in demand for energy but only if key decisions are made within the next five years, according to a new WWF report. "Climate Solutions: WWF’s vision for 2050" concludes that sustainable technologies can meet global projected energy demand while avoiding the most dangerous impacts of climate change....
“This report says that we can breathe a sigh of relief: it’s not too late to save ourselves and our children from the worst ravages of climate change while still meeting the demand for energy,” said Richard Mott, Vice President for International Policy at World Wildlife Fund. “But the report also warns that this opportunity is fleeting. Any delay and our choices become both more difficult and much more expensive.”
Today in Popular Science:
It’s no secret that the world is warming, but a new report published by the World Wildlife Fund suggests we may not have as much time to mull solutions as we think. If the world doesn’t commit to green technologies by 2014, the report says, runaway global warming and economic meltdown are all but unstoppable.
A two-year reprieve -- whew! But I thought we needed to act now?
Report: Pelosi Lacks Votes for "Robust" Public Option
Posted by on 10.23.09 @ 10:46AM
The Politico is reporting that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has concluded she lacks the votes to pass the strongest form of the public option. If true, this means that any final legislation is more likely to contain the "trigger" for the government plan instead.
Daily Must-Reads
Posted by on 10.23.09 @ 10:38AM
- 1/3 of North Korea's population is going hungry (BBC News)
- Chavez seizes Hilton Hotels in Venezuela (Guardian)
- The Hotel Chavez guests should know that the leader also does not want them singing in the shower (Telegraph)
- Wall Street Journal: Obama is going Al Capone on the Chamber of Commerce.
Fox News and Freedom of the Press
Posted by on 10.23.09 @ 10:35AM
The news that the administration's press corps tried to keep Fox News out of a press pool event with executive-pay czar Kenneth Feinberg vindicates those who had thought that the White House's pronouncement that Fox was "not really a news" outfit was ominously undemocratic. While some have tried to equate the administration's stance toward Fox with the Bush administration's criticism of, for instance, NBC, there is a clear distinction between complaining about specific aspects of an outfit's coverage and declaring that company "not really news." The connotation of that statement, I thought at the time it was made, was that the administration does not have to provide journalistic access to non-news companies. And I was right, as they followed up that claim with a concrete effort to exclude Fox from a news event. If they had done so successfully, would they have tried to push the envelope and refuse Fox from more and more events, with the ultimate goal of freezing them out altogether? Maybe, maybe not, but the point is that it would be at their discretion because Fox is not a news outlet.
Political Entrepreneurship: Move into John Murtha's District
Posted by on 10.23.09 @ 9:23AM
Isn't America great? Companies make money the old-fashioned way--open an office in the district of Rep. John Murtha and hire one of his former aides as a lobbyist. Not that Murtha is alone. Rep. Jim Moran is in on the game too.
Between 2003 and 2009, Mr. Murtha and Mr. Moran helped deliver $12 million to MobilVox in earmarks - money that is set aside by lawmakers for pet projects in the government's annual spending bills. The latest House defense spending bill introduced and pushed through by Mr. Murtha includes an additional $2 million earmark for MobilVox requested by Mr. Moran. The bill is currently pending in conference committee.
MobilVox, the two lawmakers and the lobbyists hired by the company insist they followed all congressional rules and campaign fundraising laws, and that all earmark decisions were made on their merit. None has been accused of any wrongdoing.
But MobilVox's success fits a pattern of doing business in Washington that ethics watchdogs deride as a "pay-to-play" system - one that became infamous during Republican years and continues to operate under a Democratic leadership that had promised to change a "culture of corruption" in Washington.
Mr. Moran's and Mr. Murtha's relationship with MobilVox "raises red flags. It is not subtle. It looks bad," said Joel Hefley, a retired Republican congressman from Colorado who chaired the House ethics committee when that panel admonished then-Majority leader Tom DeLay for ethical lapses earlier this decade.
Mr. Hefley, who retired in 2006, said he was particularly troubled by MobilVox's opening of an office in Mr. Murtha's district, saying that while there may have been a good reason, "It looks like it was done to curry favor with a person who has power to benefit them."
In a time of budget crisis every million dollars should matter even in Washington. Especially military outlays, given the fact that the U.S. spends almost as much as the rest of the world combined. The last thing Congress should be doing is wasting money on defense pork.
And then there was the Democratic campaign against ethical lapses by the GOP. Not that anyone should be surprised by the obvious hypocrisy, but the Democrats should have the good grace to retire the word "reform" from their vocabulary if they won't clean up the sort of blatant abuses evidence by Messers. Murtha and Moran, as well as other paladins of virtue, such as Ways and Means Committee Chairman Charlie Rangel.
The Day Ahead: October 23
Posted by on 10.23.09 @ 6:29AM
Today on the main site:
- Two Unserious Men, by James Bowman
- Judgment in Waziristan, by George H. Wittman
- Yes, "The One," Should Fail, by Quin Hilyer
- Revolt on the Right, by W. James Antle, III
What to watch for:
- Today is the deadline for the IAEA (UN watchdog)'s agreement with Iran regarding nuclear enrichment.
Thursday's best:
Iran wants exclusive nuclear relationship with Russia:
Thursday, October 22, 2009
NY23: Hoffman Surprised by 'Overwhelming' National Support
Posted by on 10.22.09 @ 4:58PM
SYRACUSE, N.Y.
"I got into this race to win it," 23rd District congressional candidate Doug Hoffman said today at a press conference here when asked if he was surprised by his recent surge in the upstate New York special election. "Most of all, I'm surprised by the support we're getting nationwide. . . . It's overwhelming. I never expected it."
Indeed, as endorsements have poured in -- and Michelle Malkin and other conservatives have begun to demand the withdrawal of liberal Republican candidate Dede Scozzafava -- the momentum in NY23 appears to have shifted decisively toward Hoffman.
Hoffman appeared this afternoon with former House Majority Leader Dick Armey at a press conference in front of the Federal Building in Syracuse, where the Conservative Party candidate endorsed the flat tax. "Even though I'm a CPA, the flat tax is the way to create an environment for economic growth," said Hoffman, noting that simplifying the tax code would result in a substantial loss of tax-preparation business for his firm.
Armey said that Scozzafava lost the election "the day she was elected," since her record and policy stances place her far outside the mainstream of the conservative 23rd District. Armey expressed the hope that "the Republicans will learn a lesson" from the defeat of Scozzafava.
Local volunteers supporting the Hoffman campaign got a pep talk Wednesday night from Armey at an event in nearby Cicero, N.Y., reported by Nina Wegner of the Syracuse Post-Standard:
"You're sitting right in the eye of the storm. This country is at a crossroads," Armey told the group. "We have a special election. This is the game-changer. We've struggled with a Republican party ... that has lost its way. They don't remember about Reagan ... they don't remember about small government. They let their thinking be controlled by self-serving political objects. And frankly, they made a lot of fools out of themselves."
There is a strong feeling of momentum for the Hoffman campaign, but there have been some bumps in the road, including a contentious interview today with the publisher of the Watertown (N.Y.) Daily News. Despite the "fireworks" during that interview, however, nobody called the police.
Healthcare bill uses the term "tax" 124 times
Posted by on 10.22.09 @ 4:43PM
A word search of the 1,502-page Senate healthcare bill (S. 1796) reveals that the term "tax" is used 124 times, "taxable" is used 158 times, and "excise tax" is used 12 times.
Other terms of interest are as follows:
| Senate Health Care Bill (S. 1796) | |
| Term | Number of uses |
| "Tax" | 124 times |
| "Taxes" | 16 times |
| "Excise tax" | 12 times |
| "Taxpayer(s)" | 79 times |
| "Taxable" | 158 times |
| "Tax-exempt" | 15 times |
| "Penalty" | 79 times |
| "Require" | 88 times |
| "Must" | 40 times |
Actress Heather Graham Teams Up With MoveOn To Push Fascist Option
Posted by on 10.22.09 @ 4:02PM
Movie star Heather Graham, whom you might remember as "Rollergirl" in Boogie Nights, is now appearing in MoveOn.org propaganda pushing the Fascist healthcare option.
The ad depicts a footrace between runners representing various insurance companies.
The Big Lie the ad promotes is that the so-called "public option" will promote competition in the health insurance industry. Of course, allowing the federal government to offer health insurance will necessarily drive all private insurers out of business, which is precisely the goal as its supporters freely admit.
Liquidating all private health insurers gives the government a monopoly.
Benito Mussolini and maybe Vladimir Lenin must be looking up from their fiery torments in Hell and smiling right now.
You Might Be A Constitutionalist If...
Posted by on 10.22.09 @ 2:34PM
Chuck Baldwin channels Jeff Foxworthy.
Malkin, too, in Solidarity
Posted by on 10.22.09 @ 1:34PM
Among the many other bloggers on the Scozz chain (see my post below), our friend Michelle Malkin just weighed in as well.
Bloggers Say Scozzafava Should Withdraw
Posted by on 10.22.09 @ 1:30PM
An incredible host of conservative bloggers, ranging from Mark Tapscott at The Examiner, who is a member of the Freedom of Information Act Hall of Fame, to me and Brian Faughnan at respective blogs at the Washington Times, to the directors of Red State, to Breitbart's blog, to several at Red County, to a particularly well-researched one by Jim Geraghty at The Campaign Spot at NRO, .... and the list goes on and on and on; I wish I could post every last link... has stepped forward in solidarity with John McCormack of the Weekly Standard to demand that New York congressional candidate Dede Scozzafava withdraw from her race because of her campaign's use of the police to try to intimidate McCormack. I report this here at the Spectator not by way of advocacy, but by way of observation that this is a unique example of conservative bloggers working in "viral" ways to push a common theme. Any student of the new media should find this fascinating as a cultural/media phenomenon.
In Afghanistan, Are Our Troops the Problem?
Posted by on 10.22.09 @ 1:23PM
Robert Pape , professor of political science at the University of Chicago testified today before the House Armed Services Terrorism, Unconventional Threats and Capabilities Subcommittee. Arguing against a troop increase in Afghanistan, the professor argued instead for a containment strategy where Western and Afghan forces would protect towns from increasing Taliban takeover but gradually scale-down forces while still financially aiding locals from afar. Pape believes that the presence of American troops has largely caused the insurgency to take place. He says in his New York Times piece, "The more Western troops we have sent to Afghanistan, the more the local residents have viewed themselves as under foreign occupation, leading to a rise in suicide bombings and other terrorist attacks."
While it seems to be common sense that the presence of American troops in a combat area increases the chances of American troops being attacked, the assertion that the presence of the Western troops is the cause of the violence seems dubious. Rather, the relative absence of American troops has left a power vacuum in South Afghanistan that the Taliban has exploited to develop an insurgency. As recently in 2006, there were only 20,000 American forces in Afghanistan, while there were 160,000 American forces in Iraq during the 2007 surge– a country smaller than Afghanistan in both geographic size and population. During this time, the Afghan Taliban made advances over the Pashtun region and suicide attacks against Americans and Afghan government security forces skyrocketed to an average of around 120 incidences per year since 2006.
If we try a containment strategy without more troops, there is absolutely no guarantee that the Taliban will not continue to strengthen and secure more Afghan towns, including Kandahar. Meanwhile, Al-Qaeda will enjoy a safe haven in the Taliban-occupied areas and have resources available to train foreigners for attacks in Western Countries. The safe havens allowed the network to flourish in the late 1990s when American troops were entirely absent, and that flourishing safe haven is reported to be happening again along the lawless Pakistan border.
Our troops are not the problem, but rather, the problem is the Taliban. Our troops could be part of the solution in defeating Al-Qaeda and the Taliban in Afghanistan if the requests for additional troops are approved by the president.
The Redskins' Football Fantasies
Posted by on 10.22.09 @ 12:09PM
There is virtually nothing I can add to Steve Largent's take on the Redskins' woes:
The formula that the Redskin owner and the Redskin general manager have for producing a winner on the field is not a winning formula, meaning that they can't make all the decisions on the coaches and on the personnel and then hire some guy off the street to be the head coach and win with what they put on the field, because it doesn't work. And that has been proven for 10 years in a row. ... So the failure of the Redskins is not about Jim Zorn. The failure of the Redskins starts above him, above his level.
As for the Redskins' new offensive consultant handling the play calling, Largent says this: "To think that you can bring a guy in from a retirement center, who is pulling out ping-pong balls in the Bingo games -- and literally, that's what he was doing in Detroit -- bring him down here for two weeks and say, 'You are going to call the plays for the next game against the Philadelphia Eagles, a division opponent, on Monday Night Football,' and think that that's going to be successful, that's a joke. That is really a joke."
This what happens when you don't understand that you are not supposed to be putting together a fantasy football team but a real one.
Anita Dunn as Madame Mao
Posted by on 10.22.09 @ 11:40AM
I'm not great with PhotoShop but I'm getting better over time.
Here's my improvement to a period propaganda poster from Communist China that featured Madame Mao holding Chairman Mao's Little Red Book.
It's my way of illustrating White House communications director Anita Dunn's admiration for Mao Zedong, a topic that George Neumayr has ably examined on the main AmSpec site today.
Your Tax Dollars At Work
Posted by on 10.22.09 @ 11:29AM
It is time for the federal government to spread the wealth to gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgendered old people. From a statement issued yesterday by the Department of Health and Human Services:
HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius today announced plans to establish the nation's first national resource center to assist communities across the country in their efforts to provide services and supports for older lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) individuals.
Experts estimate that as many as 1.5 to 4 million LGBT individuals are age 60 and older. Agencies that provide services to older individuals may be unfamiliar or uncomfortable with the needs of this group of individuals. The new Resource Center for LGBT Elders will provide information, assistance and resources for both LGBT organizations and mainstream aging services providers at the state and community level to assist them in the development and provision of culturally sensitive supports and services. The LGBT Center will also be available to educate the LGBT community about the importance of planning ahead for future long term care needs.
In lieu of gays in the military, a frontal assault on the Defense of Marriage Act or the rest of their political priorities, the "LGBT" community will get will planning for their long-term care.
NY23: Hoffman's 'Miracle' Campaign - UPDATE
Posted by on 10.22.09 @ 11:24AM
WATERTOWN, N.Y.
Doug Hoffman today got the official endorsement of former House Majority Leader Dick Armey and likened his congressional campaign to the U.S. hockey team's upset victory in the 1980 Winter Olympics.
"Let's go back to Lake Placid," said Hoffman, who worked as a financial officer for the Olympiad near his hometown of Saranac Lake. "We're going to create a miracle on Nov. 3. . . . That miracle starts today."
After weeks of a low-profile campaign in the upstate 23rd District special election, suddenly national media attention is focused on the race. Liberal Republican candidate Dede Scozzafava appears to be in meltdown mode and Hoffman is now riding a "tsunami" of momentum, one campaign source confided this morning.
"This is a race between the conservative and the Democrat," Armey, now chairman of Freedomworks, said in his speech endorsing Hoffman. A standing-room-only crowd of supporters repeatedly interrupted with chants of "Go, Doug, Go."
While Scozzafava has the endorsement of Armey's former congressional colleague Newt Gingrich and the support of the national GOP, grassroots volunteers from the Tea Party movement have bouyed the campaign of Hoffman, running on the Conservative Party line.
"The Republican candidate can't win," Armey declared, saying that Gingrich "made the wrong choice" in backing Scozzafava, a New York state assemblywoman whose record puts her to the left of most Democrats here in this largely rural district, where Republican Rep. John McHugh routinely won re-election with 2-to-1 margins.
Hoffman will appear this afternoon on the popular Glenn Beck television program and, according to sources with the campaign, has seen his fundraising take off in recent days. He reportedly raised $30,000 online Tuesday, was effectively endorsed by the Wall Street Journal on Wednesday and today received the endorsement of Ohio's Ken Blackwell, a nationally recognized conservative leader.
Clearly the secret of Hoffman's surge has been his strong support from grassroots activists, many of whom have never been involved in a political campaign before.
"I've always said that hard work beats Daddy's money," Armey told supporters here at Hoffman's storefront local office, on Court Street between a trophy shop and a pub. "We're going to have to outwork the other guys."
UPDATE (12:15): According to a Hoffman campaign source, Beck's producers have canceled the scheduled appearance by the candidate on the 5 PM Fox News Channel program. However, Beck is expected to discuss the NY-23 election during the show.
Report: ACORN Asking Laid Off Workers to Defraud Government
Posted by on 10.22.09 @ 11:12AM
ACORN is like that guy at the racetrack who bums cigarettes off other people because he wants to spend what's left of his welfare check on the sure thing in the 7th race.
More proof of ACORN's degeneracy comes today from Michael McCray who reports at BigGovernment.com that ACORN is asking workers it is laying off to continue working at ACORN as "volunteers" but to apply to the government for unemployment benefits. McCray is a member of the reform group 'ACORN 8.'
It's just another day at ACORN, the left's favorite crime syndicate.
Daily Must-Reads
Posted by on 10.22.09 @ 10:10AM
- Max Boot: Don't water down General McChrystal's request for more troops (New York Times)
- Rove: Obama doesn't have a political problem in Afghanistan (Wall Street Journal)
- Despite shunning Fox, Obama is embracing the loudest MSNBC has to offer (News Busters)
- Judges reject plan to cut California prison population and threaten to make their own (Los Angeles Times)
The Day Ahead: October 22
Posted by on 10.22.09 @ 6:29AM
Today on the main site:
- Breathless, by Ben Stein
- Cuba 1962: Lessons for Today, by John C. Wohlstetter
- Nothing New at Chrystler, by Eric Peters
Comment of the day:
Reader John on Reid Collins's Hike!
My father passed from this Earth in winter of 1975. He was a 39 year old football fanatic. He would watch football even if the teams on the field were two of his most despised.
He was deathly ill the year of the 1975 Super Bowl. (for the '74 season) Super Bowl IX... We had shared that season, savoring the upstart Steelers who from 1969-1974 had come from no where to dominate the decade.
His ending comment for the game was about Terry Bradshaw... "He'll be the last of the great quarterbacks.... 'cause he calls his own game."
Dad, called Tom Landry "The Fantastic Plastic Man". He reviled the computers, the plays called from the sideline, the hopping popping jumping wiggling motions on the line...
To him, football stewed down to 4 running plays and 2 pass plays and all the rest of it was just "fancy waving and moving around to distract the defense".
A few years back I watched a total minute for minute replay of Super Bowl III - Dad and I watched that one together, too. For a "high powered" fancy passing attack, there was no motion, no bobbing and weaving, and it turned out was mostly a split back formation with Don Maynard split out. Boozer and Snell basically pounded the ball. And Joe Namath called his own plays.
So did Bart Star.... YA Tittle... Johnny U (Who would have punched out a coach if the coach dared to call a play.)
Dad was right. No one since Bradshaw has been truly great. Formidable skills... maybe... but not great.
I agree with Mr. Collins. Ban play calling from the sideline. I don't care if the Center is calling plays with an assist from the Flanker... I don't care if they draw them in the dirt like we used to do as kids... no pads... no yard markers... no rule book...
Just "1 minuted of planning, 5 seconds of furious execution, and 3 minutes arguing over who fouled whom after the play..." (that from Dad over watching our furious sandlot football games when I was a kid.)
What to watch for:
Game of the day:
Wednesday's Best:
A Day in the life of Bernie Madoff:
Wednesday, October 21, 2009
Philly Video Proves ACORN Was Lying
Posted by on 10.21.09 @ 9:49PM
The latest undercover sting video showing ACORN advising a fake pimp and prostitute on how to break the law was released today.
The video about the Philadelphia story premiered at Big Government.com earlier today after it was first shown at the National Press Club in Washington, D.C.
This new video is especially significant because ACORN claimed repeatedly and strenuously that ACORN's Philadelphia office threw the make-believe pimp (James O'Keefe) and prostitute (Hannah Giles) out when it learned of the planned illegal behavior.
ACORN lied through its teeth -- and the new video showing what really happened in Philadelphia proves it.
For some reason the video won't embed. You may view it here.
The Fix for the Fix
Posted by on 10.21.09 @ 6:20PM
The news that the administration will severely cut the pay of executives at some of the firms that got the most bailout money is, of course, terrible. This level of government activity in private affairs is truly frightening.
Then again, there is a good justification for it. These companies -- AIG, General Motors, Bank of America, etc. -- are only nominally private companies, if even that. They are being propped up with public funds, so shouldn't their compensation be determined by the government? You could see this problem down the road as soon as the government bailed these companies out to fix the financial crisis.
The immediate problem is that the executives at these firms, whose pay is being cut by an average of 90 percent, have no reason to stick around. Why would they suffer the low wages and contempt show to them to stay when they could bolt for another company and keep 100 percent of their earnings?
Probably the administration has a fix in mind for that eventuality as well. Because they have a fix for every problem created by their previous fixes.
Glass-Steagall II
Posted by on 10.21.09 @ 5:47PM
Nate Silver touches on the issue of financial regulation reform and the Glass-Steagall II measure that Paul Volcker is advocating, and makes an observation about the looming legislative battle that seems astute:
From a 30,000-foot view, the debate will be between the Volckerists and the Summersists, with the Volckerists arguing that large financial institutions need to be broken up -- probably through something resembling a modern Glass-Steagall Act -- and the Summersists arguing instead for more extensive regulations.
The 'hard', online left will almost certainly take the Volckerist position. In fact, I expect this to be the "public option" of 2010, the badge of pride that "movement progressives" will use to distinguish themselves from "kleptocrats".
This is exactly the split that I was referring to in my earlier post on Volcker. Most people don't know or care about even the broad outlines of financial regulation, except that the left is usually in favor of more and the right in favor of less regulation of any kind. The kinds of regulations that Larry Summers or Austan Goolsbee would propose would be more intricate and hard to follow than Volcker's plan, which is readily understandable: split up the banks. It seems like a natural rallying point for the liberal left: financial reform without splitting up the banks is no reform at all.
Of course, someone will have to come up with a name for it that's as snappy as "public option." I personally cannot think of a way to make prohibiting banks from engaging in both commercial and investment banking activities seem sexy.
Paging George Stephanopoulos and his dictionary
Posted by on 10.21.09 @ 5:46PM
During a Sept. 20 interview on ABC's This Week, President Obama denied that the individual mandate excise tax in the Baucus healthcare draft was a tax, even though the draft language used the term "excise tax" as a descriptive. In a memorable exchange, host George Stephanopoulos read the dictionary definition of "tax" to the President, who replied by saying, "George, the fact that you looked up Merriam's Dictionary, the definition of tax increase, indicates to me that you're stretching a little bit right now."
Now that we finally have the actual legislative language of the 1,502-page Senate Finance healthcare bill (S. 1796), we can see on page 194 that the bill retained use of the term "excise tax":
Subtitle D-Shared Responsibility
PART I-INDIVIDUAL RESPONSIBILITY
SEC. 1301. EXCISE TAX ON INDIVIDUALS WITHOUT
ESSENTIAL HEALTH BENEFITS
COVERAGE
Pages 195-196 also contain the following terms:
"IMPOSITION OF TAX"
"INCLUSION WITH INCOME TAX RETURN"
"LIABILITY FOR TAX"
"AMOUNT OF TAX"
Additionally, the excise tax is one of several taxes in the bill that break Obama's "firm pledge" not to raise "any form" of taxes on families making less than $250,000 per year.
Will the White House continue to claim the tax is not a tax? Stay tuned.
AARP Also "Deeply Disappointed" By Defeat of "Doc Fix"
Posted by on 10.21.09 @ 5:38PM
The AARP, which allied with the American Medical Association to push for the $247 billion bill to prevent scheduled cuts to doctor's payments, also expressed disappointment at today's failed cloture vote:
“On behalf of our 40 million members, AARP is deeply disappointed that legislation to preserve seniors’ access to their doctors was blocked in the U.S. Senate today, proving once again Washington lawmakers would rather play political games than protect the needs of seniors.
“The Senate’s failure to fix the flawed doctor payment system means that payment rates for doctors in Medicare could be cut by 21.5 percent in just a few months. Short-term patches to preserve physician pay make the access problem worse by undermining doctors’ confidence in the Medicare program.
“AARP supported this bill because it would have given Medicare patients the certainty they deserve in knowing that access to their doctors would be preserved. Despite today’s setback, AARP will keep fighting for a legislative solution that will protect seniors’ access to their doctors and ensure they can get the care they need to stay healthy.”
Don't Get Too Excited
Posted by on 10.21.09 @ 5:09PM
Conservatives celebrating today's defeat of Harry Reid's push for a separate $247 billion health care bill should keep things in perspective.
While a cloture vote on proposed legislation that would have prevented scheduled cuts to Medicare doctors' payments over the next 10 years failed badly -- with 13 Democrats joining all 40 Republicans -- ultimately, the money is likely to be spent down the road anyway.
Even before the vote, Reid indicated that Democrats would proceed with a provision already in the Senate Finance Committee bill that would prevent the scheduled cuts from happening for one more year, and then revisit a more permanent "doctor fix" next year, by which time they already expect to have passed the broader health care legislation.
And if he can't get a permanent bill passed next year, then Congress will most likely continue to vote each year to avoid scheduled cuts, as they have done every year since 2003. Remember, even Republicans are for spending this money, but their only objection was about the need to find offsetting spending cuts.
The bottom line is that one way or another, these scheduled cuts are not going to happen, and hundreds of billions of dollars will be spent.
The way that this vote could end up affecting the overall health care debate is if it means that the AMA, which said it was "deeply disappointed" by the outcome, ultimately comes out against the final health care legislation, or if it's predictive of Democrats' lack of party unity on health care in general.
McCain Depletes the Testosterone Levels of America's Youth
Posted by on 10.21.09 @ 4:26PM
A new study claims something like that:
As polls closed on election night, researchers at Duke University and the University of Michigan had 183 men and women chew gum and spit into test tubes and analyzed their hormones.
A few hours later, as Barack Obama supporters began celebrating, they tested hormone levels again, and then later, at two more intervals.
Men who voted for Obama maintained stable testosterone levels, while men who voted for McCain saw those levels drop more than 25 percent.
Or maybe Barack Obama depletes the testosterone levels of conservative young men.
Not Very Rogue
Posted by on 10.21.09 @ 4:20PM
The left has predictably juvenile and whiny plans for the day Sarah Palin's book is released.
AMA "Deeply Disappointed" By Failed "Doc Fix" Vote
Posted by on 10.21.09 @ 3:16PM
The American Medical Association, which lobbied hard for the $247 billion health care bill, released the following statement in reaction to the failed cloture vote. It's unclear how this will affect their overall support for health care legislation, but it's worth noting that the statement does emphasize that, "Permanent repeal of the Medicare physician payment formula is essential to comprehensive health system reform."
Here's the full statement, attributed to AMA President J. James Rohack:
“The AMA is deeply disappointed that the Senate today blocked consideration of S. 1776, legislation to preserve access to health care for America’s seniors, baby boomers and military families. Senator Stabenow is a long-time champion for patients and physicians, and the AMA, AARP and MOAA strongly supported her bill that would have laid the foundation to permanently fix the Medicare physician payment formula and keep Medicare strong as millions of baby boomers enter the program in just two years.
“As we work to improve the health system, permanent repeal of the payment formula is essential to ensuring the security and stability of Medicare. On January first, Medicare physician payments are scheduled to be cut by 21 percent, with more cuts in years to come. Nearly 90 percent of people age 50 and older are concerned that the current Medicare physician payment formula threatens their access to care.
“While short-term fixes have temporarily averted widespread access problems, they have also grown the size of the problem – and the cost of reform. The AMA is committed to fixing the Medicare payment problem once and for all for seniors, baby boomers and the physicians who care for them.
“There is widespread agreement among Republicans and Democrats that the formula is broken and needs to be repealed. Congress created the Medicare physician payment system, and Congress needs to fix this problem once and for all to fulfill its obligation to seniors, baby boomers and military families. Permanent repeal of the Medicare physician payment formula is essential to comprehensive health system reform.”
Colture Vote Fails on "Doc Fix" Bill, 47 to 53
Posted by on 10.21.09 @ 2:53PM
Senator Harry Reid's attempt to move $247 billion in health care spending to a separate bill has failed, as he came far short of the 60 votes needed to cut off debate and proceed to vote.
In fact, the cloture vote on the bill to prevent scheduled cuts to Medicare doctors' payments without offsetting spending cuts or new tax revenue did not even get a simple majority, with just 47 Senators voting to cut of debate, and 53 Senators voting against the measure.
While I don't yet have a full roll call, among the Democrats voting against were Sens. Kent Conrad, Byron Dorgan, Russ Feingold, Joe Lieberman, Claire McCaskill, Mark Warner, Jim Webb and Ron Wyden.
Location, Location, Location
Posted by on 10.21.09 @ 2:51PM
In case you weren't absolutely convinced that NY-23 congressional Republican candidate Dede Scozzafava has becomed totally detached from reality, the location she chose for today's photo-op will erase your remaining doubts.
Dave Weigel passes along a photo and this video that show where Scozzafava decided to hold the photo-op: directly in front of Doug Hoffman's (the Conservative Party candidate) office. As Weigel says, "Little-known fact: There are lots of campaign workers, and signs, in such offices, ready to be deployed."
Words fail. What is she thinking?
UPDATE:
Commenter JohnD points out that Scozzafava is damned by her own words:
This was almost as funny as a Monty Python sketch. On top of being surrounded by sign-bearing supporters of her opponent, she says, "the people should have to opportunity to have their questions answered."
Then why did you call the cops, Dede?
As If the Cleveland Browns Don't Have Enough Problems
Posted by on 10.21.09 @ 1:43PM
Twelve of their players -- including five starters -- have the flu. They have not yet been tested for H1N1. Neither of their quarterbacks have been affected.
Thune: Government Plan Isn't Dead
Posted by on 10.21.09 @ 11:33AM
Sen. John Thune said on a Wednesday conference call that there is growing momentum behind including a government-run plan in final health care legislation.
"I thought the government plan was dead," Thune said. "I don't think that anymore."
Thune said there was momentum on the Democratic side of the aisle for some form of a government plan. So far, various ideas have included a "trigger" mechanism that would create a government plan if private insurers don't meet certain targets, and another proposal that would allow states to opt out of the plan.
Thune also said that if Democrats have trouble passing a bill through normal means, they may split it into two parts, passing the purely tax and spending measures (such as the expansion of Medicaid) through the reconciliation process where they would only need 51 votes, and the regulatory changes (such as coverage of preexisting conditions) through the traditional process that would require 60. However, he said that such a move would be a last resort if they don't even have the votes to pass something along the lines of the Senate Finance Committee bill, and that they likely couldn't get a government plan through this method.
A Giant Problem for the Obama Economic Team
Posted by on 10.21.09 @ 11:20AM
The thrust of this New York Times piece on the gigantic (6'8") Economic Recovery Advisory Board head Paul Volcker is that the president and his economic team see him as a nuisance they don't know what to do with. What's interesting, though, is why they consider his advice -- and giving them advice is his stated role -- useless: because he's coming from too far to the left.
Paul Volcker has always been a very independent-minded economist. That quality helped him achieve his greatest accomplishment, which was when, as Fed chairman under Reagan, he defeated the pernicious inflation that had plagued the country through the '70s. In fact, his management of the money supply was one of the greatest domestic economic policy accomplishments of the past century, and was only possible because he and Reagan were impossibly steadfast in their commitment to curing inflation.
That same obstinance, however, is now making him an outsider and a forgotten man. The Times article highlights his advocacy of a modern-day Glass-Steagall bank regulation, enforcing the split between commercial and investment banks. Such a provision, he is arguing, would prevent too-big-to-fail insitutions from taking on risks that could potentially lead to bailouts.
Volcker's plan, the article clearly shows, is falling on deaf ears: "So Mr. Volcker scoffs at the reports that he is losing clout. 'I did not have influence to start with,' he said."
His plans conflict with the rest of the Obama team's ideas for two reasons. The first is that they are too far to the left. The article notes that one of the very few major economists to side publicly with Volcker is the Nobel laureate Joe Stiglitz, who is well to the left of Obama team members like Larry Summers or Austan Goolsbee. Although the regulations Volcker is proposing are probably well within mainstream left-wing political ideas, most economists see technical problems with placing American bank-holding companies at a disadvantage.
The second problem is that Volcker's plan is decidedly anti-bank. To enforce a modern-day Glass-Steagall, the Feds would have to break up Goldman Sachs, which is now a bank holding company, and spin off the investment banks that were snatched up by bank holding companies at the height of the financial crisis. Needless to say, these measures would be hard to sneak by the banks.
These two problems illustrate two corresponding facts about the administration's philosophy. The first is that they are not so much left-wing as they are technocratic, as seen by the fact that a lefty stalwart's words are falling on deaf ears. The second is that the administration is thoroughly pro-big business and pro-the banks.
Thune: Cloture Vote Scheduled for this Afternoon on "Doc Fix"
Posted by on 10.21.09 @ 11:11AM
Sen. John Thune said on a conference call that Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid has scheduled a cloture vote for this afternoon on the Democrats' plans to shift $247 billion in costs of health care legislation to a separate bill without offsetting spending cuts.
Thune said the vote to prevent scheduled cuts to Medicare doctors' payments could show that not only all Republicans, but several Democrats object to this approach.
As far as the larger health care bill, Thune said that he expects Democratic negotiators will emerge from closed door negotiations either next week or the week after with a bill that they'll bring to the Senate floor.
Reid's $247 Bln "Doc Fix" Faces Resistance From Senate Dems
Posted by on 10.21.09 @ 10:39AM
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid's scheme to divert $247 billion in costs of health care legislation to a separate bill has encountered resistance among five Senate Democrats who have said they want the new spending to be offset with spending cuts or tax increases, the Hill reports.
The key thing to keep in mind though is that Democrats could still pass a bill with a lower price tag that prevents scheduled cuts to Medicare doctors' payments for a year, and then revisit the issue a year from now. The problem with that approach, however, is they risk losing support of the American Medical Association.
Daily Must-Reads
Posted by on 10.21.09 @ 10:20AM
- Afghan run-off election won't help, and it's not even a good photo-op for John Kerry (Los Angeles Times)
- Shariah, suicide bombers, and the Beatles -- David Rohde's time imprisoned by the Taliban (New York Times)
- $25 million in DC city AIDS assistance believed to be wasted (Washington Post)
- Biden says he said no to VP job at first (Hill)
- Major League baseball has worn down the fan (Chicago Sun Times)
Kos for Scozz, but Against Her Too
Posted by on 10.21.09 @ 10:03AM
I now add yet another thing to my survey on the Scozzafava race. Markos of the Daily Kos has endorsed her, b ut even he can't abide her treatment of McCormack.
Dede the Dumb-Dumb?
Posted by on 10.21.09 @ 9:42AM
New York faux-Republican congressional can't-idate Dede Scozzafava takes a double-hit today, one from the Washington Times, another from the Wall Street Journal. Also taking a hit from the Times are the milkweed "leaders" of the congressional GOP, past and present, who back Scozzafava. And now it turns out that Weekly Standard reporter John McCormack, all but accused of being a stalker by the Scuzzy-fava campaign, had a tape recorder going during the polite questioning for which the Scuzzies sicced the police on him -- and, lo and behold, he never once yelled at the candidate, forcing a retraction from her smear-job-specialist/press aide. Just as a simple, objective observation having nothing to do with who should or should not win that special election, it's safe and fair to say that Ms. Scozzafava has had two extremely, amazingly, incontrovertibly awful days. For that matter, so have Pete Sessions and the NRCC gang who can't shoot straight and who have wasted tens of thousands of dollars of ad money attacking the Conservative candidate, Doug Hoffman, rather than attacking the Democrat, whatshisname Owens, all on behalf of a candidate so far out of the Republican mainstream that she is to the left of Owens and whose dealings with respected conservative media are decidedly gauche.
UPDATE: National Review's editors weighed in as well.
Bob McDonnell and the Black Vote
Posted by on 10.21.09 @ 9:38AM
Over at RealClearPolitics, Sean Trende examines a Survey USA poll that shows Virginia's Republican candidate for governor winning an eye-popping 31 percent of the black vote. I've often found Survey USA's numbers for black support of the GOP a little high, probably due to small sample sizes. But Trende makes the case for and against taking this figure seriously:
(1) In 2006, George Allen came about as close as he could have come to dropping an "n-bomb" on a person of color without actually saying that particular word. Throughout the campaign, Democrats consistently brought up racial incidents in Allen's past. And the Republican label was radioactive nationally. Allen still got 15% of the black vote.
(2) Doug Wilder's (Virginia's first black governor and former mayor of Richmond) non-endorsement of Deeds has received a ton of attention.
(3) McDonnell has been competing quietly for the black vote in his commercials. One advertisement has featured businesswoman Sheila Johnson, a Democrat who endorsed McDonnell, while another features numerous African American Deputy and Assistant Attorneys General.
I'll be surprised if McDonnell gets much more than 20 percent of the black vote -- which would itself be a fairly strong result -- but we'll soon see.
Headline of the Day
Posted by on 10.21.09 @ 8:50AM
Here's some news you can use: "AP Poll: Pet owners willing to go mouth-to-muzzle."
Public Says "The One" Ain't "The One"
Posted by on 10.21.09 @ 7:58AM
At least when it comes to the Nobel Peace Prize.
Reports Julie Mason of the Washington Examiner:
When Beltway Confidential wins the Pulitzer for its incisive political content, we like to hope that a majority of Americans will agree it was well deserved. While we await that happy day, a new poll by USA Today and Gallup finds 61 percent of Americans believe President Obama did not deserve the Nobel Peace Prize. Thirty-five percent said he did.
Now, that smarts! Asked if they were personally glad Obama won the award, 46 percent said they were, and 47 percent said they were not.
This probably wrecks President Barack Obama's chances of collecting the MVP award in the World Series.
The Day Ahead: October 21
Posted by on 10.21.09 @ 6:26AM
Today on the main site:
- Evangelicals and Immigration, by Mark Tooley
- It will all come to tears, by G. Tracy Mehan, III
Comment of the day:
Reader Red Phillips on Patrick O'Hannigan's The Patriotic Lessons of Disneyland:
Well, I think Mr. O'Hannigan reasserts the proposition nation thesis again here but more softly. The idea or the creed or the proposition or whatever may be a part of the overall culture that we share. A love of freedom is more characteristic of America than it is of some countries where order and authority are more valued, for example. (This is often true sociologically of colonial countries vs. the motherland from which they sprang, and open frontier countries vs. densely populated ancient cultures.) Europe thinks we are crazy for resisting socialized medicine and gun control for example. But the idea cannot be the defining characteristic. It is a part of the overall cultural milieu.
For example, people often celebrate the fact that America has religious freedom but treat it as incidental that America was almost entirely Christian. Which is more important, the particularly Christian nature or the religious freedom? Christians should have no qualms about answering the former. And if they answer the latter I think they need to seriously examine their priorities.
And on a related note, America did not have "organic diversity" except the Indians whose land we were expropriating and the African slaves we brought here against their will. The vast majority of Americans at the Founding were of British Isle stock. (See John Jay Federalist #2). Our present diversity is the result of immigration since the War for Independence, immigration which is now, contrary to the related nation of immigrants dogma, at unprecedented rates.
What to watch for:
Game of the day:
Tuesday's Best:
Russia loans Serbia 1 billion dollars:
Tuesday, October 20, 2009
Paying for Iraq and Afghanistan
Posted by on 10.20.09 @ 6:45PM
During an appearance I made on MSNBC today in which the subject started off being about Iraq and then moved to Afghanistan, anchor David Shuster asked me how I'd finance our continued presence in the nations. I said that there was a long list of government programs that I'd like to cut, and he found it rather amusing that I required more than 10 seconds to explain. But just for the record, here are a small sampling of the government measures that I've opposed in recent years:
President Bush's Medicare prescription drug plan (cost: ongoing, but $41 billion in 2008 alone).
The Bear Stearns bailout (cost: $30 billion).
The AIG bailout (cost: $180 billion).
Fannie and Freddie bailout (as much as $200 billion).
Auto bailouts (cost: Over $60 billion).
The Bush economic stimulus bill of 2008 (cost: $152 billion).
The Bank bailout (cost: $700 billion).
The Obama economic stimulus bill ($787 billion).
This does, however, bring up a broader point. Libertarians and non-interventionist conservatives argue that a more costly foreign policy abroad undermines the case for fiscal restraint at home. This is a valid point that I think those who, like me, favor a limited role for the government domestically have to grapple with when arguing for military intervention. The way I think about it is that there's a consistent argument to be made that national security is one of the legitimate functions of government because fighting a war is not something that individuals can realistically do without a government. The most honest way I can sum up my outlook is that while I believe it's a proper role for the federal government to prevent thousands of American civilians from getting killed while going about their work day, I don't think that government's role is to pay for everybody's health insurance. Ideally, I'd like to live in a world in which we didn't need a military at all, or at least one in which we only required a very limited military merely tasked with defending our borders from foreign invasion. But while, for non-interventionists, Sept. 11 proved that we shouldn't be meddling in world affairs, for me it proved the opposite.
As much as I'd like for the United States to maintain a low profile, I don't think that such a policy is realistic in a day and age in which men plotting in caves in Afghanistan can send 19 extremists armed with box cutters to smash airplanes into buildings and kill 3,000 civilians on U.S. soil. When it comes to how to prevent terrorist attacks, the record shows that for decades the frequency and severity of the terrorist threat grew even as we viewed it as a manageable threat that did not require a full military action. And I don't think that withdrawing troops from around the world would satisfy Islamic extremists. So conceptually speaking, I do support aggressive actions to deprive those extremists of training grounds and to make sure that weapons of mass destruction do not fall into the hands of irrational actors who are enemies of the U.S. That has lead me, in recent years, to support two objectively costly wars.
So where do the campaigns in Iraq and Afghanistan fit into this framework? While I continue to believe that the world is better off without Saddam Hussein, in hindsight, I don't think the Iraq War was worth it when you consider the full range of costs associated with the war. That is, not only the actual cost in blood and treasure, but the opportunity cost in terms of other actions that are no longer feasible because of Iraq, most prominently, our inability to do anything to thwart Iran's nuclear ambitions. However, I also recognize that since we're already in Iraq, that we should leave in as responsible a manner as possible to make sure that there isn't a climate of violence and civil war that creates a vacuum through which Al Qaeda or other terrorist groups can build bases, not to mention the destabilizing effects in the entire region. As far as Afghanistan, there was a clear connection to Sept. 11, and I also think it's important that we don't leave prematurely and turn over the country to the Taliban.
In any event, this is a complicated set of arguments, which are difficult to make in a short television segment, which you can watch below:
Is Karzai Duping Obama?
Posted by on 10.20.09 @ 4:16PM
Today, Afghan President Hamid Karzai accepted a run-off election on November 7th after a UN panel found around one million of his votes from the August election to be invalid. Under this scheme, Karzai will face his challenger, Abdullah Abdullah, because he was found after the review to have less than the necessary 50 percent of the vote in the first round. A run-off or power-sharing arrangement was believed to be necessary due to Karzai's dubious credibility.
President Obama claimed a political victory and praised Karzai:
"President Karzai and the other candidates have shown that they have the interests of the Afghan people at heart."
I am speculating, but I wonder if there might have been another motive besides having the hearts of the Afghan people in mind while agreeing to such an early election. The Independent Election Commission of Afghanistan, which announced that date, "consists of nine members, including a chairperson and a deputy chairperson, appointed by Presidential Decree."
Abdullah rallied from single-digit support early in the summer to gain 32% of the vote in the August round. Abdullah's stock seems to be rising, while Karzai's is dwindling amid corruption allegations not limited to this election. Moreover, it would seem extremely difficult to root out all the corruption that happened in the August election in a little over two weeks in a country with very little resources or roads to speak of and plenty of local warlords appointed by Karzai. In three weeks, we will very likely be discussing the widespread corruption in the run-off and be left with little options for pursuing a legitimate government that can fight the Taliban.
This rush to action seems comparable to a football game where the quarterback is trying to snap the ball before the defense is on the field so that the offense can score before the defense is ready. This looks like a desperate move to seize and retain power before an effective election can take place, yet President Obama is publicly praising Karzai's heart.
Not So Neutral on Net Neutrality
Posted by on 10.20.09 @ 2:40PM
Conservative opposition to the push for net neutrality is nothing new. But even some liberal Democrats are starting to object. Amanda Carpenter reports on some Democratic governors who have concerns. There's an item on BigGovernment.com showing that a few liberal groups are following suit:
Those groups include the Communications Workers of America labor union, which in a letter to Chairman Genachowski from Thursday, raised concerns regarding the impact that the FCC's rulemaking could have on job creation at a time of 10 percent unemployment. Groups like the Asian American Justice Center, National Council of La Raza, the League of United Latin American Citizens and the National Urban League, keen to avoid a widening of the "digital divide," also voiced concerns in a letter to the FCC dated October 13.
Democratic Governors, including Arkansas Gov. Mike Beebe and North Carolina Gov. Beverly Perdue, have urged caution with regard to the issue. Meanwhile, Oklahoma's Democratic Gov. Brad Henry wrote to Genachowski earlier this month to tout the positive effects of his state's model of "light or no regulation for landline, broadband and wireless services."
Last Thursday, 72 Democratic members of the House of Representatives, also in a letter to Genachowski, wrote that "it is our strong belief that continued progress in expanding the reach and capabilities of broadband networks will require the Commission to reiterate, and not repudiate, its historic commitment to competition, private investment and a restrained regulatory approach."
Key Dem Senator Doesn't Think Other Heath Care Bill Should Be Paid For
Posted by on 10.20.09 @ 2:13PM
As I've noted, one of the tricks Democrats are employing to claim that health care legislation will cost less than $900 billion and not add to the deficit is to move nearly $250 billion of spending to a separate bill. Even the Washington Post has editorialized that it's "nonsensical" for Democrats to claim that the additional bill, which would prevent scheduled cuts to Medicare doctors' payments, is not part of health care reform.
Now, Roll Call is reporting that Sen. Debbie Stabenow, the chief sponsor of this so called "doc fix" legislation, is blasting the idea that this spending should be offset so that it doesn't add to the deficit:
Sen. Debbie Stabenow (D-Mich.) on Tuesday rejected bipartisan demands that her legislation extending Medicare payments to doctors include provisions to offset its massive $245 billion price tag, arguing a one-year pay-for in the larger health care bill is sufficient.
“We’re not moving forward from the basis of offsets,” Stabenow said, accusing Republicans of using the issue to try to scuttle the broader health care reform effort.
UPDATE: House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer is warning Harry Reid that it must be paid for, and says Nancy Pelosi agrees.
Re: Scozzafava/McCormack
Posted by on 10.20.09 @ 2:01PM
You would think that Dede Scozzafava and her spokesman would go far out of their way to accomodate a conservative journalist like John McCormack. After all, their credibility with and support from the conservative base is already in terrible shape. But to call the cops on him? I have not been following this campaign closely, but a quick scan of the headlines leads me to believe that both Dede Scozzafava and her spokesman, Matt Burns, are completely unhinged.
And as a side note, I was going to mention that this run-in between Scozzafava and McCormack was hilariously ethnic -- McCormack is Irish enough that there are a thousand faux-Irish pubs by that name, and Scozzafava is perhaps the most Italian name I've ever heard. But then I learn that "Dede" is short for Deirdre, which is one of the most Irish names possible.
So "Deirdre Scozzafava" is easily the most ethnically confused name I've ever heard in my life.
Don't Like A Reporter's Questions?
Posted by on 10.20.09 @ 12:45PM
Call the cops. Dede Scozzafava's positions on issues like card check, taxes, and federal coverage of abortion are problematic enough. But when a Republican candidate would rather call the police than answer questions from a conservative magazine reporter, that's a sign of a real problem.
He's Mao-velous!
Posted by on 10.20.09 @ 12:27PM
Just wanted to add a quick thought to the Anita Dunn/Mao controversy. As Matt demonstrates below, this is one of those instances in which the broader context actually makes the speaker of a controversial quote come off worse. Dunn doesn't just name Mao as one of her two favorite political philosophers who she often "turn[s] to," but she goes on to tell the story of Mao's takeover of China as an example of perseverance, without any qualification. It's important to recognize, though, that the reason why the outrage over this story has largely been confined to conservatives is that Mao has managed to escape the stigma attached to other totalitarian rulers of the 20th Century, namely Hitler and Stalin. If any administration official had told an inspiring story about Hitler as an example of perseverance -- a failed painter who was written off after the Beer Hall Putsch, but who emerged from prison to mount a political comeback that saw him take over Germany -- that official would be gone instantly, even with the liberal media.
It's unfortunate that Mao, a man who is responsible for the deaths of 70 million people, isn't as politically toxic. Part of this is a legacy of the romanticized portrait of Mao conveyed by Edgar Snow, Mao's propagandist to the West, in the 1937 book Red Star Over China, as well as subsequent liberal apologetics for him in the decades that followed, and general ignorance. American elementary and high schools teach European and Cold War history, but don't tend to emphasize Chinese history, meaning that people who want to learn more about the world's most populous nation generally have to seek out that knowledge on their own. For a more critical account of Mao's brutal legacy, I'd recommend Jung Chang and Jon Halliday's excellent Mao: the Unknown Story to anybody who hasn't read it.
Pre-totalitarian Thuggery of the Left and Rush Limbaugh
Posted by on 10.20.09 @ 12:16PM
I have watched with deepening dismay as the American left has increasingly embraced a political strategy which aims to keep people on their side by creating fear over the consequences of NOT being with them.
Example: Robert Bork was a highly respected legal mind who vigorously questioned the various liberal orthodoxies about constitutional law. He was successfully painted as a racist theocrat.
Example: Rush Limbaugh makes a career of lampooning the left. On a nationally televised program, he made a questionable assertion (in my mind, an incorrect one) that the black quarterback Donovan McNabb benefitted from a form of media-driven affirmative action. A remark that deserved either mild debate or dismissal as wrong-headed turned into bile so bitter the man ultimately loses the chance to engage in ordinary commerce as an investor in the NFL.
Example: Fox News runs a straight news operation with a sideline of hosts who offer conservative analysis and comment. Some hosts, like Greta van Susteren do not offer ideological comment. President Obama's top adviser David Axelrod tells George Stephanopoulos that the other networks should not treat Fox like a news organization and that the administration does not treat them as a news organization. (This is a particularly odd assertion since then-candidate Obama did a lengthy interview with Bill O'Reilly which ran over the course of several nights.)
What is happening in these examples is not an attempt to engage in intellectual debate over a policy, but rather to make one point of view appear to be so out of bounds as to not belong to polite society. And so, Keith Olbermann, whose big trademark item is labeling various conservatives as "the worst person in the world" and who has spent years tossing out platitudes at least as far left as anything Limbaugh has offered to the right, is a suitable host for NBC's Football Night in America, while Limbaugh is portrayed as nothing more than some kind of rich, red meat political pornographer with apparently obvious racist beliefs. So obvious, in fact, that a series of outrageous statements can be attributed to him without even being CHECKED by the media.
This is a form of pre-totalitarian politics. When we single someone out, particularly a relatively mainstream figure like Rush Limbaugh or Robert Bork or an organization like Fox News, and then act as though they are beyond the pale the message is clear. Don't listen to such people. Don't associate with them. Don't ever say anything they would say. The price is lost opportunity, lost friendship, and a bad reputation. And you don't want THAT, do you?
Growth Beats Green
Posted by on 10.20.09 @ 11:57AM
The Politico features a poll suggesting that the latest problem to face cap and trade may be public concerns with the economy. According to this survey, 62 percent believe "economic growth should be given priority, even if the environment suffers to some extent" while just 38 percent think "protection of the environment should be given priority, even at the risk of curbing economic growth."Climate change is a top priority for just 4 percent of the American people, well behind the economy (45 percent), government spending (21 percent), health care (20 percent), and the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan (just 9 percent). The poll was conducted by the Public Strategies' Research Practice Group.
The New York Times Demands To Know...
Posted by on 10.20.09 @ 10:48AM
...where Obama's Wall Street payola is.
Never let a crisis or ill-advised government intervention go to political waste, people.
Daily Must-Reads
Posted by on 10.20.09 @ 10:23AM
- China retaliates to US protectionism with nylon tariff (New York Times)
- UN report throws in remarks "gender is not static; it is changeable over time and across contexts" into a report that was supposed to be about counter-terrorism (CNS News)
- Poland poised to purge itself of Che Guevara, and all communist imagery (Scotsman)
- The federal government wants to buy you a golf cart with someone else's money. You can then lease out the cart and make $2,000 for doing nothing (Wall Street Journal)
Washington Post Poll and the Government Plan
Posted by on 10.20.09 @ 10:05AM
Liberals are touting a new Washington Post poll purporting to show a majority of 57 percent of Americans support including a government-run plan, or public option, in health care legislation. It's worth noting a few things about this result. The important thing to keep in mind is that while some of us are really focused on the details of the health care debate, it isn't the same for most of the country. As I noted last week, a Pew poll found that only 56 percent of the public recognized that the "public option" had something vaguely to do with the issue of health care, while 11 percent thought it had to do with either banking regulation, unemployment, or energy policy -- and 33 percent wouldn't even wager a guess. What this tells me is that for a good chunk of the population, polling on the issue will largely depend on how the question is asked, because if only 56 percent know it has something to do with health care, it's probably even a smaller portion of the public that really understands what it's all about. So, in this case, the Washington Post asked the question in the most benign sounding way, as it is typically pitched by liberal supporters, "Would you support or oppose having the government create a new health insurance plan to compete with private health insurance plans?" In this case, the pollsters used the market-friendly term "compete" even though it's the subject of tremendous debate whether or not that competition could be fair. Back in June, the Post did another poll, which actually found even broader support for the government plan -- 62 percent. But in that poll, they asked a follow up question, "What if having the government create a new health insurance plan made many private health insurers go out of business because they could not compete?" After asking that, support droped to 37 percent.
It's worth mentioning a few other items from today's poll. It shows 56 percent support a mandate requiring individuals to purchase health insurance, and that number goes up to 71 percent when people are told that legislation would also provide financial assistance to those with lower incomes to purchase insurance. However, pollsters did not mention in any of the questions that anybody who does not obtain health insurance would face a tax of $750.
Other findings in the poll are much more mixed. For instance, it shows that:
Overall, 45 percent of Americans favor the broad outlines of the proposals now moving in Congress, while 48 percent are opposed, about the same division that existed in August, at the height of angry town hall meetings over health-care reform. Seven in 10 Democrats back the plan, while almost nine in 10 Republicans oppose it. Independents divide 52 percent against, 42 percent in favor of the legislation.
Meanwhile, as many people disapprove of Obama's handling of health care as approve -- 48 percent -- and 68 percent think health care legislation will add to the deficit.
The bottom line: do I think these poll results will be politically useful for those making the case for a government plan? Yes. Do I think it suggests a groundswell of public support for this policy measure? Absolutely not.
Want Private Health Care? Work for Britain's NHS
Posted by on 10.20.09 @ 9:20AM
There are moments beyond parody. Such as when Britain's National Health System defended providing private care for NHS employees. You see, private care is, er, better. Reports the Times of London:
The health department defended the practice and said sending doctors, nurses and other key staff for private treatment helped to get them back to work.
"If trusts want to get their staff back to work more quickly they can't jump NHS waiting lists, so going private is an option," said the spokesman.
"There is evidence that early intervention in tackling sickness absence enables staff to return to work more quickly.
"Other benefits include: reducing the risk of chronic illness that could result in ill health retirement, cost-saving on temporary staff and having a positive impact on staff health and wellbeing and, in turn, patient satisfaction."
Let's see. If private care without waiting lists gets people back to work sooner, and reduces the risk of chronic illness, then why shouldn't everyone get private care? Surely there is a good reason for imposing substandard care on most of the nation!
Attacking David Keene
Posted by on 10.20.09 @ 8:03AM
- "A lot of people have expressed concerns about the possibility of CPAC being run in a pay-for-play fashion. How are you guarding against this?"
- "Person A should not have been granted a spot given these examples of not being a proper conservative. What were the considerations that allowed this person to appear nonetheless?"
- "You said in your response to the accusations of selling out to FedEx the following [...]. But yet there was still this point you did not address..."
And quite frankly, after spending several hundred dollars to attend an event just to be told that dissent is “the heighth of rudeness” and that bloggers should shut up and defer to their movement elders was just a little too much too take.
I won’t return to events sponsored by the same organizations in the future. The big problem with the conservative movement has been its self-appointed leaders telling others to shut up and follow in lockstep, and I don’t think any so-called movement leaders taking that approach have the first foggy clue about what the New Media and Tax Parties mean.
Quick, Somebody Call 911! We Got A Guy Asking QUESTIONS Here!
Posted by on 10.20.09 @ 7:48AM
We may not know if Daily Kos-endorsed Republican Dede Scozzafava supports public funding of abortions or massive new taxes to create a federal wellness regime, but after last night we definitely know what she and her campaign think of uppity Weekly Standard reporters!
Human Contribution
Posted by on 10.20.09 @ 7:30AM
For an illustration of what governments want to regulate with cap-and-trade (which President Obama said during the campaign would cause electricity rates to "necessarily skyrocket"), watch this short video about our contribution of CO2 to the atmosphere (Hat tip: Climaterealists.com):
The Day Ahead: October 20th
Posted by on 10.20.09 @ 6:30AM
Today on the main site:
- Bertha Lies, by Matthew Vadum
- The Patriotic Lessons of Disneyland, by Patrick O'Hannigan
- The Bad Road to Baucus, by William Tucker
- Clunker Nation, by Ralph R. Reiland
- An Education, by James Bowman
- The Real Abortion Fabrications, by Fred Lucas
Comment of the Day:
Reader Appleby on James Bowman's Look at Me:
When I was a child, such people were called *show-offs* and, if their parents were the right kind of people, were firmly discouraged from continuing such behaviour, at least in public. Of course, in those days every child did not have a lawyer on call, ready to alert the media to the unconscionable torment suffered when her client was forbidden to moon the school assembly or wear a *Bush is a Poo Poo Head* shirt to daycare.
Today as Balloon Boy has proved, the only thing that matters to most people is being Noticed by the International Media. I predict that it will not be six months before somebody actually sends his baby aloft in a flying saucer balloon, and after the poor child falls to her death (it will be a girl this time), memorials will spring up all along the route the doomed balloon traced, and the location where the little one was smashed to flinders will bear a large and tasteless monument aand the subject of an After School Special.
It has become, unfortunately, the American Way.
What to watch for:
Game of the Day:
Monday's Best:
Anita Dunn Claims Mao Praise Was An Innocent Joke
Posted by on 10.20.09 @ 12:15AM
Standup comedian Anita Dunn, who doubles as President Obama's White House communications director, now claims she was only joking when she praised Mao Zedong by calling him “one of the two people that I turn to most,” Glenn Beck revealed on his TV show Monday.
Hilarious! There have to be 70 million murdered Chinese rolling in the aisles! What a knee-slapper. Beck revealed last week that Dunn idolizes Mao, the brutal Communist dictator of China responsible for the slaughter of tens of millions of innocent victims.
To recap, in a video from June, Dunn told high schoolers:
A lot of you have a great deal of ability. A lot of you work hard. Put them together and that answers the "why not" question. There is usually not a good reason. And then the third lesson and tip actually comes from two of my favorite political philosophers: Mao Zedong and Mother Teresa, not often coupled together, but the two people that I turn to most to basically deliver a simple point, which is, you're going to make choices. You're going to challenge. You're going to say why not. You're going to figure out how to do things that have never been done before. But here's the deal -- these are your choices. They are no one else's. In 1947, when Mao Zedong was being challenged within his own party on his plan to basically take China over, Chiang Kai Shek and the nationalist Chinese held the cities that had the army. They had the airport. They had everything on their side, and people said, "How can you win? How can you do this? How can you do this, against all the odds against you?" And Mao Zedong said, "You know, you fight your war, and I'll fight mine." And think about that for a second. You don't have to accept the definition of how to do things, and you don't have to follow other people's choices and paths, OK? It is about your choices and your path. You fight your own war. You lay out your own path. You figure out what's right for you. You don't let external definitions define how good you are internally. You fight your war. You let them fight theirs. Everybody has their own path. And Mother Teresa, who, upon receiving a letter from a fairly affluent young person who asked her whether she could come over and help with that orphanage in Calcutta, responded very simply, "Go find your own Calcutta." OK? Go find your own Calcutta. Fight your own path. Go find the thing that is unique to you. The challenge that is actually yours, not somebody else's challenge. One of the things that we see the Obamas, both of them, Michelle and Barack, came out of backgrounds as community organizers, working.
If Dunn's message was about the importance of perseverance and refusing to give up, she could easily have quoted a non-controversial figure such as Winston Churchill, Dale Carnegie, Franklin D. Roosevelt, or Thomas Edison, but she chose Mao, a homicidal maniac. Remember that: she chose Mao as an example of someone whose ideas she elevates and exults.
But now Dunn says, "The use of the phrase 'favorite political philosophers' was intended as irony, but clearly the effort fell flat." Having studied English, this doesn't quite make sense to me.
The following explanation roughly captures what I learned about irony in college:
The essential feature of irony is the indirect presentation of a contradiction between an action or expression and the context in which it occurs. In the figure of speech, emphasis is placed on the opposition between the literal and intended meaning of a statement; one thing is said and its opposite implied, as in the comment, “Beautiful weather, isn't it?” made when it is raining or nasty. Ironic literature exploits, in addition to the rhetorical figure, such devices as character development, situation, and plot to stress the paradoxical nature of reality or the contrast between an ideal and actual condition, set of circumstances, etc., frequently in such a way as to stress the absurdity present in the contradiction between substance and form.
I didn't pick up any irony in her comments, did you? And if she was being ironic as to her "favorite political philosophers," the irony would also extend to Mother Teresa. She didn't say anything about distancing herself from Mother Teresa, so this retroactive pronouncement of irony by Dunn is quite selective, isn't it? A parent of a high school student present in the audience at the speech by Dunn (who has been asked by the White House to lead the Obama administration's war against Fox News) also didn't think the supposed joke was funny. "There was no irony, no sense of humor," he said. "Mao would have preferred to silence the opposition by a bullet to the head."
If Dunn is a practitioner of irony, she should have her license revoked.
(The Obama as Mao poster graphic above is by Matt Holzmann.)
Monday, October 19, 2009
NY23 UPDATE: Video of New Ad for Doug Hoffman
Posted by on 10.19.09 @ 5:06PM
New ad from Club for Growth:
"Tired of choosing between two liberals?" the ad begins, concluding by calling Conservative Party candidate Doug Hoffman "the common sense choice."
What the Hell? to the Redskins
Posted by on 10.19.09 @ 3:15PM
After a disappointing 2-4 start that included games against five of the worst teams in professional football, the Washington Redskins are going to retain Jim Zorn as coach but not let him call plays. That duty will be outsourced to someone who retired from the league five years ago, has only worked with the quarterbacks and the offense for two weeks, and was making bingo calls before that. Makes perfect sense.
Baucus's Accounting Trick
Posted by on 10.19.09 @ 1:33PM
I've been documenting the various tricks Democrats have been employing to argue that their health care legislation would cost less than $900 billion over 10 years and not add to deficits. Their tactics include promising cuts to government programs that future lawmakers are unlikely to actually enact and moving $247 billion of spending on Medicare doctors' payments to a separate bill while claiming that it has nothing to do with health care (even the Washington Post editorialized that this was "nonsensical"). But another way that Chairman Max Baucus was able to keep the cost of the Senate Finance Committee legislation down (as measured by the Congressional Budget Office) was just a simple gimmick.
Given that the CBO only puts a price tag on the first 10 years of a piece of legislation, Democrats realized that they could simply delay the enactment of the major spending provisions of the bill by four years, thus creating the illusion of a bill that costs $829 billion over 10 years. But in actuality, the bill is projected to cost just $14 billion in the first four years, and $70 billion through its fifth year. You can see this in the below table breaking down the CBO spending projections:
I demonstrate this graphically below. The red shaded area to the left of the line represents all of the spending in the first half of the 10 year period the CBO evaluated, and everything to the right of the line represents spending in the second half of that 10 year period. About 98 percent of the spending comes in the last six years, and 92 percent comes in final five year period. Thus, the true 10-year cost of the Baucus bill is well above $1 trillion, and according to estimates cited by Republicans, it's actually $1.8 trillion.
Senator Kerry's Afghan Indecision
Posted by on 10.19.09 @ 1:10PM
Senate Foreign Relations Committee chair John Kerry said regarding troop levels in Afghanistan Saturday:
"It would be entirely irresponsible for the president of the United States to commit more troops to this country when we don't even have an election finished."
The August elections have been panned as corrupt. Two possible reported resolutions exist: a run-off election or a power sharing agreement between President Hamid Karzai and his main challenger, former Foreign Minister Abdullah Abdullah. Today, a UN panel called for a run-off, and Afghan law recognizes the U.N. panel as the final arbiter in fraud investigations.
If the run-off is pursued, it creates a serious political dilemma for the Democrats. It sounds convenient to say that more troops should not be sent before the election is resolved, however, such an election could take several months, and even if another election takes place its outcome remains uncertain. Meanwhile, the Taliban still retains a presence in the majority of Afghanistan and controls much of the territory. It was reported today that Al-Qaeda is using Taliban safe ground to train increasing numbers of foreign terrorists for operations in Western countries.
Senator Kerry and the Democrats might want to hold off and wait for democracy to take action, but Al-Qaeda and the Taliban will not reciprocate that idealistic gesture.
Not Abiding Obama
Posted by on 10.19.09 @ 12:32PM
In Barack The One Obama's Weekly Address, he went on a full-fledged attack against the insurance agency. And he had this to say: "I will not abide are those who would bend the truth – or break it – to score political points and stop our progress as a country."
Hmm... It sounds to me like the president is a self-loathing human being. He can't abide himself.
(By the way, who is he to say what he can and can't "abide"? Can he abide criticism? Can he abide people pointing out that he is the one telling lies? Can he abide it when people question whether or not he is the chosen One? Can he abide it when people ask him to actually fulfill his campaign pledges? Can he abide it when people say they hope he fails in his efforts to "transform" the country? And what will he do to those he can't abide? What will he do to you, dear reader? What will he do to me? I criticize him, I note that he is the one telling lies, I question whether he is the chosen One, I say he should actually fulfill hsi campaign pledges, and I hope, sincerely hope, that he fails in his efforts to transform the country. Yes, in that sense, I hope he fails. And fails spectacularly. Can he abide me hoping against his change? Can he abide all of us hoping against his change? Obama is using the word "abide" in its secnd sense, meaning "to put up with." The word's first sense, in my Webster's New World Collegiate Dictionary, is "to remain; to go on being." I therefore devoutly hope that Obama does not abide in the White House for very long.)
A Dark Day for Times Blogs Editors
Posted by on 10.19.09 @ 12:07PM
It's always a bad situation when one academic point-blank accuses another of something like "one statement per page that's either flatly untrue or deeply misleading."
And it's even worse when this accusation is repeated directly after the accused academic provided quite a bit of exculpatory evidence, and called the accusation a "smear."
But the worst is when the two academics are writing for the same newspaper. And in this case it's the New York Times, with Paul Krugman going after Steve Levitt for the global warming chapter in Superfreakonomics.
Something is wrong here. They can't both be right; one or the other must have seriously misrepresented someone's views. I'm guessing that the Times usually holds its columnists to a higher standard. But I'd hate to be the editor tasked with sorting this one out.
Ach du lieber!
Posted by on 10.19.09 @ 11:55AM
It seems that the road to Euro-social democracy has a few more potholes than our leaders anticipated, so long as the information age remains (largely) unrelgulated. Today's example comes as we recall the president's invitation to "look what's happening in countries like Spain (then, after that embarrassment, Denmark) and Germany" for his "green jobs" vision for economic enhancement and climate salvation.
Readers of this space were surely anticipating the German Wirtschaftswunder, having already read in detail the disastrous truths revealed about Spain and Denmark. To be of service, the independent, long-established, uber-credentialed and establishment economic think tank Rheinisch-Westfälisches Institut für Wirtschaftsforschung ("RWI")-Essen has produced a report (it has no specifically dedicated link, so go to English and you'll see it first item).
Here's what it says, in short form:
* If the objective is to create jobs, this is an extremely expensive way to do it. At $240,000 per "green job" created (ignoring for these purposes the jobs destroyed elsewhere in the economy), this manages to make the roundly derided "stimulus" look relatively effective. The administration there claims to have created thirty thousand jobs at a cost of hundreds of billions. Do the math. This is more than twice as futile/destructive.
* Besides, on net, as in other countries cited as examples by the president, there is no net job creation and, adhering to consensus economics, simply negative consequences spread out across all sectors of the economy.
* If the objective is to reduce CO2 emissions, it didn't. It failed. Miserably.
* If the objective is energy security, it failed. It has increased dependence on imported gas.
* If the objective is to produce electricity in a competitive or cost-effective fashion, in addition to having to pay for the capital twice ("green" electricity requires you to have the other stuff, the stuff that works, built and running anyway), the appx. 2.2 cents per kilowatt hour this added to Germany's already astronomical electricity prices would translate here into an average increase of nearly 20%, significantly higher in some states (see here for regional impacts).
Meanwhile, just as happened in Spain and Denmark after these truths were publicized, the German government has already publicly vowed to scale back the madness. But it is amazing to think that these are the arguments for this agenda.
It is even more incredible that the White House so insistently boasted of what upon a moment's scrutiny clearly are not successes, which is easily checked-out, as the models to follow. Maybe the "Chicago Way" that we're now seeing, with the enemies list effort against Fox News, the signature Axelrod "Astroturf" campaign being run in apparent coordination with his former "Astroturf" client the rent-seeking utility Exelon, and as exhibited when the Spanish academics saw the Department and NREL being sicced on them, assumes that all will know better than to check such whoppers out. Hate to see something happen.
As the wags at the Institute for Energy Research have noted, Mr. President, that's "strike three" (or "Uno, To, Drei", in order of Euro-flop).
Obama Administration Unfurls the Banner of Federalism
Posted by on 10.19.09 @ 10:45AM
Today the Obama administration announced that Federal drug agents will no longer arrest medical marijuana users and suppliers who are in compliance with state law. The AP reports,
Federal drug agents won't pursue pot-smoking patients or their sanctioned suppliers in states that allow medical marijuana, under new legal guidelines to be issued Monday by the Obama administration.
Two Justice Department officials described the new policy to The Associated Press, saying prosecutors will be told it is not a good use of their time to arrest people who use or provide medical marijuana in strict compliance with state law.
The guidelines to be issued by the department do, however, make it clear that agents will go after people whose marijuana distribution goes beyond what is permitted under state law or use medical marijuana as a cover for other crimes, the officials said.
The new policy is a significant departure from the Bush administration, which insisted it would continue to enforce federal anti-pot laws regardless of state codes.
Libertarians are enthused. Nick Gillespie at Reason crows,
After several false starts, the Obama administration is making all the right noises on federal medical marijuana policy.... The devil is in the details, of course, and how the policy is enforced (or not). But it represents the most compassionate and sensible policy to come out of Washington in a very long time.
And Jonathan Adler of The Volokh Conspiracy notes the policy's federalist merits:
...assuming this is an accurate account of the guidelines, this is a positive step toward a more rational drug control policy and greater respect for state-level policymaking.
The Justice Department has to set prosecutorial priorities, as there are more federal crimes on the books than federal prosecutors can ever hope to prosecute. The aim should be to focus federal resources in those areas where there is a distinct federal interest, or where the federal government has a comparative advantage of state and local law enforcement.
Lastly, Glenn Greenwald claims that the decision represents a triumph for states' rights:
Beyond the tangible benefits to patients and providers, there is the issue of states' right. Fourteen states have legalized medical marijuana, many by referendum. The Bush administration's refusal to honor or even recognize those states' decisions -- by arresting people for doing things which are perfectly legal under state law -- was one of many examples giving the lie to the conservative movement's alleged belief in federalism and limited federal power (see here, for instance, how John Ashcroft and GOP Senators tried deceitfully and undemocratically to exploit the aftermath of 9/11 to prevent Oregon from implementing its assisted suicide law). Constitutionally and otherwise, what possible justification is there for federalizing decisions about whether individuals can use marijuana for medical purposes? Ironically (given the "socialism" and "fascism" rhetoric spewed at it by the Fox News faction), the Obama administration's decision is a major advancement for the rights of states to have their laws respected by the federal government.
A "major advancement"? There are two problems with this glee over the Obama administration's apparent newfound love for federalism.
The first is that the feds' own rationale for the decision is not based on the interpretation of the law but on the effectiveness of law enforcement. The Justice Department officials cited in the article said that they are making the change because arresting medicinal marijuana users "is not a good use" of their time. So states' rights, federalism, etc. doesn't enter the equation -- if it were a good use of their time, they'd continue prosecuting medical marijuana users and suppliers. Also, it seems like their language is contrived to leave plenty of loopholes.
The second is that even if this decision truly were made out of respect for states' rights, it seems like a sort of backward approach to federalism, as the administration is simultaneously pursuing numerous policies that would vastly increase the concentration of power in Washington, in areas far more consequential than medicinal marijuana. The obvious example is health care.
It is an odd kind of reform federalism that prizes the recognition of one of the most controversial and dubious of states' rights, i.e. the right to be potheads, while ignoring the trampling of other far more obvious rights, such as the right to choose the system that best delivers medical services. I don't think Obama should get any credit for libertarian or federalist tendencies until his actions comprise more than one scrap tossed to an unseemly faction of the federalist movement.
Rand Paul Wins Q3 Money Race
Posted by on 10.19.09 @ 10:42AM
Last week, Kentucky Republican senatorial candidate Rand Paul announced he had raised over $1 million in the third quarter to Secretary of State Trey Grayson's $642,800, even though Grayson received fundraising support from the National Republican Senatorial Campaign Committee and is the GOP establishment favorite. The Politico reported that Grayson ended September with $1.18 million cash-on-hand. Paul banked $921,000.
Rand's father, Ron Paul, enjoyed similar fundraising success and won the fourth quarter money primary in 2007 without being able to break into the top tier when states started voting. Yet the polling so far shows Rand Paul to be a serious candidate.
Daily Must-Reads
Posted by on 10.19.09 @ 10:40AM
- Sniper fire in Bosnia, now Belfast? Times of London reports that Hillary Clinton "remembers" staying at a Belfast Hotel while it was bombed during peace negotiations in 1995. The problem is that the hotel was last bombed in 1993.
- Not laughing, Temple University Muslim Students are trying to stop cartoonist Geert Wilders from coming to campus (The Bulletin)
- The president owes Limbaugh a beer summit (Townhall)
- Prosecutors claim mayor of Birmingham took $235,000 in bribes (CBS)
Washington Post Blasts Reid's $247 Bln "Doc Fix"
Posted by on 10.19.09 @ 10:14AM
Even the Washington Post takes issue with Senate Majority Harry Reid moving a seperate $247 health care bill to prevent scheduled cuts to doctor's payments under Medicare. In an editorial today, the newspaper exposes the absurdity of his argument that the bill does not have anything to do with health care reform:
Mr. Reid's attempt to distinguish the budgetary and regulatory issues is nonsensical. The health reform measure includes all sorts of changes in the ways that various providers are compensated. True, the problem with inadequate Medicare payments is something of a preexisting condition to health reform, but that does not make it unrelated. The so-called doc fix is being rushed to the Senate floor this week in advance of health reform not because it has nothing to do with health reform but because it has everything to do with it. The political imperative is twofold: to make certain that Republicans don't use the physician payment issue to bring down the larger bill and to placate the American Medical Association.
This latest maneuver only heightens the fiscal irresponsibility of what already was a fiscal sleight of hand. The measure passed by the Senate Finance Committee patched the problem for one year, at a cost just shy of $11 billion. The argument was that the rest of the problem could be dealt with -- and, at least in theory, paid for -- later. Now, Mr. Reid proposes not to pay for any of it, not even $11 billion, but simply to write a $247 billion IOU.
Were the so-called "doc fix" combined with the larger bill, it would bring the total cost of health care legislation to well over $1 trillion, and add significantly to deficits, in clear violation of President Obama's pledge.
Reid had originally scheduled a cloture vote on the bill for this afternoon, but the Hill reports that it's been delayed.
.jpg){kind=link}
The Day Ahead: October 19
Posted by on 10.19.09 @ 6:30AM
Today on the main site:
- America's Cross, by Ben Stein
- Subverting Democracy, by Daniel Mandel
- The Lost Art of Due Diligence, by Mark Hyman
Comment of the day:
Marc Jeric on Rishawn Biddles' Fool's Gold?:
Show me a strong union and I will show a dead or dying industry - automobile, steel, textile, electronics, apparel, etc. Not to forget the teacher unions and other government employee unions - but those jobs cannot be outsourced. The education system that 40 years ago was the wonder of the world is now an utter disaster. College entrants are given remedial courses in reading and writing! All government employee unions should be outlawed - they are a conspiracy against the people.
In Europe the school systems are based on this principle of natural triage:
1) Those pupils who cannot pass the basic requirements of literacy after 4 years of elementary schooling are allowed to repeat the fourth year 3 times; if they fail that is the end of their education and they can apply as apprentices for cleaning streets and common building areas, or attendants in public restrooms, etc.
2) those who pass can then go to high schools, where after 4 years there is a serious triage by means a small bac exam; those who pass can continue, those who fail can go to industrial apprentice schools to become factory workers, welders, installers, carpenters, etc.
3) At the end of the 8th class of high school there is a formal bac exam that includes essays in own language and in a foreign language, math, physics, chemistry, geography, history. Those who pass are allowed to compete for university by additional exams (about 40-50% pass); others become clerks, salesmen, reps, bank employees, or after taking specialized courses can become law aides, accountants, etc., or can join the military. University students finish their studies successfully between 40-80%; in my class in engineering only 40% got their diplomas after 4 years of classes plus 1-2 years of work on the final project.
This American system based of self-esteem and the false but politically correct conviction that everybody is capable of university education is a disaster for the country - economically and intellectually. Courses in gender, class, race etc. grievances are a total waste of time and effort. Colleges od education produce an unending stream of politically correct imbeciles incapable of teaching. Lack of discipline enforcement in class formally endorsed by teacher unions is a mark of criminal neglect. Incompetent teachers are protected by union rules; school boards are in majority composed of teachers.
A recipe for total failure!
What to watch for:
Game of the day:
Friday's Best:
A 4th grader asks Obama, "Why does everyone hate you?"
Not as Much Fun Being Charlie Rangel
Posted by on 10.19.09 @ 6:16AM
Being Chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee normally guarantees lucrative fund-raising. But having trouble with House ethics rules--and the law--appears to be putting a crimp in Rep. Charlie Rangel's fund-raising.
Representative Charles B. Rangel of New York has so far been able to hang onto his powerful committee chairmanship despite damaging disclosures about his financial dealings. But when it comes to the kind of clout that Washington pays close attention to - campaign dollars - his status seems to be slipping.
The pace of financial contributions to Mr. Rangel, a fund-raising powerhouse for the Democratic Party who is chairman of the influential House Ways and Means Committee, has dropped by nearly half this year from the previous election cycle, according to the most recent campaign finance disclosure statements.
From January 2009 to September 2009, he raised a total of about $1.7 million through three committees he controls and uses to dole out money to Democratic candidates and causes. Mr. Rangel brought in more than $3.1 million with only two committees he controlled during the corresponding period in the previous election cycle, the financial disclosure statements show.
Now, Democratic officials and donors say that that the ethical questions hanging over Mr. Rangel, who has represented Harlem in Congress since 1971, are taking a toll, particularly as Republicans spotlight his problems in ads and repeated pushes are made to try to force him to step aside from the chairmanship. The House Ethics Committee is investigating the allegations against him.
The falloff in contributions has implications for the Democrats as they face a tough electoral season, with Republicans seeking to chip away at their majority.
As the Times explains, Rep. Rangel's problems are the Democratic Party's problems. Normally congressional potentates like Rep. Rangel contribute to other candidates to help preserve their positions. But with less largesse to distribute, Rep. Rangel won't be able to do as much to prop up the Democratic majority.
Ah, I feel so bad for Charlie.
Neither Extortion Nor Subsidies Keep Failing Business Afloat
Posted by on 10.19.09 @ 5:30AM
Last year Republic Windows and Doors announced that it was closing. Then-Gov. Rod ("What am I bid for a Senate seat") Blagojevich joined other Illinois politicians to extort money out of the Bank of America to keep the failing company going.
A California firm, Serious Materials, then bought Republic and promised to rehire everyone. The company assumed that federal subsidies would save the business. It seems that the $787 billion "stimulus" bill (Are you alive and a voter? Get in line for a hand-out!) included money and tax credits for new windows.
But, curiously, in a midst of a recession people have not rushed forth to buy windows which they don't need. Reports the Washington Post, quoting Serious Materials' Kevin Surace:
"Part of the Chicago plan was by now we'd be hot and heavy into weatherization of thousands of homes in the Chicago area," he said. "It turns out everything has ended up six months slower than everyone wanted. Everyone is frustrated at every level. Is it anyone's fault? No, it's just the process. Shame on all of us for thinking it could be done in a few months."
Oh well ... . Maybe next time people will try to make money by actually satisfying real demand from real consumers.
Sunday, October 18, 2009
Last Chance
Posted by on 10.18.09 @ 5:26PM
It's not too late. A 4.6 million dollar bid for the crypt above that of Marilyn Monroe's at Westwood Cemetery has fallen through. Hence, bidding will begin anew. The chance to spend eternity on top of Miss Monroe is expected to bring millions.
NY23 UPDATE: Conservatives Ask, 'What Will Sarah Palin Do?'
Posted by on 10.18.09 @ 4:49PM
Supporters of Conservative Party congressional candidate Doug Hoffman -- whose special election campaign in upstate New York's 23rd district is drawing nationwide attention -- have begun to wonder why former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin hasn't endorsed Hoffman.
"In doing so she will join former Presidential candidate Fred Thompson, and the fiscal conservative group Club for Growth to endorse Hoffman over the Republican nominee," conservative blogger Dale Gordon wrote yesterday.
Hoffman supporters say a Palin endorsement would counterbalance the GOP establishment's backing of liberal Republican candidate Dede Scozzafava.
Josh Painter of the Texas for Palin blog says an endorsement from Palin "could be posted on the former governor's Facebook Notes page, and it would be an instant sensation among Sarah's 928,739 Facebook supporters . . . and the media would give it an audience of millions more."
Painter notes that Palin, who energized grassroots conservatives as the 2008 GOP vice-presidential candidate, has declared her desire to support "candidates who believe in the right things, regardless of their party label or affiliation."
More than anything, Hoffman campaign officials say, they need a quick injection of cash to match the big money the two major national parties are giving to their candidates. There is a rapidly escalating money battle in the three-way NY23 campaign. Both Bill Clinton and Barack Obama are planning fundraising events for the little-known Democratic candidate, Bill Owens. The Republican National Committee and the National Republican Congressional Committee have enraged conservatives by giving "six figure" contributions to Scozzafava.
Hoffman's grassroots supporters say time is running out for Palin to make an endorsement, if she is to have any impact on the Nov. 3 election, now barely two weeks away. Hoffman is endorsed by the pro-life Susan B. Anthony List, and some of Hoffman's pro-life supporters have reportedly launched an e-mail campaign -- including prayer requests -- to secure the endorsement of Palin, whose pro-life bona fides would carry weight with the significant share of conservative Catholics in the rural upstate New York district.
2010, a Good Democratic Year: NOT!
Posted by on 10.18.09 @ 2:55PM
In National Journal Charlie Cook warns the Democrats to prepare to run for reelection in the midst of high unemployment. That might make it tough to convince voters that even more big spending programs are the answer to our problems. Writes Cook:
Obviously, there are many variables that can drive a political party's fortune in next November's elections, but the economy and jobs dwarf all others. Polls may show a majority of Americans understand that this recession started under President George W. Bush, but every day, President Obama, and inferentially his party, take on a bit more ownership. By the 2010 midterm elections, the economy will completely belong to Obama and Democrats.
What should concern Democrats is that while there is a diversity of views about just how much the economy will grow next year, the views of both optimists and pessimists converge on the politically important question of unemployment: The consensus is there will be very, very little job growth next year.
Ten percent unemployment wouldn't be good at any time for the incumbent ruling Democrats. This possibility is an especially good reason for the Blue Dogs to consider carefully before voting to nationalize the American medical system!
