David Harsanyi
October 27, 2010 - Reason Magazine
Who's going to argue with Sen. John Kerry's recent claim that the American electorate "doesn't always pay that much attention to what's going on, so people are influenced by a simple slogan rather than the facts or the truth or what's happening"?
Hey, that's why John Kerry keeps his job. That's why a simple three-word slogan and a bunch of saccharine speeches can propel a fresh political face into a spectacularly failed presidency.
And that's why the Party of Intellect, Decency, and Selflessness has a hallowed duty to point out the hard facts and truths about its opponents, those Aqua Buddha-worshipping, witchcraft-loving, Talibanish, rape-approving, women-hating, foreign-influence-peddling brutes.
Or, as the president calls them, the "enemy," a group so masterfully devious it can swindle a nation but yet too dumb to take seriously.
Without a doubt, Kerry's deft prognosis of the electorate allows that this epidemic of ignorance most often sweeps the nation when Democrats lose elections. Its existence—like that of PBS or the Coast Guard—is a mystery.
But these particular midterm elections are more intensely focused on philosophical disagreements and public policy than any in memory.
If you've been paying attention, you know it's not Sharron Angle's and Ken Buck's sophisticated personalities, soaring orations, or spellbinding answers that make them competitive. It's their ideology—and the ideology of their opponents.
Tea Party types are interested in ideology, not just the economy. They will be disappointed at the first whiff of "bipartisanship" consensus on spending. They will be irate when Republicans fail to shut down unnecessary federal departments as promised. (As others have pointed out, if the GOP doesn't have the stomach to defund those nerds at NPR, how can we expect it to repeal Obamacare?)
Most elections aren't as historically momentous as partisans would have us believe, but many can shift the trajectory of the national conversation for a long time.
Now that the Tea Party has cleared the brush and lived to tell about it, the next round of candidates will be far less apprehensive in advocating free market reforms. In fact, the next round of economically libertarian candidates—folks who never would have thought of running against the establishment previously—are likely to be more polished, impressive, and intellectually prepared to make their case.
They've been paying attention.
A new Rasmussen poll finds that 75 percent of likely voters believe a free market economy is better than an economy managed by the government. When further broken down, 90 percent of "mainstream" voters prefer free markets.
Among the "Political Class"—which I believe is technically defined as "people who hate America"—only 34 percent feels that the free market is better, and 30 percent likes a government-managed economy.
Anyone "paying attention" can see that a managed economy is a stagnant economy. Anyone "paying attention" can see that as clearly as he can see Nov. 2. There have been few elections as clearly delineated by ideological differences in action as this one.
So despite the claims by Democrats that voters are misled or confused, trust me; an electorate paying attention is the last thing they want.
David Harsanyi is a columnist at The Denver Post and the author of Nanny State. Visit his website at www.DavidHarsanyi.com.
COPYRIGHT 2010 THE DENVER POST
DISTRIBUTED BY CREATORS.COM
Sunday, October 31, 2010
Obama: Both National Therapist and Patient
This fits well with my earlier post about liberal gene having been discovered. Enjoy.
--------
By: Jeannie DeAngelis
American Thinker
According to an "angry, frustrated, scared, anxious, uncertain, nervous, discouraged and shaken up" Barack Obama, Americans are "angry, frustrated, scared, anxious, uncertain, nervous, discouraged and shaken up."
With the midterm election less than a week away, Barack has decided that Americans, critical of liberal policies, are "confused and not thinking clearly."
Obama has assumed the diagnostic mantle and deemed the majority of the nation mentally unstable. However, voters are crystal clear that Barack's liberal way of thinking is the factor instigating the impending political backlash, and corporately resent the haughty suggestion that rejection of liberalism is driven by instability, depression and anxiety.
By treating the American electorate like a roomful of emotional cripples, Barack is reminding Americans that a national referendum is in order to deal with Obama's repeated demeaning innuendos, as well as his left-leaning agenda.
Barack Obama's hubris is so stunning that the president believes any criticism of Democrat policy is indicative of a nation in need of bouncing back by "choosing hope over fear." Translation: Mental stability is defined as choosing to agree with Obama even if you disagree, which sounds more like political schizophrenia.
Rather than playing TV psychiatrist Frasier Crane, Barack "You're not dumb, you just missed the point entirely" Obama should be the one assessing his own performance instead of projecting personal failure onto everyone else. Unbeknownst to Dr. Barack, voters are acutely aware that national mental health will be achieved by exorcising the party in power and hamstringing the President's effort to transform America into a European facsimile.
Moreover, Obama should address his own sociopathic tendencies as an individual who refuses to accept blame for anything, including America's rejection of an aggressive socialistic agenda. By contending that "Americans would be more supportive of [his] policies...if they weren't fettered by [GOP-stoked] anxiety," Obama calls attention to a fragile presidential psyche in dire need of professional attention.
Yet the President continues to soothe his battered ego by fostering the fantasy that "part of the reason that ... politics seems so tough right now, and facts and science and argument does not seem to be winning the day ... is because we're hard-wired not to always think clearly when we're scared." All of which are viable concepts applicable to a president intimidated by the reality that the American public rejects everything he stands for.
Barack forcibly laid America prostrate on a psychiatrist's couch, declaring "There's a lot of anger and there's a lot of frustration and a lot of fear across the country." The President maintains that the "question is going to be whether once again hope overcomes fear... because what the other side has decided is that they're going to ride fear and anxiety all the way to the ballot box."
Maybe Obama should counsel with Harry Reid, who is in the process of plying voters with "free food" at "voter turnout events." Harry has also decided to accept a teachers' union bid to "offer gift cards in return for a vote for Reid."
The soon-to-be-unseated Senate Majority leader would likely argue that he is merely concerned with providing for the nutritional needs of Nevada voters, as well as bestowing on cash-strapped individuals the ability to shop.
On the other hand, Obama is concerned with the nation's mental health. If Barry really believes fear and anxiety is the only obstacle to Democrats maintaining power in the mid-term election, America's health care reform president should follow Harry Reid's lead and solve the problem by mandating that generous dosages of government-provided Xanax be administered to every American voter.
--------
By: Jeannie DeAngelis
American Thinker
According to an "angry, frustrated, scared, anxious, uncertain, nervous, discouraged and shaken up" Barack Obama, Americans are "angry, frustrated, scared, anxious, uncertain, nervous, discouraged and shaken up."
With the midterm election less than a week away, Barack has decided that Americans, critical of liberal policies, are "confused and not thinking clearly."
Obama has assumed the diagnostic mantle and deemed the majority of the nation mentally unstable. However, voters are crystal clear that Barack's liberal way of thinking is the factor instigating the impending political backlash, and corporately resent the haughty suggestion that rejection of liberalism is driven by instability, depression and anxiety.
By treating the American electorate like a roomful of emotional cripples, Barack is reminding Americans that a national referendum is in order to deal with Obama's repeated demeaning innuendos, as well as his left-leaning agenda.
Barack Obama's hubris is so stunning that the president believes any criticism of Democrat policy is indicative of a nation in need of bouncing back by "choosing hope over fear." Translation: Mental stability is defined as choosing to agree with Obama even if you disagree, which sounds more like political schizophrenia.
Rather than playing TV psychiatrist Frasier Crane, Barack "You're not dumb, you just missed the point entirely" Obama should be the one assessing his own performance instead of projecting personal failure onto everyone else. Unbeknownst to Dr. Barack, voters are acutely aware that national mental health will be achieved by exorcising the party in power and hamstringing the President's effort to transform America into a European facsimile.
Moreover, Obama should address his own sociopathic tendencies as an individual who refuses to accept blame for anything, including America's rejection of an aggressive socialistic agenda. By contending that "Americans would be more supportive of [his] policies...if they weren't fettered by [GOP-stoked] anxiety," Obama calls attention to a fragile presidential psyche in dire need of professional attention.
Yet the President continues to soothe his battered ego by fostering the fantasy that "part of the reason that ... politics seems so tough right now, and facts and science and argument does not seem to be winning the day ... is because we're hard-wired not to always think clearly when we're scared." All of which are viable concepts applicable to a president intimidated by the reality that the American public rejects everything he stands for.
Barack forcibly laid America prostrate on a psychiatrist's couch, declaring "There's a lot of anger and there's a lot of frustration and a lot of fear across the country." The President maintains that the "question is going to be whether once again hope overcomes fear... because what the other side has decided is that they're going to ride fear and anxiety all the way to the ballot box."
Maybe Obama should counsel with Harry Reid, who is in the process of plying voters with "free food" at "voter turnout events." Harry has also decided to accept a teachers' union bid to "offer gift cards in return for a vote for Reid."
The soon-to-be-unseated Senate Majority leader would likely argue that he is merely concerned with providing for the nutritional needs of Nevada voters, as well as bestowing on cash-strapped individuals the ability to shop.
On the other hand, Obama is concerned with the nation's mental health. If Barry really believes fear and anxiety is the only obstacle to Democrats maintaining power in the mid-term election, America's health care reform president should follow Harry Reid's lead and solve the problem by mandating that generous dosages of government-provided Xanax be administered to every American voter.
Friday, October 29, 2010
Oil Spill Compensation Czar: 110,000 Claims Have ‘Zero Documentation,’ ‘Nothing’
No, you don't say!
Kind of reminds me of the Pigford II settlement where we have more black farmer discrimination claims than there were black farmers in all of U.S. during the alleged period.
So many people are a disgrace to humanity. No wonder why Democrats do so well.
Kind of reminds me of the Pigford II settlement where we have more black farmer discrimination claims than there were black farmers in all of U.S. during the alleged period.
So many people are a disgrace to humanity. No wonder why Democrats do so well.
This Is What We Are Fighting, Folks!
Roughly one-quarter of Americans say they receive some form of cash benefits from the government, and most are not willing to sacrifice any of that money to help cut the size of the federal budget.
A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that 70% of Adults say they do not receive any kind of government cash benefits, but 23% say they do.
Of those who do receive government money, just 34% are at least somewhat willing to cut some of their own benefits to reduce the size of the federal budget, with 14% who say they are Very Willing to do so. But 63% are not willing to consider any benefit reductions, including 33% who are not at all willing.
This is exactly what Democrats rely on in the incessant promotion of their big government, welfare state mentality.
A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that 70% of Adults say they do not receive any kind of government cash benefits, but 23% say they do.
Of those who do receive government money, just 34% are at least somewhat willing to cut some of their own benefits to reduce the size of the federal budget, with 14% who say they are Very Willing to do so. But 63% are not willing to consider any benefit reductions, including 33% who are not at all willing.
This is exactly what Democrats rely on in the incessant promotion of their big government, welfare state mentality.
CBO Director Elmendorf's Recent Revelation
Yes folks, the same guy who was invited to the White House by the president (a move highly criticized by those with any integrity left in their body) last year made a revelation on his blog last Friday. Now, don't misunderstand me: I am not accusing Mr. Elmendorf of any impropriety since his job, as an impartial non-partisan party, entails only to cost out any proposed legislation within the parameters that are specified - no matter how ridiculous the assumptions may be. He is simply not supposed to question or interject his opinions as to the viability of any legislation. This is what makes his revelation more significant in my view.
In his blog, Mr. Elmendorf said the most significant economic effect of President Barack Obama’s health care reform package will be to drive people out of the job market. His estimate? 1/2% of the labor force, which by my calculations amounts to roughly 772,500.
Elmendorf also made the following remarks at the conference sponsored by the Leonard D. Schaeffer Center for Health Policy and Economics at the University of Southern California.
“We estimated that the legislation, on net, will reduce the amount of labor used in the economy by roughly half a percent, primarily by reducing the amount that people choose to work.”
He explained that people would choose not to work because they could subsist on the generous federal insurance subsidies and Medicaid payments contained in the health care overhaul.
“Some provisions of the legislation will discourage people from working more hours or entering the workforce, and other provisions will encourage them to work more,” he said, adding that “[t]he net reduction in the supply of labor is largely attributable to the substantial expansion of Medicaid and the provision of subsidies through the new insurance exchanges.”
Elmendorf’s analysis of the health care law’s economic impact seems to support House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s (D-Calif.) seemingly off-the-cuff remark in May when she said that because of the subsidies in the health care bill, people could quit their regular jobs and pursue their artistic dreams because the government would now provide for their health care.
Already this year, major insurance companies, in anticipation of ObamaCare’s stringent regulations, stopped offering individual insurance policies for children.
In addition, McDonald’s and other large corporations signaled that they would have to stop offering health care coverage for their mostly hourly workers because of mandates in the new law that dictate how much premium revenue companies can put toward administrative and other expenses. McDonald’s was granted a waiver by the Department of Health and Human Services.
Elmendorf, who is Congress’ chief accountant, said the Democrats’ health care bill will reduce unnecessary spending on health care by insured people -- but only to a "very limited extent" over the next decade. One of the main complaints about the health care law, even as it was being written, is that it doesn’t do enough to control costs.
Elmendorf also said the new law will expand the health care sector of the economy. That's because millions more people are expected to have health insurance by 2019 -- and the research suggests that "gaining insurance coverage will increase an individual’s demand for health services by about 40 percent." Elmendorf said this alone "would represent an expansion of the health sector of the economy..."
Elmendorf revealed that some of ObamaCare's so-called reforms may not be reforms at all. Analyzing the many provisions that are supposed to make health care more efficient and less expensive, Elmendorf said that there was little evidence any of them would actually work -- leading CBO to view their potential with skepticism.
“The legislation set up a number of experiments in delivery and payment systems to induce providers to offer higher-quality and lower-cost care,” he said. “However, for a number of reasons, it is unclear how successful the experiments will be.
“As a result, CBO projects limited savings from the experiments in delivery and payment systems during the next decade," he said.
Elmendorf also said it is doubtful that lawmakers will be able to carry out the law’s vision of slowing the growth of Medicare. “It is unclear whether such a reduction in the growth rate of [Medicare] spending could be sustained,” he said, “and if so, whether it would be accomplished through greater efficiencies in the delivery of health care or through reductions in access to care or the quality of care.”
Not such a ringing endorsement, is it? Repealing this pig has to be the top priority of the next congress.
In his blog, Mr. Elmendorf said the most significant economic effect of President Barack Obama’s health care reform package will be to drive people out of the job market. His estimate? 1/2% of the labor force, which by my calculations amounts to roughly 772,500.
Elmendorf also made the following remarks at the conference sponsored by the Leonard D. Schaeffer Center for Health Policy and Economics at the University of Southern California.
“We estimated that the legislation, on net, will reduce the amount of labor used in the economy by roughly half a percent, primarily by reducing the amount that people choose to work.”
He explained that people would choose not to work because they could subsist on the generous federal insurance subsidies and Medicaid payments contained in the health care overhaul.
“Some provisions of the legislation will discourage people from working more hours or entering the workforce, and other provisions will encourage them to work more,” he said, adding that “[t]he net reduction in the supply of labor is largely attributable to the substantial expansion of Medicaid and the provision of subsidies through the new insurance exchanges.”
Elmendorf’s analysis of the health care law’s economic impact seems to support House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s (D-Calif.) seemingly off-the-cuff remark in May when she said that because of the subsidies in the health care bill, people could quit their regular jobs and pursue their artistic dreams because the government would now provide for their health care.
Already this year, major insurance companies, in anticipation of ObamaCare’s stringent regulations, stopped offering individual insurance policies for children.
In addition, McDonald’s and other large corporations signaled that they would have to stop offering health care coverage for their mostly hourly workers because of mandates in the new law that dictate how much premium revenue companies can put toward administrative and other expenses. McDonald’s was granted a waiver by the Department of Health and Human Services.
Elmendorf, who is Congress’ chief accountant, said the Democrats’ health care bill will reduce unnecessary spending on health care by insured people -- but only to a "very limited extent" over the next decade. One of the main complaints about the health care law, even as it was being written, is that it doesn’t do enough to control costs.
Elmendorf also said the new law will expand the health care sector of the economy. That's because millions more people are expected to have health insurance by 2019 -- and the research suggests that "gaining insurance coverage will increase an individual’s demand for health services by about 40 percent." Elmendorf said this alone "would represent an expansion of the health sector of the economy..."
Elmendorf revealed that some of ObamaCare's so-called reforms may not be reforms at all. Analyzing the many provisions that are supposed to make health care more efficient and less expensive, Elmendorf said that there was little evidence any of them would actually work -- leading CBO to view their potential with skepticism.
“The legislation set up a number of experiments in delivery and payment systems to induce providers to offer higher-quality and lower-cost care,” he said. “However, for a number of reasons, it is unclear how successful the experiments will be.
“As a result, CBO projects limited savings from the experiments in delivery and payment systems during the next decade," he said.
Elmendorf also said it is doubtful that lawmakers will be able to carry out the law’s vision of slowing the growth of Medicare. “It is unclear whether such a reduction in the growth rate of [Medicare] spending could be sustained,” he said, “and if so, whether it would be accomplished through greater efficiencies in the delivery of health care or through reductions in access to care or the quality of care.”
Not such a ringing endorsement, is it? Repealing this pig has to be the top priority of the next congress.
Something To Take To Heart
From a Shelby Steele article in the Wall Street Journal:
"Among today's liberal elite, bad faith in America is a sophistication, a kind of hipness.."
Think John Stewart. Think Bill Maher. Ignorance combined with smugness.
"It puts Mr. Obama and the Democrats in the position of forever redeeming a fallen nation, rather than leading a great nation."
This is backed up by Bill Clinton's urging of the Democrats in the health care debate to "just pass a bill". Then, said Clinton, comes the good part: "endless reform". To Democrats it is the process that matters. We are a country that needs endless reform and greatness is not an option.
So as Obama continues his "Dumbing down the Presidency Tour" by going on any friendly liberal show to "reach his base" and having likes of Stewart call him "dude" and doing that lame car analogy, conservatives can take solace that the American public has awakened and will be holding his ilk responsible less than a week from now.
"Among today's liberal elite, bad faith in America is a sophistication, a kind of hipness.."
Think John Stewart. Think Bill Maher. Ignorance combined with smugness.
"It puts Mr. Obama and the Democrats in the position of forever redeeming a fallen nation, rather than leading a great nation."
This is backed up by Bill Clinton's urging of the Democrats in the health care debate to "just pass a bill". Then, said Clinton, comes the good part: "endless reform". To Democrats it is the process that matters. We are a country that needs endless reform and greatness is not an option.
So as Obama continues his "Dumbing down the Presidency Tour" by going on any friendly liberal show to "reach his base" and having likes of Stewart call him "dude" and doing that lame car analogy, conservatives can take solace that the American public has awakened and will be holding his ilk responsible less than a week from now.
9th Circuit Court: The Biggest Threat To Our Constitutional Republic
Yesterday's 9th Circuit Court of Appeals decision to strike down Arizona's Proposition 200 (circa 2004), that requires proof of citizenship in order to vote, cements once again the reputation of the San Francisco court as being uber-liberal and anti-American.
The left, folks, is determined to blur the lines between American sovereignty and open-border, one world government socialism they long for. Judiciary and the education system are the most effective ways of accomplishing what seems to be an impossible task politically since there are simply not enough progressive liberals in America. My previous posts have pointed out to just a few examples of such subversion at our schools as well as courts.
This is a very sinister, yet effective, method touted by (and clearly adopted by our current administration) likes of Van Jones, Tides Foundation (which seems to have its hands in everything politically progressive), and going back in history, from 19th century Fabian Socialists (which the American progressive movement's roots are directly tied to) to Saul Alinsky, to our president's childhood mentor Frank Marshall Davis.
Laws like Prop. 200 are absolutely necessary to preserve the integrity of American elections. For example, Prop. 200 itself had led to over 30,000 illegals registering to vote during its first four years of implementation.
The radical left agenda of socializing America in the image of European social democracies is a no starter as a political agenda, and the left knows this very well. This is the exact reason Obama ran on a different agenda (though he gave plenty of signals of his commitment to the Marxist philosophy which were largely ignored by the all-too-willing media) than his actual policies later showed him to be. Consequently, Democrats are at the brink of a bloodbath in next week's elections - the very proof that Americans don't take kindly to progressive liberal policies.
How this ties in to the significance of the 9th circuit court decision does not take a big intellectual leap to deduce. Anyone who knows American electoral history knows the prominence of election fraud in American politics (most recent example of which is the election of Sen. Franken, (D-MN) in 2008)
In recent elections, including this one, we have reaped what we have sewn, with groups like Acorn flooding the system with fraudulent registrations, felons voting and people going to the polls to vote for one candidate only to find the computer screen has already cast a ballot for the other or to find someone has already cast a ballot, absentee or otherwise, in their name.
Any action, legislative or judicial, to weaken laws aimed at eliminating election fraud plays directly in to the hands of the same ideology that would love nothing better than a Fabian socialist society in the U.S.
Voting should be hard. It should require you to show up physically on Election Day and prove you are who you say you are. It's a solemn civic duty that is the bedrock of our democracy. The sanctity of the ballot box and the integrity of our electoral process is threatened by those who think voting is just another form of entitlement.
The numerous jurisdictions where even illegals can vote, (or where such initiatives are on the ballot this time around) not only cheapen the priviledge of being a U.S. citizen, but are designed purposefully to facilitate what cannot be accomplished politically - the social democratization of America.
The left, folks, is determined to blur the lines between American sovereignty and open-border, one world government socialism they long for. Judiciary and the education system are the most effective ways of accomplishing what seems to be an impossible task politically since there are simply not enough progressive liberals in America. My previous posts have pointed out to just a few examples of such subversion at our schools as well as courts.
This is a very sinister, yet effective, method touted by (and clearly adopted by our current administration) likes of Van Jones, Tides Foundation (which seems to have its hands in everything politically progressive), and going back in history, from 19th century Fabian Socialists (which the American progressive movement's roots are directly tied to) to Saul Alinsky, to our president's childhood mentor Frank Marshall Davis.
Laws like Prop. 200 are absolutely necessary to preserve the integrity of American elections. For example, Prop. 200 itself had led to over 30,000 illegals registering to vote during its first four years of implementation.
The radical left agenda of socializing America in the image of European social democracies is a no starter as a political agenda, and the left knows this very well. This is the exact reason Obama ran on a different agenda (though he gave plenty of signals of his commitment to the Marxist philosophy which were largely ignored by the all-too-willing media) than his actual policies later showed him to be. Consequently, Democrats are at the brink of a bloodbath in next week's elections - the very proof that Americans don't take kindly to progressive liberal policies.
How this ties in to the significance of the 9th circuit court decision does not take a big intellectual leap to deduce. Anyone who knows American electoral history knows the prominence of election fraud in American politics (most recent example of which is the election of Sen. Franken, (D-MN) in 2008)
In recent elections, including this one, we have reaped what we have sewn, with groups like Acorn flooding the system with fraudulent registrations, felons voting and people going to the polls to vote for one candidate only to find the computer screen has already cast a ballot for the other or to find someone has already cast a ballot, absentee or otherwise, in their name.
Any action, legislative or judicial, to weaken laws aimed at eliminating election fraud plays directly in to the hands of the same ideology that would love nothing better than a Fabian socialist society in the U.S.
Voting should be hard. It should require you to show up physically on Election Day and prove you are who you say you are. It's a solemn civic duty that is the bedrock of our democracy. The sanctity of the ballot box and the integrity of our electoral process is threatened by those who think voting is just another form of entitlement.
The numerous jurisdictions where even illegals can vote, (or where such initiatives are on the ballot this time around) not only cheapen the priviledge of being a U.S. citizen, but are designed purposefully to facilitate what cannot be accomplished politically - the social democratization of America.
Thursday, October 28, 2010
The Single Most Dangerous Government Agency
Three simple letters E-P-A, should be enough to strike fear in to all freedom loving Americans who still believe in a society that cherishes the liberties guaranteed under our Constitution and the free market economy that allows it.
If socialism and environmentalism had a child, it would be called the Environmental Protection Agency. Established under President Nixon to ensure the quality of our air and water, it has become a tool of social engineering to implement President Obama's promised fundamental transformation of America
If you believe in this method of transforming our society, the EPA has an opening for you. The position is "environmental protection specialist" whose job it is to help the agency meet its "environmental justice goals."
The EPA is looking for someone with "knowledge of the theories and principles of environmental protection, especially as they relate to issues of environmental justice and the impacts of environmental laws, policies, legislation and regulation on minority and/or low-income groups and communities."
The job, located in New York City, pays up to $84,000. No college degree is required — just a hatred of industry, development and fossil fuels, and a belief that minorities are the deliberate victims of capitalist exploitation.
EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson has made environmental justice an EPA priority, and in July the agency released a 56-page "guidance" to help its employees "advance environmental justice" to low-income and minority communities.
"Achieving environmental justice is an agency priority and should be factored into every decision," the document noted.
This document is a fulfillment of an executive order issued 16 years ago by President Bill Clinton directing every federal agency "to make achieving environmental justice part of its mission."
President Obama campaigned on a promise to make "environmental justice policies a priority within the EPA." That's why he picked Jones, a self-proclaimed Marxist, to be his "green jobs" czar.
The net effect of EPA and its activities has been to discourage job growth nationwide and in low-income and minority communities in particular. EPA is an active agent in the redistribution of wealth that will eventually make all of us equally poor.
We can all thank Richard Nixon for unleashing this curse on America.
If socialism and environmentalism had a child, it would be called the Environmental Protection Agency. Established under President Nixon to ensure the quality of our air and water, it has become a tool of social engineering to implement President Obama's promised fundamental transformation of America
If you believe in this method of transforming our society, the EPA has an opening for you. The position is "environmental protection specialist" whose job it is to help the agency meet its "environmental justice goals."
The EPA is looking for someone with "knowledge of the theories and principles of environmental protection, especially as they relate to issues of environmental justice and the impacts of environmental laws, policies, legislation and regulation on minority and/or low-income groups and communities."
The job, located in New York City, pays up to $84,000. No college degree is required — just a hatred of industry, development and fossil fuels, and a belief that minorities are the deliberate victims of capitalist exploitation.
EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson has made environmental justice an EPA priority, and in July the agency released a 56-page "guidance" to help its employees "advance environmental justice" to low-income and minority communities.
"Achieving environmental justice is an agency priority and should be factored into every decision," the document noted.
This document is a fulfillment of an executive order issued 16 years ago by President Bill Clinton directing every federal agency "to make achieving environmental justice part of its mission."
President Obama campaigned on a promise to make "environmental justice policies a priority within the EPA." That's why he picked Jones, a self-proclaimed Marxist, to be his "green jobs" czar.
The net effect of EPA and its activities has been to discourage job growth nationwide and in low-income and minority communities in particular. EPA is an active agent in the redistribution of wealth that will eventually make all of us equally poor.
We can all thank Richard Nixon for unleashing this curse on America.
The Real Campaign Contribution Scandal The Media Will Ignore
The main stream media gladly jumped on the phony scandal of what amounted to be $100,000 in contributions to the Chamber of Commerce by international companies (which was thoroughly discredited) alleged by a pathetically desperate Democrat party that is about to be trounced at the polls. The same so-called news organizations were nowhere to be found in 2008 when the Obama campaign raised more than $400 million from undisclosed sources, neither are they anywhere to be found in 2010 when one union alone, AFSCME, is spending more than $87.5 million (naturally 100% on Democrat candidates).
Apart from the media hypocrisy, here is the problem. AFSCME is the union government workers belong to. Hence, all the dues that go into union campaign war chest are tax payer money. For those slow on their feet, that is you and I paying to get progressive candidates elected. Considering that conservatives outnumber liberals by 2:1, this if anything, is the real scandal that repeats every election cycle.
As FDR said "The process of collective bargaining, as usually understood, cannot be transplanted into the public service". A public employee strike, he said, "looking toward the paralysis of government by those who have sworn to support it, is unthinkable and intolerable." Roosevelt understood, public employee unions' interests are directly the opposite of those of taxpayers. Public employee unions want government to be more expensive and government employees to be less accountable.
Public employee unions have collected big-time from the Obama Democrats. The February 2009 stimulus package contained $160 billion in aid to state and local governments. This was intended to, and did, insulate public employee union members from the ravages of the recession that afflicted those unfortunate enough to make their livings in the private sector.
How it benefited the society as a whole is less clear. State governments in California, Illinois, New York and New Jersey are facing enormous budget deficits and much, much greater pension liabilities. Much of the life of their private-sector economies has been sucked out by the public employee unions, with a resulting flight of middle-income citizens unable or unwilling to bear such burdens.
Public employee union members have become, as U.S. News and World Report Editor Mortimer Zuckerman writes, "the new privileged class," with better pay, more generous benefits and far more lush pensions than those who pay their salaries -- and who are taxed to send money to their leaders' favored candidates.
FDR may have been a huge progressive liberal, but even he understood that there is an inherent conflict in government employee unions getting involved in elections. Too bad that such integrity cannot be encountered in today's Democrats.
Apart from the media hypocrisy, here is the problem. AFSCME is the union government workers belong to. Hence, all the dues that go into union campaign war chest are tax payer money. For those slow on their feet, that is you and I paying to get progressive candidates elected. Considering that conservatives outnumber liberals by 2:1, this if anything, is the real scandal that repeats every election cycle.
As FDR said "The process of collective bargaining, as usually understood, cannot be transplanted into the public service". A public employee strike, he said, "looking toward the paralysis of government by those who have sworn to support it, is unthinkable and intolerable." Roosevelt understood, public employee unions' interests are directly the opposite of those of taxpayers. Public employee unions want government to be more expensive and government employees to be less accountable.
Public employee unions have collected big-time from the Obama Democrats. The February 2009 stimulus package contained $160 billion in aid to state and local governments. This was intended to, and did, insulate public employee union members from the ravages of the recession that afflicted those unfortunate enough to make their livings in the private sector.
How it benefited the society as a whole is less clear. State governments in California, Illinois, New York and New Jersey are facing enormous budget deficits and much, much greater pension liabilities. Much of the life of their private-sector economies has been sucked out by the public employee unions, with a resulting flight of middle-income citizens unable or unwilling to bear such burdens.
Public employee union members have become, as U.S. News and World Report Editor Mortimer Zuckerman writes, "the new privileged class," with better pay, more generous benefits and far more lush pensions than those who pay their salaries -- and who are taxed to send money to their leaders' favored candidates.
FDR may have been a huge progressive liberal, but even he understood that there is an inherent conflict in government employee unions getting involved in elections. Too bad that such integrity cannot be encountered in today's Democrats.
News Flash: Liberal Gene Found (Can The Cure Be Far Away?)
This is not a joke. I always thought that liberalism was a mental disorder as some of my friends would testify. This may turn out to be the single most significant medical breakthrough in human history. Scientists from Harvard and University of San Diego (rife with appropriate human subjects) have isolated the "liberal" dopamine receptor gene called DRD4.
This gene apparently provides a predisposition to this widespread mental disorder, which affects approximately every two in a typical family of five. According to the scientists, this predisposition is triggered into full-blown liberalism by excessive social interaction during adolescence...for example as occurred with the baby-boomers during the era of "Free Love".
I propose we start "liberalism awareness week", modeled after breast cancer awareness month. Who knows, maybe we can find a cure.
Imagine a world without "victimized" classes, without special interest organizations having the words "green" or "justice" in their titles, with no demands for entitlements and manufactured "rights", and where no one thinks we can borrow our way out of debt. Now, that would be my kind of world.
This gene apparently provides a predisposition to this widespread mental disorder, which affects approximately every two in a typical family of five. According to the scientists, this predisposition is triggered into full-blown liberalism by excessive social interaction during adolescence...for example as occurred with the baby-boomers during the era of "Free Love".
I propose we start "liberalism awareness week", modeled after breast cancer awareness month. Who knows, maybe we can find a cure.
Imagine a world without "victimized" classes, without special interest organizations having the words "green" or "justice" in their titles, with no demands for entitlements and manufactured "rights", and where no one thinks we can borrow our way out of debt. Now, that would be my kind of world.
Wednesday, October 27, 2010
Moment Of Silence Upheld In Illinois
The Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals in Chicago upheld an Illinois law mandating a moment of silence in public schools. The law, which sets aside time for "silent prayer or for silent reflection on the anticipated activities of the day," had been overturned by a federal court in 2009 on the grounds that it violates the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment.
Judge Daniel Manion, a Reagan appointee, disagreed. Writing for the 2-1 majority, Manion said that the law, by offering students a choice about what to do with the time, differs from vocal prayer in that it neither favors a particular religion, nor forces children to pray at all. In other words, it doesn't establish a religion.
In her dissent, Judge Ann Claire Williams, a Clinton appointee, wrote that the law makes an "unnecessary reference to prayer," and that "by enumerating prayer as one of the only two specific permissible activities, the Act conveys a message that Illinois students should engage in prayer during the prescribed period as opposed to a host of other silent options."
The Illinois ACLU, which filed the original suit challenging the constitutionality of the law, was of course not happy with the ruling. No doubt they're concerned that children might use the time to -- God forbid -- pray.
Why is the left so hostile towards anything that does not take away from individuality such as a moment to reflect or pray silently? Study Lenin a little and you will understand.
Judge Daniel Manion, a Reagan appointee, disagreed. Writing for the 2-1 majority, Manion said that the law, by offering students a choice about what to do with the time, differs from vocal prayer in that it neither favors a particular religion, nor forces children to pray at all. In other words, it doesn't establish a religion.
In her dissent, Judge Ann Claire Williams, a Clinton appointee, wrote that the law makes an "unnecessary reference to prayer," and that "by enumerating prayer as one of the only two specific permissible activities, the Act conveys a message that Illinois students should engage in prayer during the prescribed period as opposed to a host of other silent options."
The Illinois ACLU, which filed the original suit challenging the constitutionality of the law, was of course not happy with the ruling. No doubt they're concerned that children might use the time to -- God forbid -- pray.
Why is the left so hostile towards anything that does not take away from individuality such as a moment to reflect or pray silently? Study Lenin a little and you will understand.
SEIU Up To Its Old Tricks Under New Identities
I posted several articles regarding the importance of vigilance when it comes to fraud in the upcoming elections. Already, there have been several discoveries of fraudulent activity. Here is the latest:
A few days ago, the Yuma Sun reported that two organizations Mi Familia Vota and One Vote Arizona submitted more than 3,000 voter registrations in Yuma County right before the deadline for registering voters. The groups submitted over 20,000 registrations statewide.
What the Yuma Sun did not tell you is that over 65% of these last minute registrations were invalid due to the registrant not being a citizen, a wrong/invalid address, or a false signature.
Yuma County is located in Arizona’s 6th District. Currently, far left Arizona boycotter Rep. Raul Grijalva is caught in a tight race with Republican rocket scientist Ruth McClung. A few thousand votes could change the outcome of the race between the popular rocket scientist Ruth McClung and the socialist boycotter Raul Grijalva.
Today, these same 3000 newly registered voters — as a group — had papers dropped off at the Yuma Recorder’s office requesting to be signed up for the permanent early voters list… which means the ballots will be mailed early, with no accountability.
Mi Familia Vota is a wholly-owned SEIU sub-organization. It is just as “non-partisan” as ACORN was before documented fraudulent behaviors finally killed it. The web-site domain for Mi Familia Vota (mifamiliavota.net, created Aug 14, 2006) is and has been officially owned and registered by the SEIU. All contact names/addresses/email for the domain are listed as part of the SEIU in Washington.
As you can see, the unions are already hard at work.
A few days ago, the Yuma Sun reported that two organizations Mi Familia Vota and One Vote Arizona submitted more than 3,000 voter registrations in Yuma County right before the deadline for registering voters. The groups submitted over 20,000 registrations statewide.
What the Yuma Sun did not tell you is that over 65% of these last minute registrations were invalid due to the registrant not being a citizen, a wrong/invalid address, or a false signature.
Yuma County is located in Arizona’s 6th District. Currently, far left Arizona boycotter Rep. Raul Grijalva is caught in a tight race with Republican rocket scientist Ruth McClung. A few thousand votes could change the outcome of the race between the popular rocket scientist Ruth McClung and the socialist boycotter Raul Grijalva.
Today, these same 3000 newly registered voters — as a group — had papers dropped off at the Yuma Recorder’s office requesting to be signed up for the permanent early voters list… which means the ballots will be mailed early, with no accountability.
Mi Familia Vota is a wholly-owned SEIU sub-organization. It is just as “non-partisan” as ACORN was before documented fraudulent behaviors finally killed it. The web-site domain for Mi Familia Vota (mifamiliavota.net, created Aug 14, 2006) is and has been officially owned and registered by the SEIU. All contact names/addresses/email for the domain are listed as part of the SEIU in Washington.
As you can see, the unions are already hard at work.
Fox Guarding the Hen House: Trial Lawyer Who Repeatedly Sued Food Companies Now Regulating Them
Mississippi native J. Dudley Butler is a notorious plaintiff’s attorney who has filed numerous lawsuits against poultry companies alleging unfair marketing and procurement practices.
Before his nomination by President Obama as Administrator of the Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyard Administration (GIPSA) – an agency charged with monitoring the marketing of livestock, poultry, meat and other ag products and ensuring healthy competition — he was an attorney in the Butler Farm and Ranch Law Group in Canton, Mississippi and well-known to the meat and poultry industry. He was one of the “Johnnie Cochrans” of ag law: “Got a chicken? Got a case.”
His appointment as GIPSA Administrator was hailed by the populist group R-CALF USA (Ranchers-Cattlemen Action Legal Fund, United Stockgrowers of America), where he was previously a member, and by the Organization for Competitive Markets (OCM), which he helped to found. While Butler’s legal efforts to bring Packers and Stockyards Act cases against poultry companies failed, his nomination as GIPSA administrator made R-CALF and friends realize they had hit pay-dirt: The friendly lawyer who donated a saddle to their 2009 Convention fundraising auction now might be able to alter the very rules that had been an obstacle to success in court.
You get the government you vote for. The Chicago machine is now the D.C. machine.
Before his nomination by President Obama as Administrator of the Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyard Administration (GIPSA) – an agency charged with monitoring the marketing of livestock, poultry, meat and other ag products and ensuring healthy competition — he was an attorney in the Butler Farm and Ranch Law Group in Canton, Mississippi and well-known to the meat and poultry industry. He was one of the “Johnnie Cochrans” of ag law: “Got a chicken? Got a case.”
His appointment as GIPSA Administrator was hailed by the populist group R-CALF USA (Ranchers-Cattlemen Action Legal Fund, United Stockgrowers of America), where he was previously a member, and by the Organization for Competitive Markets (OCM), which he helped to found. While Butler’s legal efforts to bring Packers and Stockyards Act cases against poultry companies failed, his nomination as GIPSA administrator made R-CALF and friends realize they had hit pay-dirt: The friendly lawyer who donated a saddle to their 2009 Convention fundraising auction now might be able to alter the very rules that had been an obstacle to success in court.
You get the government you vote for. The Chicago machine is now the D.C. machine.
Why Socialism Breeds Racism
By Ben Shapiro · Wednesday, October 27, 2010
This week's Sports Illustrated featured an article on French soccer star Thierry Henry. Henry, who is black, signed with the New York Red Bulls this season after spending over a decade playing in Europe. What shocks Henry most about America? Whereas European fans routinely insult and slur black players, Americans don't.
"I've been to a lot of arenas to watch NBA games and the Yankees, and I have never heard anyone have a go at a guy because he's from Puerto Rico or the Dominican or Africa or wherever," Henry marveled. "I can understand why people in America are kind of shocked [by European racism], because that doesn't happen in their sports."
Europe is far more racist than America. Yet the left is in love with European values. They love Europe's emphasis on promiscuous sex. They love Europe's redistributive economic policies. Most of all, they love Europe's willingness to abandon all principle in supposed gratification of multiculturalism.
Unfortunately for the left, Europe has proved itself a failure on each of these elements. Europe's emphasis on free love without commitment has created a childbearing holocaust -- Europe is not reproducing at even replacement rates. That failure to reproduce is hastening the decline of Europe's suicidal economy, which is so top-heavy with aging union workers that it makes Dolly Parton look like Keira Knightley. That failing economic structure means more and more reliance on impoverished immigrants, who are not interested in assimilating into what they perceive as a morally bankrupt culture. And that failure to assimilate destroys precipitating societal fragmentation.
As Europe collapses, however, the left clings even more tightly to the European model. They cannot allow the utopian socialist dream to die its well-deserved death.
How, then, do they bolster that dream? By proclaiming that they stand not for economic decay or familial destruction, but for tolerance. They blame capitalism for economic downturns, then state, as President Obama has, that tough times produce racism. In this view, capitalism produces racism.
It's false. Capitalism requires individual responsibility and accountability. People are seen as atomized units in a capitalist system -- they are either useful or they are not. They are not seen racially or ethnically or religiously. They consume and they produce, and those are their only relevant characteristics.
This seems cold, but it isn't. It's profoundly fair and profoundly anti-discriminatory. It creates a colorblind system -- the only color that matters is green.
Socialism, by contrast, requires a justification for why certain individuals should give money to other individuals for no apparent reason. Socialism has no moral justification whatsoever; poor people are not morally superior to rich people, nor are they owed anything by rich people simply because of their lack of success. Charity is not a socialist concept -- it is a religious one, an acknowledgment of God's sovereignty over property, a sovereignty the left utterly rejects.
How, then, can socialism justify itself? By pointing to capitalistic "exploitation." There's only one problem: true capitalism doesn't exploit. Capitalism invariably boils down to barter between two willing parties, neither of whom uses force to work with the other.
Socialism's answer is ingenious -- it points to phantom "institutional racism." Because white forefathers oppressed black forefathers, today's rich whites owe today's poor blacks money. Because most minority groups once experienced discrimination at the hands of majority groups, today's high-earners -- who, by and large, come from majority groups -- now owe today's minority groups cash.
Then, socialism rests on seeing people as members of groups, not as individuals. Rich sons are responsible for the existent or non-existent sins of their fathers; poor sons are due benefits because of their fathers' tough lives. Racism is a critical element of the socialist agenda -- focus on group identity provides the only supposed moral justification for redistribution of wealth. It's no surprise that when socialism fails, racism bubbles beneath.
Now, though, the left is running scared. They fear that the tea party culture and its attendant economics will do away with socialism's long-running cultural and economic dominance. That's why they attack the tea party as racist -- because if the tea party isn't racist, the socialists' moral raison d'etre is utterly defeated.
On Nov. 2, 2010, Americans will reject the socialist agenda and its race-tinged propaganda. Then socialists will truly panic. They will ratchet up the rhetoric; they will mine minority communities for race warriors; they will play racial dirty tricks. It will fail. Americans are not racists, and they are not socialists. That is why America is on the rise, even as Europe falls.
COPYRIGHT 2010 CREATORS.COM.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This week's Sports Illustrated featured an article on French soccer star Thierry Henry. Henry, who is black, signed with the New York Red Bulls this season after spending over a decade playing in Europe. What shocks Henry most about America? Whereas European fans routinely insult and slur black players, Americans don't.
"I've been to a lot of arenas to watch NBA games and the Yankees, and I have never heard anyone have a go at a guy because he's from Puerto Rico or the Dominican or Africa or wherever," Henry marveled. "I can understand why people in America are kind of shocked [by European racism], because that doesn't happen in their sports."
Europe is far more racist than America. Yet the left is in love with European values. They love Europe's emphasis on promiscuous sex. They love Europe's redistributive economic policies. Most of all, they love Europe's willingness to abandon all principle in supposed gratification of multiculturalism.
Unfortunately for the left, Europe has proved itself a failure on each of these elements. Europe's emphasis on free love without commitment has created a childbearing holocaust -- Europe is not reproducing at even replacement rates. That failure to reproduce is hastening the decline of Europe's suicidal economy, which is so top-heavy with aging union workers that it makes Dolly Parton look like Keira Knightley. That failing economic structure means more and more reliance on impoverished immigrants, who are not interested in assimilating into what they perceive as a morally bankrupt culture. And that failure to assimilate destroys precipitating societal fragmentation.
As Europe collapses, however, the left clings even more tightly to the European model. They cannot allow the utopian socialist dream to die its well-deserved death.
How, then, do they bolster that dream? By proclaiming that they stand not for economic decay or familial destruction, but for tolerance. They blame capitalism for economic downturns, then state, as President Obama has, that tough times produce racism. In this view, capitalism produces racism.
It's false. Capitalism requires individual responsibility and accountability. People are seen as atomized units in a capitalist system -- they are either useful or they are not. They are not seen racially or ethnically or religiously. They consume and they produce, and those are their only relevant characteristics.
This seems cold, but it isn't. It's profoundly fair and profoundly anti-discriminatory. It creates a colorblind system -- the only color that matters is green.
Socialism, by contrast, requires a justification for why certain individuals should give money to other individuals for no apparent reason. Socialism has no moral justification whatsoever; poor people are not morally superior to rich people, nor are they owed anything by rich people simply because of their lack of success. Charity is not a socialist concept -- it is a religious one, an acknowledgment of God's sovereignty over property, a sovereignty the left utterly rejects.
How, then, can socialism justify itself? By pointing to capitalistic "exploitation." There's only one problem: true capitalism doesn't exploit. Capitalism invariably boils down to barter between two willing parties, neither of whom uses force to work with the other.
Socialism's answer is ingenious -- it points to phantom "institutional racism." Because white forefathers oppressed black forefathers, today's rich whites owe today's poor blacks money. Because most minority groups once experienced discrimination at the hands of majority groups, today's high-earners -- who, by and large, come from majority groups -- now owe today's minority groups cash.
Then, socialism rests on seeing people as members of groups, not as individuals. Rich sons are responsible for the existent or non-existent sins of their fathers; poor sons are due benefits because of their fathers' tough lives. Racism is a critical element of the socialist agenda -- focus on group identity provides the only supposed moral justification for redistribution of wealth. It's no surprise that when socialism fails, racism bubbles beneath.
Now, though, the left is running scared. They fear that the tea party culture and its attendant economics will do away with socialism's long-running cultural and economic dominance. That's why they attack the tea party as racist -- because if the tea party isn't racist, the socialists' moral raison d'etre is utterly defeated.
On Nov. 2, 2010, Americans will reject the socialist agenda and its race-tinged propaganda. Then socialists will truly panic. They will ratchet up the rhetoric; they will mine minority communities for race warriors; they will play racial dirty tricks. It will fail. Americans are not racists, and they are not socialists. That is why America is on the rise, even as Europe falls.
COPYRIGHT 2010 CREATORS.COM.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
How Is That Stimulus Working For Ya?
The Department of Labor today released its latest state-by-state job report, showing state jobs and unemployment data for September 2010. This latest data, when compared with the level of jobs in February 2009, when President Obama signed Democrats’ trillion-dollar stimulus plan into law, reveals that 48 out of 50 States have lost jobs since then.
In total, over 2 million jobs have been eliminated, in contrast to the over 3 million more jobs Americans were promised if Democrats’ 2009 stimulus plan passed.
Good going. You have got to wonder why they are proposing a second stimulus package. I guess they have either not destroyed enough jobs, or read the latest research from their favorite liberal bastion - Harvard - that has re-confirmed for the nth time that government spending only kills private sector jobs (through diversion of resources).
One thing for sure, Democrat motto should be "if you do not succeed at first, try and try again" no matter the outcome. Unfortunately, it is also the definition of insanity as Albert Einstein put it.
And, ah, just don't hold your breath for the MSM to point any of this out less than two weeks before their guys are up for election. Crickets of Obamamedia are chirping a different tune as usual.
---------
P.S. Isn't it amazing that it is these same socialists, masquerading as progressive liberals, who say wealth creation is a zero sum game; yet when it comes to diverting a trillion dollars from the private sector, that ill concieved notion is never mentioned.
In total, over 2 million jobs have been eliminated, in contrast to the over 3 million more jobs Americans were promised if Democrats’ 2009 stimulus plan passed.
Good going. You have got to wonder why they are proposing a second stimulus package. I guess they have either not destroyed enough jobs, or read the latest research from their favorite liberal bastion - Harvard - that has re-confirmed for the nth time that government spending only kills private sector jobs (through diversion of resources).
One thing for sure, Democrat motto should be "if you do not succeed at first, try and try again" no matter the outcome. Unfortunately, it is also the definition of insanity as Albert Einstein put it.
And, ah, just don't hold your breath for the MSM to point any of this out less than two weeks before their guys are up for election. Crickets of Obamamedia are chirping a different tune as usual.
---------
P.S. Isn't it amazing that it is these same socialists, masquerading as progressive liberals, who say wealth creation is a zero sum game; yet when it comes to diverting a trillion dollars from the private sector, that ill concieved notion is never mentioned.
Bleak Prognosis
Investor Business Daily - October 25, 2010
The more we know about ObamaCare, the more we find out it wasn't designed to cut costs but to eventually eliminate private insurance coverage and create a government-run system.
Provisions of the Democrats' health care overhaul started to become law only a month ago, yet the list of companies dropping medical benefits for their employers is piling up.
Mega-firms such as AT&T, Caterpillar, John Deere and Verizon are among those that are either considering ending coverage for their employees or have already chosen to do so.
It's not just the big companies eliminating benefits, either. Smaller employers are doing the same. Larry M. Elkin, president of Palisades Hudson Financial Group, wrote Thursday in the Business Insider: "For 15 years, I have taken pride in paying the full cost of health insurance for every full-time Palisades Hudson employee who wanted it. This month marks the last time I will do that."
Elkin said that every one of his employees has the option of staying on the company plan. But those who choose that route "will have to pay the entire cost — ranging from $574 to $683 per month — themselves, through payroll deductions."
And where will those who don't opt for staying on the company plan go? Maybe they end up leaning on the government along with the 46 million or so other uninsured Americans the Democrats are trying to cover.
Elkin is not acting out of spite because he doesn't like the Democrats. He's acting rationally, as any good businessman should.
He knew in March, before the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act was passed, that it "is likely to make health coverage anything but affordable for those who actually pay the bills" and that he would have to make changes for his 20 employees.
While Elkin is one of a few willing to publicly discuss how Obama-Care is affecting his business, others are following a bitter path similar to the one he feels he is forced to take. He cites a survey by the National Business Group on Health that found that roughly 63% of businesses plan to make their workers pay a higher portion of their health care insurance costs next year.
Again, how many of these currently insured workers will, rather than pay the premiums out of their pockets, find themselves relying on government for their coverage?
As the debate over ObamaCare raged, Americans were assured by the president himself that those of us who like our insurance plans would be able to keep them. But workers will not only lose their employers' plans due to their employers' increasing costs under the law, they will also be losing coverage because carriers are dropping some of the policy options they offer.
WellPoint, Cigna, CoventryOne, Humana, Blue Cross and Blue Shield, Aetna and Golden Rule have, for instance, announced that they will no longer sell child-only policies under the Democrats' health care regime.
In some cases — the Principal Group and its 840,000 customers is one example — carriers are dropping out of the health insurance market entirely.
Meanwhile, McDonald's and 29 other companies told Washington that ObamaCare was going to force them to drop insurance coverage for some workers. Had those companies not been granted federal waivers from the requirement that they raise the minimum annual benefits of their low-cost health plans, roughly 1 million Americans would have been added to the rolls of the uninsured.
Don't think it can't get worse, because under the Democrats' ill-thought-out plan, it will. Large pieces of ObamaCare that will make the system painfully expensive and increase federal intrusion still haven't become law. The next Congress needs to get focused fast on stopping the march toward costly, substandard care.
The more we know about ObamaCare, the more we find out it wasn't designed to cut costs but to eventually eliminate private insurance coverage and create a government-run system.
Provisions of the Democrats' health care overhaul started to become law only a month ago, yet the list of companies dropping medical benefits for their employers is piling up.
Mega-firms such as AT&T, Caterpillar, John Deere and Verizon are among those that are either considering ending coverage for their employees or have already chosen to do so.
It's not just the big companies eliminating benefits, either. Smaller employers are doing the same. Larry M. Elkin, president of Palisades Hudson Financial Group, wrote Thursday in the Business Insider: "For 15 years, I have taken pride in paying the full cost of health insurance for every full-time Palisades Hudson employee who wanted it. This month marks the last time I will do that."
Elkin said that every one of his employees has the option of staying on the company plan. But those who choose that route "will have to pay the entire cost — ranging from $574 to $683 per month — themselves, through payroll deductions."
And where will those who don't opt for staying on the company plan go? Maybe they end up leaning on the government along with the 46 million or so other uninsured Americans the Democrats are trying to cover.
Elkin is not acting out of spite because he doesn't like the Democrats. He's acting rationally, as any good businessman should.
He knew in March, before the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act was passed, that it "is likely to make health coverage anything but affordable for those who actually pay the bills" and that he would have to make changes for his 20 employees.
While Elkin is one of a few willing to publicly discuss how Obama-Care is affecting his business, others are following a bitter path similar to the one he feels he is forced to take. He cites a survey by the National Business Group on Health that found that roughly 63% of businesses plan to make their workers pay a higher portion of their health care insurance costs next year.
Again, how many of these currently insured workers will, rather than pay the premiums out of their pockets, find themselves relying on government for their coverage?
As the debate over ObamaCare raged, Americans were assured by the president himself that those of us who like our insurance plans would be able to keep them. But workers will not only lose their employers' plans due to their employers' increasing costs under the law, they will also be losing coverage because carriers are dropping some of the policy options they offer.
WellPoint, Cigna, CoventryOne, Humana, Blue Cross and Blue Shield, Aetna and Golden Rule have, for instance, announced that they will no longer sell child-only policies under the Democrats' health care regime.
In some cases — the Principal Group and its 840,000 customers is one example — carriers are dropping out of the health insurance market entirely.
Meanwhile, McDonald's and 29 other companies told Washington that ObamaCare was going to force them to drop insurance coverage for some workers. Had those companies not been granted federal waivers from the requirement that they raise the minimum annual benefits of their low-cost health plans, roughly 1 million Americans would have been added to the rolls of the uninsured.
Don't think it can't get worse, because under the Democrats' ill-thought-out plan, it will. Large pieces of ObamaCare that will make the system painfully expensive and increase federal intrusion still haven't become law. The next Congress needs to get focused fast on stopping the march toward costly, substandard care.
Unemployment Will Persist Until Healthcare Reform Is Repealed
Company after company has been informing their employees that they will no longer offer certain types of health insurance policies. Several health insurance companies have already made it known that they will not be writing any more policies for children. Several others have been granted exemptions by the HHS to avert complete disaster even before Obamacare goes in to full effect in 2014. All that is being done here, folks, is delaying the inevitable.
Yesterday, Virginia Secretary of Health & Human Resources Dr. Bill Hazel joined representatives from the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the National Federation of Independent Business in explaining to those in attendance the ramifications of the recently passed legislation.
The financial implications of the bill are what are causing the most stress for business owners and have caused many, including the two organizations represented at Monday's forum and the state government, to take a stand against it.
Katie Hays, executive director of congressional and public affairs for the U.S. Chamber, described some of the costs that will be encountered by business owners when parts of the legislation begin taking effect.
"It's not cheap," she said of the legislation. "It's going to cost [the country] well over $1 trillion over the first 10 years."
Those costs will come from about $569 billion in new taxes and tax increases and $528 billion in Medicare cuts, she said. While much has been made about the benefits of employers providing insurance, Hays said there are a lot of hidden costs and other facets of the legislation that many are unaware of.
She pointed out the 40 percent excise tax on "Cadillac plans" beginning in 2018 as an example. Cadillac plans are regarded as unusually expensive health insurance plans, and, although the term is not defined in federal legislation, individual and family insurance plans beyond an annual cost threshold would incur this 40 percent excise tax.
Hays said, however, by 2018 it is likely that many insurance plans will be considered Cadillac plans, meaning more employers would be experiencing higher costs.
While existing insurance plans will be grandfathered upon the full implementation of the legislation, any significant change to an insurance plan would lose that grandfathered status, Hays said. This can include changing the amount of co-pays, changing carriers and increasing deductibles. She estimated that 70 percent of insurance plans will lose that grandfathered status by 2012.
The free rider mandate would also require businesses with 50 or more full-time equivalent employees to offer health insurance. These plans must be "affordable," Hays said, with the legislation defining affordable as comprising not more than 9.5 percent of an employee's household income. If the employer does not provide the health insurance, it would cost them $2,000 per employee over the 30-employee threshold. If a company does offer insurance but it is not deemed affordable, that penalty increases to $3,000/employee.
Those are but a few examples of some of the costs businesses will be experiencing in coming years, Hays said. Hays pointed to a survey of 600 small business owners conducted by the U.S. Chamber that showed how leery business owners are of the coming changes.
"Seventy-eight percent of business owners expect their [insurance] costs to go up. Sixty-five percent oppose the new law.
Fifty-five percent are less likely to hire new employees due to the new law and 44 percent of firms under 20 employees are concerned they wont survive the next five years," Hays said. "That's the mood we're seeing all over the country right now."
Bill Rys, tax counsel for the National Federal of Independent Business, called the federal legislation "Swiss cheese."
"It was passed with a lot of holes in it," he said. "We think it fails at the number one goal, which was to reduce costs."
He said the healthcare legislation was essentially "endless numbers of new taxes" and said 2014 will be the big impact year, when all citizens of the U.S. will be required to have health insurance, or face penalties. With states needing to pass enabling legislation for healthcare reform, Rys said it was states that have the opportunity "to do some interesting, creative things: provide more choice, lower cost, more clear information."
There folks, you have straight from the mouth of the horse as they say: No one in their right mind will expand or hire under this regulatory and tax environment. And that is only the small businesses. Judging by the nearly $2 trillion big businesses are sitting on, they are not in any more optimistic mood either. This is what you get when an administration declares war on the private sector. We may as well kiss unemployment rates under 5% goodbye until this sewer in Washington D.C. is cleaned up.
Yesterday, Virginia Secretary of Health & Human Resources Dr. Bill Hazel joined representatives from the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the National Federation of Independent Business in explaining to those in attendance the ramifications of the recently passed legislation.
The financial implications of the bill are what are causing the most stress for business owners and have caused many, including the two organizations represented at Monday's forum and the state government, to take a stand against it.
Katie Hays, executive director of congressional and public affairs for the U.S. Chamber, described some of the costs that will be encountered by business owners when parts of the legislation begin taking effect.
"It's not cheap," she said of the legislation. "It's going to cost [the country] well over $1 trillion over the first 10 years."
Those costs will come from about $569 billion in new taxes and tax increases and $528 billion in Medicare cuts, she said. While much has been made about the benefits of employers providing insurance, Hays said there are a lot of hidden costs and other facets of the legislation that many are unaware of.
She pointed out the 40 percent excise tax on "Cadillac plans" beginning in 2018 as an example. Cadillac plans are regarded as unusually expensive health insurance plans, and, although the term is not defined in federal legislation, individual and family insurance plans beyond an annual cost threshold would incur this 40 percent excise tax.
Hays said, however, by 2018 it is likely that many insurance plans will be considered Cadillac plans, meaning more employers would be experiencing higher costs.
While existing insurance plans will be grandfathered upon the full implementation of the legislation, any significant change to an insurance plan would lose that grandfathered status, Hays said. This can include changing the amount of co-pays, changing carriers and increasing deductibles. She estimated that 70 percent of insurance plans will lose that grandfathered status by 2012.
The free rider mandate would also require businesses with 50 or more full-time equivalent employees to offer health insurance. These plans must be "affordable," Hays said, with the legislation defining affordable as comprising not more than 9.5 percent of an employee's household income. If the employer does not provide the health insurance, it would cost them $2,000 per employee over the 30-employee threshold. If a company does offer insurance but it is not deemed affordable, that penalty increases to $3,000/employee.
Those are but a few examples of some of the costs businesses will be experiencing in coming years, Hays said. Hays pointed to a survey of 600 small business owners conducted by the U.S. Chamber that showed how leery business owners are of the coming changes.
"Seventy-eight percent of business owners expect their [insurance] costs to go up. Sixty-five percent oppose the new law.
Fifty-five percent are less likely to hire new employees due to the new law and 44 percent of firms under 20 employees are concerned they wont survive the next five years," Hays said. "That's the mood we're seeing all over the country right now."
Bill Rys, tax counsel for the National Federal of Independent Business, called the federal legislation "Swiss cheese."
"It was passed with a lot of holes in it," he said. "We think it fails at the number one goal, which was to reduce costs."
He said the healthcare legislation was essentially "endless numbers of new taxes" and said 2014 will be the big impact year, when all citizens of the U.S. will be required to have health insurance, or face penalties. With states needing to pass enabling legislation for healthcare reform, Rys said it was states that have the opportunity "to do some interesting, creative things: provide more choice, lower cost, more clear information."
There folks, you have straight from the mouth of the horse as they say: No one in their right mind will expand or hire under this regulatory and tax environment. And that is only the small businesses. Judging by the nearly $2 trillion big businesses are sitting on, they are not in any more optimistic mood either. This is what you get when an administration declares war on the private sector. We may as well kiss unemployment rates under 5% goodbye until this sewer in Washington D.C. is cleaned up.
Let The Shenanigan's Begin
Remember my recent posts regarding probable upcoming election fraud? Well, they are heeeere! First, it was ballots being delivered to inmates in Illinois while over 30 voting precincts missed the deadline for delivering military ballots. Knowing the dirty and corrupt background of the Democrat candidate for Obama's old seat, it was no surprise. Now this from Clark County, Nevada:
Joyce Ferrara said when they went to vote for Republican Sharron Angle, her Democratic opponent, Sen. Harry Reid's name was already checked.
Ferrara said she wasn't alone in her voting experience. She said her husband and several others voting at the same time all had the same thing happen.
"Something's not right," Ferrara said. "One person that's a fluke. Two, that's strange. But several within a five minute period of time -- that's wrong."
Now, that could easily be voter error as Clark County Registrar of Voters seems to think, but when you consider Reed's background, such shenanigans is not out of question. I personally am leaning towards the Democrat's favorite tactics of the dead, illegal, and otherwise ineligible (like prisoners) people trying their best to get Reed re-elected.
Hey, it worked with Franken in Minnesota in 2008 and we know that Democrats aren't the ones for abandoning tried and true techniques of winning elections.
Joyce Ferrara said when they went to vote for Republican Sharron Angle, her Democratic opponent, Sen. Harry Reid's name was already checked.
Ferrara said she wasn't alone in her voting experience. She said her husband and several others voting at the same time all had the same thing happen.
"Something's not right," Ferrara said. "One person that's a fluke. Two, that's strange. But several within a five minute period of time -- that's wrong."
Now, that could easily be voter error as Clark County Registrar of Voters seems to think, but when you consider Reed's background, such shenanigans is not out of question. I personally am leaning towards the Democrat's favorite tactics of the dead, illegal, and otherwise ineligible (like prisoners) people trying their best to get Reed re-elected.
Hey, it worked with Franken in Minnesota in 2008 and we know that Democrats aren't the ones for abandoning tried and true techniques of winning elections.
Tuesday, October 26, 2010
Is This Grounds For Impeachment Yet?
No one sane is surprised anymore when Obama makes outlandish statements or otherwise looks unpresidential on a daily basis, but what he said this past weekend on Univision might have crossed the line (as if never happened before).
In a radio interview that aired on Univision on Monday, Obama sought to assure Hispanics that he would push an immigration overhaul after the midterm elections, despite fierce Republican opposition.
“If Latinos sit out the election instead of saying, ‘We’re gonna punish our enemies and we’re gonna reward our friends who stand with us on issues that are important to us,’ if they don’t see that kind of upsurge in voting in this election, then I think it’s gonna be harder and that’s why I think it’s so important that people focus on voting on November 2.”
Referring specifically to Republicans such as Senator John McCain, who are stressing border security and supporting strict immigration laws like Arizona’s anti-illegal immigration measure, Mr. Obama said, “Those aren’t the kinds of folks who represent our core American values.”
This kind of brazen, in your face attitude is not only advocating breaking the law, but goes beyond the pale. American public, by a 2:1 majority, want the immigration laws enforced. Here we have a president who is effectively calling the American public in general enemies. This makes it clear once and for all that Obama does not care about the rule of law. He is there to play hardball like all radicals are. If this is not treasonous, I don't know what is.
--------------------
P.S. In the other outrageous comment of the week, Obama (in Rhode Island) said Republicans had driven the economy into a ditch and then stood by and criticized while Democrats pulled it out. (Oh really Mr. President, I guess your liberal colleaques had nothing to do with the wrong headed policies of the past few decades) Now that progress has been made, he said, "we can't have special interests sitting shotgun. We gotta have middle class families up in front. We don't mind the Republicans joining us. They can come for the ride, but they gotta sit in back." Those in the Republican leadership who have been hinting at cooperating with the president need to be listening to this.
Of course, unions, trial lawyers, environmentalists, feminists, gays, Goldman Sachs,..... - none of these are special interest groups. All this is straight from "Rules for Radicals"
Finally, I should point out his Friday comments out on the west coast branding Republicans as radical and reactionary, in campaign appearances for high-profile Democratic senators under threat in November's mid-term polls.
Folks, this is almost maddening but it should not discourage you. Their whole game plan is to discourage freedom loving Americans. Don't give in because we have no choice but to fight them here and now. The alternative will be a lot nastier than listening to what amounts to be a bank robber accusing the banker of being a thief in his trial.
In a radio interview that aired on Univision on Monday, Obama sought to assure Hispanics that he would push an immigration overhaul after the midterm elections, despite fierce Republican opposition.
“If Latinos sit out the election instead of saying, ‘We’re gonna punish our enemies and we’re gonna reward our friends who stand with us on issues that are important to us,’ if they don’t see that kind of upsurge in voting in this election, then I think it’s gonna be harder and that’s why I think it’s so important that people focus on voting on November 2.”
Referring specifically to Republicans such as Senator John McCain, who are stressing border security and supporting strict immigration laws like Arizona’s anti-illegal immigration measure, Mr. Obama said, “Those aren’t the kinds of folks who represent our core American values.”
This kind of brazen, in your face attitude is not only advocating breaking the law, but goes beyond the pale. American public, by a 2:1 majority, want the immigration laws enforced. Here we have a president who is effectively calling the American public in general enemies. This makes it clear once and for all that Obama does not care about the rule of law. He is there to play hardball like all radicals are. If this is not treasonous, I don't know what is.
--------------------
P.S. In the other outrageous comment of the week, Obama (in Rhode Island) said Republicans had driven the economy into a ditch and then stood by and criticized while Democrats pulled it out. (Oh really Mr. President, I guess your liberal colleaques had nothing to do with the wrong headed policies of the past few decades) Now that progress has been made, he said, "we can't have special interests sitting shotgun. We gotta have middle class families up in front. We don't mind the Republicans joining us. They can come for the ride, but they gotta sit in back." Those in the Republican leadership who have been hinting at cooperating with the president need to be listening to this.
Of course, unions, trial lawyers, environmentalists, feminists, gays, Goldman Sachs,..... - none of these are special interest groups. All this is straight from "Rules for Radicals"
Finally, I should point out his Friday comments out on the west coast branding Republicans as radical and reactionary, in campaign appearances for high-profile Democratic senators under threat in November's mid-term polls.
Folks, this is almost maddening but it should not discourage you. Their whole game plan is to discourage freedom loving Americans. Don't give in because we have no choice but to fight them here and now. The alternative will be a lot nastier than listening to what amounts to be a bank robber accusing the banker of being a thief in his trial.
Missing Reagan
I still remember, with great longing, the optimism conveyed in the famous "It is Morning in America" campaign commercial of 1984. Back then, we had a leader who believed in the great potential of the individual and triumph of human spirit over adversity.
In contrast, this past Sunday's CBS 60 Minutes segment on chronic joblessness put in to perspective the type of leadership we currently are cursed with.
The numbers are staggering for those who have or are about to exhaust their 99 week unemployment benefits (thus the title of the segment: the 99ers) Hopelessness and despair are everywhere, and why would anyone expect anything less with our current leadership?
I would like to ask Nancy Pelosi who famously declared last March that unemployment benefits were the best type of stimulus for the economy: Madam, I know that you are a moron, but could you please point to the positive effects of the extended jobless benefits on the economy?
Are you even aware of studies done in Belgium and Germany that showed with shortened unemployment benefits, people simply found jobs that much faster?
Or are you simply living in the Paul Krugman universe?
We all keep repeating cliches like if you want more employees, you need more employers, and that no one has ever gotten a job from a poor person. Yet we (the government through progressive liberal policies) punish entrepreneurs and risk-takers with things such as the second-highest corporate tax burden in the world — and in some states, the highest.
Where are the jobs, green or otherwise, Mr. President? In an op-ed directed to President Obama, Home Depot founder Ken Langone said the company he started in 1979 and that now employs 325,000 people couldn't be started today or succeed under the administration's anti-business policies and rhetoric.
Unfortunately, it is not morning in America; rather we are mourning in America (the (hopefully) temporary death of just about everything that made us the single greatest country in the world).
It is at times like these that I miss Reagan the most, may he rest in heavenly peace.
In contrast, this past Sunday's CBS 60 Minutes segment on chronic joblessness put in to perspective the type of leadership we currently are cursed with.
The numbers are staggering for those who have or are about to exhaust their 99 week unemployment benefits (thus the title of the segment: the 99ers) Hopelessness and despair are everywhere, and why would anyone expect anything less with our current leadership?
I would like to ask Nancy Pelosi who famously declared last March that unemployment benefits were the best type of stimulus for the economy: Madam, I know that you are a moron, but could you please point to the positive effects of the extended jobless benefits on the economy?
Are you even aware of studies done in Belgium and Germany that showed with shortened unemployment benefits, people simply found jobs that much faster?
Or are you simply living in the Paul Krugman universe?
We all keep repeating cliches like if you want more employees, you need more employers, and that no one has ever gotten a job from a poor person. Yet we (the government through progressive liberal policies) punish entrepreneurs and risk-takers with things such as the second-highest corporate tax burden in the world — and in some states, the highest.
Where are the jobs, green or otherwise, Mr. President? In an op-ed directed to President Obama, Home Depot founder Ken Langone said the company he started in 1979 and that now employs 325,000 people couldn't be started today or succeed under the administration's anti-business policies and rhetoric.
Unfortunately, it is not morning in America; rather we are mourning in America (the (hopefully) temporary death of just about everything that made us the single greatest country in the world).
It is at times like these that I miss Reagan the most, may he rest in heavenly peace.
Krugman's Universe
As I was researching through some older articles, I found this gem in the New York Times.
Former Enron adviser Paul Krugman takes note in his New York Times column of what he calls "the incredible gap that has opened up between the parties":
"Today, Democrats and Republicans live in different universes, both intellectually and morally."
"What Democrats believe," he says "is what textbook economics says":
But that's not how Republicans see it. Here's what Senator Jon Kyl of Arizona, the second-ranking Republican in the Senate, had to say when defending Mr. Bunning's position (although not joining his blockade): unemployment relief "doesn't create new jobs. In fact, if anything, continuing to pay people unemployment compensation is a disincentive for them to seek new work."
Krugman scoffs: "To me, that's a bizarre point of view--but then, I don't live in Mr. Kyl's universe."
What does textbook economics have to say about this question? Here is a passage from a textbook called "Macroeconomics":
Public policy designed to help workers who lose their jobs can lead to structural unemployment as an unintended side effect. . . . In other countries, particularly in Europe, benefits are more generous and last longer. The drawback to this generosity is that it reduces a worker's incentive to quickly find a new job. Generous unemployment benefits in some European countries are widely believed to be one of the main causes of "Eurosclerosis," the persistent high unemployment that affects a number of European countries.
So it turns out that what Krugman calls Sen. Kyl's "bizarre point of view" is, in fact, textbook economics. The authors of that textbook are Paul Krugman and Robin Wells. Miss Wells is also known as Mrs. Paul Krugman.
It seems Krugman himself lives in two different universes--the universe of the academic economist and the universe of the bitter partisan columnist. Or maybe this is like that episode of "Star Trek" in which crewmen from the Enterprise switched places with their counterparts from a universe in which everyone was the same, only evil.
It takes a partisan political hack of an economist to make such an ass of himself on a regular basis.
Former Enron adviser Paul Krugman takes note in his New York Times column of what he calls "the incredible gap that has opened up between the parties":
"Today, Democrats and Republicans live in different universes, both intellectually and morally."
"What Democrats believe," he says "is what textbook economics says":
But that's not how Republicans see it. Here's what Senator Jon Kyl of Arizona, the second-ranking Republican in the Senate, had to say when defending Mr. Bunning's position (although not joining his blockade): unemployment relief "doesn't create new jobs. In fact, if anything, continuing to pay people unemployment compensation is a disincentive for them to seek new work."
Krugman scoffs: "To me, that's a bizarre point of view--but then, I don't live in Mr. Kyl's universe."
What does textbook economics have to say about this question? Here is a passage from a textbook called "Macroeconomics":
Public policy designed to help workers who lose their jobs can lead to structural unemployment as an unintended side effect. . . . In other countries, particularly in Europe, benefits are more generous and last longer. The drawback to this generosity is that it reduces a worker's incentive to quickly find a new job. Generous unemployment benefits in some European countries are widely believed to be one of the main causes of "Eurosclerosis," the persistent high unemployment that affects a number of European countries.
So it turns out that what Krugman calls Sen. Kyl's "bizarre point of view" is, in fact, textbook economics. The authors of that textbook are Paul Krugman and Robin Wells. Miss Wells is also known as Mrs. Paul Krugman.
It seems Krugman himself lives in two different universes--the universe of the academic economist and the universe of the bitter partisan columnist. Or maybe this is like that episode of "Star Trek" in which crewmen from the Enterprise switched places with their counterparts from a universe in which everyone was the same, only evil.
It takes a partisan political hack of an economist to make such an ass of himself on a regular basis.
Are Liberals Going To Apologize Now Or Later?
Iraq War documents released by WikiLeaks show that U.S. forces frequently encountered weapons of mass destruction facilities and specialists. A former president is owed an apology.
Parts of Saddam Hussein's chemical weapons arsenal were found in post-liberation Iraq, with Islamist insurgents and Iranian operatives using them. As reported in Wired.com over the weekend, some of the 392,000 Iraq War logs show that deadly liquid-sulfur mustard was bought undercover in Iraq by U.S. personnel in 2004. In Fallujah not long after, a chemical lab and a chemical cache were discovered.
Another time, artillery shells were found "leaking a black tarlike substance," which eventually tested positive for mustard gas.
And only two years ago some 10 rounds of artillery shells were found to contain chemical agents, albeit in a state of disrepair. In early 2006, chemical weapons designed to cause paralysis were found, the origin of which was almost certainly Iran.
Is this the long-awaited vindication of President Bush's "16 words" in his 2003 State of the Union speech — "The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa"? No. That came long ago.
As journalist Christopher Hitchens noted in Slate magazine half a decade ago, "The European intelligence services, and the Bush administration, only ever asserted that the Iraqi regime had apparently tried to open (or rather, reopen) a yellowcake trade 'in Africa.' It has never been claimed that an agreement was actually reached."
In his memoir, "Hitch-22," Hitchens recounts that "Underneath a Sunni mosque in central Baghdad, the parts and some of the ingredients of a chemical weapon had been located and identified with the help of local informers." He writes, "I still have the photographs that were taken in that mosque after the liberation, showing the cache of weaponry just where I had been told it would be."
Saddam Hussein had repeatedly committed genocide with such weapons, and systematically sought to build nukes. Even without "serious stockpiles" of WMDs, Hitchens argues that post-9/11 was still "the perfect time to hit" Saddam "ruthlessly and conclusively" — both to punish him and to save the lives of thousands of Iraqis.
So evidence of WMDs in Iraq is old news.
What would be news is if liberal Democrats would apologize for calling the Bush administration liars.
Parts of Saddam Hussein's chemical weapons arsenal were found in post-liberation Iraq, with Islamist insurgents and Iranian operatives using them. As reported in Wired.com over the weekend, some of the 392,000 Iraq War logs show that deadly liquid-sulfur mustard was bought undercover in Iraq by U.S. personnel in 2004. In Fallujah not long after, a chemical lab and a chemical cache were discovered.
Another time, artillery shells were found "leaking a black tarlike substance," which eventually tested positive for mustard gas.
And only two years ago some 10 rounds of artillery shells were found to contain chemical agents, albeit in a state of disrepair. In early 2006, chemical weapons designed to cause paralysis were found, the origin of which was almost certainly Iran.
Is this the long-awaited vindication of President Bush's "16 words" in his 2003 State of the Union speech — "The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa"? No. That came long ago.
As journalist Christopher Hitchens noted in Slate magazine half a decade ago, "The European intelligence services, and the Bush administration, only ever asserted that the Iraqi regime had apparently tried to open (or rather, reopen) a yellowcake trade 'in Africa.' It has never been claimed that an agreement was actually reached."
In his memoir, "Hitch-22," Hitchens recounts that "Underneath a Sunni mosque in central Baghdad, the parts and some of the ingredients of a chemical weapon had been located and identified with the help of local informers." He writes, "I still have the photographs that were taken in that mosque after the liberation, showing the cache of weaponry just where I had been told it would be."
Saddam Hussein had repeatedly committed genocide with such weapons, and systematically sought to build nukes. Even without "serious stockpiles" of WMDs, Hitchens argues that post-9/11 was still "the perfect time to hit" Saddam "ruthlessly and conclusively" — both to punish him and to save the lives of thousands of Iraqis.
So evidence of WMDs in Iraq is old news.
What would be news is if liberal Democrats would apologize for calling the Bush administration liars.
Monday, October 25, 2010
Friday, October 22, 2010
...Talking About Marxists...
Just a reminder from recent past (no, of course he is not a socialist!!! Come now...)
...And This Clown's Seat Is Safe???
Believe it or not, all the sources that I have checked indicates that Moran is safe. Is the electorate in his district that uninformed, or are they Marxists like him?
Delusional Quote Of The Week
"Well let me say why I believe that would be very difficult for the Republicans to take over the House of Representatives. Let me tell you right here and now that I would rather be in our position right now than theirs." --House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-lusional)
Thursday, October 21, 2010
Does Any Progressive Believe In Honoring Contracts Anymore?
First, it was the Chrysler bond holders that the administration threw under the bus (in favor of the UAW union). If you remember, the hedge funds that were holding Chrysler's secured debt (in form of bonds) were ridiculed, threatened, and finally beaten in to submission last year. Soon after, similar faith ensued the G.M. bond holders.
Neither of these two cases were a surprise, having seen the thugs in action earlier with executives of major banks (remember the "I am the only one standing between you and the pitchforks" comment?). The ridicule and when necessary outright threats continued later when dealing with doctors and health insurance companies.
The latest is disgraced so-called economist Paul Krugman who wrote that debt counselors need the ability to modify mortgage loan documents on already outstanding home loans.
What is it with progressive liberals disregarding contracts - be it a secured loan like a mortgage, bonds, insurance policies, or whatever else? If it benefits the unions or any group of voters that they percieve as ready to buy off, you may as well be dealing with the mob.
Ooops, sorry, I am sure even your local, friendly mobster has a better moral compass than a progressive liberal.
Neither of these two cases were a surprise, having seen the thugs in action earlier with executives of major banks (remember the "I am the only one standing between you and the pitchforks" comment?). The ridicule and when necessary outright threats continued later when dealing with doctors and health insurance companies.
The latest is disgraced so-called economist Paul Krugman who wrote that debt counselors need the ability to modify mortgage loan documents on already outstanding home loans.
What is it with progressive liberals disregarding contracts - be it a secured loan like a mortgage, bonds, insurance policies, or whatever else? If it benefits the unions or any group of voters that they percieve as ready to buy off, you may as well be dealing with the mob.
Ooops, sorry, I am sure even your local, friendly mobster has a better moral compass than a progressive liberal.
Forms Of Government Revisited
I believe I may have posted this video before. It is an essential video that needs to be part of our elementary/secondary school curriculum across the country. Please distribute it to anyone that has a child (or needs the education themselves)
Call To Action By Congressman Pence
A timeless call we must heed and impress upon every responsible person around us. Remember, only 12 more days until the end of unchecked tyranny.
Wednesday, October 20, 2010
Time To Cut Off NEA And NPR
It is high time for the upcoming Republican majority in the house to seriously consider de-funding publicly funded farces masquerading as impartial media like the National Endowment for the Arts and National Public Radio.
In the name of fairness and transparency, however, I should point out that less than 17% of NPR's funding comes from tax revenues (including competitive grants from federally funded institutions). The rest of NPR's budget comes from corporate sponsorship, foundation grants, investments and dues and programming fees paid by 797 independent public radio stations. Nevertheless, it is a partially subsidized medium.
NEA, on the other hand, is an independent agency of the federal government - thus is fully tax payer funded.
In the first place, an educated, wealthy, free market based society has no business supporting arts or broadcasting through tax dollars, no matter how insignificant the subsidy. The whole concept defies the purpose of having a free society. Although, arguably, there may have been some limited basis for supporting such entities with taxes when they were first created (due to lack of sufficient media outlets, etc.), the current realities do not support such extravagances, especially while the U.S. is flirting with financial doom thanks to decades of unchecked government growth.
Second - and this is the one that bothers most conservatives/libertarians - is the obvious left leaning tendencies of such organizations. We are all aware of NEA supported ingenious art displays such as the cross in a jar of urine. More recently, NPR went on the offensive against Tea Party and tax payers who support its principles. And to top it all, it was just reported that George Soros is donating money for NPR to hire 100 political reporters (I wonder which way will they be slanted in their unbiased reporting?)
It remains to be seen if the new crop of Republicans will have the courage to do what previous congresses have failed to do. NEA and NPR have only one purpose: to denigrate conservatism, with tax payer funding, at every chance given. It is long past the time for their abolition.
(If you are interested, Accuracy In Media had a good piece on this subject five years ago. I highly recommend it.)
In the name of fairness and transparency, however, I should point out that less than 17% of NPR's funding comes from tax revenues (including competitive grants from federally funded institutions). The rest of NPR's budget comes from corporate sponsorship, foundation grants, investments and dues and programming fees paid by 797 independent public radio stations. Nevertheless, it is a partially subsidized medium.
NEA, on the other hand, is an independent agency of the federal government - thus is fully tax payer funded.
In the first place, an educated, wealthy, free market based society has no business supporting arts or broadcasting through tax dollars, no matter how insignificant the subsidy. The whole concept defies the purpose of having a free society. Although, arguably, there may have been some limited basis for supporting such entities with taxes when they were first created (due to lack of sufficient media outlets, etc.), the current realities do not support such extravagances, especially while the U.S. is flirting with financial doom thanks to decades of unchecked government growth.
Second - and this is the one that bothers most conservatives/libertarians - is the obvious left leaning tendencies of such organizations. We are all aware of NEA supported ingenious art displays such as the cross in a jar of urine. More recently, NPR went on the offensive against Tea Party and tax payers who support its principles. And to top it all, it was just reported that George Soros is donating money for NPR to hire 100 political reporters (I wonder which way will they be slanted in their unbiased reporting?)
It remains to be seen if the new crop of Republicans will have the courage to do what previous congresses have failed to do. NEA and NPR have only one purpose: to denigrate conservatism, with tax payer funding, at every chance given. It is long past the time for their abolition.
(If you are interested, Accuracy In Media had a good piece on this subject five years ago. I highly recommend it.)
The Constitutional War: O'Donnell vs. Coons
By now almost everyone knows what the media gladly and falsely characterized as the ignorance of Christine O'Donnell when it comes to constitutional matters.
During the same debate, Delaware Democratic Senate candidate Chris Coons, for his part, couldn't name the five freedoms in the First Amendment.
But all you'll hear from the MSM today is that Christine O'Donnell - correctly - questioned Coons' claim that the phrase "the separation of church and state" appears in the First Amendment.
Coons' ignorance doesn't fit the O'Donnell bashers' narrative. So they'll pretend this (not being able to list 4 of the 5 freedoms) didn't happen. Coons named the separation of church and state, but could not identify the others — the freedoms of speech, press, to assemble and petition — and asked that O’Donnell allow the moderators ask the questions.
Turning our attention back to O'Donnell's assertion, what the Constitution does say, in the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment, is that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" — a restriction imposed upon the state to prevent its interference in religious practice.
Landmark Legal Foundation President Mark R. Levin (one of the greatest constitutional lawyers in my opinion) explained the confusion of liberal judges and trial lawyers in his 2005 book, "Men in Black: How the Supreme Court is Destroying America." (I highly recommend reading it)
The "Wall of Separation" phrase comes not from the Constitution, but from President Jefferson's letter to the Danbury Baptists in 1802. As Levin notes, the obscure comment was virtually ignored for nearly a century and a half. It wasn't until 1947 when Supreme Court Justice Hugo Black ruled in the Everson case — which actually upheld the use of taxpayer money to transport children to Catholic and other parochial schools — that the Jefferson metaphor was used to establish "the anti-religious precedent that has done so much damage to religious freedom."
Levin's argument is similar to that of the late Chief Justice William Rehnquist. In his dissent in a 1985 ruling against silent school prayer, Rehnquist pointed out: "There is simply no historical foundation for the proposition that the Framers intended to build the 'wall of separation' that was constitutionalized in Everson." He called Jefferson's "wall" "a metaphor based on bad history, a metaphor which has proved useless as a guide to judging."
Veteran journalist M. Stanton Evans points out that this false view of the Founders as "separationists" led to "a revolution in our legal theory, educational system, and religious practice — including such departures as barring Christmas manger scenes from tax-supported settings."
Columbia Law School Professor Phillip Hamburger has argued that the early Americans enacted the Establishment Clause to prevent the corruption of religion by worldly influences, and that "the constitutional authority for separation is without historical foundation."
Is it any wonder that the newest Supreme Court justice, Elena Kagan, did not require the study of constitutional law when she was dean of Harvard Law School — but did require the study of foreign law? Those future federal judges graduating Harvard might catch onto the fable liberal activists have gone to such trouble weaving.
Finally, consider these: Coons was a self avowed Marxist (until getting in to politics), Obama has now omitted the word creator from Decleration of Independence on multiple occasions, and that religion has (present and past) been practically outlawed in all Marxist/communist states.
Is it simple coincidence or is there a connection? Draw your own conclusions.
During the same debate, Delaware Democratic Senate candidate Chris Coons, for his part, couldn't name the five freedoms in the First Amendment.
But all you'll hear from the MSM today is that Christine O'Donnell - correctly - questioned Coons' claim that the phrase "the separation of church and state" appears in the First Amendment.
Coons' ignorance doesn't fit the O'Donnell bashers' narrative. So they'll pretend this (not being able to list 4 of the 5 freedoms) didn't happen. Coons named the separation of church and state, but could not identify the others — the freedoms of speech, press, to assemble and petition — and asked that O’Donnell allow the moderators ask the questions.
Turning our attention back to O'Donnell's assertion, what the Constitution does say, in the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment, is that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" — a restriction imposed upon the state to prevent its interference in religious practice.
Landmark Legal Foundation President Mark R. Levin (one of the greatest constitutional lawyers in my opinion) explained the confusion of liberal judges and trial lawyers in his 2005 book, "Men in Black: How the Supreme Court is Destroying America." (I highly recommend reading it)
The "Wall of Separation" phrase comes not from the Constitution, but from President Jefferson's letter to the Danbury Baptists in 1802. As Levin notes, the obscure comment was virtually ignored for nearly a century and a half. It wasn't until 1947 when Supreme Court Justice Hugo Black ruled in the Everson case — which actually upheld the use of taxpayer money to transport children to Catholic and other parochial schools — that the Jefferson metaphor was used to establish "the anti-religious precedent that has done so much damage to religious freedom."
Levin's argument is similar to that of the late Chief Justice William Rehnquist. In his dissent in a 1985 ruling against silent school prayer, Rehnquist pointed out: "There is simply no historical foundation for the proposition that the Framers intended to build the 'wall of separation' that was constitutionalized in Everson." He called Jefferson's "wall" "a metaphor based on bad history, a metaphor which has proved useless as a guide to judging."
Veteran journalist M. Stanton Evans points out that this false view of the Founders as "separationists" led to "a revolution in our legal theory, educational system, and religious practice — including such departures as barring Christmas manger scenes from tax-supported settings."
Columbia Law School Professor Phillip Hamburger has argued that the early Americans enacted the Establishment Clause to prevent the corruption of religion by worldly influences, and that "the constitutional authority for separation is without historical foundation."
Is it any wonder that the newest Supreme Court justice, Elena Kagan, did not require the study of constitutional law when she was dean of Harvard Law School — but did require the study of foreign law? Those future federal judges graduating Harvard might catch onto the fable liberal activists have gone to such trouble weaving.
Finally, consider these: Coons was a self avowed Marxist (until getting in to politics), Obama has now omitted the word creator from Decleration of Independence on multiple occasions, and that religion has (present and past) been practically outlawed in all Marxist/communist states.
Is it simple coincidence or is there a connection? Draw your own conclusions.
Plug-Ready Car Goes The Way Of Shovel-Ready Job
There is no such thing as either.
The scam that is touted by the President as well as GM as the next leap in automotive technology (known as Volt) is as real the phoenix - the mythical fire bird.
Ahead of its debut next month, Volt is stealing the headlines for all the wrong reasons.
Advertised as an all-electric car that could drive 50 miles on its lithium battery, GM addressed concerns about where you plug the thing in en route to grandma's house by adding a small gasoline engine to help maintain the charge on the battery as it starts to run down. It was still an electric car, we were told, and not a hybrid on steroids.
That's not quite true. The gasoline engine has been found to be more than a range-extender for the battery. Volt engineers are now admitting that when the vehicle's lithium-ion battery pack runs down and at speeds near or above 70 mph, the Volt's gasoline engine will directly drive the front wheels along with the electric motors. That's not charging the battery — that's driving the car.
So it's not an all-electric car, but rather a pricey $41,000 hybrid that requires a taxpayer-funded $7,500 subsidy to get car shoppers to look at it. But gee, even despite the false advertising about the powertrain, isn't a car that gets 230 miles per gallon of gas worth it?
We all heard GM's then-CEO Fritz Henderson claim the Volt would get 230 miles per gallon in city conditions. Popular Mechanics found the Volt to get about 37.5 mpg in city driving, and Motor Trend reports: "Without any plugging in, (a weeklong trip to Grandma's house) should return fuel economy in the high 30s to low 40s."
Car and Driver reported that "getting on the nearest highway and commuting with the 80-mph flow of traffic — basically the worst-case scenario — yielded 26 miles; a fairly spirited backroad loop netted 31; and a carefully modulated cruise below 60 mph pushed the figure into the upper 30s."
This is what happens when government picks winners and losers in the marketplace and tries to run a business. We are not told that we will be dependent on foreign sources like Bolivia for the lithium to be used in these batteries. Nor are we told about the possible dangers to rescuers and occupants in an accident scenario.
And since electricity rates are necessarily going to skyrocket as a result of this administration's energy policies and fondness for cap-and-trade, what's the true cost of operating a not-so-all-electric car like the Volt?
In 2008, candidate Obama pledged to put 1 million plug-in vehicles on the road by 2015. Not likely. It was a tough sell when we thought it was all-electric and could get 230 mpg. It will be a tougher sell now that we find it's a glorified Prius with the price tag of a BMW that seats only four because of a battery that runs down the center of the car.
President Obama likes to talk about not giving the GOP back the keys to the car. If GM Volt is the best government can do, he can keep his car.
The scam that is touted by the President as well as GM as the next leap in automotive technology (known as Volt) is as real the phoenix - the mythical fire bird.
Ahead of its debut next month, Volt is stealing the headlines for all the wrong reasons.
Advertised as an all-electric car that could drive 50 miles on its lithium battery, GM addressed concerns about where you plug the thing in en route to grandma's house by adding a small gasoline engine to help maintain the charge on the battery as it starts to run down. It was still an electric car, we were told, and not a hybrid on steroids.
That's not quite true. The gasoline engine has been found to be more than a range-extender for the battery. Volt engineers are now admitting that when the vehicle's lithium-ion battery pack runs down and at speeds near or above 70 mph, the Volt's gasoline engine will directly drive the front wheels along with the electric motors. That's not charging the battery — that's driving the car.
So it's not an all-electric car, but rather a pricey $41,000 hybrid that requires a taxpayer-funded $7,500 subsidy to get car shoppers to look at it. But gee, even despite the false advertising about the powertrain, isn't a car that gets 230 miles per gallon of gas worth it?
We all heard GM's then-CEO Fritz Henderson claim the Volt would get 230 miles per gallon in city conditions. Popular Mechanics found the Volt to get about 37.5 mpg in city driving, and Motor Trend reports: "Without any plugging in, (a weeklong trip to Grandma's house) should return fuel economy in the high 30s to low 40s."
Car and Driver reported that "getting on the nearest highway and commuting with the 80-mph flow of traffic — basically the worst-case scenario — yielded 26 miles; a fairly spirited backroad loop netted 31; and a carefully modulated cruise below 60 mph pushed the figure into the upper 30s."
This is what happens when government picks winners and losers in the marketplace and tries to run a business. We are not told that we will be dependent on foreign sources like Bolivia for the lithium to be used in these batteries. Nor are we told about the possible dangers to rescuers and occupants in an accident scenario.
And since electricity rates are necessarily going to skyrocket as a result of this administration's energy policies and fondness for cap-and-trade, what's the true cost of operating a not-so-all-electric car like the Volt?
In 2008, candidate Obama pledged to put 1 million plug-in vehicles on the road by 2015. Not likely. It was a tough sell when we thought it was all-electric and could get 230 mpg. It will be a tougher sell now that we find it's a glorified Prius with the price tag of a BMW that seats only four because of a battery that runs down the center of the car.
President Obama likes to talk about not giving the GOP back the keys to the car. If GM Volt is the best government can do, he can keep his car.
Update On Rep. Sherman's Madness
About a couple of weeks ago, I blogged about the California congressman who has introduced a bill to eliminate right-to-work laws in the 22 business friendly states that have them. These laws let workers employed at organized companies choose for themselves if they're going to join the union or pay union dues. In the 28 states without right-to-work laws, workers are forced to join the union if their employer has been organized.
If even-higher unemployment is his goal, he has the right idea.
Look at the data cited by Greg Schneider, a senior fellow with the Kansas Policy Institute and an associate professor of history at Emporia State University, in the Daily Caller. From 1999 to 2009, right-to-work states added 1.5 million private-sector jobs, a 3.7% increase. Over the same period, states that don't have right-to-work laws lost 1.8 million jobs, a 2.3% decline.
Growth was even stronger in the right-to-work states from 1995 to 2005. Over that stretch, private-sector jobs grew by 20.2%.
Maybe Sherman reckons that if California can't keep up with fast-growing right-to-work states such as Texas, he can punish those states and maybe bring some of the lost jobs back to California.
If even-higher unemployment is his goal, he has the right idea.
Look at the data cited by Greg Schneider, a senior fellow with the Kansas Policy Institute and an associate professor of history at Emporia State University, in the Daily Caller. From 1999 to 2009, right-to-work states added 1.5 million private-sector jobs, a 3.7% increase. Over the same period, states that don't have right-to-work laws lost 1.8 million jobs, a 2.3% decline.
Growth was even stronger in the right-to-work states from 1995 to 2005. Over that stretch, private-sector jobs grew by 20.2%.
Maybe Sherman reckons that if California can't keep up with fast-growing right-to-work states such as Texas, he can punish those states and maybe bring some of the lost jobs back to California.
Meet Mohamed Elibiary - The Latest Threat To Our National Security
Secretary of Homeland Security Janet Napolitano would no doubt claim "The system worked" when she vetted Mohamed Elibiary, her latest appointee to the Homeland Security Advisory Council.
Here is the dirt on him:
Mohamed Elibiary was one of the speakers at a December 2004 conference in Dallas entitled "A Tribute to the Great Islamic Visionary," Ayatollah Khomeini. When Rod Dreher of the Dallas Morning News called him on this, he threatened Dreher, telling him: "Expect someone to put a banana in your exhaust pipe."
Here is an article by Robert Spencer who knows Mr. Elibiary.
Don't you feel safer already?
Here is the dirt on him:
Mohamed Elibiary was one of the speakers at a December 2004 conference in Dallas entitled "A Tribute to the Great Islamic Visionary," Ayatollah Khomeini. When Rod Dreher of the Dallas Morning News called him on this, he threatened Dreher, telling him: "Expect someone to put a banana in your exhaust pipe."
Here is an article by Robert Spencer who knows Mr. Elibiary.
Don't you feel safer already?
Insanity In Afghanistan
I was amused by those who were trying to tout Obama's sending of 30,000 troops to Afghanistan as his committment to win the war on terror. I, as well as anyone else who is not a progressive liberal, knew that this was nothing but a canard by this deceptive clown we call our president.
Here are the current rules of engagement on the ground in Afghanistan:
- our troops are forbidden to defend themselves as Taliban terrorists fire rockets at U.S. forward-operating bases. The reason? The terrorists may be within 500 feet of civilian villages.
- forces have also been ordered to remove watchtowers because villagers' "privacy" might be violated. Never mind the mortar shells raining down on the Americans.
- our troops have been commanded to cease combat if a Taliban terrorist drops his weapon after firing his.
With the Taliban given such strategic advantages, it's no wonder our forces are seeing some of the war's highest casualties.
This is what you get when you elect an America-hating socialist to do a patriot's job.
Here are the current rules of engagement on the ground in Afghanistan:
- our troops are forbidden to defend themselves as Taliban terrorists fire rockets at U.S. forward-operating bases. The reason? The terrorists may be within 500 feet of civilian villages.
- forces have also been ordered to remove watchtowers because villagers' "privacy" might be violated. Never mind the mortar shells raining down on the Americans.
- our troops have been commanded to cease combat if a Taliban terrorist drops his weapon after firing his.
With the Taliban given such strategic advantages, it's no wonder our forces are seeing some of the war's highest casualties.
This is what you get when you elect an America-hating socialist to do a patriot's job.
In Illinois, Soldiers Cannot Vote, But Prisoners Can
This is beyond words but, as you probably have heard, over 35 counties in Illinois missed the deadline to mail military ballots to our soldiers defending America. But in Chicago, county election officials have taken special steps to ensure that no inmates at the Cook County Jail are unable to cast a ballot.
The Chicago Board of Elections hand delivers ballots to the jail. They don’t even wait for the inmates to apply – they bring the applications with the ballots! Over 2,600 inmates have cast ballots so far – strikingly similiar to the 2,600 soldiers who will likely not recieve a ballot for the Nov 2 election.
Disgraceful does not begin to describe the Illinois Election system, run by whom else but the corrupt Democrat machine.
The Chicago Board of Elections hand delivers ballots to the jail. They don’t even wait for the inmates to apply – they bring the applications with the ballots! Over 2,600 inmates have cast ballots so far – strikingly similiar to the 2,600 soldiers who will likely not recieve a ballot for the Nov 2 election.
Disgraceful does not begin to describe the Illinois Election system, run by whom else but the corrupt Democrat machine.
Tuesday, October 19, 2010
Obama Can't Be Wrong, so We Must Be Crazy
Following is a worthy article by David Limbaugh. Enjoy.
-------------
Memo to those who believe Obama is going to move to the center following his upcoming electoral smack-down: Dream on! Many of you also told us he wouldn't be that liberal in the first instance. Is that egg on your face sticky yet?
I'm not denying that Obama might pretend to move to the center on some issues. As an accomplished Alinskyite, he'll do what he has to do to move the socialist football forward. But if he feints to the center, it will not be real. He will not deviate from his relentless quest to advance his leftist agenda. And you wouldn't, either, if you had his warped mindset, God forbid!
This guy isn't just arrogant; he's an elitist, contemptuous of the unwashed who don't have the mental clarity to see issues the way he does. It would never occur to him to actually readjust his policies.
The more we've seen him off prompter the more we've learned about his heartfelt beliefs. His notorious "bitter clingers" moment wasn't a verbal slip; it was Obama being candid. He didn't just say (in effect) that "some people out there in fly-over country don't share our values but mean well." He implied there's something wrong with them (us) psychologically, spiritually and even morally for clinging to their Bibles, their guns and their antipathy toward people who aren't like them. That is, they're simple-minded, aggressive bigots.
When Obama runs into opposition on his agenda, it never occurs to him that he could be wrong. That's why every time his policies are rebuffed, he reacts the same way: "They don't understand my plan. It's too complicated. I haven't given enough speeches on the subject or spoken to people about their core values. I want the people to take another look at my plan."
This signature Obama arrogance reared its head again this past weekend, when Obama said that Americans' "fear and frustration" are what is driving their opposition to his agenda. The difficult economic times, which, of course, he blamelessly inherited, are interfering with the people's ability to "think clearly."
But fear not. He selflessly agreed to undertake the burden of breaking "through the fear and the frustration people are feeling." Hmm. What do you suppose he might say differently in his hundredth approach to this that he didn't cover the first 99 times?
According to Obama, people can deal with Bush-induced "trauma" concerning the economy one of two ways. They can either push "away challenges" and look "backwards" or "meet these challenges" and "move forward."
Don't just casually pass over these words. Savor them for at least a second, and show me where he exhibits an iota of doubt in his failed policies. To the contrary, he is saying this is more a perception problem for the American people than it is their rational reaction to real problems he has created or exacerbated.
This same dripping condescension is present in his many iterations of the foreign money slander -- his deliberately manufactured tale that the Chamber of Commerce is fomenting angst and buying the upcoming elections with foreign money. (It's interesting that Democrats are reportedly receiving twice as much foreign campaign dough as Republicans.)
At his recent "youth town hall" meeting, Obama suggested that "what has happened is layered on top of some of that general frustration that has expressed itself through the tea party. There is an awful lot of corporate money that's pouring into these elections right now." In the battleground states, he said, "you are being bombarded with negative ads every single day, and nobody knows who is paying for these ads. They've got names like 'Americans for Prosperity.'"
Do you fellow clingers see the recurring theme? It's not just the foreign money; it's that the American people are just too weak-minded to resist its influence.
Well, I've got news for Obama and anyone else who is buying into his smear. I just spoke at two Americans for Prosperity tea party events a few weekends ago, and the attendees are hardly dupes being spoon-fed by some foreign-sponsored group -- too laughable for words. They are self-motivated patriots, outraged by government's power abuses, assaults on their liberties and policies bankrupting the nation.
Regarding the tea party protesters, Obama is merely projecting his own antipathy for people who aren't socialists like him. They are not mindless robots divorced from control of their mental faculties. They know full well what he's doing and how disastrous it is for the country, and they're fighting back.
Given the "trauma" Obama will be experiencing the day following the elections, we probably can't expect him to clearly comprehend the voters' resounding message. But everyone else will get it. They already do.
COPYRIGHT 2010 CREATORS.COM
-------------
Memo to those who believe Obama is going to move to the center following his upcoming electoral smack-down: Dream on! Many of you also told us he wouldn't be that liberal in the first instance. Is that egg on your face sticky yet?
I'm not denying that Obama might pretend to move to the center on some issues. As an accomplished Alinskyite, he'll do what he has to do to move the socialist football forward. But if he feints to the center, it will not be real. He will not deviate from his relentless quest to advance his leftist agenda. And you wouldn't, either, if you had his warped mindset, God forbid!
This guy isn't just arrogant; he's an elitist, contemptuous of the unwashed who don't have the mental clarity to see issues the way he does. It would never occur to him to actually readjust his policies.
The more we've seen him off prompter the more we've learned about his heartfelt beliefs. His notorious "bitter clingers" moment wasn't a verbal slip; it was Obama being candid. He didn't just say (in effect) that "some people out there in fly-over country don't share our values but mean well." He implied there's something wrong with them (us) psychologically, spiritually and even morally for clinging to their Bibles, their guns and their antipathy toward people who aren't like them. That is, they're simple-minded, aggressive bigots.
When Obama runs into opposition on his agenda, it never occurs to him that he could be wrong. That's why every time his policies are rebuffed, he reacts the same way: "They don't understand my plan. It's too complicated. I haven't given enough speeches on the subject or spoken to people about their core values. I want the people to take another look at my plan."
This signature Obama arrogance reared its head again this past weekend, when Obama said that Americans' "fear and frustration" are what is driving their opposition to his agenda. The difficult economic times, which, of course, he blamelessly inherited, are interfering with the people's ability to "think clearly."
But fear not. He selflessly agreed to undertake the burden of breaking "through the fear and the frustration people are feeling." Hmm. What do you suppose he might say differently in his hundredth approach to this that he didn't cover the first 99 times?
According to Obama, people can deal with Bush-induced "trauma" concerning the economy one of two ways. They can either push "away challenges" and look "backwards" or "meet these challenges" and "move forward."
Don't just casually pass over these words. Savor them for at least a second, and show me where he exhibits an iota of doubt in his failed policies. To the contrary, he is saying this is more a perception problem for the American people than it is their rational reaction to real problems he has created or exacerbated.
This same dripping condescension is present in his many iterations of the foreign money slander -- his deliberately manufactured tale that the Chamber of Commerce is fomenting angst and buying the upcoming elections with foreign money. (It's interesting that Democrats are reportedly receiving twice as much foreign campaign dough as Republicans.)
At his recent "youth town hall" meeting, Obama suggested that "what has happened is layered on top of some of that general frustration that has expressed itself through the tea party. There is an awful lot of corporate money that's pouring into these elections right now." In the battleground states, he said, "you are being bombarded with negative ads every single day, and nobody knows who is paying for these ads. They've got names like 'Americans for Prosperity.'"
Do you fellow clingers see the recurring theme? It's not just the foreign money; it's that the American people are just too weak-minded to resist its influence.
Well, I've got news for Obama and anyone else who is buying into his smear. I just spoke at two Americans for Prosperity tea party events a few weekends ago, and the attendees are hardly dupes being spoon-fed by some foreign-sponsored group -- too laughable for words. They are self-motivated patriots, outraged by government's power abuses, assaults on their liberties and policies bankrupting the nation.
Regarding the tea party protesters, Obama is merely projecting his own antipathy for people who aren't socialists like him. They are not mindless robots divorced from control of their mental faculties. They know full well what he's doing and how disastrous it is for the country, and they're fighting back.
Given the "trauma" Obama will be experiencing the day following the elections, we probably can't expect him to clearly comprehend the voters' resounding message. But everyone else will get it. They already do.
COPYRIGHT 2010 CREATORS.COM
Monday, October 18, 2010
Outrage
This is one conservative who promises never to support the GOP again, and work feverishly for its demise and replacement with a truly conservative organization if the upcoming Republican majority does not doggedly investigate and do everything in their power to shut down organizations like Accountable America - a front group for Move-On and Think Progress (Soros funded front groups whose only goal is to bring socialism to the U.S.).
The reason for my growing outrage is the continuous gangster like behavior of the leftist politicians and groups. Last week, I blogged here, and here about the bold faced hypocrisy of the Administration.
As The Hill reports, House and Senate Democrats have received approximately $1.02 million this cycle from foreign PACs, according to an analysis compiled for The Hill by the Center for Responsive Politics. House and Senate GOP leaders have taken almost $510,000 from PACs on the same list.
And they are making a big deal about the $100,000 (out of their $200 million budget) collected by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, which it denies used any of it on political activities? The hypocrisy here is just stunning!
"In 2008, the president benefited from $400 million worth of spending by outside groups on his behalf in the presidential campaign, most of whom did not reveal their donors," Rove said last Tuesday on Fox News. "I guess that was not a threat to democracy then because this kind of activity was being undertaken by Democrat groups."
Democrats suggest the attacks will keep coming in the next three weeks, in part because they believe they are working. The purpose here is to intimidate conservative donors, chill political free speech and drain Republican coffers.
Coming back to Accountable America, this isn't the first time liberal bullyboys have targeted right-leaning contributors. Far from it. Here is some background:
In August 2008, a former Washington director of MoveOn.org — the smear merchant group that branded Gen. David Petraeus a traitor for overseeing the successful troop surge in Iraq — announced a brazen witch hunt against Republican donors. Left-wing political operative Tom Matzzie told the New York Times he would send "warning" letters to 10,000 top GOP givers "hoping to create a chilling effect that will dry up contributions."
Matzzie bragged of "going for the jugular" and said the warning letter would be just the first step, "alerting donors who might be considering giving to right-wing groups to a variety of potential dangers, including legal trouble, public exposure and watchdog groups digging through their lives."
Defenders of this brown-shirt initiative played the disclosure card — hey, they were just providing "information" — to rationalize the public humiliation of GOP donors.
Matzzie also put up a $100,000 bounty for dirt on conservative political groups "to create a sense of scandal around the groups" and dissuade donors from giving money. The effort was cheered by Accountable America adviser Judd Legum, founder of Think Progress — the same group leading the attack today on the U.S. Chamber of Commerce.
Yet, Matzzie's group, Accountable America, is itself a 501(c)(4) nonprofit entity that shields the identity of its donors. (The group is required by law to remain nonpartisan, but has described itself as "dedicated to electing Democrats to the state legislature across America.")
By targeting direct, hard-money contributors who are required to disclose their occupations, addresses and employers, Matzzie's assault simply created a sunshine-evading incentive to steer campaign donations to soft-money groups that protect donor identities. You know, like Accountable America does.
Piggybacking on the Accountable America foray, Obama's presidential campaign lawyers demanded that the Justice Department block TV stations from airing a documented, factual independent ad spotlighting Obama's longtime working relationship with unrepentant Weather Underground terrorist Bill Ayers.
Obama summoned his followers to bombard stations, many of them owned by conservative-leaning Sinclair Communications, with 93,000 e-mails to squelch the commercial. Team Obama then tried — and failed — to convince the DOJ to investigate and prosecute the American Issues Project, the group that produced the Ayers ad, as well as Dallas billionaire and GOP donor Harold Simmons, who funded it.
Two Obama supporters — Democratic St. Louis County (Mo.) Circuit Attorney Bob McCulloch and St. Louis City Circuit Attorney Jennifer Joyce — took the next step and threatened to bring criminal libel charges against anyone who sponsored objectionable criticisms of Obama.
In California, gay rights mau-mau-ers compiled blacklists and harassment lists of citizens who contributed to the Proposition 8 initiative in defense of traditional marriage.
A Los Angeles restaurant whose manager made a small donation to the Prop. 8 campaign was besieged nightly by hordes of protesters who disrupted the business, intimidated patrons and brought employees to tears. Terrified workers at El Coyote Mexican Cafe pooled together $500 to pay off the protesters. A theater director who donated $1,000 to Prop. 8 was forced to resign over the donation.
Anonymous mischief-makers created "Eight Maps," a detailed directory of Prop. 8 donors using Google Maps to pinpoint their residences and businesses. Death threats, enveloped with powdery substances, and boycotts ensued. "When I see those maps," admitted California Voter Foundation President Kim Alexander, "it does leave me with a bit of a sick feeling in my stomach."
It's the same feeling every American should be left with after witnessing the liberal thug-tested, White House-approved donor suppression campaign against fiscal and social conservatives. In the hands of leftist vigilantes, "disclosure" is a deadly bludgeon; political free speech is the casualty.
Now, I hope you are just as outraged as I am and demand appropriate action from the new crop of Republicans.
The reason for my growing outrage is the continuous gangster like behavior of the leftist politicians and groups. Last week, I blogged here, and here about the bold faced hypocrisy of the Administration.
As The Hill reports, House and Senate Democrats have received approximately $1.02 million this cycle from foreign PACs, according to an analysis compiled for The Hill by the Center for Responsive Politics. House and Senate GOP leaders have taken almost $510,000 from PACs on the same list.
And they are making a big deal about the $100,000 (out of their $200 million budget) collected by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, which it denies used any of it on political activities? The hypocrisy here is just stunning!
"In 2008, the president benefited from $400 million worth of spending by outside groups on his behalf in the presidential campaign, most of whom did not reveal their donors," Rove said last Tuesday on Fox News. "I guess that was not a threat to democracy then because this kind of activity was being undertaken by Democrat groups."
Democrats suggest the attacks will keep coming in the next three weeks, in part because they believe they are working. The purpose here is to intimidate conservative donors, chill political free speech and drain Republican coffers.
Coming back to Accountable America, this isn't the first time liberal bullyboys have targeted right-leaning contributors. Far from it. Here is some background:
In August 2008, a former Washington director of MoveOn.org — the smear merchant group that branded Gen. David Petraeus a traitor for overseeing the successful troop surge in Iraq — announced a brazen witch hunt against Republican donors. Left-wing political operative Tom Matzzie told the New York Times he would send "warning" letters to 10,000 top GOP givers "hoping to create a chilling effect that will dry up contributions."
Matzzie bragged of "going for the jugular" and said the warning letter would be just the first step, "alerting donors who might be considering giving to right-wing groups to a variety of potential dangers, including legal trouble, public exposure and watchdog groups digging through their lives."
Defenders of this brown-shirt initiative played the disclosure card — hey, they were just providing "information" — to rationalize the public humiliation of GOP donors.
Matzzie also put up a $100,000 bounty for dirt on conservative political groups "to create a sense of scandal around the groups" and dissuade donors from giving money. The effort was cheered by Accountable America adviser Judd Legum, founder of Think Progress — the same group leading the attack today on the U.S. Chamber of Commerce.
Yet, Matzzie's group, Accountable America, is itself a 501(c)(4) nonprofit entity that shields the identity of its donors. (The group is required by law to remain nonpartisan, but has described itself as "dedicated to electing Democrats to the state legislature across America.")
By targeting direct, hard-money contributors who are required to disclose their occupations, addresses and employers, Matzzie's assault simply created a sunshine-evading incentive to steer campaign donations to soft-money groups that protect donor identities. You know, like Accountable America does.
Piggybacking on the Accountable America foray, Obama's presidential campaign lawyers demanded that the Justice Department block TV stations from airing a documented, factual independent ad spotlighting Obama's longtime working relationship with unrepentant Weather Underground terrorist Bill Ayers.
Obama summoned his followers to bombard stations, many of them owned by conservative-leaning Sinclair Communications, with 93,000 e-mails to squelch the commercial. Team Obama then tried — and failed — to convince the DOJ to investigate and prosecute the American Issues Project, the group that produced the Ayers ad, as well as Dallas billionaire and GOP donor Harold Simmons, who funded it.
Two Obama supporters — Democratic St. Louis County (Mo.) Circuit Attorney Bob McCulloch and St. Louis City Circuit Attorney Jennifer Joyce — took the next step and threatened to bring criminal libel charges against anyone who sponsored objectionable criticisms of Obama.
In California, gay rights mau-mau-ers compiled blacklists and harassment lists of citizens who contributed to the Proposition 8 initiative in defense of traditional marriage.
A Los Angeles restaurant whose manager made a small donation to the Prop. 8 campaign was besieged nightly by hordes of protesters who disrupted the business, intimidated patrons and brought employees to tears. Terrified workers at El Coyote Mexican Cafe pooled together $500 to pay off the protesters. A theater director who donated $1,000 to Prop. 8 was forced to resign over the donation.
Anonymous mischief-makers created "Eight Maps," a detailed directory of Prop. 8 donors using Google Maps to pinpoint their residences and businesses. Death threats, enveloped with powdery substances, and boycotts ensued. "When I see those maps," admitted California Voter Foundation President Kim Alexander, "it does leave me with a bit of a sick feeling in my stomach."
It's the same feeling every American should be left with after witnessing the liberal thug-tested, White House-approved donor suppression campaign against fiscal and social conservatives. In the hands of leftist vigilantes, "disclosure" is a deadly bludgeon; political free speech is the casualty.
Now, I hope you are just as outraged as I am and demand appropriate action from the new crop of Republicans.
A Clarification On Obama-Chamber of Commerce Spat
I posted several articles and wrote a couple of my own regarding this "October" surprise by our inept administration. I promise this is the last one unless events warrant posting more on this subject.
It dawned on me that I never explained well how Obama campaign in 2008 accomplished what, according to NYT and Fact Check, they are baselessly accusing the Chamber of.
The Chamber of Commerce collects $100,000 in membership dues from foreigners out of a $200 million operating budget (0.0005% of the budget is foreign contributions) and spends some of that budget on campaign ads.
Yet Obama adviser David Axelrod says it's up to the Chamber to prove it's innocent.
There are a couple of odd things here. One is that the 2008 Obama campaign, by deliberately not using the address-verification software most enterprises use to determine it's really your credit card, took in a lot more illegal foreign money than its rivals. In fact, the McCain campaign played by the book and, as Pamela Geller found, were clean of these types of charges. The Obama folks may be projecting their own sins on their opponents.
The other is that this charge of foreign money doesn't fit into any familiar political narrative. At least when the Obamaites attack evil rich people, some voters think of 19th-century caricatures of fat cats (and ignore the fact that Obama carried voters with incomes over $200,000 in 2008).
Foreign Villains
But who are these evil foreigners who are trying to inject their dirty money into American campaigns? The guys who got the jobs that were supposedly outsourced from Youngstown, Ohio? Americans who gave up their citizenship to avoid taxes? James Bond villains like Auric Goldfinger?
I seem to remember that it was candidate Barack Obama (not John McCain or Hillary Clinton) who gave a big election year speech in the Tiergarten in Berlin. It was Obama cheerleaders who told us that foreigners would love us once again if we sent George W. Bush back to Texas and installed their multicultural champion in the White House.
Back in 2008, we were supposed to vote for the candidate foreigners loved. Now, in 2010, we are supposed to vote against the party foreigners support.
You can be pretty sure that this is not where the Obama Democrats wanted or expected to be three weeks before the 2010 election. They operated on the assumption that history is a story of progress from no government to big government and that American voters would be grateful for little bits of economic redistribution, like the $400 tax rebate in the 2009 stimulus package.
Obama likes to say D in Democrat stands for drive (as in driving forward). Instead, it looks like D stands for demagoguery and desperation.
It dawned on me that I never explained well how Obama campaign in 2008 accomplished what, according to NYT and Fact Check, they are baselessly accusing the Chamber of.
The Chamber of Commerce collects $100,000 in membership dues from foreigners out of a $200 million operating budget (0.0005% of the budget is foreign contributions) and spends some of that budget on campaign ads.
Yet Obama adviser David Axelrod says it's up to the Chamber to prove it's innocent.
There are a couple of odd things here. One is that the 2008 Obama campaign, by deliberately not using the address-verification software most enterprises use to determine it's really your credit card, took in a lot more illegal foreign money than its rivals. In fact, the McCain campaign played by the book and, as Pamela Geller found, were clean of these types of charges. The Obama folks may be projecting their own sins on their opponents.
The other is that this charge of foreign money doesn't fit into any familiar political narrative. At least when the Obamaites attack evil rich people, some voters think of 19th-century caricatures of fat cats (and ignore the fact that Obama carried voters with incomes over $200,000 in 2008).
Foreign Villains
But who are these evil foreigners who are trying to inject their dirty money into American campaigns? The guys who got the jobs that were supposedly outsourced from Youngstown, Ohio? Americans who gave up their citizenship to avoid taxes? James Bond villains like Auric Goldfinger?
I seem to remember that it was candidate Barack Obama (not John McCain or Hillary Clinton) who gave a big election year speech in the Tiergarten in Berlin. It was Obama cheerleaders who told us that foreigners would love us once again if we sent George W. Bush back to Texas and installed their multicultural champion in the White House.
Back in 2008, we were supposed to vote for the candidate foreigners loved. Now, in 2010, we are supposed to vote against the party foreigners support.
You can be pretty sure that this is not where the Obama Democrats wanted or expected to be three weeks before the 2010 election. They operated on the assumption that history is a story of progress from no government to big government and that American voters would be grateful for little bits of economic redistribution, like the $400 tax rebate in the 2009 stimulus package.
Obama likes to say D in Democrat stands for drive (as in driving forward). Instead, it looks like D stands for demagoguery and desperation.
Obama: "Special Interest Empire Is Striking Back At Me"
Obama, turning again to his attacks on millions of dollars in campaign ads run by independent groups that do not under law have to disclose their donors, referred to special interests as an “empire” during a campaign speech at Ohio State University this week-end.
“The empire is striking back,” he said.
I assume, then, that the Massachusetts hospital, whose CEO used his house for Obama to raise $900,000 on Saturday, is not a special interest.
These gangsters are either too stupid themselves, or think that we are stupid.
On second thought, it is us that they think are the stupid ones. At that same fund raiser on Saturday, President Obama suggested Democrats are having difficulties in midterm campaigning because Americans simply aren't thinking clearly. Seeking to explain his party's troubles, the president focused not on controversial legislation like national health care and the stimulus but on evolutionary psychology. "Part of the reason that our politics seems so tough right now, and facts and science and argument do not seem to be winning the day all the time, is because we're hard-wired not to always think clearly when we're scared," Obama told the assembled Democrats, who paid $15,200 a person to attend. "And the country is scared."
To "break through the fear and the frustration that people are feeling right now," Obama told the crowd, will require high-end donors not just to "write checks" but also to "lift up people's spirits and make sure that they're not reacting just to fear."
Got it? Obama, Biden, Pelosi, Kerry, and numerous other Democrats are right: we are too stupid to understand the benevolence of this government.
What condescending, elitist behavior! Remember this on November 2nd and get out the vote.
“The empire is striking back,” he said.
I assume, then, that the Massachusetts hospital, whose CEO used his house for Obama to raise $900,000 on Saturday, is not a special interest.
These gangsters are either too stupid themselves, or think that we are stupid.
On second thought, it is us that they think are the stupid ones. At that same fund raiser on Saturday, President Obama suggested Democrats are having difficulties in midterm campaigning because Americans simply aren't thinking clearly. Seeking to explain his party's troubles, the president focused not on controversial legislation like national health care and the stimulus but on evolutionary psychology. "Part of the reason that our politics seems so tough right now, and facts and science and argument do not seem to be winning the day all the time, is because we're hard-wired not to always think clearly when we're scared," Obama told the assembled Democrats, who paid $15,200 a person to attend. "And the country is scared."
To "break through the fear and the frustration that people are feeling right now," Obama told the crowd, will require high-end donors not just to "write checks" but also to "lift up people's spirits and make sure that they're not reacting just to fear."
Got it? Obama, Biden, Pelosi, Kerry, and numerous other Democrats are right: we are too stupid to understand the benevolence of this government.
What condescending, elitist behavior! Remember this on November 2nd and get out the vote.
Friday, October 15, 2010
A Tale Of Two States
I could easily have suggested replacing the title with : A Tale Of Two Ideologies - Conservatism vs. Progressive Liberalism. When you read the story, you will know why. This story is also a natural extension of an earlier study I mentioned in previous posts.
In Texas, the payroll count is back to pre-recession levels. California is nearly 1.5 million jobs in the hole. Why such a difference? Chalk it up to taxes, regulation and attitude.
The contrast between America's two largest states, in terms of both population and economic heft, is as stark as it has ever been. Texas is leading the country out of the recession; California is holding it back.
What country needs a state like that dragging it down?
Of course, what America really needs is not to be California-free, but to have something like the old California back — the economic dynamo that was the envy of the nation in the '50s and '60s. But to those who try to do business in the state now, those days seem impossibly distant.
California's business climate is notoriously bad. CEOs polled by the magazine Chief Executive have ranked it dead last for the past five years, with Texas, naturally, ranked first. To anyone seeking to start an enterprise and hire workers, moving to Texas is a lot less trouble than trying to change California's high taxes, overregulation and not-so-subtle bias against the profit motive.
A new study from the Texas Public Policy Foundation gives a good overview of why California lags so far behind and what it can learn from its Lone Star rival. The study was prepared by the econometrics firm of supply-side guru Arthur Laffer, so it's no surprise that Texas gets high marks for low taxes and, in particular, its lack of a personal income tax. The data behind these conclusions are hard to discount, no matter what your point of view.
California and other states with steeply progressive income taxes simply do not grow as fast as their tax-free competitors. The nine states with no income tax had nonfarm payroll growth of 11.76% from 1999 to 2009. Payrolls in the nine states with the highest top tax rates (a group that includes California) rose an anemic 2.48%.
The difference in tax systems reflects a difference in attitudes toward business and the wealth that business generates. Capital gains are tax-free in Texas; in California, they are taxed up to 10.55%. To an entrepreneur choosing where to set up shop, the message is clear: Texas wants to reward success; California wants to tax it.
California also has developed a web of regulations that raises labor costs, spurs litigation and ties up building projects indefinitely. Government at all levels squeezes businesses and property owners with fees and mandates.
Finally, at the basic, personal level, businesses in California feel what can only be described as a bad vibe. They get the sense that they're just not wanted.
As one of the CEOs in the Chief Executive survey put it: "California is terrible. Even when we've paid their high taxes in full, they still treat every conversation as adversarial. It's the most difficult state in the nation. We have actually walked away from business rather than deal with the government in Sacramento."
Just how pervasive is the state's anti-business attitude? Consider a recent story about how some governments in the San Francisco Bay Area — get this — are gouging the solar power business.
If California officialdom stands for anything, it stands for renewable energy, against Big Oil and for "green jobs." Yet an informal survey by the Sierra Club, reported this week in the San Jose Mercury News, found that some cities were charging sky-high fees for solar installations on schools, churches, retail stores and other buildings.
The city manager of Brisbane, a town that charges $13,510 for a permit to install a 131-kilowatt system, told the Mercury News that his city is "trying to promote the most solar that we can."
But lowering the fee would "be passing on savings to a commercial, for-profit developer, and that doesn't make a lot of sense to us."
That just about says it all — we're all for solar, but we can't have people making money off it, now can we? As long as California officials can say something like that with a straight face, the state faces a very long slog back to prosperity.
Conclusions are clear. Lower taxed, less regulated red states (or global economies) beat their progressive counterparts hands down in economic well being. Now, how sad is it that progressives do not accept this fact, even when confronted with empirical data.
In Texas, the payroll count is back to pre-recession levels. California is nearly 1.5 million jobs in the hole. Why such a difference? Chalk it up to taxes, regulation and attitude.
The contrast between America's two largest states, in terms of both population and economic heft, is as stark as it has ever been. Texas is leading the country out of the recession; California is holding it back.
By August, the job count in Texas had rebounded to where it was when the recession officially began in December 2007. California's payroll was still 1.46 million below the pre-recession level. The nation as a whole was down by 6.42 million jobs. In other words, California, with one-eighth the nation's population accounts for more than a fifth of its job deficit left over from the downturn.
Of course, what America really needs is not to be California-free, but to have something like the old California back — the economic dynamo that was the envy of the nation in the '50s and '60s. But to those who try to do business in the state now, those days seem impossibly distant.
California's business climate is notoriously bad. CEOs polled by the magazine Chief Executive have ranked it dead last for the past five years, with Texas, naturally, ranked first. To anyone seeking to start an enterprise and hire workers, moving to Texas is a lot less trouble than trying to change California's high taxes, overregulation and not-so-subtle bias against the profit motive.
A new study from the Texas Public Policy Foundation gives a good overview of why California lags so far behind and what it can learn from its Lone Star rival. The study was prepared by the econometrics firm of supply-side guru Arthur Laffer, so it's no surprise that Texas gets high marks for low taxes and, in particular, its lack of a personal income tax. The data behind these conclusions are hard to discount, no matter what your point of view.
The difference in tax systems reflects a difference in attitudes toward business and the wealth that business generates. Capital gains are tax-free in Texas; in California, they are taxed up to 10.55%. To an entrepreneur choosing where to set up shop, the message is clear: Texas wants to reward success; California wants to tax it.
California also has developed a web of regulations that raises labor costs, spurs litigation and ties up building projects indefinitely. Government at all levels squeezes businesses and property owners with fees and mandates.
Finally, at the basic, personal level, businesses in California feel what can only be described as a bad vibe. They get the sense that they're just not wanted.
As one of the CEOs in the Chief Executive survey put it: "California is terrible. Even when we've paid their high taxes in full, they still treat every conversation as adversarial. It's the most difficult state in the nation. We have actually walked away from business rather than deal with the government in Sacramento."
Just how pervasive is the state's anti-business attitude? Consider a recent story about how some governments in the San Francisco Bay Area — get this — are gouging the solar power business.
If California officialdom stands for anything, it stands for renewable energy, against Big Oil and for "green jobs." Yet an informal survey by the Sierra Club, reported this week in the San Jose Mercury News, found that some cities were charging sky-high fees for solar installations on schools, churches, retail stores and other buildings.
The city manager of Brisbane, a town that charges $13,510 for a permit to install a 131-kilowatt system, told the Mercury News that his city is "trying to promote the most solar that we can."
But lowering the fee would "be passing on savings to a commercial, for-profit developer, and that doesn't make a lot of sense to us."
That just about says it all — we're all for solar, but we can't have people making money off it, now can we? As long as California officials can say something like that with a straight face, the state faces a very long slog back to prosperity.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)