By Cal Thomas · Thursday, September 16, 2010
In arguing against extending the Bush-era tax cuts for "the wealthy," President Obama claims the government can't afford to "borrow" the estimated $700 billion he says it will "cost government." What about the cost of tax increases for those earning the money? It's funny how the president doesn't mind borrowing money that has put us on a trajectory for a national debt exceeding $13 trillion.
The question ought not be why people making more than $250,000 a year ($125,000 if one is married and filing separately) should be allowed to keep more of the money they earn. The question is: why should people be required to surrender more of the money they earn to dysfunctional government, which misspends so much of it on unnecessary, outdated and failed programs?
If Republicans mistakenly allow themselves to again be suckered into the class warfare of the past, they will lose. If they shift the debate to how the federal government (and many state governments like California, Illinois and New York) have wasted money we entrusted to them, they can prevail.
Where you start determines where you finish. If the argument begins with how much of our money the government will allow us to keep, the successful and those who wish to be successful, lose. If the argument begins with how government has misspent our money and does not deserve any more until it gets its house in order, we all win. And let's not have any of this business about cutting spending and raising taxes at the same time, because that will only ensure that higher taxes will remain while spending will eventually increase.
After what appeared to be a trap set for him on "Face the Nation" last Sunday, during which House Republican Leader John Boehner said he would vote for a bill that allows taxes to be raised on those making more than $250,000 a year while preserving cuts for those making less, if that were his only option, Boehner engaged in damage control in an opinion column for Politico.
Boehner wrote: "Cut nonsecurity government spending for the next year to fiscal 2008 levels -- before all of the bailouts, government takeovers and stimulus spending sprees began" and "Enact a two-year freeze on all current tax rates to stop job-killing tax hikes on families and small businesses."
Prominent Democrats, including a growing number in Congress, agree. They include former Obama Budget Director Peter Orszag, who endorsed a two-year tax freeze in a Sept. 6 column for The New York Times.
Meanwhile, under the category of "I never thought I'd live long enough to see this," Cuba has announced it will lay off 500,000 government workers while simultaneously attempting to create hundreds of thousands of jobs in the private sector. Cuba has a private sector? This follows an interview in The Atlantic Monthly in which Fidel Castro was quoted as saying, "The Cuban model doesn't even work for us anymore." Castro subsequently claimed he was mistranslated, but his government's actions speak louder than his attempt to retract his reported comment.
Castro's apparent compromise with his ideologically pure communist ideology will surely disappoint the Hollywood elite and others who have visited Cuba and praised Castro, as well as Cuba's health care and schools (while ignoring those in prison, executions and other human rights violations). Imagine the rebuke to liberal ideology if the Cuban economy were to reverse itself and capitalism replaced socialism as the prevailing economic system.
Would such a challenge to the Obama administration's policy of "spreading the wealth around" force it to change course as well? Cuba, of course, has no wealth to spread around, but if it is serious and this is not a ploy for capital infusion to save its crumbling economy, things could quickly get interesting 90 miles off the Florida coast.
The coming election and the one in 2012 are about whether America should continue to move toward big government socialism, or back toward independence and self-reliance. Perhaps Fidel Castro has learned what we seem to have forgotten. Viva capitalist Cuba!
(c) 2010 TRIBUNE MEDIA SERVICES, INC.
Friday, September 17, 2010
Thursday, September 16, 2010
Democrats Betting On Short Memory of The Electorate
Democratic candidates are spending three times more advertising against the health reform law than they are in support of it.
Since the beginning of Congress’s August recess, Democratic candidates have poured $930,000 into ads deriding the health overhaul but just $300,000 in pro-reform spots, according to Evan Tracey at Kantar Media.
First, they pass the single most damaging piece of legislation in recent memory, and now campaign against it. Do they really think that the American public is that detached from what is going on in D.C.?
Since the beginning of Congress’s August recess, Democratic candidates have poured $930,000 into ads deriding the health overhaul but just $300,000 in pro-reform spots, according to Evan Tracey at Kantar Media.
First, they pass the single most damaging piece of legislation in recent memory, and now campaign against it. Do they really think that the American public is that detached from what is going on in D.C.?
Wednesday, September 15, 2010
Feinberg's Supposedly Non-existing Salary
Kenneth Feinberg, who seems to always have his hands on someone else's money, was the administration's "special master for compensation," meaning that he determined pay for the executives who ran companies that took taxpayers' bailout dollars.
When Feinberg took the job, the public understood that it was a pro bono position. The media repeatedly said that Feinberg would not be paid and the administration never disputed the reports.
The New York Times, for instance, said in June 2009 that the man who would "have an almost unprecedented discretion to set pay for some of the nation's top bankers and chief executives" was going to receive "no compensation for his work."
As it turns out, however, Feinberg, who demanded that Bank of America CEO Ken Lewis work without pay, made $120,830 a year on a job he left only just Friday. Documents confirming his salary were obtained by Judicial Watch, which had asked for them through the Freedom of Information Act.
Where is the transparency, Mr. President? As early as December of last year, even the media were catching on, the AP noting that "the government's actions when the public and press seek information are not yet matching up with the president's words."
The Feinberg affair is merely a patch of fog in a thick cloud bank that this White House has willingly seeded.
When Feinberg took the job, the public understood that it was a pro bono position. The media repeatedly said that Feinberg would not be paid and the administration never disputed the reports.
The New York Times, for instance, said in June 2009 that the man who would "have an almost unprecedented discretion to set pay for some of the nation's top bankers and chief executives" was going to receive "no compensation for his work."
As it turns out, however, Feinberg, who demanded that Bank of America CEO Ken Lewis work without pay, made $120,830 a year on a job he left only just Friday. Documents confirming his salary were obtained by Judicial Watch, which had asked for them through the Freedom of Information Act.
Where is the transparency, Mr. President? As early as December of last year, even the media were catching on, the AP noting that "the government's actions when the public and press seek information are not yet matching up with the president's words."
The Feinberg affair is merely a patch of fog in a thick cloud bank that this White House has willingly seeded.
The Democrats' Fannie Is Showing
Investor's Business Daily - Tuesday September 14, 2010
After the global financial crisis, no politician would dare chide another for too much "safety and soundness." But in 2004, 76 Democrats actually asked President Bush not to manage Fannie Mae responsibly.
There are smoking guns and then there are smoking bazookas. The June 28, 2004, letter from Rep. Barney Frank, D-Mass., House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., and dozens of other House Democrats to President Bush, posted by Moe Lane on Redstate.com last week, forever squashes Democratic claims about the mortgage crisis not being their fault.
"We urge you to reconsider your administration's criticisms of the housing-related government sponsored enterprises (the 'GSEs') and instead work with Congress to strengthen the mission and oversight of the GSEs," states the missive of nearly a page and a half, signed by a rogues' gallery of 76 House Democrats.
They include not only Frank, current chairman of the House Banking Committee; but Rep. Maxine Waters, D-Calif., now being probed for reportedly laundering TARP money in her husband's bank; and erstwhile House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Charles Rangel, D-N.Y., who is charged with more than a dozen counts of violating House rules and federal laws.
Almost comically, the letter states that the Democrats are unhappy the Bush administration is "emphasizing only safety and soundness," claiming that "an exclusive focus on safety and soundness is likely to come, in practice, at the expense of affordable housing."
And the Democratic representatives charged that "because Congress has not been willing to jeopardize the GSEs' mission, the administration has turned to attacking the GSEs publicly."
Such attacks could mean "negative opinions in the financial markets regarding the GSEs, raising their cost of financing."
It turned out, of course, that the negative opinions of Fannie Mae, and its evil twin Freddie Mac, in the financial markets were due to the GSEs taking a lead role in crippling the global economy.
The GSEs used the taxpayer-funded financial power of the federal government to give ultralow rate mortgages to millions of Americans with rotten credit ratings — which ended up poisoning the portfolios of investors around the world.
That Fannie and Freddie are disasters is, of course, today undeniable. Even Frank last month told Fox Business Network's Neil Cavuto regarding Fannie and Freddie, "I think they should be abolished."
In an election year in which voters are sick of governmental largesse and Uncle Sam's mismanagement of everything, and in which even Frank's "safe" seat in Taxachusetts is endangered, Frank doesn't dare say anything less.
Six years ago was another story: "Join us," Frank and the 75 other Democrats were demanding, "in advocating for more innovative loan products and programs for people who desire to buy manufactured housing, similar products to preserve as affordable and rehabilitate aging affordable housing, and more meaningful GSE affordable housing goals."
They insisted that President Bush "place a high priority on working with the GSEs to close as many loans as possible this year" and reiterated "that an exclusive emphasis on safety and soundness . .. is misplaced."
The 9.6% unemployment that Americans now suffer is directly connected to the many years of Democrats' demagoguery. They said that any attempt to rein in Fannie and Freddie was anti-poor and anti-minority — fiscal soundness be damned.
With the worst attributes of government entity and private business, Fannie Mae holds about $6 trillion in mortgages. These GSEs' reduced capital requirements and exemptions from state and local taxes let them eventually corner about half of the entire U.S. mortgage market.
President Bill Clinton added a "Trillion Dollar Commitment" to give 10 million poor Americans their own homes, and he intensified President Jimmy Carter's Community Reinvestment Act.
The cumulative result was that banks and other lenders were pressured to give mortgages to unqualified borrowers in the name of social and racial justice. Last year, the Obama administration raised Fannie and Freddie's $400 billion borrowing cap.
Every single politician who signed this letter is guilty of taking part in the gross financial mismanagement of this country. They betrayed the trust of those who elected them, and that trust should be rescinded this November.
After the global financial crisis, no politician would dare chide another for too much "safety and soundness." But in 2004, 76 Democrats actually asked President Bush not to manage Fannie Mae responsibly.
There are smoking guns and then there are smoking bazookas. The June 28, 2004, letter from Rep. Barney Frank, D-Mass., House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., and dozens of other House Democrats to President Bush, posted by Moe Lane on Redstate.com last week, forever squashes Democratic claims about the mortgage crisis not being their fault.
"We urge you to reconsider your administration's criticisms of the housing-related government sponsored enterprises (the 'GSEs') and instead work with Congress to strengthen the mission and oversight of the GSEs," states the missive of nearly a page and a half, signed by a rogues' gallery of 76 House Democrats.
They include not only Frank, current chairman of the House Banking Committee; but Rep. Maxine Waters, D-Calif., now being probed for reportedly laundering TARP money in her husband's bank; and erstwhile House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Charles Rangel, D-N.Y., who is charged with more than a dozen counts of violating House rules and federal laws.
Almost comically, the letter states that the Democrats are unhappy the Bush administration is "emphasizing only safety and soundness," claiming that "an exclusive focus on safety and soundness is likely to come, in practice, at the expense of affordable housing."
And the Democratic representatives charged that "because Congress has not been willing to jeopardize the GSEs' mission, the administration has turned to attacking the GSEs publicly."
Such attacks could mean "negative opinions in the financial markets regarding the GSEs, raising their cost of financing."
It turned out, of course, that the negative opinions of Fannie Mae, and its evil twin Freddie Mac, in the financial markets were due to the GSEs taking a lead role in crippling the global economy.
The GSEs used the taxpayer-funded financial power of the federal government to give ultralow rate mortgages to millions of Americans with rotten credit ratings — which ended up poisoning the portfolios of investors around the world.
That Fannie and Freddie are disasters is, of course, today undeniable. Even Frank last month told Fox Business Network's Neil Cavuto regarding Fannie and Freddie, "I think they should be abolished."
In an election year in which voters are sick of governmental largesse and Uncle Sam's mismanagement of everything, and in which even Frank's "safe" seat in Taxachusetts is endangered, Frank doesn't dare say anything less.
Six years ago was another story: "Join us," Frank and the 75 other Democrats were demanding, "in advocating for more innovative loan products and programs for people who desire to buy manufactured housing, similar products to preserve as affordable and rehabilitate aging affordable housing, and more meaningful GSE affordable housing goals."
They insisted that President Bush "place a high priority on working with the GSEs to close as many loans as possible this year" and reiterated "that an exclusive emphasis on safety and soundness . .. is misplaced."
The 9.6% unemployment that Americans now suffer is directly connected to the many years of Democrats' demagoguery. They said that any attempt to rein in Fannie and Freddie was anti-poor and anti-minority — fiscal soundness be damned.
With the worst attributes of government entity and private business, Fannie Mae holds about $6 trillion in mortgages. These GSEs' reduced capital requirements and exemptions from state and local taxes let them eventually corner about half of the entire U.S. mortgage market.
President Bill Clinton added a "Trillion Dollar Commitment" to give 10 million poor Americans their own homes, and he intensified President Jimmy Carter's Community Reinvestment Act.
The cumulative result was that banks and other lenders were pressured to give mortgages to unqualified borrowers in the name of social and racial justice. Last year, the Obama administration raised Fannie and Freddie's $400 billion borrowing cap.
Every single politician who signed this letter is guilty of taking part in the gross financial mismanagement of this country. They betrayed the trust of those who elected them, and that trust should be rescinded this November.
Gangster Government Stifles Criticism of Obamacare
By Michael Barone · Monday, September 13, 2010
"There will be zero tolerance for this type of misinformation and unjustified rate increases."
That sounds like a stern headmistress dressing down some sophomores who have been misbehaving. But it's actually from a letter sent Thursday from Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius to Karen Ignagni, president of America's Health Insurance Plans -- the chief lobbyist for private health insurance companies.
Sebelius objects to claims by health insurers that they are raising premiums because of increased costs imposed by the Obamacare law passed by Congress last March.
She acknowledges that many of the law's "key protections" take effect later this month and does not deny that these impose additional costs on insurers. But she says that "according to our analysis and those of some industry and academic experts, any potential premium impact ... will be minimal."
Well, that's reassuring. Er, except that if that's the conclusion of "some" industry and academic experts, it's presumably not the conclusion of all industry and academic experts, or the secretary would have said so.
Sebelius also argues that "any premium increases will be moderated by out-of-pocket savings resulting from the law." But she's pretty vague about the numbers -- "up to $1 billion in 2013." Anyone who watches TV ads knows that "up to" can mean zero.
As Time magazine's Karen Pickert points out, Sebelius ignores the fact that individual insurance plans cover different types of populations. So that government and "some" industry and academic experts think the new law will justify increases averaging 1 percent or 2 percent, they could justify much larger increases for certain plans.
Or as Ignagni, the recipient of the letter, says, "It's a basic law of economics that additional benefits incur additional costs."
But Sebelius has "zero tolerance" for that kind of thing. She promises to issue regulations to require "state or federal review of all potentially unreasonable rate increases" (which would presumably mean all rate increases).
And there's a threat. "We will also keep track of insurers with a record of unjustified rate increases: those plans may be excluded from health insurance Exchanges in 2014."
That's a significant date, the first year in which state insurance exchanges are slated to get a monopoly on the issuance of individual health insurance policies. Sebelius is threatening to put health insurers out of business in a substantial portion of the market if they state that Obamacare is boosting their costs.
"Congress shall make no law," reads the First Amendment, "abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press."
Sebelius' approach is different: "zero tolerance" for dissent.
The threat to use government regulation to destroy or harm someone's business because they disagree with government officials is thuggery. Like the Obama administration's transfer of money from Chrysler bondholders to its political allies in the United Auto Workers, it is a form of gangster government.
"The rule of law, or the rule of men (women)?" economist Tyler Cowen asks on his marginalrevolution.com blog. As he notes, "Nowhere is it stated that these rate hikes are against the law (even if you think they should be), nor can this 'misinformation' be against the law."
According to Politico, not a single Democratic candidate for Congress has run an ad since last April that makes any positive reference to Obamacare. The First Amendment gives candidates the right to talk -- or not talk -- about any issue they want.
But that is not enough for Sebelius and the Obama administration. They want to stamp out negative speech about Obamacare. "Zero tolerance" means they are ready to use the powers of government to threaten economic harm on those who dissent.
The closing paragraph of Sebelius's letter to AHIP's Karen Ignagni gives the game away. "We worked hard to change the system to help consumers." This is a reminder that the administration alternatively collaborated with and criticized Ignagni's organization. We roughed you up a little, but we eventually made a deal.
The secretary goes on: "It is my hope we can work together to stop misinformation and misleading marketing from the start." In other words, shut your members up and play team ball -- or my guys with the baseball bats and Tommy guns are going to get busy. As Cowen puts it, "worse than I had been expecting."
COPYRIGHT 2010 THE WASHINGTON EXAMINER
DISTRIBUTED BY CREATORS.COM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"There will be zero tolerance for this type of misinformation and unjustified rate increases."
That sounds like a stern headmistress dressing down some sophomores who have been misbehaving. But it's actually from a letter sent Thursday from Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius to Karen Ignagni, president of America's Health Insurance Plans -- the chief lobbyist for private health insurance companies.
Sebelius objects to claims by health insurers that they are raising premiums because of increased costs imposed by the Obamacare law passed by Congress last March.
She acknowledges that many of the law's "key protections" take effect later this month and does not deny that these impose additional costs on insurers. But she says that "according to our analysis and those of some industry and academic experts, any potential premium impact ... will be minimal."
Well, that's reassuring. Er, except that if that's the conclusion of "some" industry and academic experts, it's presumably not the conclusion of all industry and academic experts, or the secretary would have said so.
Sebelius also argues that "any premium increases will be moderated by out-of-pocket savings resulting from the law." But she's pretty vague about the numbers -- "up to $1 billion in 2013." Anyone who watches TV ads knows that "up to" can mean zero.
As Time magazine's Karen Pickert points out, Sebelius ignores the fact that individual insurance plans cover different types of populations. So that government and "some" industry and academic experts think the new law will justify increases averaging 1 percent or 2 percent, they could justify much larger increases for certain plans.
Or as Ignagni, the recipient of the letter, says, "It's a basic law of economics that additional benefits incur additional costs."
But Sebelius has "zero tolerance" for that kind of thing. She promises to issue regulations to require "state or federal review of all potentially unreasonable rate increases" (which would presumably mean all rate increases).
And there's a threat. "We will also keep track of insurers with a record of unjustified rate increases: those plans may be excluded from health insurance Exchanges in 2014."
That's a significant date, the first year in which state insurance exchanges are slated to get a monopoly on the issuance of individual health insurance policies. Sebelius is threatening to put health insurers out of business in a substantial portion of the market if they state that Obamacare is boosting their costs.
"Congress shall make no law," reads the First Amendment, "abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press."
Sebelius' approach is different: "zero tolerance" for dissent.
The threat to use government regulation to destroy or harm someone's business because they disagree with government officials is thuggery. Like the Obama administration's transfer of money from Chrysler bondholders to its political allies in the United Auto Workers, it is a form of gangster government.
"The rule of law, or the rule of men (women)?" economist Tyler Cowen asks on his marginalrevolution.com blog. As he notes, "Nowhere is it stated that these rate hikes are against the law (even if you think they should be), nor can this 'misinformation' be against the law."
According to Politico, not a single Democratic candidate for Congress has run an ad since last April that makes any positive reference to Obamacare. The First Amendment gives candidates the right to talk -- or not talk -- about any issue they want.
But that is not enough for Sebelius and the Obama administration. They want to stamp out negative speech about Obamacare. "Zero tolerance" means they are ready to use the powers of government to threaten economic harm on those who dissent.
The closing paragraph of Sebelius's letter to AHIP's Karen Ignagni gives the game away. "We worked hard to change the system to help consumers." This is a reminder that the administration alternatively collaborated with and criticized Ignagni's organization. We roughed you up a little, but we eventually made a deal.
The secretary goes on: "It is my hope we can work together to stop misinformation and misleading marketing from the start." In other words, shut your members up and play team ball -- or my guys with the baseball bats and Tommy guns are going to get busy. As Cowen puts it, "worse than I had been expecting."
COPYRIGHT 2010 THE WASHINGTON EXAMINER
DISTRIBUTED BY CREATORS.COM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Castro's Self Correction
In a previous post, I pointed out Fidel's own words that the Cuban model just does not work, not even for Cuba.
Now that the reality of what he said has set in, Fidel says that he was misunderstood. In his correction, he said "My idea, as the whole world knows, is that the capitalist system now doesn't work either for the United States or the world, driving it from crisis to crisis, which are each time more serious.''
I guess it is better to be permanently depressed than having ups and downs in the economy.
I still think that he would make a nice addition to the Obama Administration. Afterall, rats are abandoning the sinking ship and Obama needs replacements.
Now that the reality of what he said has set in, Fidel says that he was misunderstood. In his correction, he said "My idea, as the whole world knows, is that the capitalist system now doesn't work either for the United States or the world, driving it from crisis to crisis, which are each time more serious.''
I guess it is better to be permanently depressed than having ups and downs in the economy.
I still think that he would make a nice addition to the Obama Administration. Afterall, rats are abandoning the sinking ship and Obama needs replacements.
Saturday, September 11, 2010
With Savings Like These, Who Needs Waste?
From the beginning, Democrats claimed stubbornly that Obamacare (the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act) would reduce medical costs. The originally estimated $1 trillion program, which private analysts estimated would cost as much as $3 trillion, has been morphing into the kind of fiscal nightmare we have come to expect from federal programs like Medicaid and Social Security.
Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services said yesterday that, under ObamaCare, medical care costs will eat up nearly 20% of the economy by 2019. That's a significant jump from the 16% of GDP that health care costs today. More importantly, this is just the undoubtedly rosy projection of CMMS that will end up being just another wishful thinking like the original cost estimates of nearly every big government initiative that have ended up costing 500-1000% more than originally thought.
Kathleen Sebelius, secretary of Health and Human Services, and the official in charge of implementing ObamaCare, repeated the party line. She talked about stabilizing "out-of-control health care costs" and bragged that the Democrats' bill has "the broadest package of health care cost-cutting measures in American history."
The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services isn't the first federal agency to contradict the Democrats' promises. In May, the Congressional Budget Office said ObamaCare would cost $115 billion more than the original estimates.
Two months earlier, just before the vote, Medicare's Office of the Actuary produced an analysis that said the bill would actually force costs higher. Sebelius sat on it. As scandalous as this was (since the bill barely passed by one vote and proper disclosure would have sunk it), hardly anyone in the main stream media opened their mouth.
Nor are the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services likely to be the last federal agency to show that the claims were — and still are — nonsense. ObamaCare is subject to the same law that has plagued all government programs: Projected costs are never checked, and actual costs always end up higher.
Big health reforms in Maine, Massachusetts and Tennessee have all exceeded estimates, with the Tennessee project having been effectively shut down.
At the federal level, Medicare has cost more than 10 times as much as its architects thought it would while Medicaid spending leads the league in overruns. When a special hospitals subsidy was added to the program for the poor in 1987, the thought was it would cost $100 million a year. Yet the real cost in 1992 was $11 billion a year, and it's more like $17 billion today.
What else would you expect from a piece of legislation that subsidizes irresponsible use of medical services while creating over 130 new federal offices, many of which have nothing to do with the delivery of services but rather take on issues like minorities rights. No, the real goal has been clear since the beginning: a single payer system that facilitates the socialization of American economy.
---------------------------------------------
On a related note, Secretary Sebelius, adopting language and tactics more typical of tyrants, yesterday sent a public letter to the head of a health insurance industry group demanding that carriers stop "falsely blaming premium increases for 2011 on the patient protections in the Affordable Care Act," and that "that there will be zero tolerance for this type of misinformation and unjustified rate increases."
She reinforced her short-term threat with a longer-term one:
We will also keep track of insurers with a record of unjustified rate increases: those plans may be excluded from health insurance Exchanges in 2014. Simply stated, we will not stand idly by as insurers blame their premium hikes and increased profits on the requirement that they provide consumers with basic protections.
When Sebelius threatens exclusion from the "Exchanges," she is really saying: "Shut up and eat your costs, or you'll be out of business in a few years."
Keep in mind that three months ago (noted at NewsBusters), leaked government documents estimated that, depending on the assumption sets used, anywhere from 49%-80% of small employer health plans and 34%-64% of large employer plans would be forced financially or otherwise to "relinquish" their "grandfathered" status by 2013. This necessarily means that the market for private plans will decrease, while the market for those who would be forced to buy coverage through the "Exchanges" will necessarily expand.
What a bunch of swell guys and gals! When do the SEIU thugs show up to crack some heads at insurance companies? No disrespect to mafia intended.
Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services said yesterday that, under ObamaCare, medical care costs will eat up nearly 20% of the economy by 2019. That's a significant jump from the 16% of GDP that health care costs today. More importantly, this is just the undoubtedly rosy projection of CMMS that will end up being just another wishful thinking like the original cost estimates of nearly every big government initiative that have ended up costing 500-1000% more than originally thought.
Kathleen Sebelius, secretary of Health and Human Services, and the official in charge of implementing ObamaCare, repeated the party line. She talked about stabilizing "out-of-control health care costs" and bragged that the Democrats' bill has "the broadest package of health care cost-cutting measures in American history."
The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services isn't the first federal agency to contradict the Democrats' promises. In May, the Congressional Budget Office said ObamaCare would cost $115 billion more than the original estimates.
Two months earlier, just before the vote, Medicare's Office of the Actuary produced an analysis that said the bill would actually force costs higher. Sebelius sat on it. As scandalous as this was (since the bill barely passed by one vote and proper disclosure would have sunk it), hardly anyone in the main stream media opened their mouth.
Nor are the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services likely to be the last federal agency to show that the claims were — and still are — nonsense. ObamaCare is subject to the same law that has plagued all government programs: Projected costs are never checked, and actual costs always end up higher.
Big health reforms in Maine, Massachusetts and Tennessee have all exceeded estimates, with the Tennessee project having been effectively shut down.
At the federal level, Medicare has cost more than 10 times as much as its architects thought it would while Medicaid spending leads the league in overruns. When a special hospitals subsidy was added to the program for the poor in 1987, the thought was it would cost $100 million a year. Yet the real cost in 1992 was $11 billion a year, and it's more like $17 billion today.
What else would you expect from a piece of legislation that subsidizes irresponsible use of medical services while creating over 130 new federal offices, many of which have nothing to do with the delivery of services but rather take on issues like minorities rights. No, the real goal has been clear since the beginning: a single payer system that facilitates the socialization of American economy.
---------------------------------------------
On a related note, Secretary Sebelius, adopting language and tactics more typical of tyrants, yesterday sent a public letter to the head of a health insurance industry group demanding that carriers stop "falsely blaming premium increases for 2011 on the patient protections in the Affordable Care Act," and that "that there will be zero tolerance for this type of misinformation and unjustified rate increases."
She reinforced her short-term threat with a longer-term one:
We will also keep track of insurers with a record of unjustified rate increases: those plans may be excluded from health insurance Exchanges in 2014. Simply stated, we will not stand idly by as insurers blame their premium hikes and increased profits on the requirement that they provide consumers with basic protections.
When Sebelius threatens exclusion from the "Exchanges," she is really saying: "Shut up and eat your costs, or you'll be out of business in a few years."
Keep in mind that three months ago (noted at NewsBusters), leaked government documents estimated that, depending on the assumption sets used, anywhere from 49%-80% of small employer health plans and 34%-64% of large employer plans would be forced financially or otherwise to "relinquish" their "grandfathered" status by 2013. This necessarily means that the market for private plans will decrease, while the market for those who would be forced to buy coverage through the "Exchanges" will necessarily expand.
What a bunch of swell guys and gals! When do the SEIU thugs show up to crack some heads at insurance companies? No disrespect to mafia intended.
Friday, September 10, 2010
Latest Green Agenda Move
Apparently we suffer from too little government, not enough planning, and a few “Sustainability” offices are needed to more gently minister to how you and your families lead your lives and can better do so to meet the state’s desires.
But, do not fear! If scandal ridden Senator Dodd has his way, Livable Communities Act (SB 1619) will no doubt improve the quality of our lives greatly (sarcasm intended).
As Christopher Horner pointed out in his book "Power Grab: How Obama’s Green Policies Will Steal Your Freedom and Bankrupt America":
"Team Obama’s efforts to “fundamentally transform” the United States of America” were immediate, widespread, and sweeping. The National Journal featured a debate about “livability” after someone there noticed that “the Obama administration and leading congressional Democrats appear to be making the creation of ‘livable communities’…a central transportation policy goal.” However, the “livability” and “happiness” indexes fetishized by the Left are code for coerced inconvenience, discomfort, or merely sameness, trading off individuals’ liberties to remove distinctions brought about by unfair quirks such as differences in ingenuity or hard work. But our superiors know that these differences are really only the product of a world in which the successful have won life’s lottery, so the spoils need to be spread around a bit.
Livability and the like serve as the rationale for all manner of intrusions. Innovation Newsbriefs in October 2009 noted that it was “the Administration’s intent to increase the federal role in shaping local development patterns and influencing travel behavior. ‘Smart growth’ planning and shifting more automobile travel to public transportation have been long-standing goals of progressive planners and assorted anti-sprawl activists, but these goals may now become a matter of federal policy under the Administration’s ‘livability’ initiative.”
Secretary of Transportation Ray LaHood did Obama no favors by candidly defending against inquiries about this, stressing that it’s no big deal. In fact, he pointed out, “about everything we do around here is government intrusion in peoples’ lives.” (House Majority Whip James Clyburn helpfully added soon thereafter, “There’s nothing in the Constitution that says that the federal government has anything to do with most of the stuff we do.” (What a team.) (citations omitted)"
This is nothing but just the latest move to enforce the UN’s “Agenda 21″
I am confident, on the other hand, that the defeat Democrats are about to suffer in two months will put an end to this folly.
But, do not fear! If scandal ridden Senator Dodd has his way, Livable Communities Act (SB 1619) will no doubt improve the quality of our lives greatly (sarcasm intended).
As Christopher Horner pointed out in his book "Power Grab: How Obama’s Green Policies Will Steal Your Freedom and Bankrupt America":
"Team Obama’s efforts to “fundamentally transform” the United States of America” were immediate, widespread, and sweeping. The National Journal featured a debate about “livability” after someone there noticed that “the Obama administration and leading congressional Democrats appear to be making the creation of ‘livable communities’…a central transportation policy goal.” However, the “livability” and “happiness” indexes fetishized by the Left are code for coerced inconvenience, discomfort, or merely sameness, trading off individuals’ liberties to remove distinctions brought about by unfair quirks such as differences in ingenuity or hard work. But our superiors know that these differences are really only the product of a world in which the successful have won life’s lottery, so the spoils need to be spread around a bit.
Livability and the like serve as the rationale for all manner of intrusions. Innovation Newsbriefs in October 2009 noted that it was “the Administration’s intent to increase the federal role in shaping local development patterns and influencing travel behavior. ‘Smart growth’ planning and shifting more automobile travel to public transportation have been long-standing goals of progressive planners and assorted anti-sprawl activists, but these goals may now become a matter of federal policy under the Administration’s ‘livability’ initiative.”
Secretary of Transportation Ray LaHood did Obama no favors by candidly defending against inquiries about this, stressing that it’s no big deal. In fact, he pointed out, “about everything we do around here is government intrusion in peoples’ lives.” (House Majority Whip James Clyburn helpfully added soon thereafter, “There’s nothing in the Constitution that says that the federal government has anything to do with most of the stuff we do.” (What a team.) (citations omitted)"
This is nothing but just the latest move to enforce the UN’s “Agenda 21″
I am confident, on the other hand, that the defeat Democrats are about to suffer in two months will put an end to this folly.
Newsflash For Progressives
Fidel Castro says Cuban model doesn't work.
Even the old dog woke up before western progressives.
But, don't get your hopes up. In a typically dysfunctional, illogical thinking process that is the hallmark of socialists (in other words progressives who are at least intellectually honest), he added he has no desire to depart from Cuba's socialist system or embrace capitalism.
Fidel should get a job in the Obama Administration. It would be an improvement.
Even the old dog woke up before western progressives.
But, don't get your hopes up. In a typically dysfunctional, illogical thinking process that is the hallmark of socialists (in other words progressives who are at least intellectually honest), he added he has no desire to depart from Cuba's socialist system or embrace capitalism.
Fidel should get a job in the Obama Administration. It would be an improvement.
Measure Of Obama's Unpopularity
Apparently, the messiah could not fill a small recreation center in Cleveland, so they had to recruit some students at the last moment to make the photos look respectable.
I am thinking that even the 43% popularity in the polls is overblown! Hallelujah. Welcome back to reality America!
I am thinking that even the 43% popularity in the polls is overblown! Hallelujah. Welcome back to reality America!
When The Canary Changes Its Tune
Now that the November elections are around the corner, all those Democrats who voted for the healthcare reform bill are back-pedalling as fast as they can. Not a day goes by that there isn't another story of a Democrat somewhere who is distancing him/her self from the unpopular disaster shoved down our throats by special interest and downright socialists in disguise.
Senator Baucus, the chief architect of Obamacare, went so far as to admit that he did not read his own $1 trillion piece of work that no Democrat is willing to defend despite their vote a short 8 months ago.
It is clear that the relentless drive to reform the health care system was a cynical political push for a win at all costs. We were told what we wanted to hear and there was no attention paid to the consequences. Every single card was played – from the class card to the race card, and getting us to fight among ourselves achieved the goal of distraction. Now that the smoke has cleared it is pretty obvious that in the name of expanding healthcare to approximately 30 million more people, we have sacrificed what is best about our healthcare system – individualized patient care, the doctor patient relationship, and the drive towards innovation. However, the costs have not changed.
Let’s look at the facts:
Those on Medicare were told that they would see no change in their benefits and would be able to keep their physician. In fact, 11 million senior citizens will see premiums go up because of cost cutting including the removal of Medicare advantage. Furthermore, since there has been a decline in the number of physicians who currently are accepting new Medicare patients or who take Medicare at all, it is likely that seniors will not be able to keep their doctor and will pay more for less.
The nomination of Donald Berwick to head CMS means a philosophical shift of our healthcare system to the British model of medicine that puts a premium on cost and not the needs of the individual. An example of this is the decision by the FDA remove Avastin from the medication available to treat advanced cancer because it is deemed that the good of extension of life is outweighed by the cost of the medication. Medicare has already stopped covering the use for Avastin to treat ovarian cancer in Colorado.
Welcome to the world of one size fits all medicine where the patient will become a cost center and treatment will be geared towards cost containment while the potential for profits to be made on the backs of patients and doctors for the medical insurance industry, the hospitals and Big pharma are limitless.
Our only hope is that American voters will hold these Democrats accountable this November.
Senator Baucus, the chief architect of Obamacare, went so far as to admit that he did not read his own $1 trillion piece of work that no Democrat is willing to defend despite their vote a short 8 months ago.
It is clear that the relentless drive to reform the health care system was a cynical political push for a win at all costs. We were told what we wanted to hear and there was no attention paid to the consequences. Every single card was played – from the class card to the race card, and getting us to fight among ourselves achieved the goal of distraction. Now that the smoke has cleared it is pretty obvious that in the name of expanding healthcare to approximately 30 million more people, we have sacrificed what is best about our healthcare system – individualized patient care, the doctor patient relationship, and the drive towards innovation. However, the costs have not changed.
Let’s look at the facts:
Those on Medicare were told that they would see no change in their benefits and would be able to keep their physician. In fact, 11 million senior citizens will see premiums go up because of cost cutting including the removal of Medicare advantage. Furthermore, since there has been a decline in the number of physicians who currently are accepting new Medicare patients or who take Medicare at all, it is likely that seniors will not be able to keep their doctor and will pay more for less.
The nomination of Donald Berwick to head CMS means a philosophical shift of our healthcare system to the British model of medicine that puts a premium on cost and not the needs of the individual. An example of this is the decision by the FDA remove Avastin from the medication available to treat advanced cancer because it is deemed that the good of extension of life is outweighed by the cost of the medication. Medicare has already stopped covering the use for Avastin to treat ovarian cancer in Colorado.
Welcome to the world of one size fits all medicine where the patient will become a cost center and treatment will be geared towards cost containment while the potential for profits to be made on the backs of patients and doctors for the medical insurance industry, the hospitals and Big pharma are limitless.
Our only hope is that American voters will hold these Democrats accountable this November.
Political Ramifications Of Bush Tax Cuts
Little did G.W. Bush realized that the temporary tax cuts he pushed for in 2001 and 2003 would become the final undoing of Democrat prospects in 2010 elections.
With unemployment rate still at its recession high (though we are told time after time that the recession is techically over) and projected to top out at 10.1% in the coming months, Democrats of all stripes are running for the hills as they should. It must be a terrifying prospect to face constituents during an election year when you have voted for over $2 trillion dollars in highly unpopular spending bills like the Stimulus and Obamacare - especially when one has exacerbated the economic woes exponentially and the other sown the seeds of a single payer (Britain like) healthcare system that will eventually destroy the best healthcare delivery system in the world unless somehow undone.
The voters are beyond angry as witnessed by the 10+% advantage the Republicans enjoy in the congressional generic ballot - yes the same RINO Republicans (in most cases) who have betrayed their party's principles and paid for it in 2006 elections. As further evidence of bad news, polls clearly and consistently show that president and his policies are nothing but a liabilty for any Democrat candidate regardless of their tenure in Congress.
The latest progressive politicians that have publically asked for all of Bush tax cuts to be extended include Senators Nelson, Bayh, Conrad, and Lieberman (I) as well as over 4 dozen House of representatives members who come from red states and almost all Democrat challengers to Republican held seats. Those conveying the inappropriateness of letting any of the tax cuts expire in the precarious situation that the U.S. economy is in includes the recently resigned Obama OMB director Peter Orszag and former Obama Council of Economic Advisors Chairperson Christina Romer (though political Romer differs in her views than the economist, which is no surprise for anyone who knows the intellectual dishonesty of progressives).
That leaves only the hardened leftists like the president and long discredited economist Paul Krugman among a relatively few awoved socialist politicians and academicians who believe that the Bush tax cuts for the richest (those making over $250,000) should be eliminated. Now, it is hard for a thinking person, who knows that most of those 'rich' are really small businesses who file under personal income tax schedule, to understand how anyone could not see the contractionary effect of raising taxes on the producers/job creators of the society, but don't lose sight of the fact that ideologically driven motivations of the President and his ilk defy all common sense.
Thus, I view the political ramifications of Bush cuts among the few that has benefitted the conservative/libertarian cause.
With unemployment rate still at its recession high (though we are told time after time that the recession is techically over) and projected to top out at 10.1% in the coming months, Democrats of all stripes are running for the hills as they should. It must be a terrifying prospect to face constituents during an election year when you have voted for over $2 trillion dollars in highly unpopular spending bills like the Stimulus and Obamacare - especially when one has exacerbated the economic woes exponentially and the other sown the seeds of a single payer (Britain like) healthcare system that will eventually destroy the best healthcare delivery system in the world unless somehow undone.
The voters are beyond angry as witnessed by the 10+% advantage the Republicans enjoy in the congressional generic ballot - yes the same RINO Republicans (in most cases) who have betrayed their party's principles and paid for it in 2006 elections. As further evidence of bad news, polls clearly and consistently show that president and his policies are nothing but a liabilty for any Democrat candidate regardless of their tenure in Congress.
The latest progressive politicians that have publically asked for all of Bush tax cuts to be extended include Senators Nelson, Bayh, Conrad, and Lieberman (I) as well as over 4 dozen House of representatives members who come from red states and almost all Democrat challengers to Republican held seats. Those conveying the inappropriateness of letting any of the tax cuts expire in the precarious situation that the U.S. economy is in includes the recently resigned Obama OMB director Peter Orszag and former Obama Council of Economic Advisors Chairperson Christina Romer (though political Romer differs in her views than the economist, which is no surprise for anyone who knows the intellectual dishonesty of progressives).
That leaves only the hardened leftists like the president and long discredited economist Paul Krugman among a relatively few awoved socialist politicians and academicians who believe that the Bush tax cuts for the richest (those making over $250,000) should be eliminated. Now, it is hard for a thinking person, who knows that most of those 'rich' are really small businesses who file under personal income tax schedule, to understand how anyone could not see the contractionary effect of raising taxes on the producers/job creators of the society, but don't lose sight of the fact that ideologically driven motivations of the President and his ilk defy all common sense.
Thus, I view the political ramifications of Bush cuts among the few that has benefitted the conservative/libertarian cause.
Thursday, September 9, 2010
Insanity Or Something Worse?
Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result. -- Albert Einstein
----------
President Obama signed an Executive Order on August 30th authorizing additional financial sanctions on North Korea in an effort to stop the Koreans from building nuclear weapons. He then hosted a dinner at the White House on September 2nd for Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel and Mahmoud Abbas, President of the Palestinian National Authority, as part of his efforts to bring about a peace agreement between the Israelis and the Palestinians. Yesterday he called for a new 50 Billion Dollar infrastructure/stimulus plan to jumpstart the United States economy and restore America to financial health.
The sanctions have about as much chance of curbing North Korea's nuclear ambitions as previous ones had, e.g. none, meetings between Netanyahu and Abbas in Washington or anywhere else won't bring about peace in the Middle East any more than meetings between Rabin and Arafat did and the new stimulus package will fail just like it's predecessor. You would have thought he would have figured these things out by now.
Is Obama insane, or just a glib, ideologically driven megalomamaniac who is unfit for office? Einstein probably would have thought him insane. I am not so sure.
----------
President Obama signed an Executive Order on August 30th authorizing additional financial sanctions on North Korea in an effort to stop the Koreans from building nuclear weapons. He then hosted a dinner at the White House on September 2nd for Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel and Mahmoud Abbas, President of the Palestinian National Authority, as part of his efforts to bring about a peace agreement between the Israelis and the Palestinians. Yesterday he called for a new 50 Billion Dollar infrastructure/stimulus plan to jumpstart the United States economy and restore America to financial health.
The sanctions have about as much chance of curbing North Korea's nuclear ambitions as previous ones had, e.g. none, meetings between Netanyahu and Abbas in Washington or anywhere else won't bring about peace in the Middle East any more than meetings between Rabin and Arafat did and the new stimulus package will fail just like it's predecessor. You would have thought he would have figured these things out by now.
Is Obama insane, or just a glib, ideologically driven megalomamaniac who is unfit for office? Einstein probably would have thought him insane. I am not so sure.
Latest Outrage On Obama's War On Arizona
This bunch just does not learn, do they? As if it was not bad enough for the Obama Administration to sue Arizona over a piece of state legislation that not only mirrors federal law, but no serious legal mind has asserted to be discriminatory in any way (and not to mention, to this date, no one is sure if anyone in the Justice Department has bothered to read!), they seem intent on continuing to self destruct with their un-popular agenda.
The Obama administration has included the Arizona state immigration law in a report of human rights abuses to the United Nations, that collective negation of humanity and home to the worst human rights abusers in the world.
Arizona Governor Jan Brewer struck back Friday, demanding that the reference to Arizona's immigration law be taken out of the State Department's report to the U.N.'s human rights commissioner. Brewer wrote a letter to Hillary Clinton saying that the inclusion of Arizona in the U.N. report was "downright offensive." Brewer said -- and she was right -- that "the idea of our own American government submitting the duly enacted laws of a state of the United States to 'review' by the United Nations is internationalism run amok and unconstitutional."
Legal expert M. Edward Whelan III, who is the president of the Ethics and Public Policy Center and the former general counsel to the U.S. Senate Committee on the Judiciary, explains that transnationalists like Obama and many of his appointees "aim in particular to use American courts to import international law to override the policies adopted through the processes of representative government." "What transnationalism, at bottom, is all about," he explains, "is depriving American citizens of their powers of representative government by selectively imposing on them the favored policies of Europe's leftist elites."
Surprised? I am not at the least bit and you should not be either if you took notice of Obama's numerous internationalist socialist associations throughout his adolescent and adult life. And even as recently as nine months before he was elected president, he sponsored a bill in the Senate that would compromise American sovereignty: the Global Poverty Act.
Internationally, Obama is enabling Iran's Islamic bomb while abandoning its reform minded citizens, is inveterately hostile to Israel, and generally appears intent on turning America's historical enemies into friends and friends into enemies.
With a consistency that can come only from deeply held conviction, Barack Hussein Obama is damaging the office of the presidency and compromising American sovereignty.
First, Barack Obama attacked America by suing Arizona for passing a law that merely reflected federal immigration law. And now this. No wonder his approval rating is in the low 40%s and his party is well on its way to a humiliating defeat in November!
The Obama administration has included the Arizona state immigration law in a report of human rights abuses to the United Nations, that collective negation of humanity and home to the worst human rights abusers in the world.
Arizona Governor Jan Brewer struck back Friday, demanding that the reference to Arizona's immigration law be taken out of the State Department's report to the U.N.'s human rights commissioner. Brewer wrote a letter to Hillary Clinton saying that the inclusion of Arizona in the U.N. report was "downright offensive." Brewer said -- and she was right -- that "the idea of our own American government submitting the duly enacted laws of a state of the United States to 'review' by the United Nations is internationalism run amok and unconstitutional."
Legal expert M. Edward Whelan III, who is the president of the Ethics and Public Policy Center and the former general counsel to the U.S. Senate Committee on the Judiciary, explains that transnationalists like Obama and many of his appointees "aim in particular to use American courts to import international law to override the policies adopted through the processes of representative government." "What transnationalism, at bottom, is all about," he explains, "is depriving American citizens of their powers of representative government by selectively imposing on them the favored policies of Europe's leftist elites."
Surprised? I am not at the least bit and you should not be either if you took notice of Obama's numerous internationalist socialist associations throughout his adolescent and adult life. And even as recently as nine months before he was elected president, he sponsored a bill in the Senate that would compromise American sovereignty: the Global Poverty Act.
Internationally, Obama is enabling Iran's Islamic bomb while abandoning its reform minded citizens, is inveterately hostile to Israel, and generally appears intent on turning America's historical enemies into friends and friends into enemies.
With a consistency that can come only from deeply held conviction, Barack Hussein Obama is damaging the office of the presidency and compromising American sovereignty.
First, Barack Obama attacked America by suing Arizona for passing a law that merely reflected federal immigration law. And now this. No wonder his approval rating is in the low 40%s and his party is well on its way to a humiliating defeat in November!
Thursday, August 5, 2010
Harley Davidson - The Latest Lesson Left Will Ignore
Harley-Davidson warned employees in April that it will move its Wisconsin manufacturing operations elsewhere if it cannot cut millions of dollars at the factories that build the bikes known as "Milwaukee Iron."
Company spokesman Bob Klein said Harley wants to remain faithful, but its production schedule needs to be more closely aligned with seasonal demand, a change that would require approval from labor unions.
Negotiations with the unions began in late July. The president of Harley's largest union did not return multiple messages seeking comment.
Harley, which is the lone remaining Milwaukee based major employer not only employs 1,630, but is a major tourist attraction (Milwaukee Bureau of Tourism estimates last year over 100,000 tourists visited the city for the specific purpose of visiting the plant and the museum). The city that was a major brewery center lost that distinction with the departures of Schlitz in the 1980s and Miller in 2008.
In other words, Milwaukee is just another example of dying cities located in labor friendly states. It is no surprise that the Tax Foundation ranks Wisconsin one of the 10 least business friendly states where businesses like Harley are fleeing from.
A year ago, urban scholar Joel Kotkin pointed out some of the policies that has resulted in traditionally blue states losing businesses as well as population in many cases. Is it any wonder that federal government's policies have done nothing to ease the unemployment situation when you consider that over 90% of the administration officials come from these same failing blue states (and the rest are mainly progressives from red states), or that this is the administration with the least recent private sector experience in its ranks?
To progressives, Harley leaving Wisconsin or Toyota leaving Freemont, CA does not matter at all. It does not matter that traditionally blue states of the rust belt and the northeast resemble fiscal wrecks. Nor does the fact that the most comprehensive study done of rich versus poor states clearly shows that disparity between 10 year average growth rates, income growth, population migration, employment growth, and unemployment rates is striking (with red states making up the top ten performers while the bottom ten are all blue states as seen on the table presented in the executive summary section).
No, none of these matter. Just like evidence of progressive policy failures - from experiences of the great depression, welfare states of Europe, or twenty years of government involvement in Japan - are all swept under the rug.
As far as the left is concerned, the moment Harley departs for greener pastures, it will be erased from their collective memories. Thus is the phenomena called progressive blindness.
Company spokesman Bob Klein said Harley wants to remain faithful, but its production schedule needs to be more closely aligned with seasonal demand, a change that would require approval from labor unions.
Negotiations with the unions began in late July. The president of Harley's largest union did not return multiple messages seeking comment.
Harley, which is the lone remaining Milwaukee based major employer not only employs 1,630, but is a major tourist attraction (Milwaukee Bureau of Tourism estimates last year over 100,000 tourists visited the city for the specific purpose of visiting the plant and the museum). The city that was a major brewery center lost that distinction with the departures of Schlitz in the 1980s and Miller in 2008.
In other words, Milwaukee is just another example of dying cities located in labor friendly states. It is no surprise that the Tax Foundation ranks Wisconsin one of the 10 least business friendly states where businesses like Harley are fleeing from.
A year ago, urban scholar Joel Kotkin pointed out some of the policies that has resulted in traditionally blue states losing businesses as well as population in many cases. Is it any wonder that federal government's policies have done nothing to ease the unemployment situation when you consider that over 90% of the administration officials come from these same failing blue states (and the rest are mainly progressives from red states), or that this is the administration with the least recent private sector experience in its ranks?
To progressives, Harley leaving Wisconsin or Toyota leaving Freemont, CA does not matter at all. It does not matter that traditionally blue states of the rust belt and the northeast resemble fiscal wrecks. Nor does the fact that the most comprehensive study done of rich versus poor states clearly shows that disparity between 10 year average growth rates, income growth, population migration, employment growth, and unemployment rates is striking (with red states making up the top ten performers while the bottom ten are all blue states as seen on the table presented in the executive summary section).
No, none of these matter. Just like evidence of progressive policy failures - from experiences of the great depression, welfare states of Europe, or twenty years of government involvement in Japan - are all swept under the rug.
As far as the left is concerned, the moment Harley departs for greener pastures, it will be erased from their collective memories. Thus is the phenomena called progressive blindness.
A Great Democrat Proposal
So that my progressive friends do not accuse me of opposing anything Democrat, here is an example of a proposal I have supported for several years.
Six congressional Democrats from New York are pushing a tax cut for people who live in high-income areas. The idea is to index everyone's income tax brackets to the cost of living, giving a big tax break to everyone who lives in the nation's most expensive areas.
Group calls itself the Tax Equity Caucus. Rep. Israel said the new caucus would focus on language similar to a bill by introduced by Rep. Nadler last year (HR 1943) that would require regional cost-of-living adjustments for tax rates.
Now, that is a great idea that would bring some equity and good sense in to our convoluted tax code.
Six congressional Democrats from New York are pushing a tax cut for people who live in high-income areas. The idea is to index everyone's income tax brackets to the cost of living, giving a big tax break to everyone who lives in the nation's most expensive areas.
Group calls itself the Tax Equity Caucus. Rep. Israel said the new caucus would focus on language similar to a bill by introduced by Rep. Nadler last year (HR 1943) that would require regional cost-of-living adjustments for tax rates.
Now, that is a great idea that would bring some equity and good sense in to our convoluted tax code.
Steve Wynn: "I'll Take China Over America"
The greatest of Las Vegas casino developers speaks out on America of today and why he is moving part of his operations to Macao - for the very same reasons likes of National Federation of Independent Business and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce have been screaming out at the top of their lungs, and the estimated $2 trillion businesses are sitting on instead of investing: Decleration of war by the Obama Administration on any business that is not a crony.
This is a nightmare scenario, especially for small to mid-sized businesses; there is no telling what else the government will do in the way of creating an anti-business environment. Every single piece of legislation (passed and proposed) such as healthcare reform, financial reform, card check, cap and trade, and disclose act among others have done little more than undermine the real job creators of the country.
Also it is the same reason why, going forward, we will never see 4% unemployment rate in this country again unless the legislative damage done is reversed and crony capitalism abandoned in favor of free market capitalism. We are living in a haven for crony capitalists, old school politicians, and progressive dreamers in academia and elsewhere.
I say more power to likes of Wynn. Why anyone at all would bet on America, considering the trajectory it is on, is beyond me.
This is a nightmare scenario, especially for small to mid-sized businesses; there is no telling what else the government will do in the way of creating an anti-business environment. Every single piece of legislation (passed and proposed) such as healthcare reform, financial reform, card check, cap and trade, and disclose act among others have done little more than undermine the real job creators of the country.
Also it is the same reason why, going forward, we will never see 4% unemployment rate in this country again unless the legislative damage done is reversed and crony capitalism abandoned in favor of free market capitalism. We are living in a haven for crony capitalists, old school politicians, and progressive dreamers in academia and elsewhere.
I say more power to likes of Wynn. Why anyone at all would bet on America, considering the trajectory it is on, is beyond me.
Wednesday, August 4, 2010
First Of Many Voter Repudiations Of Obama Policies To Come
Although several states have filed court challenges and passed measures rejecting the unconstitutional mandates imposed by the new healthcare reform bill, known affectionately as Obamacare, Missouri became the first to repudiate it in a referendum.
Judging by the 3:1 margin Missouri voters rejected Obamacare (which is slightly more than the two thirds indicated nationally by polling data), bloodbath for congressional Democrats is thankfully only 92 days away.
Judging by the 3:1 margin Missouri voters rejected Obamacare (which is slightly more than the two thirds indicated nationally by polling data), bloodbath for congressional Democrats is thankfully only 92 days away.
Tuesday, August 3, 2010
Obama: "Do Not Demagogue Immigration"
President Barack Obama warned U.S. leaders not to use the divisive issue of illegal immigration as a way to gain power and name recognition in an interview with CBS television released on Saturday.
This from the man who told Senator Kyl "if we secure the border first, then you will have no reason for passing immigration reform". I guess it is okay to demagogue the issue as long as it gains his party potentially 10+ million votes.
This from the man who told Senator Kyl "if we secure the border first, then you will have no reason for passing immigration reform". I guess it is okay to demagogue the issue as long as it gains his party potentially 10+ million votes.
Sunday, August 1, 2010
Do They Really Want To Be American Citizens?
Protesters turned out in Phoenix, Arizona to protest Arizona's new immigration law.
Note the huge Cuban/Che flag alongside the Mexican flag. No U.S. flag anywhere to be seen!
Stand strong Arizona.
Your opponents are not liberal Americans, with a different point of view - they are socialist revolutionaries who want to destroy your country's ability to maintain national integrity.
(And that goes for not only the protesters but the unions that bussed them in and the Obama administration)
Note the huge Cuban/Che flag alongside the Mexican flag. No U.S. flag anywhere to be seen!
Stand strong Arizona.
Your opponents are not liberal Americans, with a different point of view - they are socialist revolutionaries who want to destroy your country's ability to maintain national integrity.
(And that goes for not only the protesters but the unions that bussed them in and the Obama administration)
Another Day, Another Federal Assault on Liberty
By David Limbaugh
Yesterday's federal court decision to enjoin enforcement of the Arizona immigration law is the latest example of a virtually unchecked renegade federal government waging war against the states and against the liberties of its citizens.
We've seen that Obama will exercise any power he can get away with, from strong-arming secured creditors and favoring unions as he gobbled up automakers to making a mockery of due process with his Oval Office shakedown of BP. But he might have reached a new low with his assaults on the sovereignty of the people of Arizona.
Indeed, Judge Susan Bolton's disgraceful decision to grant an injunction against Arizona's new immigration law is, in the words of Mark Levin, "abominable," but let's not forget that this case wouldn't have been before Judge Bolton if Obama's Justice Department hadn't initiated it.
And let's not pretend that Obama's motives are anything other than political, the law and the rule of law be damned. He told Sen. Jon Kyl in a private meeting that he was unwilling to secure our borders because it would decrease his chances to pass "comprehensive immigration reform."
So when Arizona attempted to exercise a little self-help and work on securing its own border by passing a law carefully crafted to mirror the federal immigration law and encourage its enforcement, the all-powerful Obama feds came down on it like a furious king against his disobedient subjects.
In a saner world, freedom lovers could have rested easy, knowing that an impartial, Constitution-respecting judge would summarily reject the administration's unlawful scheme to thwart Arizona's sovereignty by superimposing its own nonenforcement policy.
But in her decision, Clinton appointee Bolton demonstrated how dangerous judicial activism can be to our individual liberties and democratic processes. It's one thing for a court to invalidate a law because it doesn't pass constitutional muster; it's quite another for it to misstate the facts, the legislation and the Constitution to reach a preordained decision.
Just consider three outrages of this decision highlighted by other commentators, any of which, individually, makes a mockery of justice. Andy McCarthy properly observes that Judge Bolton stretched the federal pre-emption doctrine to absurd limits. Under Bolton's specious reasoning, state law must be struck down not only if it is inconsistent with federal law, which the Arizona law is not, but also if it somehow contradicts federal law enforcement practices. Because the Obama feds refused, as a matter of policy, to enforce their own law against illegal immigration, the state could not be allowed to pass a law promoting enforcement. Note that nothing in the actual Constitution or case law justifies such an extrapolation of pre-emption doctrine. But such trifles don't impede an administration and court determined to keep the immigration floodgates open at any cost.
Mark Levin notes that Judge Bolton correctly enunciated the rigorous legal standard required for a plaintiff to succeed in a "facial challenge" to a law's constitutionality but then proceeded to ignore the rules she had just affirmed. She acknowledged that for the federal government to have prevailed, it would have had to show the law could never be applied in a constitutional fashion. That is, "a facial challenge must fail where a statute has a 'plainly legitimate sweep.'" But she ignored that limitation on her authority, just as she violated another principle she paid lip service to in her opinion: that the court was not to speculate about hypothetical cases.
Heather Mac Donald exposes Judge Bolton's acquiescence to the Obama administration's "carefully cultivated fiction" that the administration's primary motive with the lawsuit was to prevent the application of the law to legal aliens. The judge ignored uncontroverted testimony and legal briefs from Arizona officials stating that only people who were reasonably suspected to be illegally in the country would be required to prove their legal status. So to protect legal aliens from a law that doesn't apply to them, she refuses to apply the law to illegals.
Cynical observers of the political scene lazily dismiss each unfolding Obama outrage as merely Washington politics as usual. But with this administration, we're witnessing power grabs that are different in kind rather than degree.
Our liberties depend on our preserving the integrity of the Constitution and the mechanisms it established to deter tyranny. To the extent we dismantle those safeguards, we imperil our freedoms.
When the political class is filled with those who are ideologically committed to certain political ends irrespective of the legality of the means used to achieve them, our system of checks and balances breaks down, which is one reason John Adams warned, "Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other."
November's elections cannot come fast enough.
Yesterday's federal court decision to enjoin enforcement of the Arizona immigration law is the latest example of a virtually unchecked renegade federal government waging war against the states and against the liberties of its citizens.
We've seen that Obama will exercise any power he can get away with, from strong-arming secured creditors and favoring unions as he gobbled up automakers to making a mockery of due process with his Oval Office shakedown of BP. But he might have reached a new low with his assaults on the sovereignty of the people of Arizona.
Indeed, Judge Susan Bolton's disgraceful decision to grant an injunction against Arizona's new immigration law is, in the words of Mark Levin, "abominable," but let's not forget that this case wouldn't have been before Judge Bolton if Obama's Justice Department hadn't initiated it.
And let's not pretend that Obama's motives are anything other than political, the law and the rule of law be damned. He told Sen. Jon Kyl in a private meeting that he was unwilling to secure our borders because it would decrease his chances to pass "comprehensive immigration reform."
So when Arizona attempted to exercise a little self-help and work on securing its own border by passing a law carefully crafted to mirror the federal immigration law and encourage its enforcement, the all-powerful Obama feds came down on it like a furious king against his disobedient subjects.
In a saner world, freedom lovers could have rested easy, knowing that an impartial, Constitution-respecting judge would summarily reject the administration's unlawful scheme to thwart Arizona's sovereignty by superimposing its own nonenforcement policy.
But in her decision, Clinton appointee Bolton demonstrated how dangerous judicial activism can be to our individual liberties and democratic processes. It's one thing for a court to invalidate a law because it doesn't pass constitutional muster; it's quite another for it to misstate the facts, the legislation and the Constitution to reach a preordained decision.
Just consider three outrages of this decision highlighted by other commentators, any of which, individually, makes a mockery of justice. Andy McCarthy properly observes that Judge Bolton stretched the federal pre-emption doctrine to absurd limits. Under Bolton's specious reasoning, state law must be struck down not only if it is inconsistent with federal law, which the Arizona law is not, but also if it somehow contradicts federal law enforcement practices. Because the Obama feds refused, as a matter of policy, to enforce their own law against illegal immigration, the state could not be allowed to pass a law promoting enforcement. Note that nothing in the actual Constitution or case law justifies such an extrapolation of pre-emption doctrine. But such trifles don't impede an administration and court determined to keep the immigration floodgates open at any cost.
Mark Levin notes that Judge Bolton correctly enunciated the rigorous legal standard required for a plaintiff to succeed in a "facial challenge" to a law's constitutionality but then proceeded to ignore the rules she had just affirmed. She acknowledged that for the federal government to have prevailed, it would have had to show the law could never be applied in a constitutional fashion. That is, "a facial challenge must fail where a statute has a 'plainly legitimate sweep.'" But she ignored that limitation on her authority, just as she violated another principle she paid lip service to in her opinion: that the court was not to speculate about hypothetical cases.
Heather Mac Donald exposes Judge Bolton's acquiescence to the Obama administration's "carefully cultivated fiction" that the administration's primary motive with the lawsuit was to prevent the application of the law to legal aliens. The judge ignored uncontroverted testimony and legal briefs from Arizona officials stating that only people who were reasonably suspected to be illegally in the country would be required to prove their legal status. So to protect legal aliens from a law that doesn't apply to them, she refuses to apply the law to illegals.
Cynical observers of the political scene lazily dismiss each unfolding Obama outrage as merely Washington politics as usual. But with this administration, we're witnessing power grabs that are different in kind rather than degree.
Our liberties depend on our preserving the integrity of the Constitution and the mechanisms it established to deter tyranny. To the extent we dismantle those safeguards, we imperil our freedoms.
When the political class is filled with those who are ideologically committed to certain political ends irrespective of the legality of the means used to achieve them, our system of checks and balances breaks down, which is one reason John Adams warned, "Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other."
November's elections cannot come fast enough.
A Fine Example Of A Liberal Judge
Judge Bolton, whose decision to strike significant portions of the Arizona Illegal Immigration bill is drawing ire from many, is typical of what one might have expected from a deconstructionist judge.
Her ruling makes absolutely no sense to even non attorneys like me. We have just witnessed dyslexic liberal logic at its finest. Judge Bolton has in effect decided that actual enforcement of federal laws somehow interferes with the federal government's prerogative to ignore federal law. Wow, in one word!
Is this a nation of laws anymore?
Her ruling makes absolutely no sense to even non attorneys like me. We have just witnessed dyslexic liberal logic at its finest. Judge Bolton has in effect decided that actual enforcement of federal laws somehow interferes with the federal government's prerogative to ignore federal law. Wow, in one word!
Is this a nation of laws anymore?
Progressive Friends:
Do not forget to sign the President’s birthday card. While at it, you will be asked to contribute generously so that "progress" can keep coming. Michelle appreciates your allegiance, not to mention Barack's universe sized ego.
Here is a slightly different take:
Jim Lindgren, a professor at Northwestern Law School, got it right when he observed, "Asking millions of Americans to sign a birthday card for the President suggests a tone-deafness about the cult of personality. If we lived in a dictatorship, getting millions of subjects to celebrate the Dear Leader's birthday would be routine, but in a free republic this appeal to get millions of citizens to celebrate a current president's birthday strikes a discordant note to my ear."
Here is a slightly different take:
Jim Lindgren, a professor at Northwestern Law School, got it right when he observed, "Asking millions of Americans to sign a birthday card for the President suggests a tone-deafness about the cult of personality. If we lived in a dictatorship, getting millions of subjects to celebrate the Dear Leader's birthday would be routine, but in a free republic this appeal to get millions of citizens to celebrate a current president's birthday strikes a discordant note to my ear."
Friday, July 30, 2010
Biden Invokes Ghost of GWB
The vice president sought to explicitly link the recession plaguing many Americans to President George W. Bush as Democrats ramp up their attacks on the previous administration.
"There's never enough until we've restored the 8 million jobs lost in the Bush recession," Biden said on NBC's "Today" show when asked if the administration had done enough to address unemployment. "Until that happens it doesn't matter — it matters, but it's not enough."
Democrats have increasingly invoked Bush in their campaign messaging, sensing that blaming the former Republican president helps explain why so many problems haven't been resolved despite over a year and a half of Democratic control of the presidency. They also use Bush as a shorthand for the kind of policies that, Democrats warn, GOP lawmakers and candidates would revive if they were given power in November's elections.
Ehem...unfortunately for you Mr. vice president, the electorate is smart enough to realize that after nearly $1 trillion in stimulus related spending, cash for clunkers, cash for caulkers, first time home buyer credit, bail outs of GM and Chrysler (read the unions), etc., you and your party own this recession lock, stock, and barrel!
And to be exact, 19 months is just since Obama occupied the White House. The length of time the village idiot and his minions in the congress need to make excuses for is really 43 months (a little over 3.5 years). That is how long they have controlled the congress - especially since the last two budgets GWB sent to the congress were declared dead on arrival.
Lets face it, Bush was a betrayal to conservatism and made his share of mistakes like the Medicare prescription drug fiasco, but it is the liberal Democrats who put the spending in overdrive with deficits averaging a trillion dollars a year for the next decade as compared to an average of just over $200 billion per year under 8 years of Bush.
The blame game will get Biden and company nowhere.
"There's never enough until we've restored the 8 million jobs lost in the Bush recession," Biden said on NBC's "Today" show when asked if the administration had done enough to address unemployment. "Until that happens it doesn't matter — it matters, but it's not enough."
Democrats have increasingly invoked Bush in their campaign messaging, sensing that blaming the former Republican president helps explain why so many problems haven't been resolved despite over a year and a half of Democratic control of the presidency. They also use Bush as a shorthand for the kind of policies that, Democrats warn, GOP lawmakers and candidates would revive if they were given power in November's elections.
Ehem...unfortunately for you Mr. vice president, the electorate is smart enough to realize that after nearly $1 trillion in stimulus related spending, cash for clunkers, cash for caulkers, first time home buyer credit, bail outs of GM and Chrysler (read the unions), etc., you and your party own this recession lock, stock, and barrel!
And to be exact, 19 months is just since Obama occupied the White House. The length of time the village idiot and his minions in the congress need to make excuses for is really 43 months (a little over 3.5 years). That is how long they have controlled the congress - especially since the last two budgets GWB sent to the congress were declared dead on arrival.
Lets face it, Bush was a betrayal to conservatism and made his share of mistakes like the Medicare prescription drug fiasco, but it is the liberal Democrats who put the spending in overdrive with deficits averaging a trillion dollars a year for the next decade as compared to an average of just over $200 billion per year under 8 years of Bush.
The blame game will get Biden and company nowhere.
Wednesday, July 28, 2010
Update: Feigned Outrage Over Release Of Lockerbie Bomber
As an update to my post "Something Else You Won't Hear In The Main Stream Media", the Australian has since reported that the Sunday Times of London has obtained correspondence showing the administration was not in fact surprised and raised no strong objections. Rather, through the U.S. Embassy in London, it expressed to Scottish officials a preference for compassionate release over jail time in Libya:
Richard LeBaron, deputy head of the U.S. Embassy in London, sent a letter on Aug. 12, a week before al-Megrahi's release, to Scottish First Minister Alex Salmond saying that "if Scottish authorities come to the conclusion that Megrahi must be released from Scottish custody, the U.S. position is that conditional release on compassionate grounds would be a far preferable alternative to prisoner transfer, which we strongly oppose."
I repeat, this is as much of an outrage as B.P. who seems to have lobbied the government for Megrahi's release in order to win oil contracts from the Libyan government.
Richard LeBaron, deputy head of the U.S. Embassy in London, sent a letter on Aug. 12, a week before al-Megrahi's release, to Scottish First Minister Alex Salmond saying that "if Scottish authorities come to the conclusion that Megrahi must be released from Scottish custody, the U.S. position is that conditional release on compassionate grounds would be a far preferable alternative to prisoner transfer, which we strongly oppose."
I repeat, this is as much of an outrage as B.P. who seems to have lobbied the government for Megrahi's release in order to win oil contracts from the Libyan government.
Monday, July 26, 2010
Something Else You Won't Hear In The Main Stream Media
Remember the [supposed] outrage of the Obama Administration at the news of release of Al Megrahi from the Scottish prison where he was serving his sentence for killing 270 people, also known as Lockerbie bombing?
Well, it seems 10 Downing Street has just struck back for those useless DVDs Obama gave the PM as well as the Queen. According to press reports, both Obama and Clinton were kept abreast of the situation all along. Their public reaction was apparently for domestic consumption only. A senior Whitehall aide characterized their reaction as ‘disingenuous’ since neither vociferously objected to the impending release through diplomatic channels.
Duplicitous behaviour is nothing new to this bunch. Since the story does not reflect well on Obama, who is willing to prosecute CIA agents doing their jobs while coddling America's enemies, you may as well not look for it on the evening news.
Well, it seems 10 Downing Street has just struck back for those useless DVDs Obama gave the PM as well as the Queen. According to press reports, both Obama and Clinton were kept abreast of the situation all along. Their public reaction was apparently for domestic consumption only. A senior Whitehall aide characterized their reaction as ‘disingenuous’ since neither vociferously objected to the impending release through diplomatic channels.
Duplicitous behaviour is nothing new to this bunch. Since the story does not reflect well on Obama, who is willing to prosecute CIA agents doing their jobs while coddling America's enemies, you may as well not look for it on the evening news.
The Injustice Department
The New Black Panther voter intimidation case is seemingly going nowhere but don't expect it to wither on the vine either in an election year. It's implications on the integrity of our democracy are just too overwhelming and the public is well aware of it despite the media's best efforts to bury the story.
First, there is the sworn testimony by a DOJ attorney corroborated by other evidence that an Obama political appointee actually told the career staff that (1) no voting cases would be filed against black or other minority defendants no matter how egregious their violations of the law and (2) Justice Department would not enforce Section 8 of the National Voter Registration Act, which requires states to maintain the accuracy of their voter registration lists by cleaning off ineligible voters (3 months before a national election!!!).
Also, criticism has come not only from the right but the Civil Rights Commission over the stonewalling of the Administration.
They have watched incredulously as the Justice Department, our chief law enforcement agency, has refused to comply with subpoenas from the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights. They have watched Republican members of Congress demand information about this inexcusable conduct, while Democrats have blocked any action to investigate it. This in stark contrast to Democrats’ manufactured anger over the firing of a handful of U.S. Attorneys during the Bush administration, a non-scandal the Justice Department just dismissed after it concluded there was no criminal wrongdoing in political appointees who serve at the discretion of the president being let go at the discretion of the president.
There can be no worse and more dangerous abuse of power than having a Justice Department where politics and ideology drive law enforcement decisions.
American voters have noticed this, and in contrast to the pseudo-scandals about the Justice Department that were manufactured by Democrats and their JournoList allies during the prior administration, this is a real one that damages the integrity and reputation of the administration and it’s Justice Department.
First, there is the sworn testimony by a DOJ attorney corroborated by other evidence that an Obama political appointee actually told the career staff that (1) no voting cases would be filed against black or other minority defendants no matter how egregious their violations of the law and (2) Justice Department would not enforce Section 8 of the National Voter Registration Act, which requires states to maintain the accuracy of their voter registration lists by cleaning off ineligible voters (3 months before a national election!!!).
Also, criticism has come not only from the right but the Civil Rights Commission over the stonewalling of the Administration.
They have watched incredulously as the Justice Department, our chief law enforcement agency, has refused to comply with subpoenas from the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights. They have watched Republican members of Congress demand information about this inexcusable conduct, while Democrats have blocked any action to investigate it. This in stark contrast to Democrats’ manufactured anger over the firing of a handful of U.S. Attorneys during the Bush administration, a non-scandal the Justice Department just dismissed after it concluded there was no criminal wrongdoing in political appointees who serve at the discretion of the president being let go at the discretion of the president.
There can be no worse and more dangerous abuse of power than having a Justice Department where politics and ideology drive law enforcement decisions.
American voters have noticed this, and in contrast to the pseudo-scandals about the Justice Department that were manufactured by Democrats and their JournoList allies during the prior administration, this is a real one that damages the integrity and reputation of the administration and it’s Justice Department.
Open Conspiracy Is No Longer Merely Ajar
By Jonah Goldberg
The Journolist has started to leak like an overripe diaper.
Just in case you've been living in a cave, or if you only get your news from MSNBC, here's the story. A young blogger, Ezra Klein, formerly of the avowedly left-wing American Prospect and now with the avowedly mainstream Washington Post, founded the e-mail listserv "Journolist" for like-minded liberals to hash out and develop ideas. Some 400 people joined the by-invitation-only group. Most, it seems, were in the media, but many hailed from academia, think tanks and the world of forthright liberal activism generally. They spoke freely about their political and personal biases, including their hatred of Fox and Rush Limbaugh, and their utter loyalty to the progressive cause and Democratic success.
That off-the-record intellectual bacchanalia has started to haunt the participants like an inexplicable rash after a wild party during fleet week.
Last month, David Weigel, a young Washington Post blogger hired to report on conservative politics, ostensibly from a sympathetic perspective, left the Post thanks to his damning statements on Journolist (conservatives are racists, Rush Limbaugh should die, etc.).
Now the diaper is coming off entirely. Perhaps stretching the diaper metaphor too far, what's inside Journolist may stink, but it's no surprise that it does. Journolist e-mails obtained by The Daily Caller reveal what anybody with two neurons to rub together already knew: Professional liberals don't like Republicans and do like Democrats. They can be awfully smug and condescending in their sense of intellectual and moral superiority. They tend to ascribe evil motives to their political opponents -- sometimes even when they know it's unfair. One obscure blogger insisted that liberals should arbitrarily demonize a conservative journalist as a racist to scare conservatives away from covering stories that might hurt Obama.
Oh, and -- surprise! -- it turns out that the "O" in Journolist stands for "Obama."
In 2008, participants shared talking points about how to shape coverage to help Obama. They tried to paint any negative coverage of Obama's racist and hateful pastor, Jeremiah Wright, as out of bounds. Journalists at such "objective" news organizations as Newsweek, Bloomberg, Time and The Economist joined conversations with open partisans about the best way to criticize Sarah Palin.
Like an Amish community raising a barn, members of the progressive community got together to hammer out talking points. Amidst a discussion of Palin, Chris Hayes, a writer for the Nation, wrote: "Keep the ideas coming! Have to go on TV to talk about this in a few min and need all the help I can get." Time's Joe Klein admitted to his fellow Journolisters that he'd collected the listserv's bric-a-brac and fashioned it into a brickbat aimed at Palin.
Many conservatives think Journolist is the smoking gun that proves not just liberal media bias (already well-established) but something far more elusive as well: the Sasquatch known as the Liberal Media Conspiracy.
I'm not so sure. In the 1930s, The New York Times deliberately whitewashed Stalin's murders. In 1964, CBS reported that Barry Goldwater was tied up with German Nazis. In 1985, the Los Angeles Times polled 2,700 journalists at 621 newspapers and found that journalists identified themselves as liberal by a factor of 3 to 1. Their actual views on issues were far more liberal than even that would suggest. Just for the record, Ezra Klein was born in 1984.
In other words, Journolist is a symptom, not the disease. And the disease is not a secret conspiracy but something more like the "Open Conspiracy" H.G. Wells fantasized about, where the smartest, best people at every institution make their progressive vision for the world their top priority.
As James DeLong, a fellow at the Digital Society, correctly noted on the Enterprise Blog, "The real problem with JournoList is that much of it consisted of exchanges among people who worked for institutions about how to best hijack their employers for the cause of Progressivism."
For a liberal activist that's forgivable, I guess. But academics? Reporters? Editors? Even liberal opinion writers aren't supposed to "coordinate" their messages with the mothership.
The conservative movement at least admits it is a movement (even though conservatives outnumber liberals 2-1 in this country). Establishment liberalism, not just in the press but also in the White House, academia and Hollywood, holds power by refusing to make the same concession. "This isn't about ideology. ... We just call them like we see them. ... We don't have an agenda."
The open conspiracy that perpetuates that lie is far more pernicious than any chat room.
The Journolist has started to leak like an overripe diaper.
Just in case you've been living in a cave, or if you only get your news from MSNBC, here's the story. A young blogger, Ezra Klein, formerly of the avowedly left-wing American Prospect and now with the avowedly mainstream Washington Post, founded the e-mail listserv "Journolist" for like-minded liberals to hash out and develop ideas. Some 400 people joined the by-invitation-only group. Most, it seems, were in the media, but many hailed from academia, think tanks and the world of forthright liberal activism generally. They spoke freely about their political and personal biases, including their hatred of Fox and Rush Limbaugh, and their utter loyalty to the progressive cause and Democratic success.
That off-the-record intellectual bacchanalia has started to haunt the participants like an inexplicable rash after a wild party during fleet week.
Last month, David Weigel, a young Washington Post blogger hired to report on conservative politics, ostensibly from a sympathetic perspective, left the Post thanks to his damning statements on Journolist (conservatives are racists, Rush Limbaugh should die, etc.).
Now the diaper is coming off entirely. Perhaps stretching the diaper metaphor too far, what's inside Journolist may stink, but it's no surprise that it does. Journolist e-mails obtained by The Daily Caller reveal what anybody with two neurons to rub together already knew: Professional liberals don't like Republicans and do like Democrats. They can be awfully smug and condescending in their sense of intellectual and moral superiority. They tend to ascribe evil motives to their political opponents -- sometimes even when they know it's unfair. One obscure blogger insisted that liberals should arbitrarily demonize a conservative journalist as a racist to scare conservatives away from covering stories that might hurt Obama.
Oh, and -- surprise! -- it turns out that the "O" in Journolist stands for "Obama."
In 2008, participants shared talking points about how to shape coverage to help Obama. They tried to paint any negative coverage of Obama's racist and hateful pastor, Jeremiah Wright, as out of bounds. Journalists at such "objective" news organizations as Newsweek, Bloomberg, Time and The Economist joined conversations with open partisans about the best way to criticize Sarah Palin.
Like an Amish community raising a barn, members of the progressive community got together to hammer out talking points. Amidst a discussion of Palin, Chris Hayes, a writer for the Nation, wrote: "Keep the ideas coming! Have to go on TV to talk about this in a few min and need all the help I can get." Time's Joe Klein admitted to his fellow Journolisters that he'd collected the listserv's bric-a-brac and fashioned it into a brickbat aimed at Palin.
Many conservatives think Journolist is the smoking gun that proves not just liberal media bias (already well-established) but something far more elusive as well: the Sasquatch known as the Liberal Media Conspiracy.
I'm not so sure. In the 1930s, The New York Times deliberately whitewashed Stalin's murders. In 1964, CBS reported that Barry Goldwater was tied up with German Nazis. In 1985, the Los Angeles Times polled 2,700 journalists at 621 newspapers and found that journalists identified themselves as liberal by a factor of 3 to 1. Their actual views on issues were far more liberal than even that would suggest. Just for the record, Ezra Klein was born in 1984.
In other words, Journolist is a symptom, not the disease. And the disease is not a secret conspiracy but something more like the "Open Conspiracy" H.G. Wells fantasized about, where the smartest, best people at every institution make their progressive vision for the world their top priority.
As James DeLong, a fellow at the Digital Society, correctly noted on the Enterprise Blog, "The real problem with JournoList is that much of it consisted of exchanges among people who worked for institutions about how to best hijack their employers for the cause of Progressivism."
For a liberal activist that's forgivable, I guess. But academics? Reporters? Editors? Even liberal opinion writers aren't supposed to "coordinate" their messages with the mothership.
The conservative movement at least admits it is a movement (even though conservatives outnumber liberals 2-1 in this country). Establishment liberalism, not just in the press but also in the White House, academia and Hollywood, holds power by refusing to make the same concession. "This isn't about ideology. ... We just call them like we see them. ... We don't have an agenda."
The open conspiracy that perpetuates that lie is far more pernicious than any chat room.
Goldman Sachs and Democrats: Cronyism Triumphs At The Expense Of Free Markets
About three months ago, I had written a couple of articles chronicling the incestuous relationship between Goldman Sachs (GS) and the Democrat party. The events of the past week solidified my arguments even more.
For those who have not been following the aftermath of the crisis of 2008, the government had been litigating GS for allegations of mortgage securities fraud. Thursday's settlement—in which Goldman agreed to pay a $550 million fine, but didn't have to admit it committed fraud—capped one of the most closely watched cases in the SEC's 76-year history. The agency had charged Goldman with intentionally duping clients by selling a mortgage-security product that secretly was designed by another Goldman client betting that the housing market would crash.
Now, $550 million fine seems a tad high to many, but remember that GS has $162 billion in liquid assets. In other words, at less than one third of one percent of its assets, this was a drop in the bucket for GS whose stock rallied on Thursday with the news of this historic settlement. They got off cheap; but this story isn't entirely about that.
The current controversy erupted when it became apparent that the two Republican members of the Securities and Exchange Commission who did not want to settle (because it would mean dilution of the more serious fraud charges) were overridden by the three Democrat members. I will not bore you with the details of the alleged violations which you can read on the SEC site.
According to Wall Street Journal, Republican Commissioner Kathleen Casey questioned the SEC staff last Thursday on their decision to abandon the strongest fraud charge and strike a settlement involving a lesser allegation.
The political split over the case comes at a time when the agency remains under fire for its policing of the financial markets during the financial crisis. The division in the settlement vote casts a cloud over what the SEC had claimed on Thursday was a major victory. Investors had expected any SEC fine in the case to be $1 billion or more. Why did the Democrat members of SEC jump the gun, just before the Wall Street bill passed the Senate?
In the latest development, the Securities and Exchange Commission inspector general has agreed to a request from Rep. Darrell Issa, R-Calif., to probe the timing and political motivations of the settlement.
Issa requested that I.G. Kotz examine whether there was any political reason that the SEC’s announcement of the settlement came two hours after the Senate approved legislation overhauling financial regulation.
This is looking messier by the day for Democrats - the darlings of G.S. - in the light of their incestuous relationship with the key players in this whole affair. Re-read my posts from April and May for a refresher!
For those who have not been following the aftermath of the crisis of 2008, the government had been litigating GS for allegations of mortgage securities fraud. Thursday's settlement—in which Goldman agreed to pay a $550 million fine, but didn't have to admit it committed fraud—capped one of the most closely watched cases in the SEC's 76-year history. The agency had charged Goldman with intentionally duping clients by selling a mortgage-security product that secretly was designed by another Goldman client betting that the housing market would crash.
Now, $550 million fine seems a tad high to many, but remember that GS has $162 billion in liquid assets. In other words, at less than one third of one percent of its assets, this was a drop in the bucket for GS whose stock rallied on Thursday with the news of this historic settlement. They got off cheap; but this story isn't entirely about that.
The current controversy erupted when it became apparent that the two Republican members of the Securities and Exchange Commission who did not want to settle (because it would mean dilution of the more serious fraud charges) were overridden by the three Democrat members. I will not bore you with the details of the alleged violations which you can read on the SEC site.
According to Wall Street Journal, Republican Commissioner Kathleen Casey questioned the SEC staff last Thursday on their decision to abandon the strongest fraud charge and strike a settlement involving a lesser allegation.
The political split over the case comes at a time when the agency remains under fire for its policing of the financial markets during the financial crisis. The division in the settlement vote casts a cloud over what the SEC had claimed on Thursday was a major victory. Investors had expected any SEC fine in the case to be $1 billion or more. Why did the Democrat members of SEC jump the gun, just before the Wall Street bill passed the Senate?
In the latest development, the Securities and Exchange Commission inspector general has agreed to a request from Rep. Darrell Issa, R-Calif., to probe the timing and political motivations of the settlement.
Issa requested that I.G. Kotz examine whether there was any political reason that the SEC’s announcement of the settlement came two hours after the Senate approved legislation overhauling financial regulation.
This is looking messier by the day for Democrats - the darlings of G.S. - in the light of their incestuous relationship with the key players in this whole affair. Re-read my posts from April and May for a refresher!
IG's Report Sheds Light On "Shared Sacrifice"
The stench coming from Washington keeps on getting stronger by the day. This past week, president's own Special Inspector General presented his findings regarding the dealership closings to Treasury Secretary Geithner and quite a scathing one it was. It made clear, once again, the utter incompetency, corruption, cronyism, and ideological drive of this administartion.
Special Inspector General Neil M. Barofsky notes that the Obama administration rejected initial automaker plans which would have required relatively minimal dealership closings, insisting instead on far more drastic cuts -- as many as two thousand dealerships between the two corporations, costing an estimated 100,000 people their livelihood.
When asked explicitly whether the [Obama] Auto Team could have left the dealerships out of the restructurings, Mr. [Ron] Bloom, the current head of the Auto Team, confirmed that the Auto Team "could have left any one component [of the restructuring plan] alone," but that doing so would have been inconsistent with the President's mandate for "shared sacrifice."
Barofsky's report paints a portrait of cavalier disregard for the people the Obama administration damaged by its actions:
Treasury (a) should have taken every reasonable step to ensure that accelerating the dealership terminations was truly necessary for the long-term viability of the companies and (b) should have at least considered whether the benefits to the companies from the accelerated terminations outweighed the costs to the economy that would result from potentially tens of thousands of accelerated job losses. The record is not at all clear that Treasury did either.
The anticipated benefits to the companies of accelerated terminations were based almost entirely on the not-universally-accepted theory that an immediate decrease in dealerships would make them similar to their foreign competitors and therefore improve the companies' profitability, and the theory arguably did not take into account some of the unique circumstances of the domestic companies' dealership networks. It undertook no market studies to test the counterintuitive theory until after making its Viability Determination.
More importantly, there was no effort even to quantify the number of job losses that the Auto Team's decision would contribute to until after the decision was made, and the effect on the broader economy caused by accelerated dealership terminations similarly was not sufficiently considered.
Barofsky rejects the administration's stated reasons for their draconian actions:
Treasury's [The Obama Treasury Department's] letter seems to imply that Treasury was faced with the decision either to encourage the acceleration of dealership terminations substantially, as it did, or let the companies fail altogether. This is a false dilemma with no factual support: no one from Treasury, the manufacturers or from anywhere else indicated that implementing a smaller or more gradual dealership termination plan would have resulted in the cataclysmic scenario spelled out in Treasury's response.
And Barofsky's report even questions whether the closures would lead to any real savings for GM and Chrysler. "One GM official emphasized this point by telling SIGTARP (Barofsky) that GM would save 'not one damn cent' by closing any particular dealership."
The Inspector General's report also points to ineptitude by the Obama White House:
... the Administration created a Treasury Auto Team (the "Auto Team"), which reports to the Task Force and had the responsibility of evaluating the companies' restructuring plans and negotiating the terms of any further assistance. Leading the Auto Team were two advisors: Ron Bloom, a former investment banker and head of collective bargaining for the United Steelworkers Union, and Steven Rattner, the co-founder of the Quadrangle Group, a private-equity firm ... Although this group was responsible for managing AIFP, none of the Auto Team leaders or personnel had any experience or expertise in the auto industry.
And while the "Auto Team" may not have had much experience with the auto industry, the Task Force it reported to had quite a bit of experience in another field. Among the Task Force members and senior advisors were Carol Browner, the White House climate czar; Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Lisa Jackson; and Energy Secretary Steven Chu. Task Force senior policy aides included Heather Zichal, deputy director of the White House Office of Energy and Climate Change; Lisa Heinzerling, senior climate policy counsel to the head of the EPA; and Dan Utech, senior adviser to the Energy Secretary.
All of these people may have had more interest in reducing auto emissions than in saving jobs down at the local Chevy dealership.
Perhaps to make up for the Auto Team's lack of experience, two consulting firms, Boston Consulting Group and Rothschild North America, were hired to help the team with their analysis. Perhaps there was another reason, though. Employees of BCG contributed more than $55,000 to Barack Obama during the 2006-2008 election cycle. Rothschild employees contributed $133,000 to Obama's campaign and tens of thousands more to the Democrat National Committee. BCG stands to make up to $7 million for this contract, Rothschild $7.7 million. Smell the stench yet?
What did the public get for its millions? Among other things, a projection by Rothschild that GM sales would increase by 50% by the year 2014.
This is the picture that emerges from the Inspector General's report: an Obama auto industry team made up of people unfamiliar with the auto industry, using data provided by major Obama campaign contributors, and reporting to a Task Force more interested in promoting global warming than in protecting American jobs.
What could possibly go wrong with that?
Just ask the tens of thousands of people who lost their jobs as a result. And while we are at it, lets not forget the sweet heart deal the thugs masquerading as the UAW got at the expense of the bond holders.
And all for Obama's "shared sacrifice." Little do they know that this little "social justice" game they play will be the noose around their necks come election time.
--------
P.S. By the way, don't look for extensive coverage of this report in the main stream media. They are MIA (missing in action) just like they were with the Black Panthers (Justice Department) scandal; Van Jones, Donald Berwick, and assorted other mini scandals from president's life long associates with revolutionary radicals and down right criminals.
There is no journalism being practiced in the MSM as the Journolist scandal made abundantly clear for those who were still in dreamland.
Special Inspector General Neil M. Barofsky notes that the Obama administration rejected initial automaker plans which would have required relatively minimal dealership closings, insisting instead on far more drastic cuts -- as many as two thousand dealerships between the two corporations, costing an estimated 100,000 people their livelihood.
When asked explicitly whether the [Obama] Auto Team could have left the dealerships out of the restructurings, Mr. [Ron] Bloom, the current head of the Auto Team, confirmed that the Auto Team "could have left any one component [of the restructuring plan] alone," but that doing so would have been inconsistent with the President's mandate for "shared sacrifice."
Barofsky's report paints a portrait of cavalier disregard for the people the Obama administration damaged by its actions:
Treasury (a) should have taken every reasonable step to ensure that accelerating the dealership terminations was truly necessary for the long-term viability of the companies and (b) should have at least considered whether the benefits to the companies from the accelerated terminations outweighed the costs to the economy that would result from potentially tens of thousands of accelerated job losses. The record is not at all clear that Treasury did either.
The anticipated benefits to the companies of accelerated terminations were based almost entirely on the not-universally-accepted theory that an immediate decrease in dealerships would make them similar to their foreign competitors and therefore improve the companies' profitability, and the theory arguably did not take into account some of the unique circumstances of the domestic companies' dealership networks. It undertook no market studies to test the counterintuitive theory until after making its Viability Determination.
More importantly, there was no effort even to quantify the number of job losses that the Auto Team's decision would contribute to until after the decision was made, and the effect on the broader economy caused by accelerated dealership terminations similarly was not sufficiently considered.
Barofsky rejects the administration's stated reasons for their draconian actions:
Treasury's [The Obama Treasury Department's] letter seems to imply that Treasury was faced with the decision either to encourage the acceleration of dealership terminations substantially, as it did, or let the companies fail altogether. This is a false dilemma with no factual support: no one from Treasury, the manufacturers or from anywhere else indicated that implementing a smaller or more gradual dealership termination plan would have resulted in the cataclysmic scenario spelled out in Treasury's response.
And Barofsky's report even questions whether the closures would lead to any real savings for GM and Chrysler. "One GM official emphasized this point by telling SIGTARP (Barofsky) that GM would save 'not one damn cent' by closing any particular dealership."
The Inspector General's report also points to ineptitude by the Obama White House:
... the Administration created a Treasury Auto Team (the "Auto Team"), which reports to the Task Force and had the responsibility of evaluating the companies' restructuring plans and negotiating the terms of any further assistance. Leading the Auto Team were two advisors: Ron Bloom, a former investment banker and head of collective bargaining for the United Steelworkers Union, and Steven Rattner, the co-founder of the Quadrangle Group, a private-equity firm ... Although this group was responsible for managing AIFP, none of the Auto Team leaders or personnel had any experience or expertise in the auto industry.
And while the "Auto Team" may not have had much experience with the auto industry, the Task Force it reported to had quite a bit of experience in another field. Among the Task Force members and senior advisors were Carol Browner, the White House climate czar; Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Lisa Jackson; and Energy Secretary Steven Chu. Task Force senior policy aides included Heather Zichal, deputy director of the White House Office of Energy and Climate Change; Lisa Heinzerling, senior climate policy counsel to the head of the EPA; and Dan Utech, senior adviser to the Energy Secretary.
All of these people may have had more interest in reducing auto emissions than in saving jobs down at the local Chevy dealership.
Perhaps to make up for the Auto Team's lack of experience, two consulting firms, Boston Consulting Group and Rothschild North America, were hired to help the team with their analysis. Perhaps there was another reason, though. Employees of BCG contributed more than $55,000 to Barack Obama during the 2006-2008 election cycle. Rothschild employees contributed $133,000 to Obama's campaign and tens of thousands more to the Democrat National Committee. BCG stands to make up to $7 million for this contract, Rothschild $7.7 million. Smell the stench yet?
What did the public get for its millions? Among other things, a projection by Rothschild that GM sales would increase by 50% by the year 2014.
This is the picture that emerges from the Inspector General's report: an Obama auto industry team made up of people unfamiliar with the auto industry, using data provided by major Obama campaign contributors, and reporting to a Task Force more interested in promoting global warming than in protecting American jobs.
What could possibly go wrong with that?
Just ask the tens of thousands of people who lost their jobs as a result. And while we are at it, lets not forget the sweet heart deal the thugs masquerading as the UAW got at the expense of the bond holders.
And all for Obama's "shared sacrifice." Little do they know that this little "social justice" game they play will be the noose around their necks come election time.
--------
P.S. By the way, don't look for extensive coverage of this report in the main stream media. They are MIA (missing in action) just like they were with the Black Panthers (Justice Department) scandal; Van Jones, Donald Berwick, and assorted other mini scandals from president's life long associates with revolutionary radicals and down right criminals.
There is no journalism being practiced in the MSM as the Journolist scandal made abundantly clear for those who were still in dreamland.
Friday, July 23, 2010
Where Is the Plan, GOP?
The good news for those of us who believe in our founding documents as the source of our greatness is that the great progressive onslaught on the american way seems to have its days numbered. Even numerous intellectually honest liberal pundits and the presidential spokesman, Robert Gibbs, admit what they consider to be a real possibility at the risk of directing the ire of Democrat party leadership in the Congress.
Now the bad news. I, along with most classic liberals find it disheartening that the Republican party collectively seems to be content riding the self destructive actions of the Democrats to victory this fall. Leaders - Senator Mitch McConnell and Rep. John Boehner - do not seem to be in any hurry to articulate a clearly spelled out legislative plan for the country to dig itself out of the deep hole it has dug over the past decade. To me, this indicates politics as usual and will likely become a squandered opportunity for the GOP unlike the Contract With America in 1994 which directly led to four straight years of budget surpluses starting in 1996.
If the GOP does not rediscover its founding principles, or its reason for being if you prefer, it will have given a clear signal that U.S. has no hope left. America cannot aford another big government promoting political party. We already have the Democrats for that.
Now the bad news. I, along with most classic liberals find it disheartening that the Republican party collectively seems to be content riding the self destructive actions of the Democrats to victory this fall. Leaders - Senator Mitch McConnell and Rep. John Boehner - do not seem to be in any hurry to articulate a clearly spelled out legislative plan for the country to dig itself out of the deep hole it has dug over the past decade. To me, this indicates politics as usual and will likely become a squandered opportunity for the GOP unlike the Contract With America in 1994 which directly led to four straight years of budget surpluses starting in 1996.
If the GOP does not rediscover its founding principles, or its reason for being if you prefer, it will have given a clear signal that U.S. has no hope left. America cannot aford another big government promoting political party. We already have the Democrats for that.
Example of Typical Socialist Disconnect at the U.N.
Earlier this year, an Amnesty International report criticised North Korea for its deplorable healthcare system among other human right abuses. This is pretty consistent with what we all know about the reality of the most secretive collectivist regime in the world - total disregard for human rights.
The Amnesty International report provides truly horrific details and testimonials from North Koreans. The introduction to the Amnesty report clearly lays out the vast difference between North Korea’s claims on its provision of health care and the reality:
Interviews with North Koreans (refugees who were fortunate enough to escape with their lives) depict a country that professes to have a universal (free) health care system but in reality struggles to provide even the most basic service to the population. Health facilities are rundown and operate with frequent power cuts and no heat. Medical personnel often do not receive salaries, and many hospitals function without medicines and other essentials. As doctors have begun charging for their services, which is illegal under North Korea’s universal health care system, the poor cannot access full medical care, especially medicines and surgery.
Importantly, the report recognizes that fact that the dismal health care system in North Korea is “in large part due to failed or counterproductive government policies.” Pretty amazing stuff, coming from a decidedly progressive organization.
Now, contrast this against the assessment of Margaret Chan, Director General of the U.N.’s World Health Organization. Following a visit to the Country in late April 2010, Dr. Chan observed:
"Now based on what I have seen, I can tell you they have [a health care system] that most other developing countries would envy."
"For example, DPRK has no lack of doctors and nurses, as we have seen in other developing countries where most of their doctors have migrated to other places. But DPRK has enough doctors and nurses, they have a very elaborate health infrastructure, starting from the central to the provincial to the district level…."
"People in the country do not have to worry about a lack of financial resources to access care…."
"[W]alking is quite well observed in that country, and I suggest that is why I didn’t see many obese people."
Chen’s comments were heavily criticized when reported and rightly so. The lack of “obese people” is due to chronic food shortages in the country, exacerbated by the government’s opposition to letting farmers sell their crops for profit. A large percentage of the populace falls below international standards of malnutrition and an estimated one million North Koreans died of starvation and starvation-related diseases in the late 1990s. The country needs massive amounts of international food aid every year to avoid a repetition of starvation.
While many developing countries have very poor health care systems, North Korea seems unlikely to elicit envy from any of them. The problem is that none of those countries come close to the level of communist rule as N. Korea, thus the explanation for Dr. Chen's defense of the indefensible. The one world order, globalist marxists of the U.N. suffer from the same disorder as Sean Penn, Danny Glover, and others in the U.S. who glorify the fruits of the regimes in Cuba and Venezuela.
The Amnesty International report provides truly horrific details and testimonials from North Koreans. The introduction to the Amnesty report clearly lays out the vast difference between North Korea’s claims on its provision of health care and the reality:
Interviews with North Koreans (refugees who were fortunate enough to escape with their lives) depict a country that professes to have a universal (free) health care system but in reality struggles to provide even the most basic service to the population. Health facilities are rundown and operate with frequent power cuts and no heat. Medical personnel often do not receive salaries, and many hospitals function without medicines and other essentials. As doctors have begun charging for their services, which is illegal under North Korea’s universal health care system, the poor cannot access full medical care, especially medicines and surgery.
Importantly, the report recognizes that fact that the dismal health care system in North Korea is “in large part due to failed or counterproductive government policies.” Pretty amazing stuff, coming from a decidedly progressive organization.
Now, contrast this against the assessment of Margaret Chan, Director General of the U.N.’s World Health Organization. Following a visit to the Country in late April 2010, Dr. Chan observed:
"Now based on what I have seen, I can tell you they have [a health care system] that most other developing countries would envy."
"For example, DPRK has no lack of doctors and nurses, as we have seen in other developing countries where most of their doctors have migrated to other places. But DPRK has enough doctors and nurses, they have a very elaborate health infrastructure, starting from the central to the provincial to the district level…."
"People in the country do not have to worry about a lack of financial resources to access care…."
"[W]alking is quite well observed in that country, and I suggest that is why I didn’t see many obese people."
Chen’s comments were heavily criticized when reported and rightly so. The lack of “obese people” is due to chronic food shortages in the country, exacerbated by the government’s opposition to letting farmers sell their crops for profit. A large percentage of the populace falls below international standards of malnutrition and an estimated one million North Koreans died of starvation and starvation-related diseases in the late 1990s. The country needs massive amounts of international food aid every year to avoid a repetition of starvation.
While many developing countries have very poor health care systems, North Korea seems unlikely to elicit envy from any of them. The problem is that none of those countries come close to the level of communist rule as N. Korea, thus the explanation for Dr. Chen's defense of the indefensible. The one world order, globalist marxists of the U.N. suffer from the same disorder as Sean Penn, Danny Glover, and others in the U.S. who glorify the fruits of the regimes in Cuba and Venezuela.
Thursday, July 22, 2010
The Gaffe Prone Village Idiot Speaks Again
The claim this time? Stimulus failed because Republicans kept it small.
Here is a relevant passage from the interview with ABC's Jake Tapper:
TAPPER: Was the stimulus, in retrospect, too small?
BIDEN: Look, there’s a lot of people at the time argued it was too small. Actually, we…
TAPPER: A lot of people in your administration.
BIDEN: — yes. A lot of people in our administration, a lot of — I mean, you know, even some Republican economists (?!) and some Nobel laureates like Paul Krugman, who continues to argue it was too small. But, you know, there was a reality. In order to get what we got passed, we had to find Republican votes (this clown apparently also needs to learn elementary arithmetic - does he not know Republicans do not have the numbers to stop anything in the House?) And we found three — three. And we finally got it passed. So there is the reality of whether or not the Republicans are willing to play, whether or not the Republicans are just about repeal and repeat the old policies or they’re really wanting to do something. And I — I’m not — I’m not — you know…
TAPPER: So if you didn’t have Republicans that you had — if you didn’t have the legislative reality…
BIDEN: I think what…
TAPPER: — it would have been bigger?
BIDEN: I think it would have been bigger. I think it would have been bigger. In fact, what we offered was slightly bigger than that…
-----------
FACTS: Democrats’ stimulus bill failed on its own merits, not because – at $862 billion or nearly $3,000 for every man, woman and child in the U.S. – it was “too small.”
During the debate leading up to passage of the stimulus bill, Jared Bernstein (Chief Economist and Economic Policy Adviser to Vice President Biden) and Christina Romer (Chair, President Obama’s Council of Economic Advisors) argued that “A package in the range that the President-Elect has discussed is expected to create between three and four million jobs by the end of 2010…We have assumed a package just slightly over the $775 billion currently under discussion.”
That $775 billion assumed cost was actually LESS than what CBO estimated the Democrats’ stimulus plan would cost when it was signed into law ($787 billion), which CBO later revised upwards (to $862 billion).
Thus the failure of stimulus to create jobs cannot be because it spent too little – since actual stimulus spending is MORE than the level Administration economists said would “create between three and four million jobs.”
Maybe, if the Vice-President was so inclined to educate himself, he would know what basic laws of economics dictate - government spending kills jobs, not create them. Just as government spending (combined with excessive regulations) didn't alleviate the jobs situation and promote growth in the U.S. throughout the 1930's, Japan and Europe more recently as well as the current recession, it will never create jobs in the future. It may serve him well to read the latest Harvard study if not a myriad of previous studies that all point to the foolishness of his and other progressives'claim.
What a moron!
Here is a relevant passage from the interview with ABC's Jake Tapper:
TAPPER: Was the stimulus, in retrospect, too small?
BIDEN: Look, there’s a lot of people at the time argued it was too small. Actually, we…
TAPPER: A lot of people in your administration.
BIDEN: — yes. A lot of people in our administration, a lot of — I mean, you know, even some Republican economists (?!) and some Nobel laureates like Paul Krugman, who continues to argue it was too small. But, you know, there was a reality. In order to get what we got passed, we had to find Republican votes (this clown apparently also needs to learn elementary arithmetic - does he not know Republicans do not have the numbers to stop anything in the House?) And we found three — three. And we finally got it passed. So there is the reality of whether or not the Republicans are willing to play, whether or not the Republicans are just about repeal and repeat the old policies or they’re really wanting to do something. And I — I’m not — I’m not — you know…
TAPPER: So if you didn’t have Republicans that you had — if you didn’t have the legislative reality…
BIDEN: I think what…
TAPPER: — it would have been bigger?
BIDEN: I think it would have been bigger. I think it would have been bigger. In fact, what we offered was slightly bigger than that…
-----------
FACTS: Democrats’ stimulus bill failed on its own merits, not because – at $862 billion or nearly $3,000 for every man, woman and child in the U.S. – it was “too small.”
During the debate leading up to passage of the stimulus bill, Jared Bernstein (Chief Economist and Economic Policy Adviser to Vice President Biden) and Christina Romer (Chair, President Obama’s Council of Economic Advisors) argued that “A package in the range that the President-Elect has discussed is expected to create between three and four million jobs by the end of 2010…We have assumed a package just slightly over the $775 billion currently under discussion.”
That $775 billion assumed cost was actually LESS than what CBO estimated the Democrats’ stimulus plan would cost when it was signed into law ($787 billion), which CBO later revised upwards (to $862 billion).
Thus the failure of stimulus to create jobs cannot be because it spent too little – since actual stimulus spending is MORE than the level Administration economists said would “create between three and four million jobs.”
Maybe, if the Vice-President was so inclined to educate himself, he would know what basic laws of economics dictate - government spending kills jobs, not create them. Just as government spending (combined with excessive regulations) didn't alleviate the jobs situation and promote growth in the U.S. throughout the 1930's, Japan and Europe more recently as well as the current recession, it will never create jobs in the future. It may serve him well to read the latest Harvard study if not a myriad of previous studies that all point to the foolishness of his and other progressives'claim.
What a moron!
Wednesday, July 21, 2010
"I Absolutely Reject That Notion"
That was President Obama's response to George Stephanopoulos a few short months ago when asked if he thought the mandate to buy health insurance constituted a tax.
As NYT reported last Friday, guess whose Justice Department is now arguing in court that the new law is constitutional based on the government's "power to lay and collect taxes"?!
-----------------
Funny, back than you could not get NYT to publish such an article (questioning the notion of the mandate being a tax). Now that the law has been signed in to existence, they want to fool people in to thinking that they actually do practice journalism at the Gray Lady.
As NYT reported last Friday, guess whose Justice Department is now arguing in court that the new law is constitutional based on the government's "power to lay and collect taxes"?!
-----------------
Funny, back than you could not get NYT to publish such an article (questioning the notion of the mandate being a tax). Now that the law has been signed in to existence, they want to fool people in to thinking that they actually do practice journalism at the Gray Lady.
Friday, July 16, 2010
Remember the Stupak Amendment?
First a refresher for those with short memories. Stupak amendment is the executive order signed by the President at the last minute to provide cover for pro-life Democrats in passing the healthcare bill. It is also important to remember the ridicule the opponents of this bill were subjected to for insisting that both abortions and care for illegal immigrants would be covered under the bill. Remember "You lie"? Well, as we knew all too well, he did as well as congresiional Democrats.
Fast forward to present. The Obama administration has officially approved the first instance of taxpayer funded abortions under the new national government-run health care program. The Obama Administration will give Pennsylvania $160 million to set up a new "high-risk" insurance program under a provision of the federal health care legislation enacted in March.
It has quietly approved a plan submitted by an appointee of pro-choice Governor Edward Rendell under which the new program will cover any abortion that is legal in Pennsylvania.
The high-risk pool program is one of the new programs created by the sweeping health care legislation, Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, President Obama signed into law on March 23. The law authorizes $5 billion in federal funds for the program, which will cover as many as 400,000 people when it is implemented nationwide.
"The Obama Administration will give Pennsylvania $160 million in federal tax funds, which will pay for insurance plans that cover any legal abortion," said Douglas Johnson, legislative director for the National Right to Life Committee.
Johnson told LifeNews.com: "This is just the first proof of the phoniness of President Obama's assurances that federal funds would not subsidize abortion -- but it will not be the last."
"President Obama successfully opposed including language in the bill to prevent federal subsidies for abortions, and now the Administration is quietly advancing its abortion-expanding agenda through administrative decisions such as this.
The section on abortion (see page 14) asserts that "elective abortions are not covered," though it does not define elective -- which Johnson calls a "red herring."
The proposal specifies coverage "includes only abortions and contraceptives that satisfy the requirements of" several specific statutes, the most pertinent of which is 18 Pa. C.S. § 3204, which says abortion is legal in Pennsylvania. The statute essentially says all abortions except those to determine the sex of the baby are legal.
"Under the Rendell-Sebelius plan, federal funds will subsidize coverage of abortion performed for any reason, except sex selection," said NRLC's Johnson. "The Pennsylvania proposal conspicuously lacks language that would prevent funding of abortions performed as a method of birth control or for any other reason, except sex selection -- and the Obama Administration has now approved this."
Just pointing out the serial lies that unfold on a weekly basis.
Fast forward to present. The Obama administration has officially approved the first instance of taxpayer funded abortions under the new national government-run health care program. The Obama Administration will give Pennsylvania $160 million to set up a new "high-risk" insurance program under a provision of the federal health care legislation enacted in March.
It has quietly approved a plan submitted by an appointee of pro-choice Governor Edward Rendell under which the new program will cover any abortion that is legal in Pennsylvania.
The high-risk pool program is one of the new programs created by the sweeping health care legislation, Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, President Obama signed into law on March 23. The law authorizes $5 billion in federal funds for the program, which will cover as many as 400,000 people when it is implemented nationwide.
"The Obama Administration will give Pennsylvania $160 million in federal tax funds, which will pay for insurance plans that cover any legal abortion," said Douglas Johnson, legislative director for the National Right to Life Committee.
Johnson told LifeNews.com: "This is just the first proof of the phoniness of President Obama's assurances that federal funds would not subsidize abortion -- but it will not be the last."
"President Obama successfully opposed including language in the bill to prevent federal subsidies for abortions, and now the Administration is quietly advancing its abortion-expanding agenda through administrative decisions such as this.
The section on abortion (see page 14) asserts that "elective abortions are not covered," though it does not define elective -- which Johnson calls a "red herring."
The proposal specifies coverage "includes only abortions and contraceptives that satisfy the requirements of" several specific statutes, the most pertinent of which is 18 Pa. C.S. § 3204, which says abortion is legal in Pennsylvania. The statute essentially says all abortions except those to determine the sex of the baby are legal.
"Under the Rendell-Sebelius plan, federal funds will subsidize coverage of abortion performed for any reason, except sex selection," said NRLC's Johnson. "The Pennsylvania proposal conspicuously lacks language that would prevent funding of abortions performed as a method of birth control or for any other reason, except sex selection -- and the Obama Administration has now approved this."
Just pointing out the serial lies that unfold on a weekly basis.
Wednesday, July 14, 2010
Funny.....
From a May 3, 2010 FOX article:
Talk about bad timing . . .
The Interior Department’s Mineral Management Service has postponed a Monday safety awards luncheon at which a nominee for two awards was BP -- which operated the oil rig that sank in the Gulf of Mexico, threatening an unprecedented environmental disaster along much of the nation's Gulf Coast.
The awards ceremony recognizes "outstanding safety and pollution prevention performance by the offshore oil and gas industry." BP was nominated for its work on the outer continental shelf.
The big winner of last year's SAFE award was Transocean, the owner of the Deepwater Horizon rig that exploded last month under BP's management. BP was also a finalist at the 2009 conference.
Talk about bad timing . . .
The Interior Department’s Mineral Management Service has postponed a Monday safety awards luncheon at which a nominee for two awards was BP -- which operated the oil rig that sank in the Gulf of Mexico, threatening an unprecedented environmental disaster along much of the nation's Gulf Coast.
The awards ceremony recognizes "outstanding safety and pollution prevention performance by the offshore oil and gas industry." BP was nominated for its work on the outer continental shelf.
The big winner of last year's SAFE award was Transocean, the owner of the Deepwater Horizon rig that exploded last month under BP's management. BP was also a finalist at the 2009 conference.
WH Claims More Jobs From Stimulus
The "saved or created" job figure is now apparently up to between 2.5 and 3.6 million (notice the range wide enough to drive an eigteen wheeler truck through).
At today's planned congressional testimony, Christina Romer, head of the White House Council of Economic Advisers, is claiming that the stimulus bill "appears to be stimulating private investment and job creation at a time when the economy needs it most." The claim also contends that every $1 from the stimulus bill is matched by $3 in private money.
On the other hand, the Federal Reserve reported last Thursday that nonfinancial companies had socked away $1.84 trillion in cash and other liquid assets as of the end of March, up 26% from a year earlier and the largest-ever increase in records going back to 1952. Cash made up about 7% of all company assets, including factories and financial investments, the highest level since 1963.
Where is the private sector enthusiasm that the Administration is eluding to?
If they were paying any attention to the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and National Association of Manufacturers, they too would know that unless they are focusing on corporations that are in bed with the government (i.e. G.E., various alternative energy manufacturers, etc.), there is nothing in the way of government policy to give private sector any confidence to expand or undertake new ventures.
Yes, the American public is generally detached from policy issues, but not when unemployment, despite the ongoing census keeping the rate artificially low, is still near 10% and under employment at 17%. This is the type of detachment from reality that will make 1994 rout of Democrats look like a walk in the park in comparison to what is about to happen to them in November 2010.
At today's planned congressional testimony, Christina Romer, head of the White House Council of Economic Advisers, is claiming that the stimulus bill "appears to be stimulating private investment and job creation at a time when the economy needs it most." The claim also contends that every $1 from the stimulus bill is matched by $3 in private money.
On the other hand, the Federal Reserve reported last Thursday that nonfinancial companies had socked away $1.84 trillion in cash and other liquid assets as of the end of March, up 26% from a year earlier and the largest-ever increase in records going back to 1952. Cash made up about 7% of all company assets, including factories and financial investments, the highest level since 1963.
Where is the private sector enthusiasm that the Administration is eluding to?
If they were paying any attention to the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and National Association of Manufacturers, they too would know that unless they are focusing on corporations that are in bed with the government (i.e. G.E., various alternative energy manufacturers, etc.), there is nothing in the way of government policy to give private sector any confidence to expand or undertake new ventures.
Yes, the American public is generally detached from policy issues, but not when unemployment, despite the ongoing census keeping the rate artificially low, is still near 10% and under employment at 17%. This is the type of detachment from reality that will make 1994 rout of Democrats look like a walk in the park in comparison to what is about to happen to them in November 2010.
Update on HUD's Homelessness Prevention Initiative
As I wrote earlier, HUD recently announced Obama Administration's national strategic plan to prevent and end homelessness. According to their latest announcement, HUD will be giving local governments and non-profit agencies participating in the department’s Neighborhood Stabilization Program (NSP) preference to acquire homes from its inventory of foreclosed properties at discounted rates.
The initial cost of this ingenious program is only a paltry $190 million (but not to worry, with the near perfect track record of federal government, the actual costs will surely be in the billions, plus we all know historically how wonderful government housing initiatives have turned out!).
Hmmm, lets see....government buying their own foreclosures to get foreclosures off the books and creating tons of public housing in the process in the name of ending homelessness. What could ever go wrong with that!?!
-------------
P.S. Has anyone given a thought to why the chronically homeless (as of 2005 estimated at 740,000 - including the temporarily homeless - or 0.002% of the population) are homeless, and whether they are suitable for home ownership (like the majority of the chronically homeless who are suffering from mental illness)?
The initial cost of this ingenious program is only a paltry $190 million (but not to worry, with the near perfect track record of federal government, the actual costs will surely be in the billions, plus we all know historically how wonderful government housing initiatives have turned out!).
Hmmm, lets see....government buying their own foreclosures to get foreclosures off the books and creating tons of public housing in the process in the name of ending homelessness. What could ever go wrong with that!?!
-------------
P.S. Has anyone given a thought to why the chronically homeless (as of 2005 estimated at 740,000 - including the temporarily homeless - or 0.002% of the population) are homeless, and whether they are suitable for home ownership (like the majority of the chronically homeless who are suffering from mental illness)?
Tuesday, July 13, 2010
Uh, Oh, Watch Out...
The White House is contradicting the NASA administrator’s claim that President Barack Obama assigned him to reach out to Muslims on science matters.
NASA Administrator Charles Bolden recently told Al-Jazeera network that one of the charges Obama gave him was “to reach out to the Muslim world and engage much more with dominantly Muslim nations to help them feel good about their historic contribution to science and engineering.”
Some conservative activists criticized the remarks.
White House press secretary Robert Gibbs said Monday that such activities are not among Bolden’s assigned tasks. He said administration officials have spoken with NASA about the matter.
Someone has got to be lying: Bolden or Gibbs/Obama. My money is on the latter.
Why is it that I feel someone is about to be run over by the Hope-N-Change bus?
NASA Administrator Charles Bolden recently told Al-Jazeera network that one of the charges Obama gave him was “to reach out to the Muslim world and engage much more with dominantly Muslim nations to help them feel good about their historic contribution to science and engineering.”
Some conservative activists criticized the remarks.
White House press secretary Robert Gibbs said Monday that such activities are not among Bolden’s assigned tasks. He said administration officials have spoken with NASA about the matter.
Someone has got to be lying: Bolden or Gibbs/Obama. My money is on the latter.
Why is it that I feel someone is about to be run over by the Hope-N-Change bus?
Saturday, July 10, 2010
Krugman’s Posthumous Nobel
The following article, by Donald Luskin, chief investment officer of Trend Macrolytics LLC, an independent economics and investment-research firm, was written in October 2008. He is not a political hack but a long time critic of the left's favorite economist (yes, the same one who claimed in the early 1980s that tax cuts are inflationary, and despite being proven wrong, has never admitted it). I am posting it (with a few of my comments in parentheses) simply because my progressive friends should not be deprived of this great article. Enjoy!
------------------------------------
Prior to 2008 the Nobel Prize had never been awarded posthumously. So great minds such as John Maynard Keynes and Fischer Black never received the coveted award. But all that has changed. This year, the prize for economics is going to Paul Krugman, an economist who died a decade ago.
To clarify, the person named Paul Krugman, the living and breathing man who will accept the Nobel in Stockholm this December, is merely a public intellectual — a person operating in the same domain as, say, Oprah Winfrey.
The living Krugman’s rabidly liberal New York Times column has, for nine years now, traded on the dead Krugman’s reputation as an economist, a reputation that only will be burnished by the award of the Nobel Prize. Yet his column is pure politics, not economics. It is the equivalent of astronomers Mather and Smoot — the 2006 Nobelists in physics — writing on astrology.
This living Paul Krugman can’t be the same person as the dead economist. The dead economist wrote eloquently of the supreme importance of globalization and international trade as engines of prosperity. But the living public intellectual remains silent on these subjects when the Democratic party’s nominee for president threatens to abrogate the North American Free Trade Agreement.
These days Krugman’s liberal agenda always takes precedence over economic principle. He has described himself as “an unabashed defender of the welfare state.” He has declared, “For me, Sweden of 1980 would be ideal.” He has called Barack Obama’s sweeping plan for socialized medicine “naïve” because it doesn’t contain enough mandates. He has said that “We should be getting 28% of GDP in [tax] revenue,” when the highest level ever collected, even in wartime, is less than 21 percent.
Krugman is entitled to such opinions, whether as a public intellectual or an economist. But there have been serious questions about his journalistic integrity — suggestions that the living Krugman has debased and corrupted the very science the dead Krugman did so much to advance.
In 1999 Paul Krugman was paid $50,000 by Enron as a consultant on its “advisory board,” and that same year he wrote a glowing article about Enron for Fortune magazine. But he would change his tune. After Enron collapsed in 2001, Krugman wrote several columns excoriating the company. (One featured what may be the most absurd howler in the history of op-ed journalism: “I predict that in the years ahead Enron, not Sept. 11, will come to be seen as the greater turning point in U.S. society.”) In most of these columns Krugman worked hard to link Enron to the Bush administration, and in one he actually blamed Enron’s consultants for the company’s collapse — while neglecting to mention that he, too, had been an Enron consultant. (To my disappointment, author does not even mention Enron for what it really was: a G.E. like green company in bed with Al Gore and the global carbon scheme - some connection to Republicans, eh?!)
Daniel Okrent, while ombudsman for the New York Times, wrote that “Paul Krugman has the disturbing habit of shaping, slicing and selectively citing numbers.” Indeed. But Krugman’s distortions were so rampant, and his unwillingness to correct them so intransigent, that Okrent — no doubt pressured into service by my Krugman Truth Squad column for NRO — did something about it. Okrent forced the Times op-ed page to adopt for the first time a corrections policy for op-ed columnists. That was in 2004. Later, when Krugman flouted that policy, the Krugman Truth Squad went to work on Okrent’s successor, Byron Calame, who pressed for the adoption of a new, more stringent policy in 2005.
Krugman wasn’t happy about the pressure coming from the Krugman Truth Squad. After I met him in person at a lecture he gave in connection with one of his books, he smeared me on national television by saying, “that’s a guy who actually stalks me on the web, and once stalked me personally.”
That didn’t stop me from writing many more Krugman Truth Squad columns for NRO. But this one is the first in quite a while. I stopped not because I was afraid of Krugman’s defamations, but because I became aware that Krugman’s influence was waning.
Before the Times began to hold Krugman accountable for what he actually wrote in his columns, Krugman was having a powerful impact on the way public policy was being debated and decided. But no longer. Funny thing — it’s a lot harder to have a political impact when you can’t lie.
In this sense, Krugman is not only a dead economist. He’s also a dead propagandist.
With last year’s Nobel Peace Prize having gone to Al Gore, one has to wonder whether Krugman’s award is a left-leaning political statement, perhaps intended to revive Krugman’s influence. Probably not. In recent years several right-leaning economists have won the prize.
More likely, the Nobel committee decided deliberately to overlook Krugman’s political extremism, just as it chose to overlook John Nash’s schizophrenia in 1994. That’s not to say Krugman is crazy, though he has stated: “my economic theories have no doubt been influenced by my relationship with my cats.”
Whatever the committee was thinking, the only remaining question is what the living Paul Krugman will do with his $1.4 million prize. Will he pay taxes on it at the low rates established in 2003 by George W. Bush, a president and a policy that Krugman has worked so assiduously to discredit? Or will he voluntarily pay at the higher rates he advocates?
(Too bad that the article was written before the Nobel Committee awarded an even less meritorious candidate the prize in January 2009)
------------------------------------
Prior to 2008 the Nobel Prize had never been awarded posthumously. So great minds such as John Maynard Keynes and Fischer Black never received the coveted award. But all that has changed. This year, the prize for economics is going to Paul Krugman, an economist who died a decade ago.
To clarify, the person named Paul Krugman, the living and breathing man who will accept the Nobel in Stockholm this December, is merely a public intellectual — a person operating in the same domain as, say, Oprah Winfrey.
The living Krugman’s rabidly liberal New York Times column has, for nine years now, traded on the dead Krugman’s reputation as an economist, a reputation that only will be burnished by the award of the Nobel Prize. Yet his column is pure politics, not economics. It is the equivalent of astronomers Mather and Smoot — the 2006 Nobelists in physics — writing on astrology.
This living Paul Krugman can’t be the same person as the dead economist. The dead economist wrote eloquently of the supreme importance of globalization and international trade as engines of prosperity. But the living public intellectual remains silent on these subjects when the Democratic party’s nominee for president threatens to abrogate the North American Free Trade Agreement.
These days Krugman’s liberal agenda always takes precedence over economic principle. He has described himself as “an unabashed defender of the welfare state.” He has declared, “For me, Sweden of 1980 would be ideal.” He has called Barack Obama’s sweeping plan for socialized medicine “naïve” because it doesn’t contain enough mandates. He has said that “We should be getting 28% of GDP in [tax] revenue,” when the highest level ever collected, even in wartime, is less than 21 percent.
Krugman is entitled to such opinions, whether as a public intellectual or an economist. But there have been serious questions about his journalistic integrity — suggestions that the living Krugman has debased and corrupted the very science the dead Krugman did so much to advance.
In 1999 Paul Krugman was paid $50,000 by Enron as a consultant on its “advisory board,” and that same year he wrote a glowing article about Enron for Fortune magazine. But he would change his tune. After Enron collapsed in 2001, Krugman wrote several columns excoriating the company. (One featured what may be the most absurd howler in the history of op-ed journalism: “I predict that in the years ahead Enron, not Sept. 11, will come to be seen as the greater turning point in U.S. society.”) In most of these columns Krugman worked hard to link Enron to the Bush administration, and in one he actually blamed Enron’s consultants for the company’s collapse — while neglecting to mention that he, too, had been an Enron consultant. (To my disappointment, author does not even mention Enron for what it really was: a G.E. like green company in bed with Al Gore and the global carbon scheme - some connection to Republicans, eh?!)
Daniel Okrent, while ombudsman for the New York Times, wrote that “Paul Krugman has the disturbing habit of shaping, slicing and selectively citing numbers.” Indeed. But Krugman’s distortions were so rampant, and his unwillingness to correct them so intransigent, that Okrent — no doubt pressured into service by my Krugman Truth Squad column for NRO — did something about it. Okrent forced the Times op-ed page to adopt for the first time a corrections policy for op-ed columnists. That was in 2004. Later, when Krugman flouted that policy, the Krugman Truth Squad went to work on Okrent’s successor, Byron Calame, who pressed for the adoption of a new, more stringent policy in 2005.
Krugman wasn’t happy about the pressure coming from the Krugman Truth Squad. After I met him in person at a lecture he gave in connection with one of his books, he smeared me on national television by saying, “that’s a guy who actually stalks me on the web, and once stalked me personally.”
That didn’t stop me from writing many more Krugman Truth Squad columns for NRO. But this one is the first in quite a while. I stopped not because I was afraid of Krugman’s defamations, but because I became aware that Krugman’s influence was waning.
Before the Times began to hold Krugman accountable for what he actually wrote in his columns, Krugman was having a powerful impact on the way public policy was being debated and decided. But no longer. Funny thing — it’s a lot harder to have a political impact when you can’t lie.
In this sense, Krugman is not only a dead economist. He’s also a dead propagandist.
With last year’s Nobel Peace Prize having gone to Al Gore, one has to wonder whether Krugman’s award is a left-leaning political statement, perhaps intended to revive Krugman’s influence. Probably not. In recent years several right-leaning economists have won the prize.
More likely, the Nobel committee decided deliberately to overlook Krugman’s political extremism, just as it chose to overlook John Nash’s schizophrenia in 1994. That’s not to say Krugman is crazy, though he has stated: “my economic theories have no doubt been influenced by my relationship with my cats.”
Whatever the committee was thinking, the only remaining question is what the living Paul Krugman will do with his $1.4 million prize. Will he pay taxes on it at the low rates established in 2003 by George W. Bush, a president and a policy that Krugman has worked so assiduously to discredit? Or will he voluntarily pay at the higher rates he advocates?
(Too bad that the article was written before the Nobel Committee awarded an even less meritorious candidate the prize in January 2009)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)