Fear and Loathing In D.C.

If there is one thing the Democrats are good at, it’s political theater. Watching them act is like melodrama of the highest order. . . or a low quality soap opera. Of all their recent fooling around, nothing approaches the drama they are generating with health care reform. Fear, hate and revenge fill the air of the Senate. . .

News Item: Dorgan Terrifies Democrats

After fourteen days of debate, the Senate has managed to vote on only eight amendments. Why has the process ground to a halt you ask? Because of little-known Senator Byron Dorgan, who, having fallen for an e-mail scam about a Mexican pharmacy, has introduced an amendment to allow the government to import prescription drugs from other countries.

This has frozen the Democrats with terror. Imagine Dorgan pulling this amendment from his briefcase as the other Democrats huddle together in a distant corner, afraid of the radioactive document. And why is it radioactive? Because this document puts them in a bind. Their idiot followers demand that they PUNISH the drug industry. But the drug industry has been bought off by the White House in a quasi-secret deal to support this reform. Passing this amendment would turn the pharma industry (and their powerful lobby) against them. Thus, they are frozen, unsure what to do.

News Item: Nelson II Terrifies Self

Meanwhile, Sen. Bill Nelson turns the Democratic position that $460 billion in Medicare cuts won’t hurt Medicare into farce. He’s decided that his political survival requires him to offer an amendment to the bill that will exempt three Democratic counties in South Florida with large retirement populations from Medicare cuts. So why would this bill hurt the oldsters in Palm Beach, Dade and Broward counties. . . but no one else in the country?

News Item: Howard Dean Suggests Billocide

A frustrated Howard Dean has told every camera he can find that this bill should be killed. “The Senate version is not worth passing,” growled an angry Howard Dean, a possible gun owner. “The insurance companies got to write this bill the way they wanted to. This isn’t health care reform, this isn’t even insurance reform.” He then noted, in a bizarre moment of honesty, that the bill “does nothing to reduce costs.” And he angrily poked fun at the idea that the bill would cover people with pre-existing conditions: “You can’t afford it, even if you are allowed to buy it.” I wonder if any of ObamaCare's utopian supporters heard those comments?

News Item: Nelson I Rediscovers Principles

Now that it appears the bill cannot pass, Sen. Ben Nelson has rediscovered his principles and states that he won’t support this bill unless the Stupak-like abortion language is inserted.

Meanwhile, the abortion lobby is gearing up to hunt Stupak.

News Item: Democrats Get Their Hate On For Lieberman

But the real hate this week has been aimed at Sen. Joe Lieberman. First, there were hints that Joe might lose his chairmanship. Then the Democrats went a little (lot) crazy. Screamed the shrill Ezra Klein of the Washington Post:

“And if there's a policy rationale here, it's not apparent to me, or to others who've interviewed him. At this point, Lieberman seems primarily motivated by torturing liberals. That is to say, he seems willing to cause the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people in order to settle an old electoral score.”

And loony Klein is not alone. Jonathan Chait of The New Republic, makes the same claim:

“He seems to view the prospect of sticking it to the liberals who supported his Democratic opponent in 2006 as a goal potentially worth sacrificing the lives of tens of thousands of Americans to fulfill.”

Chait then gets his anti-Semitism on to explain Lieberman’s actions:

“[T]here's little evidence that he's a sharp or clear thinker, and certainly no evidence that he knows or cares about the details of health care reform. . . I suspect that Lieberman is the beneficiary, or possibly the victim, of a cultural stereotype that Jews are smart and good with numbers. Trust me, it's not true.”

He finishes by accusing Lieberman of simply being anti-liberal:

“If the liberals like it, then he figures it's big government and he should oppose it. I think it's basically that simple.”

Hate-filled, leftist Huffington Post blogger (or is that redundant) Jane Hamsher has gotten out her long knives for Lieberman’s wife. She accuses Hadassah Lieberman of being a shill for the insurance industry (hmmm, didn’t Howard Dean mention insurance companies above?). Hamsher, thus, wants Mrs. Lieberman fired from being a spokesman for the Susan G. Komen Foundation, which fights breast cancer. She also accuses Hadassah of “being instrumental” in killing HillaryCare.

No word yet on whether Hamsher is looking to injure Lieberman’s kids, but I haven’t read all of her diatribes.

But these are just bloggers and/or Howard Dean -- they don’t count. No real politician would act this way, right? Actually, they would. Democratic Rep. Rosa DeLauro of Connecticut is calling for Connecticut to recall Lieberman, even though Connecticut has no law to do this and even though the United States Constitution does not allow states to do this.

“No individual should hold health care hostage, including Joe Lieberman, and I’ll say it flat out, I think he out to be recalled.”

Added Connecticut Democratic Rep. Chris Murphy, “People are fed up in Connecticut, and it’s maddening to those of us who feel we have a pretty clear sense of where people in Connecticut are.”

Nice. So if you don’t toe the party line, you need to be removed from office. And these same little totalitarians had the nerve to blast the Republicans for suggesting that candidates who did not agree to 8 of 10 positions would not get financial assistance. Hypocrisy, thy name is “Democratic Party.”

So why did Lieberman do it? According to Lieberman, he was particularly troubled by the overly enthusiastic reaction to the Medicare proposal by liberals who had been championing the public option:

“Congressman Weiner made a comment that Medicare buy-in is better than a public option, it’s the beginning of a road to single-payer. Jacob Hacker, who’s a Yale professor who is actually the man who created the public option, said, ‘This is a dream. This is better than a public option. This is a giant step.’”

*** BREAKING NEWS ***

Finally, we predicted a few weeks ago, that liberals would soon begin throwing around the word “betrayal.” Guess what word The Politico used to describe how liberals feel about Obama’s behavior:

“And as Democrats tried to salvage health reform Tuesday, some liberals could barely hide their sense of betrayal that the White House and congressional Democrats have been willing to cut deals and water down what they consider the ideal vision of reform.”

and

“Progressives feel betrayed, but are not surprised, by the Senate’s move to drop the Medicare buy-in and the public option. They blame Reid and Obama for not exercising their power to fight for the provisions.”

Equally interesting, check out the conspiracy theory thinking being promoted by our old friend Jane Hamsher:

“They were very good at making it look like they wanted a public option in the final bill without actually doing anything to make it happen. It’s hard to believe that the two most powerful people in the country — arguably the world — could not do more to achieve their desired objective than to hand the keys over to Joe Lieberman. They would not be where they are if they are that bad at negotiation.”

Wow, so Obama didn't fail, he never really tried?! How about a tin-foil hat to go with your brown shirt Jane! It’s all a plot! The bells!! The bells!!!

If anyone ever needed proof that leftists are petulant and unbalanced, here it is.

Enjoy!

[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

Audit The Fed? Pros and Cons. . .

There has been a lot of disinformation surrounding the Federal Reserve. In fact, spreading disinformation about the Fed has become a cottage industry. The left originally viewed the Fed as the tool of international bankers bent on enslaving the world. In the 1950s, the John Birchers decided that the Fed was the agent of international communists. Fed-hate continues to run wild today in various groups. The Fed, apparently, is the secret cabal of the Bilderberg Group, the Communist Party, Zionist Bankers, and perhaps even a few extra terrestrials. Let’s cut through the garbage.

What Is The Fed?

The Federal Reserve was created by an Act of Congress on December 23, 1913. The Federal Reserve System consists of twelve Federal Reserve Banks located throughout the United States. These banks are governed by a seven member Board of Governors. The members of that Board are appointed by the President and are confirmed by the Senate. They serve 14-year terms and are term-limited to one term, unless they are appointed to complete an unexpired term, in which event they can be re-appointed to a full term.

Contrary to the rumors, the identity of every member of the Board and every officer and director of every Federal Reserve Bank is known and available to the public. In fact, their names are available online, see. e.g. Officers and Directors of the Federal Reserve Bank of Boston.

This, by the way, is one of the first lies told by anti-Fed people, that "no one knows who is on the Fed." I say lies because even when these people are confronted with the facts, they continue to deny them and simply move to more gullible audiences. Indeed, I had an interesting run in with one at Big Hollywood a few months back. Despite my presentation to him of evidence that he could verify with his own eyes that contradicted every single thing he claimed, he simply insisted on repeating his false claims over and over -- eventually accusing me of being “an agent of the Fed.” This is fairly typical behavior from this group.

What The Fed Does: Monetary Policy

The Federal Reserve has numerous responsibilities, but two are relevant here. The first is to handle “monetary policy” for the United States government. Monetary policy involves adjusting the prime interest rate, buying or selling bonds, and setting reserve requirements at banks to control the amount of money available to the economy and the “velocity” of money within the economy -- velocity means how often money gets spent.

In this regard, the Fed has been statutorily charged with holding inflation in check while also encouraging economic growth. European central banks, by comparison, generally are charged only with fighting inflation -- often leading to anti-growth policies.

Many people are upset that the Fed handles this function, and they argue that the Fed should be abolished. In the 1970s, they complained that the Fed caused inflation. In the 1980s, they complained that the Fed artificially kept the economy in check by overly-restricting the amount of money available in the economy. Now they complain that the Fed has created bubbles by allowing too much easy money to circulate in the economy.

There is some truth to each of these assertions as the Fed is not perfect. But the idea that eliminating the Fed would improve the situation is simply not accurate. The Fed was established to act independently of the political process; they are supposed to make their decisions based on the best available economic thinking. If the Fed was eliminated, the duty to handle monetary policy would fall upon the Treasury.

Unlike the Fed, the Treasury is a political creature. Shifting monetary policy to the Treasury would mean that the President, who is subject to election every four years -- and who seeks campaign contributions from people who could benefit directly from such decisions, would be deciding whether or not interest rates should be raised or lowered and whether or not liquidity (i.e. more money) should be injected into the economy.

Moreover, the Congress, which gets elected every two years -- and which seeks money from the same interests, would likely attempt to force the President’s hand whenever they felt the economy needed a boost. That’s a recipe for economic chaos and corruption.

But the other side of that coin is that the President and Congress are more directly accountable to the voters than the independent Fed. That's the trade off.

Incidentally, one of the arguments made for abolishing the Fed is that inflation has been be “out of control” since the Fed came along. But this is a red herring. First, looking at inflation in a vacuum is misleading because it is the comparison of wages to inflation that matters, not inflation itself. In other words, it doesn’t matter if bread costs 100 times what it cost fifty years ago if your income rose 100 times as well. Moreover, an examination of foreign currency exchange rates (a better measure of the value of the dollar than an examination of inflation) shows that the dollar has nearly doubled in value against all major currencies (and gold) in the past 100 years. Thus, the assertion that the Fed’s actions have hurt the dollar is completely wrong.

What The Fed Does: Discount Lending

The Fed also provides temporary loans to banks that are suffering from liquidity problems, i.e. those that are temporarily short of money. This is what they are talking about when you hear about banks “using the Fed’s discount window.” These loans are made at low rates and in secret to protect the identity of the bank. The fear is that knowledge that a particular bank was short of cash would cause people to try to get their money out of the bank, causing a run on the bank and collapsing an institution that likely only needed a short term loan.

The Audit Issue

This leads us to the audit issue. The conspiracy theorist claim that “the Fed has never been audited.” This too is a lie. The Fed is audited each year by independent accounting firms. For example, here is a link to the 2005-2006 audit conducted by KPMG. This audit is fairly typical of the independent audits normally conducted of banks or large businesses.

Moreover, Congress already has the right to audit the Fed, with one caveat. In 1970, Congress passed a law allowing the General Accounting Office to audit the Fed and all of its functions with the exception of the two mentioned above: the Fed’s decision making process for monetary policy and the Fed’s discount lending practices.

The reason the Congress did not allow the GAO to audit the Fed’s monetary policy decision making process was the fear that allowing such audits would interfere with the Fed’s independence. The thinking was the Congress would use these audits to pressure the Fed.

And even though the GAO cannot currently audit that function, this does not mean the Fed is acting in secret. The Fed releases the meeting minutes for each meeting of the Board of Governors which explain broadly the Fed’s thinking on monetary policy. It also releases reports for each region of the country, called the Fed Beige Book, which outline the Fed’s observations regarding all aspects of the economy in each of the Federal Reserve Bank regions. Finally, the Fed Chairman testifies on Capitol Hill on an on-going basis.

The Congress did not allow the GAO to audit the Fed’s lending practices for fear that this would reveal the banks who needed the Fed’s assistance with liquidity, which could cause runs on those banks.

Now the Congress is looking to pass a bill that would allow it to audit these two functions. The cons are those just identified. The pros are that the Congress, as the maker of our laws, should be able to know the thought processes employed by the Fed to make sure that it is acting in a manner which is consistent with the law and that the Congress can continue to support.

With regard to monetary policy, there certainly is a legitimate fear of a loss of the Fed’s independence. Once Congress starts tinkering, the Congress is unlikely to stop tinkering. Soon the Fed’s independence could disappear and we could end up with Congress directing the Fed to do its bidding. But the possibility that Congress may overreach is a poor excuse for denying Congress the oversight that is its responsibility under the Constitution. Not to mention that Congress could just as easily overreach now.

So perhaps allowing an audit is an excellent idea. It’s only the next step that becomes problematic.

With regard to auditing the discount lending practices, the same arguments apply, as well as the concern about creating runs on banks. If the current bill protects the secrecy of those banks that seek the Fed’s help, then an audit of these practices also should be supported. But if it does not, then the risk to the system, with banks avoiding seeking help to prevent possible bank runs, might be too potentially damaging to the banking system to allow.

In the end, those are the choices. There are no conspiracies, no secrets, no Zionist bankers or evil plots by our alien-masters. It is just the difficult trade-off between a process that is independent of political tinkering, but not responsive to voters, versus a process that would likely be more damaging to the economy but more responsiveness to the people.

[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

The Weekly Bidenism

Did you know that our mentally-challenged Vice President is a keen observer of the human condition? That’s right. And while some may consider it racist to make nasty generalizations about people based on their race, Joe doesn’t. Get ready for. . . The Weekly Bidenism.

In October 2007, Joe was asked by the editorial board of the Washington Post why some schools in Iowa perform better than some schools in the District of Columbia. Joe had an answer. . . blacks:

"There's less than 1 percent of the population of Iowa that is African American. There is probably less than 4 or 5 percent that are minorities. What is in Washington? So look, it goes back to what you start off with, what you're dealing with..."

Wow, did Joe just say that? Yes, yes he did. And if Joe was anything other than a Democrat, he would have been driven out of polite society and pilloried with a dozen political cartoons showing him in Robert Byrd’s KKK hood.

But Joe’s a liberal, so he can't be a racist, right? No, he couldn’t be. This must be an isolated incident, doesn’t it? Actually, no. On February 4, 2000, Joe said this about Obama to the New York Observer:

"I mean, you got the first mainstream African-American who is articulate and bright and clean and a nice-looking guy. I mean, that's a storybook, man."

“Clean”? Is Joe implying that blacks are dirty? And what’s this about being the “first” black politician who is “articulate and bright”? That sure sounds like racism. . . at least if a nonliberal said it. But Joe is a liberal, and it's just not fair to judge him on the basis of two very racists statements. So, I guess, as long as those are the only racist things Joe has said, then we. . . what? That’s not everything? Ok.

On June 28, 2007, Joe made the following comment during a primary debate in Washington, D.C.:

"I spent last summer going through the black sections of my town, holding rallies in parks, trying to get black men to understand it is not unmanly to wear a condom, getting women to understand they can say no, getting people in the position where testing matters. I got tested for AIDS. I know Barack got tested for AIDS."

Holy sh~t Joe! Black women don’t know they can say “no”? Black men don’t understand they can wear condoms? WTF Joe?! Are blacks ignorant children who need your noble tutelage? Do you see yourself as a one man Peace Corp traveling into a primitive culture? You sure as heck make it sound that way. Even by liberal-hypocritical standards where we ignore the racism of liberals, this cannot be ignored.

Wow. We have an honest-to-God bigot for a Vice President.

Oh, and just to show that Joe isn’t just bigoted against blacks, take a look at this comment that Joe gave to C-SPAN in June 2006 (and he wasn’t joking):

"You cannot go to a 7-Eleven or a Dunkin' Donuts unless you have a slight Indian accent. I'm not joking."

So, my dear Democrats. . . where’s the outrage? We’re waiting.


[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

Health Care Reform: No Deal??

This one’s interesting. Do you remember the big deal last week to get the Baucus bill through the Senate? Yeah, that one. . . with the liberals “giving up” the public option and the moderates agreeing to destroy Medicare sooner by letting people as young as 55 into Medicare? Well, apparently, that deal may not exist. Curious.

The first clue we had that there was no deal should have been the refusal of the Democrats to release the terms of the deal, while simultaneously crowing about "the deal" to any microphone they could find. And as the week went on, and no details of the deal emerged, people began to ask questions. That’s when the most fascinating thing happened, the admissions started coming out.

First came Sen. Bob Casey, who told the New York Times: “Any big agreement is progress, even if we do not know any of the details.” Read that again. How can there be an agreement with no details?

Maybe Casey is just out of the loop, being from a small, backwater state like Pennsylvania. Let’s listen to Dick Durbin, the Number 2 Democrat in the Senate respond to John McCain’s demand for information about the deal, i.e. the legislation, they’re supposed to be voting on. Surely he knows the details:

“I would say to the senator from Arizona that I’m in the dark almost as much as he is, and I’m in the leadership.”

*scratches head* Really? Hmm. How can this be?

McCain followed up on Durbin's admission with the following:

“Isn’t that a very unusual process? We are discussing one-sixth of the gross national product; the bill before us has been a product of almost a year of sausage-making. Yet here we are at a position on December 12, with a proposal that none of us, except, I understand, one person, the Majority Leader, knows what the final parameters are, much less informing the American people. I don't get it.”

And Durbin, of course, denied this, right? Actually, no. “I think the senator [from Arizona] is correct.” But Durbin did try to shift the blame to the CBO, arguing that the reason no one knew the details was that they awaited the big, bad, secretive CBO’s verdict: “We may find that something that was sent over there doesn’t work at all, doesn’t fly.”

You think? How about these two problems you face. First, the Democrats are counting on $25 billion in phantom savings from “competition created by the public option” to reduce the overall cost of the bill. No public option, no phantom savings. That means they now need to find an additional $25 billion to make their phony numbers appear to balance.

Secondly, nobody likes the plan to expand Medicare. Old people are freaked out that their health insurance is about to go away. Hospitals are freaked out that they cannot afford this (they lose nine cents on each dollar of health care they provide under Medicare already). Governors claim it’s breaking their budgets. Even those socialists at the Business Roundtable are backing off this turkey.

Various senators don’t like the plan either. Said Sen. Bill Nelson of Florida (not to be confused with Sen. Ben Nelson of Nebraska), this deal is a “non-starter.” That’s a strange thing to say for a man who just made an agreement.

And he’s not alone. Ten more Democrats wrote a letter this week complaining that this compromise would make it harder for seniors to get treatment under Medicare because “provider shortages in states with low reimbursement rates such as ours will make such a program ineffective, or even worsen the problems these states are experiencing.” These ten were: Sens. Maria Cantwell (Wash.), Russ Feingold (Wisc.), Tim Johnson (S.D.), Patrick Leahy (Vermont), Jeanne Shaheen (N.H.), Tom Udall (N.M.), Jeff Merkley (Ore.), Ron Wyden (Ore.), Amy Klobuchar (MN), and Al Franken (SNL).

Joe Lieberman, Ben Nelson and Olympia Snowe also criticized the proposal. Lieberman indicated that he was growing “increasingly concerned” with the proposal:

“I am increasingly troubled about the proposal. I am worried about what impact it will have on the Medicare program’s fiscal viability and also what effect it will have on the premiums paid by people benefiting from Medicare now.”

Nelson stated that this could be an intermediate step to a public option “which I do not like.” He further stated, “I wouldn’t be surprised if this thing does not become a viable option. I think it is going to be the lesser of the popular things, but I am keeping an open mind.”

Olympia Snowe was not as optimistic. “I have serious concerns. I just think that is the wrong direction to take.” She further stated that she could not see a way to even tweak the proposal to win her vote. “I can’t see it.”

Maybe there was no deal after all? It’s sure starting to sound that way.

[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

Every Year Should Be An Election Year

Over the past few weeks, John McCain, the King of the RINOs, has been acting like an actual conservative Republican. Must be election time in Arizona! Indeed, just like a broken clock is right twice a day, RINO senators lean right every six years. So let us take his actions with a huge grain of salt, but let us also see what kind of senator Mr. McCain could be if he put his mind to it.

Over the past few months, McCain has:

• Opposed Sonia Sotomayor’s nomination despite years of trying to avoid battles on judicial nominations;

• He blasted the Democrats on climate change, even though he was formerly an early supporter of cap-and-trade (he opposed it this year);

• He’s attacked the administration repeatedly on Afghanistan;

• He’s denounced the Democrats’ health care plans and tried to strip out their attempt to fund it by robbing Medicare;

• He’s blasted AARP for their support of ObamaCare and their abandonment of the interests of the elderly in exchange for a promise of greater profits.

And has anyone noticed? Oh yeah. Said Democratic Sen. Robert Menendez:

“He’s definitely a far more partisan figure than he’s portrayed himself in the past. I don’t know whether he’s angry about his loss or whether he’s preparing himself for the next presidential run; the bottom line is what’s come across is a far greater partisan than I’ve noticed in the past.”

Boo hoo.

When McCain recorded robocalls for the National Republican Senatorial Committee blasting five Democrats who opposed his amendment to restore the $500 billion in cuts to Medicare (cuts the Democrats are using to pay for ObamaCare), his friends across the isle “were taken aback.”

Said Sen. Kent Conrad: “I don’t think it’s very collegial.” Oh noooooo! You can almost hear the tears.

Said recently exposed Sen. Ben Nelson that he found it “curious as to why someone would think that would be worth doing.” Oh, I don’t know, why would the opposition try to hold your rotten votes against you? Nope, can’t think of a reason.

They even filed an ethics complaint against McCain for this (a common Democratic tactic), which McCain dismissed as “entertaining.” Oh, I like that.

Actually, what you’re hearing is the Democrats' usual attempt to peer pressure McCain. . . “don’t you want to be seen as bipartisan?” It's worked so often in the past, but this time he's having none of it because there’s an election to win, and if you will recall Writer X’s piece on Arizona politics, you will recall that McCain faces a serious conservative challenger. We should not forget that, nor should we forget that during this past year, McCain has tried to RINOcerize the party with McCaindidates.

Still, it shows us that McCain could be a pretty darn good senator if every year were an election year.

So let me finish by saying this: John, I respect what you’re doing right now. I don’t believe this is permanent, so I can’t say that I respect or support you. But I will offer this carrot. I expect that you will win re-election, though I would prefer a change. But if you keep acting the way you are now after re-election, I will find it in my heart to toss a little respect your way.

Welcome to the side of light and right, even if only for tonight.

[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

An Open Letter To Democrats

Dear Democratic Party, Anyone who reads this site can tell you that I am not prone to hyperbole or overstatement. I don’t do rash or bombastic, and I don’t say extreme things to get a rise out of people. To the contrary, I consider myself rational, calm and thoughtful. So take note when I say the following: I have come to despise you.

This is not about disagreement over policy. I am not talking about your indifference to the Constitution, your nonsensical proposals, or your sad devotion to long discredited ideas. Those are ideological matters. And while I do not share your views, I can at least understand them. But what I am talking about here is everything else.

You are a party of spite. You would rather bring down “those who have” than lift up “those who have not.” You want to hold back those who are faster or smarter, hinder those who can, take from those who have more, and destroy rather than accept less than what you think is your unearned, "fair" share. You are destructive.

You are a party of hate. You do not debate, you demonize and destroy. There are no good faith disagreements in your world, only those who blindly follow and those you try to destroy. You promote speech codes and political correctness and hate crimes laws and other instruments of suppression of thought, just to quiet all opposition.

You are racists. You see the world through a prism of race, you accuse all who oppose you of racism and you pretend to find racial offense in all things, just to keep the races separated, suspicious and agitated. And I say “pretend” because you only find offense in the words or deed of your opponents, but never your friends who do and say the same things. You also diminish minorities with your condescension. Your policies all assume that blacks or Hispanics cannot succeed except with the assistance of white liberals, you argue that corruption within the black community should be ignored because it is a matter of culture, you argue that Hispanics cannot learn English like the millions of immigrants before them. Clearly, you see these groups as inferior to you.

Your arrogance and condescension are disgusting. You wrongly assert that average people need you to run their lives, that they are beneath you. You call America "fly-over country." You think that you are entitled to luxury on our tax dollars. And you are totalitarians. When you come up with an idea, you try to force all others to accept it. Persuasion to you is the brute force of law.

You are hypocrites. You criticize others for things you do yourself. You shout down others but cry like shrill children when others stand up to you. You deny others the very rights you demand. You rail against the rich, yet you are some of the richest bastards on the planet. You complain about the influence of money, yet you are bought and sold. You are corrupt from stem to stern. There isn’t a form of corruption that isn’t common within the ranks of your elected leaders.

You are liars. You lie like it’s pathological. You lie to hide your ideology. You lie to hide your true intents. You lie to hide your failures. You lie to make the success of others appear to be a failure. You lie about the past, about the present and about the future, and you do so without a moment’s remorse.

You are irresponsible. You happily spend this country into bankruptcy. You happily destroy the institutions that hold this country together. You happily promote policies that destroy people’s lives. And you do this without a single thought to the consequences.

And finally, you are traitors to this country, and I do not say this lightly. I never used to believe this, then I saw Nancy Pelosi glowing at the prospect of disaster in Iraq just to make political gains against Bush. I saw her undermine us in Syria. I saw so many of you cozy up to dictators and thugs who have preached the destruction of America. I’ve seen Democrat after Democrat undermine our foreign policy, our military, our economy, and our culture. I saw Frank Murtha accusing American soldiers of phantom war crime. I saw Obama alienate and sell out our allies. And a hundred more examples. These are not policy differences you are expressing, these are treachery.

So as we enter the Christmas season, which is always a time for reflection, ask yourself why others would see you this way. Is this what you want to stand for? Is this what the party of Jefferson, of Jackson, of FDR and JFK has become?

Maybe it's time for a change.

[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

Senator Exposes Himself!

Ever since Reagan swept the land, the Democrats have done their best to hide their agenda. This has included trying to disguise their agenda behind false market economics, trying to create new labels for failed ideas, and sometimes flat out lying about what they believe. One trick of which they are quite fond is a trick that Sen. Ben Nelson of Nebraska just pulled on his voters. . . the old, “I really am against what I’m supporting” trick.

The backdrop: As you know, the Democrats are struggling to get the Baucus bill out of the Senate. They need sixty votes and they are stuck on two issues: abortion and the public option. The reason these two issues are presenting such a problem is not that the Democrats don’t overwhelmingly agree on both issues, it’s that they need the support of 60 Senators to move the bill forward for a vote. With Republican opposition firm, and Joe Lieberman joining the Republicans in opposing a public option, the Democrats cannot pass the bill if it includes a public option. At the same time, since the Democrats literally cannot afford to lose one vote, the opposition of any Democrat would prove disastrous. That’s where abortion comes in.

Sen. Ben Nelson claims to be an opponent of abortion. Thus, he introduced a bill that would impose the same limits on abortion under the Baucus bill that currently exist under PelosiCare. Basically, he introduced his version of the Stupak Amendment. The Stupak Amendment (or in this case the Nelson Amendment) would prevent insurers from indirectly paying for abortions through the use of accounting fictions whereby money is separated into supposedly separate pools. Said Nelson: “Segregation of funds is an accounting gimmick. The reality is federal funds would help buy coverage that includes abortion.”

This was a make or break issue Sen. Nelson told the people of Nebraska -- though few intelligent people believed him because he’s a Democrat and they will sacrifice their deepest held beliefs without a second thought whenever those beliefs stand in the way of “progress.” The doubters were right.

When he introduced this amendment, Sen. Nelson made it clear on several occasions that he would not support any bill that did not include this language.

“As written, the Senate health care bill allows taxpayer dollars, directly and indirectly, to pay for insurance plans that cover abortion. Most Nebraskans, and Americans, do not favor using public funds to cover abortion and as a result this bill shouldn’t open the door to do so.”

The amendment lost 54-45. So here comes his statement of conscience, his principled stand right? What? Why are you laughing? You think a Democrat can’t take a stand on principle? Well. . . apparently, you’re right. Right after the vote, Nelson (as predicted) did not reaffirm that he would oppose the bill, no. . . he only stated that this “makes it harder” for him to support the bill. He added, “We’ll just have to see what develops.”

Translation: “People of Nebraska, I will never compromise my principles until they are actually put to a vote.”

This, by the way, is after Nelson participated in a huge fraud to begin with. He let the Democrats threaten the insurance industry with the loss of their anti-trust exemption (Nelson is partially owned by the Nebraska-based insurance industry and partially owned by the ethanol lobby). He then graciously accepted a withdrawal of that threat in exchange for his vote on Baucus -- allowing him to sell his “reluctant support” to the people of Nebraska as being in their own interest. Shameless.

But Nelson wasn’t the only one to be exposed. Harry Reid too lies to his constituents. He claims to be anti-abortion, but he said this of this health care bill:

“This is not the right place for this debate. . . No one should use the issue of abortion to rob millions of the opportunity to get good health care.”

Translation: “People of Nevada, I really am anti-abortion, just like I’ve been telling you. . . I just think we should allow public funding of abortion.”

Of course, they aren't the only ones who have exposed themselves. You know about Landrieu accepting a $300 billion pay off for her vote. Blanche Lincoln has made it clear she will act against the overwhelming interests of her constituents, as have many others like fellow Arkansas Sen. David Pryor. The AMA was exposed. It supported this monster, despite two-to-one opposition from doctors. AARP supported this even though the elderly overwhelmingly oppose it -- they were bought off with a promise to eliminate Medicare Advantage, which will lead to nine million more elderly needing AARP-sponsored insurance. In fact, the entire left-wing lobby has been exposed. . . the list goes on and on.

The issue of the public option also took a strange turn yesterday, and may have exposed more senators. Supposedly moderate Democrats like David Pryor agreed to "drop" the public option in exchange for non-profit plans administered by the Office of Personnel Management. Hmm. That sounds a lot like a public option to me. . . and it does to Harry Reid too:

“It is a consensus that includes a public option and will help ensure the American people win in two ways. One, insurance companies will face more competition, and two, the American people will have more choices."

The cries of the little socialists as Huffpo not withstanding, it's clear that the public option still exists. So can you name a senator who swore that he would never support any plan that included a public option or could lead to a public option? That's right, it was Joe Lieberman. Guess what Joe said this morning? Joe indicated this morning that he may be willing to support this new public option: "I am encouraged by the progress toward a consensus."

Why am I not surprised.


[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

Obama's Anti-Bounce

President Obama likes to think of himself as historic, and in many ways he is. He’s the first black President, the first foreign-born President, and the first President with no clue what he’s doing. Now we can add another first. Whenever a President makes a decision or gives an important speech, they receive a bounce in their poll numbers. Barack doesn’t.

This week, Obama’s approval rating fell to a new low at Gallup: 47%. That’s hardly a shocker, however, as he’s been below 50% at Gallup for most of the time since mid-November.

More ominously for Obama, perhaps, is that his approval rating would be a lot lower if not for Democratic groupthink -- 83% of Democrats rate him favorably. By comparison, only 14% of Republicans and only 42% of independents rate him favorably. If independents decide elections, then Obama loses in a landslide. Voter-opinion intensity matters too and those who strongly dislike Obama outnumber those who strongly like him by 11%.

Even more ominously, 71% of Americans say they are “angry” about the current policies of the federal government, with 46% describing themselves as “very angry.” That’s up 10% since September. At this rate, 520% of the American public will be very angry by the time he leaves office in 2012. . . just kidding, it will be 526%.

But we’re not here today just to talk about his current ratings or whether he’ll be able to go into a Home Depo with Joe Biden without getting spit on after he leaves office. No, we’re hear to talk about the Obama bounce. . . or the lack thereof.

Let’s take a look at Obama’s approval number again, this time in chart form:


Notice that Obama’s approval rating briefly rose from 49% to 52% last week before crashing to 47% a couple days later. That little rise is the bounce Obama got from his Afghanistan speech. That’s it: a 3% bounce! And he could only hold it for a day or two, before it vanished. . . taking two extra points with it.

This is actually becoming a pattern with Obama.

Obama got a 3% jump when he got his Norgie (his Nobel Prize for the uninitiated). He went from 53% to 56%. He kept that bounce all of two days before losing it. Within a week, he lost two more points, giving him a net loss of 2% within a week (from 53% to 51%) on that “bounce.”

His big health care speech got him a 4% bounce, from 47% to 51%. He kept that bounce one day before losing 6%. He lost another 3% the following day, giving him a net loss of 5% in four days (from 47% to 42%) on his “bounce.”

Obama’s jobs summit gave him a 1% bounce, from 51% to 52%, which he kept one day before that too vanished and took an additional 4% with it, giving him a net loss of 4% in two days (from 51% to 47%) on that “bounce.” Perhaps he should stop giving speeches?

What could explain Obama’s anti-bounce? Maybe people don’t trust/believe him:

• Sixty percent (60%) of Americans believe ObamaCare will increase the budget deficit and result in higher middle-class taxes, despite Obama's continued denials.

• Fifty-nine percent (59%) of voters believe scientists falsified the data upon which Obama is relying to push through an anti-global warming treaty.

• A full 58% of voters say that it’s unlikely the stimulus saved or created 600,000 jobs as Obama claims.

• Another 55% say Obama’s summit will not reduce unemployment, even before he announces his plan. That’s clear evidence of a loss of trust.

Indeed, when it comes to jobs (and other things), Americans have no faith in him. Despite Obama’s giddy self-congratulations over the dip in unemployment to 10%, 67% of Americans think the unemployment rate will be the same or higher a year from now. Perhaps they realize that the only reason the number was down was that people fell out of the work force, with another 100,000 having given up on finding work -- labor force participation fell to its lowest level in nearly 24 years. Maybe they just remember that 10% unemployment is higher than any President has caused since before the 1980s.

If we look at Obama’s approval on an issue by issue basis, you will see a dramatic lack of support on every issue Obama faces:


But the public doesn’t just oppose his handling efforts overall, they oppose his very goals:

• Sixty-two percent (62%) of voters are opposed to a second stimulus package.

• Sixty-two percent (62%) of voters oppose a single-payer health care system.

• Only 41% support the health care plan at all.

And what about that Afghanistan issue?

The media is reporting the topline number, that 53% of voters approve of Obama’s plan. But let’s look deeper. And when you break that 53% down, you find that only 20% of Americans agree with both parts of the plan -- increasing troop numbers and setting a withdrawal date. Moreover, the support appears to be at the partisan extremes: the right supports the increase in troop strength and the left supports withdrawing the troops. The middle is unsure or likes neither. Indeed, 58% of Democrats support the plan as do 55% of Republicans, but only 45% of independents support the plan. Thus, this support is unsustainable because it lacks broad-based support, and once either side feels let down, the support will collapse entirely rather than slowly fade.

Perhaps, that's why only 37% of Americans approve of Obama’s handling of this issue -- up a measly two points from before the speech.

Maybe he better avoid Home Depo after all.

[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

Letter To The Editor

Dear Editor. This just in -- newspapers are dying. Circulation is plummeting, advertising revenues are following suit, staff are being laid off and news bureaus are closing. “It’s that damn internet. . . no, kids don’t read. . . no, it’s a lack of trust created by talk radio. Save us Uncle Obama!” scream a thousand perplexed journalists. Actually, it’s your own fault, and I’m about to tell you why. Oh, and a handout from the Bank of Obama isn’t going to save you.

Let’s begin by checking out the scope of the problem. Advertising revenues are tied directly to circulation rates, and circulation rates have been falling for decades. When I was young, most of the adults I knew read newspapers, usually every day. And it wasn’t like I lived in a high class, newspaper consuming community. We were lower, lower middle class (if that) and yet most of the adults I knew read the paper -- so many in fact, that it just seemed like it was the one thing all Americans did.

Today’s circulation rates tell a very different story. Below are a list of the top ten newspapers by circulation.


Only 21 papers nationwide had circulations that exceeded 250,000 last year. If you add those top twenty-one together, you come up with a total circulation of 11.5 million, with almost half of that held by the top three papers. That means that less than 3.8% of Americans subscribe to newspapers. What happened?

The media usually makes three arguments: (1) the internet, (2) kids don’t read, and (3) people have become too cynical. But these arguments merely blame the consumer, rather than identify the real problems. This is typical of most failing businesses. . . it’s you, it’s not me. The reality is that each of the three reasons above are true, but the blame belongs with the newspapers, not the readers.

The internet certainly presents a problem for newspapers -- though we must remember that the decline in newspaper readership began long before the internet was glint in Algore’s eye, so take whining about the internet with a grain of salt. But presenting a problem is not the same thing as bringing about doom. Doom only comes when people refuse to see the problem and adjust their business model accordingly.

The problem with the newspaper model is that they’ve gotten sloppy and cheap. Year after year, newspapers laid off staff and closed bureaus. In their place, editors relied more and more on wire services, e.g. the AP. Today, there is virtually nothing in the national section (or international section -- assuming the paper even recognizes events beyond our borders) that isn’t simply a cut and paste from a wire service.

But this is precisely what the internet delivers -- wire service news, and it does it much faster and much more efficiently than any newspaper could. That is the problem, dear editor: why should anyone buy a newspaper, only to see tomorrow morning what they already knew the night before? You are fighting on turf where the internet has the advantage, and it’s not going to slow down and you can’t speed up. So what should newspapers do? Simple. They need to invest in new bureaus and better reporters. Go out and do the old school “journalism thing”: cultivate sources, do research, and conduct investigations. Get exclusives. . . lots of them. Give us exposés. Provide readers what they cannot find from a wire service. The only reason I read The Economist, despite their increasingly further left ideological bent, is that they provide news (in-depth news) that I simply can’t find anywhere else. You can do the same, dear Editor.

Sadly, newspapers have gone the other way. They’ve cut the very things they need to compete, all in the name of cost savings. It takes money to make money my dear editor. Stop being cheap.

Secondly, it’s true that younger people no longer read newspapers. But rather than whine about it, ask what you’ve done to change that? Do newspapers create child-friendly versions for students? Do they give student discounts for high schoolers or college kids? When the NFL realized that it was losing younger audiences, it didn’t whine about it, it set about hooking kids earlier. It did two things. First, the NFL sponsored youth leagues, having discovered that kids who play football grow up to watch it. Secondly, it created this new anti-obesity campaign which is ostensibly aimed at getting kids to exercise, but in reality is intended to interest kids in the NFL. Do the same.

Third, we’re not cynical, we just don’t like propaganda. It has become crystal clear over the past decade or two that the media has decided to promote left-wing causes. This includes favoring some stories over others, not reporting stories that run counter to leftist ideology, reporting leftist views uncritically while attacking non-leftist views, and filling every story (even non-ideological stories) with leftist agendas and propaganda. And the American public has noticed. Poll after poll shows American faith in the media as a presenter of truth to be at an all time low.

Yet, journalists have responded cynically. You attack your critics, you blackball non-leftists, you play down the opposition and you deny your bias -- indeed, ridiculously, many journalists fret publicly of a right-wing bias in the media. And then you use toothless ombudsmen who report after Democrats are safely elected that maybe. . . possibly. . . you weren’t 100% fair to the Republican. Or you attack Democrats once they leave office over some minor sin, and then you trumpet this as evidence of your fair and balanced treatment. You are only fooling yourselves.

If you want to regain your readers, you need to strip out the ideology from your reporting. Facts are facts and should be presented as such. Stop blurring news and analysis. Stop shading your coverage and favoring leftists. Slaughter all your sacred cows and investigate all sides equally. People want to know that they are getting the whole truth, not just the part you are willing to print. Moreover, when you present analysis, present both sides fairly. Stop repeating leftist talking points uncritically, no matter how illogical. We’re not that stupid that we don’t notice. And don’t try to slide an editorial from John McCain or some other token RINO by us as “the conservative position.” We know who is a conservative and who isn’t.

Finally, learn to respect your audience. For years, newspapers hid behind the idea that “this is what the customers want.” Stupid, shorter stories? We, journalists, aren’t being lazy, this is what the customer wants. Drop the international news? We’re not being cheap, this is what the customer wants. Lead with sensationalism -- if it bleeds it leads. . . sex sells! It’s not us, this is what the customer wants. No, this isn’t what the customer wants. This is lazy, easy reporting that can be done with little effort or ability and you are merely hiding behind your caricature of the customer to cover up your own sloth. And if that weren’t true, your circulations would be going up.

Also, let me suggest something else. Selling sex and violence exploits addictive behavior. This is a horrible idea, not because I think it’s immoral, but because addictive behavior (be it drugs, alcohol, sex, etc.) requires ever increasing stimulation to achieve the same high. Once people get used to seeing a bloody shirt on their front page or a naked chest, they will need more to get the same stimulation, i.e. incentive to buy. Soon you need full frontal nudity and dismembered corpses. How do you ratchet up the intensity after that? And how many other readers do you turn off in the process? Newspapers need to learn to trust their audience. We are people who want to be informed, not people who want to be excited. Leave that to Larry Flynt.

This is why I dropped my subscription.

Signed,
The American Reader

[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

Did GM Take Us For A Ride?

It appears that GM has taken us for a ride. At the end of 2008, GM was on its deathbed (more so than normal at least) and in stepped Uncle Obama with suitcases full of our money. But don’t worry, Obama assured us, he extracted all kinds of promises of change. So why has nothing changed?

GM died about thirty years ago, it just didn’t know it. As the 1980s began, people looked for smaller, more reliable cars. GM made neither and didn’t care to. Its management understood the 1950s and little else. As Japanese and German and then Korean cars got better and better, GM didn’t or couldn’t.

But “GM learned its lessons!” At least that’s what they told us year after year after year. In fact, I recall once seeing a CNBC video showing a series of GM CEOs, every year for the past three decades, mouthing the words (or a paraphrase) “we’ve made mistakes in the past, but we’ve learned our lessons, we’re now making a competitive product.” Yet, nothing ever changed.

GM seems indifferent to its customers. Its union workers are lazy and hostile and turn out low quality, sloppy work -- anyone who ever owned a 1985 GM can attest to this, if the car didn’t kill you. Their engineers lack vision and talent. Rather than creating better, more advanced cars, they spent decades repackaging older brands and slapping new labels on the same turds that nobody wanted the year before. Forget stylish, modern or innovative.

Moreover, GM has been incapable of reigning in costs. I recall sitting in an airplane for five hours in 1998 listening to a GM “engineer” explain with great enthusiasm what he does -- this was after supposedly “draconian cost cuts” by GM. He worked in a building with about 200 people, each of whom did one thing. Their job was to design the knobs on the radios in certain GM trucks. Not all trucks mind you. . . just some. And not radios or faceplates, just knobs. When I asked if it wouldn’t be cheaper to just buy entire radios directly from a stereo maker (like Pioneer), he got an angry look on his face and told me that “GM couldn’t be sure the feel would be right on the knobs.” Seriously.

In 2008, GM nearly died. For years, they had been offering interest-free loans to get people to buy their cars. But this only robbed future car sales, it did not get more people to buy their product. In 2008, this policy came home to roost. Demand in the United States fell from a peak of around 20 million cars a year (at the initial height of the incentive craze) to between 9-10 million. This was a disaster for everyone who sold cars in America.

Having lost over $80 billion in four years, with demand collapsing, and losing $2 billion a month, GM was doomed. But in rushed the United States government to prop up the moribund company. You and I, at the insistence of Team Obama, handed GM just over $50 billion to keep them afloat (not to mention the cash for clunkers program designed to keep customers going to GM). But there were promises. . . “we’ve learned our lesson!” everyone said.

In exchange for the $50 billion, GM was to do the following:

• Cut their costs, particularly their union labor costs.

• Eliminate Pontiac, sell Saturn, sell Saab, sell Hummer (6% of GM’s American sales)

• Sell Opel (18% of GM’s global sales).

• Close 20 factories and eliminate 21,000 jobs.

• Eliminate unprofitable dealerships (1300 by the end of 2010).

These ideas were meant to (1) reduce over capacity in the industry to account for the reality that the American market would only buy 10-12 million cars each year, rather than 15-20 million, and (2) reduce GM’s costs so that they would become a profitable, self-sustaining company. The US Government also received ownership of 67% of the new company -- the rest was shared by the Canadian government and the United Auto Workers.

CEO Rick Wagoner even promised to work for only $1 a year until this crisis passed. Though he was soon fired and replaced by the government’s man, Fritz Henderson.

GM then went to Germany and received another $3 billion to keep Opel (GM’s European presence) open long enough to sell it to Magna. They also went to the Swedish government and got a pledge of $412 million and debt guarantee so that they could sell Saab to Koenigsegg. Saturn was to go to Hertz and Hummer to the Chinese.

Sounds like a ton of change right? Guess what.

Well, this week GM decided that Fritz Henderson wasn’t right after all, so they dumped him. This was such a surprise that even the other corporate officers did not know it was coming. The new guy, GM’s Chairman of the Board Ed Whitacre, is already bringing in “new” people. . . like Stephen Girsky, a former advisor to Rick Wagoner.

Wagoner, by the way, despite being fired, remains with the company. And even though he promised to work for only $1 during the crisis, someone apparently forget to mention that he’s eligible for a $20 million pension should he ever leave the company. One wonders how long before he returns to the CEO position?

But that’s not all that GM has been up to. Thursday, GM announced that they would reconsider the closings of the dealerships. Nothing definite has been announced yet in this regard, except that GM has agreed to “establish a binding review process to evaluate closures and determine whether those were based on business decisions.” Look for this to save most of the 1300 “closed” dealerships.

And we’re not done there. GM decided to cancel the Opel sale. It did manage to sell or dump the rest (or supposedly will soon), but by keeping Opel, GM managed to reduce its capacity by only 6% rather than the 24% promised.

Those union concessions? If you believe the UAW, they made concessions that will save GM $1.2 billion per year, which isn’t all that much for a company that takes in approximately $150 billion in revenue each year. Not to mention that many of these savings may be pay freezes rather than actual cuts -- an old Democratic trick, calling a smaller increase than planned a “cut.”

One thing the union did agree to though was to forgive part of GM’s promise to pay $20 billion to cover health care costs of retirees -- how big of a part I don’t know. Still, it’s nice of the union right? Oh, forgot to mention, in exchange for this promise, GM gave the union a 17.5% ownership of the company and $6.5 billion in preferred stock (paying 9% interest) and a $2.5 billion note. By the way, now that the union is taking over the duties of providing health care, any retiree old enough to be on Medicare will lose their “Cadillac” plan and must instead rely on Medicare. Thanks tax payer.

But at least they shut down factories and trimmed their labor force right? Think again. GM reduced the number of plants to be closed to 14. AND, it will keep four of those on “standby” in case they are needed to meet rising demand. AND they’ve recently announced that another will be retooled to make subcompacts rather than being closed. That leaves nine currently closing rather than the twenty they promised.

GM likes to point out that they’re reducing their labor force from 91,000 to 64,000, but it doesn’t appear to have happened yet. Moreover, it’s not clear that these are anything other than Saturn, Hummer or Pontiac workers. Thus, it’s not clear that they’ve actually made their remaining production facilities any more efficient.

So where does that leave us? It leaves us with a company that got $51 billion of our money based on promises that the company doesn’t appear to be keeping. It leaves us with an industry that will continue to struggle with over capacity. It leaves us with a company that will continue to stagger along on the verge of death until the next bailout.

And people wonder the American public doesn’t trust bailouts.

[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

The Weekly Bidenism

When last we left our Village Idiot Vice President, he was busy displaying a little overt sexism and racism while scaring anyone who has the misfortune of needing public transportation: planers, trainers and subwayers beware, the swine flu tolls for thee. There’s plenty more along those lines, but today let’s talk about jobs in honor of last Thursday’s “jobs summit.” Get ready for. . . The Weekly Bidenism.

Many of you may have noticed that the economy isn’t doing all that well. With over 10% unemployment (17.5% if you count real unemployment), record high mortgage failures, vast numbers of bank failures, and a federal government that seems intent on bankrupting itself before Obama’s term is up, Joe has faced many questions about the economy. The most common about these is why the stimulus isn’t working. But Joe insists that it is. Should we trust him? Perhaps this admission could help us assess his veracity on this issue:

“If it fails, I’d dead.”

That’s Joe on September 24, 2009 explaining his own “self-interest” in making sure the stimulus is seen as a success. Hmmm. Maybe we can’t trust what he says after all? So perhaps we should take this next Bidenism with a grain of salt.

Apparently, people are scratching their heads, wondering how spending so much money is going to help anything. If we keep spending like this, won’t that bankrupt the country -- a very effective anti-stimulus indeed? On July 16, 2009, Joe responded to this criticism:

“People, when I say that, look at me and say, 'What are you talking about, Joe? You're telling me we have to go spend money to keep from going bankrupt?’ The answer is yes.”

Uh. Hmm. I don’t even know what to say to that? Could this be as moronic as it seems? Perhaps this is part of some clever political strategy? Perhaps one more Bidenism will cast a little light on this. Here is Slow Joe, in October 2008, explaining what it’s all about:

"It happens to be, as Barack said, a three-letter word … jobs … J-O-B-S, Jobs!"

Ok, so it’s settled. What’s a five letter word for moron? Obama? Biden? Yes. . .


[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

Pardon Me, Governor

This week saw the likely end of any presidential aspirations Mike Huckabee may have had when a man he released from prison killed four police officers in Washington state. This wasn’t the first time someone Huckabee released went on a murderous crime spree, but it appears to be the final straw. But while many are upset that Huckabee pardoned this guy, this is really only one example of a much deeper problem with the way Huckabee handled pardons. There are some good lessons here.

Pardons have been a part of the justice system since at least ancient Rome. One of the benefits of Roman citizenship was the unqualified right to appeal directly to the Emperor for a pardon. That right exists today in virtually every country and under virtually every system of government.

Before you say, “we should get rid of it, dirty criminals,” consider that there are very valid reasons to allow governors or presidents to hold the power to commute a sentence or issue a pardon. First, sometimes trials are merely political theater, e.g. any prosecution of Bush officials you can think of. Pardons can be used to undo an unfair result in such circumstances or can even be issued preemptively to prevent the harassment associated with such show trials.

Secondly, juries are not perfect. Even recent history is full of examples of people who were convicted because they were the wrong race or they angered the wrong accuser -- the system is very poor at distinguishing real and false accusations. Every day there are more and more scandals of labs mishandling or even faking evidence. There are corrupt or biased judges, judges worried about re-election, prosecutors worried about re-election, prosecutors who set out to make a name for themselves regardless of right and wrong, and defense attorneys who can’t find their rear ends with a map.

And while convicted defendants usually get at least one appeal, appeals often can’t help solve these problems. What most people don’t realize is that appeals deal almost exclusively with questions of whether or not the judge applied the law correctly, not whether or not the facts were decided correctly. Indeed, in most cases, the moment you start talking about facts to an appellate court, they will tell you to stop. The only real exception to this requires you to show that no reasonable jury could have reached the conclusion reached by this jury. . . a nearly impossible standard.

Moreover, many times evidence does not come to light until after the conviction, but getting a new trial based on that evidence is extremely unlikely and difficult.

This is where pardons come in. In instances where there has been a miscarriage of justice and the system does not allow the miscarriage to be corrected, governors or presidents should step in and issue a pardon or commute a sentence. However, these decisions should be rare -- pardons should be issued only after great care and upon a solid basis.

And this is where Huckabee enters the picture. Huckabee apparently handed out pardons like they were candy. In ten years as governor of Arkansas, he issued 1,033 pardons and 163 commutations -- twice as many pardons as the previous three governors combined (507 in 17.5 years). This works out to nearly one pardon every four days. It is clear from this volume alone that Huckabee did not understand the concept. And this is borne out by further details.

Apparently, Huckabee was prone to releasing prisoners at the urging of pastors. Said prosecutor Robert Herzfeld in 2004: “It seems to be true at least anecdotally that if a minister is involved, (Huckabee) seems likely to grant clemency." Rev. Charles Williams told newspapers that he helped win “many, many” clemencies from Huckabee. A pastor who promoted Huckabee among black voters claims he got Huckabee to release John Henry Claiborne, who was sentenced to 100 years for armed robbery.

But pardons should not be a tool of sympathy. Issuing pardons just because you feel sorry for someone or you think they are reformed or you think they are a good person is completely improper. This is the worst kind of judicial activism. In such instances, the governor is substituting their own judgment for the judgment of the people, the legislature, the courts, and the juries. It is the equivalent of a judge saying: “I don’t think this law should apply to you.”

Huckabee also acted at the request of acquaintances: Samuel Taylor (a drug dealer) went to school with Huckabee’s sister; James Maxwell (who killed a pastor) worked at the Governor’s Mansion under a prison-work program; Donald Clerk (thief) had a stepmother on Huckabee’s staff; Robert Arnold (murderer) had a father who was a casual friend of Huckabee’s. This flies in the face of equality under the law and brings us very close to a patronage system.

In 2004, Huckabee commuted the sentence of murderer Denver Witham even after it was revealed that Witham lied on his pardon application by failing to mention some of his prior convictions.

What this shows is a man who believed his emotional instincts were superior to the rule of law, and a man who had no qualms using the power in which he was vested to benefit his friends and their friends.

It is thus no surprise that Huckabee released people who should not have been released, people who were dangerous and went on to commit other crimes. Here are the two notorious examples:

• Maurice Clemmons, whose felony record included a string of aggravated robberies and assaults, was released from his 108 year sentence by Huckabee in 2000. His post-release career included child rape and now the murder of four police officers. Huckabee’s reason for releasing him was as follows:

"If he were a white kid from an upper middle-class family, he would have gotten a lawyer and some counseling. But because he was a young black kid, he got 108 years."

This is cynical, liberal identity politics of the highest order. This is a despicable claim, particularly without proof of unfairness. Moreover, if it is true, then why didn't Gov. Huckabee reform the system? Why did he just commute the one sentence and leave other poor blacks in prison? Incidentally, while in prison, prior to Huckabee’s release, Clemmons had more than two dozen rules infractions, many of them for fighting. He was described by prison officials as hostile and anti-social.

• Wayne DuMond, a convicted rapist, was set free by the Arkansas parole board at Huckabee’s urging. DuMond went on to rape and then murder a mother of three in Missouri shortly after his release. Huckabee denied any role in DuMond’s release, but this denial was refuted by the parole board and members of Huckabee’s own staff. It was also subsequently revealed that Huckabee had met secretly with the board, going so far as to meet without the presence of the stenographer who customarily records all board meetings. Huckabee knew DuMond’s wife.

Let’s hope this becomes a lesson to other governors that pardons should not be used on a whim. And let’s hope the voters realize that a person who places themselves above the law has no place in elected office.


[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

Obama: The Man Who Would Be King

All day yesterday, the media played up Obama’s pending speech. Obama cheerleader and NBC reporter, John Harwood, for example, claimed this would be the most important speech of Obama’s Presidency. “This was the moment the Afghan war would become Obama’s war,” he said with awe. As expected, Obama failed to live up to the challenge.

And it’s not just me that thinks Obama flopped. Within minutes of the speech, a series of normally-reflexive-Obama-supporters put out articles blasting Obama. Let’s start with those:

What Our Friends On The Left Said

Let's start with the most glaring. German leftist magazine Der Spiegel said this:

"Never before has a speech by President Barack Obama felt as false as his Tuesday address announcing America's new strategy for Afghanistan. It seemed like a campaign speech combined with Bush rhetoric -- and left both dreamers and realists feeling distraught.

One didn't have to be a cadet on Tuesday to feel a bit of nausea upon hearing Obama's speech. It was the least truthful address that he has ever held. He spoke of responsibility, but almost every sentence smelled of party tactics. He demanded sacrifice, but he was unable to say what it was for exactly."

Time magazine blasted Obama for leaving out a key detail from his speech, namely how exactly we get the Afghan army to grow. They also criticized the entire strategy, pointing out that:

• US officers have described the Afghan forces as “slipshod and corrupt”;

• They are incapable of more that basic daytime operations;

• They have been unable to master the vital bookkeeping needed for a military to function;

• Deadlines and calendars are foreign concepts to their army, and their officers have a “God-willing mentality” that “delays progress for all routine and major actions”;

• They only respond to paper orders, which “freezes subordinates into doing nothing until specifically ordered”; and

• The relationship between US and Afghan forces are “plagued by mistrust, with the living quarters of allied and Afghan troops separated by walls, razor wire, guarded gates and machine-gun nests.”

The Christian Science Monitor noted that Obama’s speech did nothing to convince the Afghans that our intent isn’t to occupy their garden spot of a country. The Monitor wrote that across ethnic lines, Afghans believe that the foreign troops are there as occupiers -- a line of reasoning promoted by the Taliban. Many believe that the troops who are already in Afghanistan could defeat the Taliban if they wanted to, but the United States is using our supposed failure to defeat the Taliban as a pretext for bringing more troops to occupy the country. Said Jabar Wafaie, “The troops that are already here, they can do well now, if they wanted they could destroy the Taliban.” He added that “the additional 30,000 troops is going to be a good opportunity for the Taliban to recruit more.” Others agreed.

Waliullah Ramani, director of the Kabul Center for Strategic Studies, criticized the 18 month deadline Obama created, noting that the insurgents can merely wait out the 18 months. “For the Taliban, this is good news. If the Afghan government remains in the same situation that is today, it cannot remain in power for even a month when the US leaves.” The Monitor published these comments uncritically.

The Washington Post and the Associated Press both fact-checked Obama’s speech and found it lacking in several areas. The Post criticized Obama for setting a deadline, noting that “the administration has had real trouble meeting deadlines.” It noted that Obama’s claim that he could not have sent troops sooner was technically true, but really isn’t. And it criticized him for planning to use a supplemental appropriation to pay for the war -- “a practice Democrats heavily criticized during the Bush years and something Obama had said he would not do.”

The AP criticized the idea that we can “train competent Afghan security forces.” They noted that the problem with the Afghan forces is “an unwillingness to fight. Too many get into the fight but don’t remain or don’t perform.” The AP tossed cold water on Obama’s assertion that Europeans would provide additional troops: “history has shown that these troop contributions often are incremental, sometimes slow in materializing and frequently come with conditions attached.” They also tore apart his claim that Pakistan was helping defeat the Taliban:

“It's true the Pakistani army this year has launched offensives against extremist elements in the areas cited by Obama. What he did not mention, however, is that the groups being targeted by the Pakistanis are those that threaten the Pakistani government — not those, also based in Pakistan, that are focused on attacking U.S. and Afghan forces on the other side of the porous border. . . . [those] have so far not been confronted on the Pakistan side of the border, other than by air strikes from U.S. drones.”

So much for the speech of his Presidency.

Obama went into this speech with a 35% approval rating by the public on his handling of the Afghanistan situation:


And that support is even lower among Republicans and independents:


Nothing in his speech or in the coverage of his speech is going to help those numbers much, apart from the brief short term boost that normally follows speeches of this kind. But in this instance, I actually doubt he’ll get that large of a boost. Here’s why:

My Problems With The Speech

Obama’s speech was dull, yet petulant. It was arrogant, yet pleading. It was contradictory, and most importantly, it was uninspired. There was nothing in Obama’s speech to tell the average person why we are in Afghanistan, why we need to stay, why we should risk one more American life, or how we are going to prevail. Obama just assured us that he decided that it was important to our security that we stay.

Most of the speech was spent trying to walk a contradictory line: (1) Bush left the war in such a horrible state that it’s virtually unwinnable, but (2) I, Obama, fixed all of his mistakes and made it all better, but (3) the whole thing is messed up and will be a struggle to set right, but (4) I, Obama, fixed it and I will fix it.

And the policy behind the speech was worse.

Obama tried to placate the right by sending more troops -- a position that I disagree with. But he tried not to look like he was placating the right by cutting the number down from 40,000 to 30,000. He tried to placate the left by setting a firm deadline, which really isn’t very firm when you realize he only set 2011 as the date we “begin” to come home.

In the end, the only people he really placated were the Taliban. Indeed, those idiots issued a statement that seemed almost giddy:

“Obama will witness lots of coffins heading to America from Afghanistan. Their hope to control Afghanistan by military means will not become reality. The extra 30,000 troops that will come to Afghanistan will provoke stronger resistance and fighting, They will withdraw shamefully. They cannot achieve their hopes and goals.”

And, sadly, they are correct: they won a tremendous victory last night. All they need to do now is wait 18 months and we will leave, handing them Afghanistan on a platter. In the meantime, they can swing over more and more villagers who know that once the Americans leave, the Taliban will return. What villager will stand up to fight the Taliban now, knowing that in 18 months they will stand alone?

Moreover, try as I might, I could find no solutions in his speech, just promises of more of the same. As you know, I have come to believe that we are wasting time, money and lives in Afghanistan. I see no reason to believe that any mission to stabilize the Afghan government can succeed because Afghanistan the country is a fiction. Not only does it consist of a collection of warring tribes rather than a people with some common interests, but it lacks any of the history, culture or institutions needed to hold a democracy together. Thus, no matter what we do, I believe that our efforts will fall apart once we leave. And nothing in Obama’s speech last night told me that he recognizes this.

But even putting my views aside, where was the path to success last night? He offered more of the same, which hasn’t worked, and all he did was assure us that this time it would work. Why? How? And if all you're going to do is repeat what Bush was doing, why did we need you in the first place?

Does this man have no ideas?

Indeed, rather than enlighten us, most of the speech was spent blaming Bush for Obama's failures to come. When Obama first did this after his election, it was understandable. Every president inherits the messes of the prior president. And with the left in such bloodlust for Bush, it made sense to use Bush as a sort of boogey-man to hide behind when things weren’t working out. It wasn’t presidential and wasn’t the kind of behavior in which successful people engage, but it was understandable. But that was a long time ago.

Obama claimed during the campaign that he had a plan for Afghanistan. He replaced the command team there with his own hand-picked successors. He’s sent troops, sent diplomats and thoroughly reformed the war to his own liking. It is too late to blame Bush. And trying to blame Bush now just sounds whiny and weak.

But the biggest failure in the speech, the one Obama will regret the most, is that he failed to set a clear list of conditions that constitute an exit strategy. Yes, he set 2011 as the beginning for withdrawal, if conditions are right, but he never said what those conditions were. Nor did he set up a fall guy, i.e. Karzai, that he can blame for failing to meet those (non-existent) conditions. This all but guarantees that our leaving will be seen as Obama simply giving up. Talk about bad politics.

Other than that, it was a great speech.


** Update: Defense Secretary Robert Gates, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Adm. Mike Mullen and nominal Secretary of State Hillary Clinton spent the day playing down the 2011 date. So they're already backtracking on the only real "decision" Obama made? Failure, they name is Barack.


[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

The Elves Have Been A Cruising

By the Boiler Room Elves

When it comes to vacations, Boiler Room Elves love touring cruise ship boiler rooms (we tell BossMen these are “fact-gathering missions” so we don’t need to take vacation days!). A week of sun, sleeping in chairs on the Promenade Deck, and eating good food sounds like the perfect escape to Elfin ears. But we don’t get paid enough to cruise too often (we’re saving up for a new turbo-charged sleigh), so we always look for cheap fares. This time, we found a great deal on a Caribbean cruise. So we went.

Alas, day after day, nothing in the way of a boiler room tour materialized in our Daily Cruise Bulletin. Upon gentle inquiries we were told that the behind-the-scenes tours had come to a halt after 9/11, and we had to settle for the captain's talk and slide show in which he included pictures of the bridge, the ship in dry-dock, divers examining the bottom of the ship, and yes, even the boilers. Another fun thing ruined by terrorism.

Sadly, slide shows just cannot compete with the feel of real nuts and bolts under green felt shoes, so we headed to the buffet to eat away our sorrows. In addition to the normal dining room, this ship had a self-serve buffet where most people ate breakfast and lunch every day. We found ourselves shocked at the behavior of many of our fellow passengers. People would load up their plates with all sorts of food, eat part of it and then dump the rest, only to return to the buffet and come back with more plates full of food. The dessert station was among the worst - it would have 10 types of cookies and cakes, and people would take one of each. They would try one bite of some of the things and trash the rest.

Certainly, none of these passengers ate like this at home, where they were paying the bills. But given free reign and an "I paid for it!" mentality, people freely wasted food and took things they didn't need or maybe didn't even want. There was often a slightly desperate feeling in the air that someone else was going to clean out a tray and you wouldn't get your "fair share."

We met one “gentleman” who was lamenting how the quality of the food had gone dramatically downhill since he started cruising 10 years ago. He lambasted the cruise line, while he was in the process of abandoning a fresh hamburger and fries, after only a few bites. It would join the other two plates of uneaten food sitting at his side, waiting to be cleared. We refrained from asking if he'd considered that perhaps the cruise line could afford to keep the quality higher if every passenger didn't waste enough food for 10 people...

Now, don't get me wrong, we Elves certainly ate more than we needed to. At home, breakfast usually consists of a bowl of Ho-ho-ho-ios, some milk, and a banana. On the ship, we indulged in large amounts of pineapple, cantaloupe, an omelet, bacon, and hash browns, all topped off with a cherry danish or cinnamon roll. But we ate what we took, and if we wanted to try something we weren't sure we'd like, we took a bite or two, knowing we could always return for more.

All this got our Elf minds thinking. Instead of a buffet filled with food, imagine one filled with health care. Having paid the entry fee to get on board, won’t people demand every test ever created at the slightest sensation of pain? Why wouldn’t you get tested for everything if it doesn’t cost you anything? “Let’s run an MRI, how about a CAT scan, how about that Jingle-titis test?” (Editor’s Note: Jingle-titis is a disease that happens only to Elves over the age of 70 who live in Guam.) Won’t people demand medications upon the slightest whim or whenever they see advertising for it? Won’t medical necessity go out the window? Even relatively responsible people will be hard-pressed to avoid the "free" smorgasbord of well-being check ups, no matter how unnecessary they might be at the time.

Where will this lead? Like hamburger-man complaining how quality has dropped, the "cruise line" will not be able to offer high-quality health care to everyone for long. They will have to cut back on the variety of offerings, the quality itself, and the level of service that goes along with it.

Don't get the wrong idea, we Elves really enjoyed our cruise, and we returned to the Boiler Room well-rested and eager to work. But it was also a good opportunity to observe human nature. We simply can't have it both ways - cheap fares and all-you-want, great food and services do not go hand-in-hand. Something has to give. The cruise lines are giving way on the food quality - is that what we want for health care, too?

[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

Pelosi Planning Huge Mistake

I love Ronald Reagan, as do you. But Reagan made two mistakes. One he’s admitted -- the illegal alien amnesty. The other took longer to become apparent. Now Pelosi seems intent on undoing that mistake by making her own version of that mistake. Hmmm. Read on my friends. . .

The second mistake Reagan made was the tax reform he enacted in 1986. From an economic perspective, this was a great reform. It eliminated some tax brackets, flattening the tax structure, and lowered the capital gains rate. That reduced some of the distortions of the tax code and spurred the economic growth that we’ve continued to enjoy until pretty much last year.

But within that success lay a political disaster. As a result of those reforms, millions of people came off the income tax rolls. Economically, that’s a good thing. But politically, it created a problem. People who don’t pay taxes have no incentive to keep the size of government under control. To the contrary, they have an incentive to increase the size of government because it doesn’t cost them anything. Thus, by taking millions of Americans off the tax rolls, Reagan accidentally created a class of people that had nothing to lose from an increase in the size of government!

And that class has been growing. Indeed, the number of Americans who pay no income tax has risen from 15% in 1985 to 40% today. Add in the fact that just over 52% of Americans now receive a check from the federal government, and you’ve got the makings of a “pro-government-growth” constituency.

But if Nancy Pelosi has her way, this problem may be about to correct itself. Over the past few weeks, the left, i.e. Pelosi and many within the MSM, have begun talking about “the need” for a value added tax.

A value added tax is like a sales tax, only the product is taxed at every stage of its production rather than at the point of sale. Said differently, whereas a sales tax is paid once -- by retail consumers, a value added tax is paid by each business that participates in the creation of the product or service. Each business is taxed on the “value it adds” to the product. Since businesses don’t pay taxes, they pass those along to consumers by rolling those taxes into the price of the product as it moves along the production chain.

Economically speaking, a value added tax is a good method for raising taxes. It doesn’t distort people’s incentives to work, like an income tax, nor does it distort their consumer behavior, like targeted deductions. It is also much less intrusive than an income tax. Thus, economically speaking, a value added tax is far superior to an income tax.

But the downside with a value added tax is that it is an easy tax to raise because consumers don’t see it. They only see the final price of the product, they don’t see where it was taxed at each stage of production. And while this could be countered with a requirement that all products identify the total tax paid, consumers still are a notoriously difficult group to organize against bad governmental decisions. A case in point is sugar subsidies, which harm all consumers and which everyone agrees should be eliminated. But because consumers are a diffuse group and the sugar industry is a determined lobby, no one has been able to gather the political muscle needed to eliminate those subsidies.

In any event, if I had a choice between an income tax and a value added tax, I would probably lean toward the value added tax, with certain safeguards. But Pelosi isn’t talking about replacing the income tax, she’s talking about adding a value added tax to the income tax. This, I cannot support.

Anyhoo, here’s the interesting bit about what Pelosi is trying to do. She wants a value added tax. But a value added tax hits all consumers. Thus, she’s working hard to pass a tax that will suddenly smack right in the face that 40% of Americans who currently pay no income taxes. What does this mean? It means, that if she passes this, she’s going to undo Reagan’s 1986 mistake by taking this “pro-government-growth” constituency and making them pay for the services they get. God bless her little black heart.

What’s even more interesting is that a value added tax smacks all consumers equally. That means that the tax is “regressive” in that it takes a larger share of poor people’s income than it takes from rich people. This is not going to make the “pro-government-growth” constituency happy at all. Indeed, even if they exempt food and medicine, for example, this constituency will suddenly find that cars, clothes, DVDs and consumer goods are 20% more expensive.

And here I thought liberals cared about poor people?

Interesting times ahead.

[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...