sf says...

Moron alert: House Dems define "reasonable profit"

2012-02-17T19:47:00.001-08:00

Six House Democrats want to create yet another federal agency: a “Reasonable Profits Board” to control gas profits. Their desired agency would apply a “windfall profits tax” as high as 100 percent on sales of oil and gas, according to their legislation, called the "Gas Price Spike Act."

The bill seeks to impose a tax ranging from 50 percent to 100 percent on all earnings deemed "surplus," which is defined as "exceeding a reasonable profit.” It would set up a Reasonable Profits Board--staffed by presidential nominees who would serve three-year terms.

If this doesn't seem sufficiently goofy/communist, here's a direct quote from the proposed bill:

(4) REASONABLE PROFIT.—The term ‘reasonable profit’ means the amount determined by the Reasonable Profits Board to be a reasonable profit on the sale.

Oh, well, thank you SO much for defining "reasonable profit" in such a clear, straightforward way. It's clear that y'all are definitely intellects of the first order.

WHO ELECTS THESE FUCKING MORONS???

Obozo submits budget that would violate a law; MSM yawns

2012-02-17T19:30:00.001-08:00

Our long-proven constitutional government is being destroyed before our very eyes, by the Kenyan community organizer and his Democrat helpers.

Latest example: Last year Congress--normally an outfit that's earned the contempt of most citizens--grew some balls and passed a law stating that U.S. aid to the Palestinians would be cut off if the Palestinians tried to get the U.N. to grant them full statehood.

The Palis did that, and $60 million in U.S. aid was withheld.

Now Obie has submitted a budget that provides for resuming the flow of U.S taxpayer cash to the Palistinians, via a U.N. agency, UNESCO.

The budget does have a footnote saying that “The Department of State intends to work with Congress to seek legislation that would provide authority to waive restrictions on paying the U.S. assessed contributions to UNESCO." That's just peachy, but the problem is that Obozo is on record as bucking the will of congress.

Nothing like sending a clear message to folks who hate us that the U.S. government is totally divided on a major issue.

NBC offers crocodile tears about gas price hike

2012-02-16T07:10:00.000-08:00

On some goofy NBC show yesterday (I think it was "We Love Obama" but may have been "Today") Matt Lauer warned viewers that gasoline prices were about to rise significantly.

What they didn't show you was Lauer and other NBC execs laughing at the prospect of you paying a lot more for gas.

We can be confident about that because in an interview with Obozo just after Obozo's election, NBC's head newsreader (Tom Brokaw, I guess) suggested that Obie have the federal gummint *raise* the tax on gasoline so that the total price was $4 per gallon, and use the money for alternative energy and to force consumers to buy smaller cars.

These network jackoffs are ecstatic about you having to pay four bucks a gallon for gas--though they'll pretend to be all sympathetic and serious when they announce that it's coming.

They don't care how much gas costs because they have limos to take them the two miles across Manhattan to work, while you probably commute twenty times that far every day.

Obozo misses 2012 deficit prediction by $700 Billion

2012-02-14T06:15:00.000-08:00

Barack Obozo-- genius, spellbinding orator, skilled planner. And knows how to choose brilliant aides and administrators, like a Treasury Secretary who cheated on his taxes and not only wasn't penalized, he was confirmed by the Democrat-controlled senate.

And with a team like that...well, is there anything they can't do?

Uh...wait.

In his first budget to Congress in February of 2009, Obie predicted that the federal deficit would decrease dramatically under his reign, dropping from an estimated $1.841 trillion in fiscal 2009 to $557.4 billion in fiscal 2012.

However, in the budget submitted to Congress today, the White House is predicting they'll miss that target just a bit: instead of a $557.4 billion deficit for 2012, the White House is now predicting a deficit of... $1.3269 trillion.

WTF?? That's an error of over 700 BILLION bucks!

Must be due to the huge cost of shutting down the prison for terrorists at Gitmo.

Yeh, dat's it.

h/t Weasel Zippers and CNS

Obozo's chief of staff lies about senate's failure, blames Republicans

2012-02-13T05:37:00.000-08:00

Jack Lew is Obozo's new chief of staff. He's also a lying, cunning political hack.

Which of course makes him perfect for his new job supporting Obozo.

He's been in government damn near forever--he was Bill Clinton's budget director, then Obozo hired him for the same position before naming him chief of White House staff.

Yesterday Lew appeared on one of the Sunday news shows, and made the following statement:

You can’t pass a budget in the Senate of the United States without 60 votes and you can’t get 60 votes without bipartisan support. So unless Republicans are willing to work with Democrats in the Senate, Harry Reid is not going to be able to get a budget passed.

He's referring to the filibuster. But in fact, budget votes in the Senate can't be filibustered. So did Lew not know this, or did he know it and simply lie on a national news program to blame the Republican minority for the failure of the Dem-controlled Senate to pass a budget?

Either choice was too outrageous even for that Democrat-supporting rag the Washington Post to let pass. They gave it "four Pinocchios," which is their cutesy way of saying he lied egregiously.

I'm not so sure. I think he simply didn't know that budget measures couldn't be filibustered. Hell, I didn't know that, and I'll bet not a hundred people outside the legislative branch did.

But then, we're not the preznit's chief of staff--and former budget directors for two Dem presidents.

Ah, Quality. Where does Obozo find such brilliant aides?

Grand compromise, part 2

2012-02-12T16:57:00.000-08:00

If you're not a Catholic or a political junkie you may have missed the on-going dust-up between Obozo and the Catholic church. It concerns Obama's demand that the church offer all its female employees free contraception, including the so-called "morning-after pill."

The church has no objection to being forced to provide health insurance, but to the provision regarding the morning-after pill. The reason is that the pill prevents a fertilized egg from implanting in the uterus, and the church considers that as amounting to abortion.

Of course this is only an issue because of Obama's (and his Democrat supporters') demand that every employer in the country pay for health insurance for their employees, as part of the new Nationalized Health Care Act. (I may have gotten a word or two wrong on that name.)

A day or so ago, Obozo and munchkins came up with what they considered a 'grand compromise:' They wouldn't force the church to provide contraceptive pills to employees after all. Instead, they would simply demand that every health insurance company supply these services for free.

One must stand in awe of such brilliance, that anyone could devise such a brilliant...eh, what crap. See, demanding that insurance companies provide something "for free" shows that the Obamazoids are both stupid, cunning and contemptuous of your intelligence. And because virtually no liberal or Dem grasps this, I'm gonna try to educate y'all.

See, demanding that companies provide "free" something that isn't free means the company must cover the cost from other income. It can only do this by raising prices somewhere else--or more likely, across the board on all products or services. So the result is that everyone who pays for any product is also paying for the so-called "free" product or service.

The church wasn't objecting to the cost, but to the fact that the govt was demanding that they provide something that Catholicism considers a huge sin. And Obozo's so-called "compromise" doesn't change this at all.

The "cunning" charge comes from the fact that Obozo and his top advisors thought that none of us common folk--educated at ordinary state universities instead of vaunted ivy schools like Hahvahd--would be able to grasp that this so-called compromise wasn't a compromise at all.

The "contempt" part arises from the fact that they knew *someone* out in flyover country would blow the whistle on 'em about this bald-face lie, and yet they apparently decided to go ahead anyway, secure in their belief that the MSM would tout this as a huge compromise and cover up the fact that it was no such thing.

Today (2/12) Obozo's chief of staff, Jacob Lew, doubled-down on the bet, telling reporters that the Obama administration is done negotiating and will finalize its plan requiring insurance companies to provide free contraception to women working and studying at religious institutions.

Predictably, Lew styled the compromise as consistent with his boss's "belief that a woman has a right to all forms of preventive health care, including contraception."

Of course as Lew and Obozo both know quite well, no one is claiming women don't have the right to any desired form of health care. Instead the argument is over whether the government has the right to force employers who believe abortion is a great sin to provide what amounts to abortion services.

Economist who predicted health costs would fall says the opposite a year later

2012-02-12T07:00:00.000-08:00

Ever hear the name Jonathan Gruber?

No? Don't feel left out. Gruber is a PhD economist at M.I.T. who was awarded a $392,000 NO-BID contract by the Obama administration to predict what effect Obama's and the Dems so-called "Affordable Care Act" would have on the price of health insurance.

This was back in 2010, before the crap act was crammed down the throat of most of the public. And can you guess what Gruber wrote?

Yep, wunnerful unicorns and pixy dust--lower prices for health insurance for virtually everyone.

Then last year officials in Wisconsin, Minnesota and Colorado hired Gruber to do essentially the same thing for them--analyze the effect of Obamacare on their citizens. And...surprise!!: In these reports Gruber wrote that 59 percent of Americans would see their insurance costs RISE by an average of 31 percent!

Whoa! Didn't Obozo and his MSM supporters tell us just a year earlier that by swallowing this piece of crap act, health insurance would cost LESS for almost everyone?

Why yes, yes they did. In other words, his 2011 report reached a diametrically opposite conclusion from the one publically touted by the Obozo regime just a year earlier.

So...two questions. First, what could possibly explain the two radically different predictions by the same PhD economist in a year's time?

When asked to explain this, Gruber shrugged and said, "Well, back in 2010 I'd scored some really fantastic mushrooms, and I spent most of the rest of that year stoned out of my gourd. So whenever I looked at pages of numbers they all ran together, turned rainbow colors and started doing a conga line across my desktop. So when the deadline arrived for my contract report, I just pulled stuff out of my ass."

I may have missed a word or two in that quote. Sorta like Gruber's first analysis. But don't sweat it--it's close enough for government work.

Alternatively, could it just possibly be that Gruber took what amounts to a $392,000 bribe to write what the Dem/socialists of the Obozo administration wanted him to write, to help get the Socialized Medicine Act passed?

Second question: why has it taken so long for this reversal to come to light and why has this total reversal gotten zero coverage in the MSM?

Answer: The MSM didn't want you to know about it, because it makes their god-king, Barry the 1st, look like he's either a liar or an incompetent clusterfuck.

h/t Daily Caller, via Ace.

Obama "compromise" on contraception mandate is an insult

2012-02-11T07:44:00.000-08:00

You may have heard that as part of the mandatory health insurance rammed down our throats a year ago, Obama had issued an edict requiring all employers to provide insurance that would pay for birth control--including the so-called "morning-after pill" that Catholics consider as equivalent to abortion.

Faced with this government decree--not a duly-passed law, but an edict--Catholics strongly objected. And the issue took off.

Now in a press conference, Obama has *allegedly* (according to the lying media) "compromised" on this diktat.

So under the alleged compromise, religious organizations won't have to pay to provide contraception to employees. Instead, Obama decrees that insurance companies will have to provide this service for free.

I don't know what's sadder: the arrogance or stupidity of any politician who thinks this alleged compromise will actually fool the public, or the absolute pig-ignorance of a politician who thinks demanding that a company provide something for free makes that true.

For those of you under 40 or so, or unfamiliar with the details of economics (which is a BIG club): If a good or service costs anything, demanding that a company provide it "for free" is like demanding that gravity stop. The demand obviously can't overrule reality.

All the demand or edict does is force companies to fund the cost from other revenue. To claim otherwise is on the level with babies who initially think that when they cover their eyes, objects cease to exist.

Sadly, half of the population will read the headlines and think this really is a brilliant compromise that substantively changes the effect of the edict.

And interestingly, a good percentage of Catholics will be in this group. You can already see the early indicators, as some of the bishops are commenting approvingly.

Interpol "red notice" causes arrest of man for allegedly insulting Mohammed

2012-02-11T06:53:00.000-08:00

When conservatives warn that the U.N. and other international agencies have a pro-Islam agenda and regularly over-reach, liberals/"progressives"/Democrats laugh and snicker about tinfoil hats.

Well, check this out: Seems a 23-year-old Saudi, Hamza Kashgar, posted a comment on Twitter that was interpreted by many Muslims as insulting Mohammed. In short order 13,000 Muslim fanatics in Saudi had joined a Facebook page demanding that the guy be executed for the alleged insult (quoted in full below).

Understandably worried, Kashgar fled to Indonesia.

This turned out to be a bad move, as Indonesia has a Muslim government.

Here's the conspiracy stuff: Saudi authorities asked the international police agency Interpol to put out an arrest notice for Kashgar. Acting on this alert, Indonesian authorities arrested him and plan to turn him over to Saudi authorities.

Now, because Indonesia is just another wacko country of no significance to Americans, very few of you grasp the significance or danger of that story, so let me explain: Muslim fanatics were able used an international police agency--one fully supported by the government of the U.S.--to arrest a guy in another country for making a remark they found insulting to their religion.

If you did something that some wacko raghead imam in Saudi Arabia (or any other Muslim country) screamed offended him, what agency or law would prevent exactly the same thing from happening to you?

Answer: Absolutely nothing.

Oh, and the allegedly insulting tweet--the one that 13,000 wackos found offensive enough to call for the death of the person who posted it? "I have loved things about you and I have hated things about you and there is a lot I don't understand about you … I will not pray for you."

God help us. Because our elected officials demonstrably are not and will not. In fact they seem to be actively helping to install islamic laws here in the U.S.

Oh, and to the legion of taxpayer-funded Homeland Security monitors: Fuck you and the horse you rode in on.

Obozo press secretary spins unemployment

2012-02-07T06:11:00.000-08:00

The cunning liars of the Obama administration have no equals when it comes to simply making stuff up to spin what would ordinarily be bad news into non-damaging news.

Case in point: Obozo press secretary Jay Carney was asked whether part of the reason for the recently reported drop in official unemployment to 8.3 percent could be that a million people have stopped searching for work--meaning the government doesn't count them as unemployed.

Carney responded,

A large percentage of that [the million-plus who just stopped looking for work] is due to younger people getting more education, which in the end is an economic positive," Carney said. "This increase in the number of people leaving the work force has been a trend and a fact since 2000, because of an aging population, which is not to say this is wholly -- that's not to say that I would wholly disregard as an issue." Carney had been asked about the 19 million underemployed or unemployed Americans, and about people who had left the work force.

Gosh, Jay, if a big chunk of the dropouts have done that to get more education--certainly a plausible theory, which is why your guys concocted it--shouldn't we have seen college enrollments go up by that amount? So...did that happen?

And the last-second pivot to blame the number on "an aging population": One would think the number of people reaching retirement age is essentially constant from year to year.

If the presnit were a Republican you can bet the press would be asking followups that would expose the press secretary's excuses and lies. But because the press is totally Dem/lib/socialist, no one asks the really probing questions.

Just like they refused to vet Obozo.

Thanks a lot, MSM.

Obama's top intel chief says Iran isn't committed to nukes

2012-02-01T06:43:00.000-08:00

If someone said the Muslim Brotherhood "is a largely secular organization," would you think they were insightful, well informed, smart--or the opposite?

Would you trust such a moron to hold a job with lots of power and influence on government and its policies? Or would you want to show them the door?

If that same person claimed Iran really isn't pursuing nuclear weapons, would you trust such a conclusion from a guy with the above track record?

Obama trusts this guy--James Clapper--so much that he's made him the administration's Director of National Intelligence.

Idiots. Morons. Failure raised to a large exponent.

Thanks a lot, 52%.

Government mimics Mafia scheme

2012-01-29T07:56:00.000-08:00

For a decade or two around 1990, organized crime made boatloads of money with a simple scheme: Someone would open a business in a strip-mall, and a couple of months later they'd apply for and receive a big loan to buy a bunch of inventory.

Then they'd either steal the inventory or sell everything in the store at a discount--obviously losing money. Finally they'd sell all the store fixtures and disappear, leaving an empty (leased) building. The bank that loaned the "business" the money was left with no collateral or assets to offset the loss.

When the mafia did it, it was called a “ bust-out.”

When the federal Department of Energy does it it's called "market conditions."

(h/t Toadold at Belmont Club.)

Obama: "I want an economy where we're making stuff."

2012-01-28T12:14:00.000-08:00

Video here of Obozo speaking at a campaign stop in Las Vegas. (Vid takes about ten seconds to load.) Whereupon Obozo sayeth,

On Tuesday at the State of the Union I laid out my vision for how we move forward. I laid out a blueprint for an economy that's built to last, that has a firm foundation. Where we're making stuff and selling stuff and moving it around and UPS drivers are dropping things off everywhere.

Okay there, Sparky. We got it--you want the economy to get busy "making stuff and selling stuff." That's just super.

Jus' one tiny tiny question for Your Worship: Do you plan to make that stuff yourself?

No?

Hokay, do you plan to have gummint "workers" make da stuff?

What? No again?

Wel.l.l.l l l...Jus' who gonna be makin' all this "stuff" you talkin' bout?

Could it be...[voice of Satan]... BUSINESSES???

So whatcha' gon' do, Sparky--you gon' order bidnesses to hire folks??

Tell ya what, Sparky: Why don't you try orderin' bidnesses to hire folks, and let us know how that works out for ya.

Of course you *could* tell your goofy EPA to back off, and stop letting the damn State Department have any say at all in whether a company can build an oil pipeline in the continental U.S.

You could also try not making all small businesses provide health insurance for all their employees. You could try not ramming thru and signing a bill forcing churches to provide health insurance that will pay for abortions. Leave decisions about how to run a business to the people who actually, y'know, own and run the business.

But you think you're sooo smart that you won't do any of that. It just goes against you core philosophy--which is that you community-organizer/social redistributionist types should make all the decisions, and everyone else should just salute smartly.

And who knows? Maybe 50.1 percent of American voters are dumb enough to give you another four years to take us deeper into the abyss.

Or maybe your party will contrive to steal the November election, as they did Franken's Minnesota senate seat and the Washington governorship.

Lies, lies, lies--and all is well

2012-01-28T09:37:00.000-08:00

Obozo's brilliant choice for a veep--because it insures he'll never be impeached and removed--believes the Democrats' ramrodding through Obama's desired programs "saved this country." You have to see it to believe it.

Yup. Added over a trillion bucks to the deficit, blew through billions in government-guaranteed "loans" to inept "green" companies that later folded, killed business by the thousands and resulted in a real unemployment rate of close to 18 percent--this is called "saving the country"????

Yet half of voters probably don't see anything dicey in Biden's statement.

And I'm pretty sure Dem representatives are thrilled to hear themselves praised, even by Biden.

Oh yeah, real peaceful religion

2012-01-28T08:56:00.000-08:00

Religion of peace, eh?

A leader of the Islamist group Boko Haram, which has killed almost 1,000 people in Nigeria, says the group will continue its campaign of violence until the country is ruled by sharia law.
“We will consider negotiation only when we have brought the government to their knees,” the spokesman, Abu Qaqa, said in the group’s first major interview with a western newspaper. “Once we see that things are being done according to the dictates of Allah, and our members are released [from prison], we will only put aside our arms – but we will not lay them down. You don’t put down your arms in Islam, you only put them aside.”

Obama thinks he can bring peace by negotiating with these people--and Democrats and the MSM praise him to the heavens for this position.

What do you think?

For some vague reason, I think that as long as Abu Qaqa draws breath, he's gonna try to kill any non-muslim in range.

Diane Sawyer kisses Obozo's ass on ABC

2012-01-21T10:34:00.000-08:00

ABC's Diane Sawyer recently filmed a long campaign commercial for Obozo, and...

Wait, you mean that long, ass-kissing praisefest was NOT paid for by the campaign?

Click the link--it's safe, since it goes to Ace of Spades rather than the Sawyer fellatio itself. Then read the comments.

The MSM is one of the main reasons this country has gone to hell--because they shamelessly lie to cover for Democrat screwups and shamelessly shill for inept socialist Dems.

Obozo nixes Keystone pipeline, killing 20,000 jobs. MSM yawns.

2012-01-21T10:22:00.000-08:00

The Obozo administration issued a rulemaking denying permission to proceed with the Keystone pipeline--prompting a guy at Forbes to write this analysis:

President Obama rejected the Keystone XL pipeline, a private infrastructure project meant to bring Canadian oil to Gulf Coast refineries. In doing so, he was not quibbling over the pipeline’s route, but pandering to a group of his supporters who want nothing so much as to roll back modern industrial society.
***
Some would argue that these opponents aren’t anti-energy, they just want to shift energy use from fossil fuels to “green” energy like wind and solar. This is either disingenuous or unbelievably naive. The Keystone XL pipeline would have single-handedly carried more energy to the United States than the sum of all the green energy projects funded by the Obama Administration. And it would have done so entirely with private funds rather than the Administrations increasingly ill-fated and ham-handed attempts at venture capitalism with taxpayer funds.
***
The Keystone decision only makes sense in the context of a general push to limit energy supply and roll back our industrial economy and all its amazing gifts.
***
Does anyone doubt that had this exact same route been for high speed rail, rather than a pipeline, it would already have been approved...and that President Obama likely would have been proposing to throw a pile of taxpayer money at it to boot? This despite the fact that high-speed rail almost certainly has more environmental negatives than an underground pipeline.

[Blaming the denial of permission to build it on] the route has always been a red herring — the real goal is reducing energy supply.

Um...wow. I think he nailed it. Click on the link and read the whole thing.

Why do most of the poor stay poor?

2012-01-18T06:51:00.000-08:00

Monty at Ace of Spades posted a piece that explains most of why the poor in the U.S. stay that way:

The biggest difference between the wealthy and the poor in this country is not (purely) economic. [Rather,] it lies in the adherence to what Bryan Caplan calls “the founding virtues.” Much of America’s “poor” have pretty much [abandoned] those institutions and habits that lead to personal fulfillment as well as wealth creation: marriage, religious faith, entrepreneurship, and a strong work ethic. The reason for this collapse in social and cultural ability can be laid directly at the door of the modern welfare state and the ascendance of post-modernist schools of thought like feminism and ... Marxism.

The thrust of the philosophy of the Democratic party over the past several decades can be summarized as an effort to replace the traditional family--and the values that make it a successful engine--with government, especially for the poor. As Monty puts it,

The social contract... has been... fatally weakened. And not just in America, but the entire “enlightened” western world.

I suspect most working Americans would say the welfare state hasn't worked very well--or works about as well as most huge government programs. But Democrats are able to duck any criticism of these programs by simply claiming that life would be so much worse without them. And certainly it's impossible to prove one way or the other.

Interesting.

The cost of zealous regulation

2012-01-16T17:29:00.000-08:00

Those of us on the right keep saying that excessive regulation hurts consumers and economies, but of course no one on the Left takes that to heart.

Problem is, the time from "bad regulation" to consequence of the same can be pretty long, and for those who don't follow politics and economics pretty closely it's very hard to prove cause-and-effect.

Well, y'all are about to get a more direct demonstration.

For decades the FDA has been making it increasingly expensive for drug companies to bring new drugs to market. The bureaucrats pitch a fit that a company never bothered to test their new drug to assure its safety on pregnant albinos or similar.

As a result, there's now a lack of new antibiotics. This is a problem because many bacteria eventually manage to develop resistance to widely-used drugs. For example, they've found a new strain of TB in India that is resistant to every drug known.

No problem, say leftists. "I just won't go to India." Well Sparky, that's all well and good, but what makes you think other bugs won't eventually develop the same resistance? And what makes you think the bugs will stay in India, or wherever?

But don't you socialist bastards worry: Just like the Islamist fanatics who cut off heads wouldn't think about hurting you (because you're on their side, and believe in peaceful coexistence), the deadly bugs will ignore you too.

Because you're so politically-correct and all.

It's funny: The research on drug resistance is open, published, well-known. And the bureaucrats/overzealous regulators ignore it. By contrast, the data claimed by the Left to support anthropogenic global warming is kept secret, as are the algorithms used by key researchers to *modify* raw temperature data to arrive at what's claimed to be the "right" answer. Yet the Left expects everyone to accept its data without a word of disagreement.

Funny people. Just as funny as the folks who watch all this and don't laugh the Left out of town.

Pissing away $6.5 Billion isn't a bad thing if you're a Democrat

2012-01-16T16:01:00.000-08:00

Remember Solyndra--the super-smaht solar-panel maker favored by Democrats and Obama, and thus showered with half a Billion in government loan guarantees (paid with your tax dollars if the company defaults)?

You may recall that about five days after getting the last guarantee, the company did indeed declare bankruptcy, wiping out the government's entire stake.

You may not have known that the clever Nobel-winning head of the Energy Department approved the second loan guarantee that was deliberately arranged to allow private lenders priority of position over the taxpayers for recovery from any company assets sold during the bankruptcy. This was highly unusual, yet no one in the Lying Mainstream Media said a word against it.

With that as background: If the government pissing away half a Billion of your tax dollars didn't bother you, you should know that one reporter has found 11 other companies *like* Solyndra that are either bankrupt or on the brink.

Total of loan guarantees by the gummint: $6.5 BILLION.

But hey, all that money "created or saved", uh, 157 jobs.

Cool, huh? Government efficiency at its best.

NYTimes on Greek crisis

2012-01-16T09:07:00.000-08:00

If you haven't guessed, I'm totally unimpressed with the NYTimes. They're utterly clueless not only in their "news" and politics but also in their own business model.

Example is this article from yesterday, about Greece's financial crisis.

In particular, note the third 'graf:

talks broke down Friday between the Greek government and private lenders over a plan to reduce Greece’s debt by $130 billion, a “voluntary” default that the troika has demanded before extending more aid. Those negotiations, aimed at forcing hedge funds and other private holders of Greek debt to accept large losses in order to make the country’s debt load more manageable, will resume Wednesday....

You'd think "...a plan to reduce Greece's debt by X" would mean the government spending $130 Billion less than now. But in reality this is Timesspeak for coercing holders of Greek government debt (bonds) to "voluntarily" just write off their loans.

Wow, pretty slick, huh? Who knew debt problems could be solved so easily??

But of course the Times didn't want to use the word "writeoff" because that would lay bare what's really being pushed here. They don't want to do that for two reasons: First, it would come too close to showing the world how bankrupt the whole left-wing governing principle of "we'll take money from the productive and give it to everyone else, and there won't be a single negative consequence--because we say so" is.

Second, if the masses in Spain, Portugal, Italy, Ireland and the like realize that *Greece* got this kind of deal, they're certain to insist that they get the same deal for themselves. And pffffft, there goes the world's economy.

But the Times isn't finished yet:

As recently as November, Greece and its lenders were optimistic that the country’s newly installed prime minister... a well-respected financial technocrat, would stabilize Greece’s soaring debt and help nurse the country back to health.
But since then, his interim government — stocked not with technocrats but with politicians gunning for [re-election] — has been paralyzed. [T]he 2012 national budget...failed to put into effect most of the unpopular changes mandated by the loan agreement that the previous government made back in 2010, when the country first admitted it was broke.

Get outta here! You're kidding, right? Politicians broke a solemn agreement negotiated by the prior government to get back to a more manageable deficit? I'm...shocked! In fact that sounds more like the kind of trick some banana-republic congress would pull--like the U.S. congress, frinstance, managing to find a whole billion dollars in savings over ten years, even as actual outlays *rose* by ten billion.

And banana-republic tomfoolery like that segues nicely into: Whatever happens in Greece, the exact same thing will happen here, just a few years later.

The Times, of course, doesn't see that. Or pretends it doesn't--hard to tell which.

And who knows? Greece may find a bunch of stupid, non-elected, unaccountable central bank wallahs who're willing to give Greece tens of billions to keep it going for another few years. So that may well happen with us--since all the nations of the world would be so eager to help us out of a financial bind, seeing as how we've been so generous to help *them* in times of need.

Hahahahahahaha! Yeah, that was a good one!

The Times is composed of idiots--as are their readers who take them seriously.

One business out of five gone in a year ??!

2012-01-16T08:54:00.000-08:00

Other than by being conquered, how do nations fail?

Suppose a country had 368,000 businesses at the beginning of the year, and a year later 68,000 had closed.

That's almost one out of five businesses, gone in a year.

Ya think that might have some devastating ripples?

How many jobs do you think were lost with those closures?

If those numbers seem small it's because the country in question is Greece. But it's coming here just as sure as the sunrise tomorrow. Because the Democrats are killing businesses as fast as they can--even as Dem senate majority leader Harry Reid proclaims he wants to pass a federal law to *create* jobs.

Just exactly *how you gonna do that, sport?*

You think you'll just stamp your foot and raise your arms and declare it done?

Got a surprise for ya, Sparky: Except for federal jobs--which currently account for about one job out of eight--it doesn't work that way. There are these critters called "businessmen" or "entrepreneurs"--yes, much like the ones who paid you those bribes some years back--that actually start businesses and hire folks.

But you wouldn't know about that, having been feeding at the public trough for most of your life.

Obama dictates how much a business can charge

2012-01-15T15:28:00.000-08:00

The Obama administration--and the Democrats who support it--has shown nothing but contempt for businesses. And that attitude is on display again today, as the NYTimes shows here:

The Obama administration said Thursday that rate increases sought by a health insurance company were unreasonable, and it ordered the insurer to rescind them or justify its refusal to do so.

If that lede 'graf seems innocuous to you, you've either never managed a business or else you haven't been paying attention. What they're saying is, "WE will determine what prices each and every private business can charge, and if we don't like what you're charging, we'll order you to charge less."

Does that get your attention yet? If you only have a tenth-grade education, or if you're a Harvard PhD or an economist for the NYTimes (Paul K) it probably won't bother you.

But in fact, that seemingly innocuous statement conceals an iron fist: It's nothing less than the death of private enterprise.

Oh, you think I'm being hyperbolic? How many things are more critical to a business than deciding what price to charge for its goods or services? And if the government has arrogated to itself the power to bar you from making that decision, you might as well give 'em the damn keys and head for the beach.

These *goat-fucking* politicians--mostly Dems but a few RINOs as well--don't know jack-shit about business, and yet they presume to dictate...well, you get it.

Okay, we'll admit that at least today, the alleged "authority" to dictate prices is only present in that abortion of a disaster of an unconstitutional clusterfuck called Obamacare (which is one of the 73 reasons that astonishing piece of crap law should never have passed). But if a Democrat-controlled congress could pass *that*, what power would prevent them from controlling *any* business to that extent?

Answer: none.

Now, if--like the vast majority of Americans--you work for someone else rather than owning your own business, this may well seem like much ado about nothing. It's not. Here's an analogy that might help:

Say you want to sell your two-year-old Toyota. You've taken fabulous care of it--it only has 10,000 miles on it and not a scratch or dent. Like it just rolled off the showroom floor. With such great care, naturally you ask top-dollar. Suppose you then got a call from the federal gummint's new "Consumer Protection... bullshit agency" ordering you to cut your asking price by $5000, and threatening to levy a big fine if you didn't.

Got the picture yet?

Ghastly

2012-01-14T17:11:00.000-08:00

Are you a typical liberal idiot who believes we can coexist with Islam? If so you really need to read this article in the U.K. Telegraph. It tells the story of Islamic fanatics--whether Taliban or al Qaeda or whatever doesn't make any difference--who wrap pre-teen boys in bomb vests and then tell them that the explosion will only kill Americans, not the boy.

Now, I don't have any problem with adults wanting to be suicide-bombers. I'm not even opposed to teenage males who overtly and knowingly choose to sacrifice their lives for the Cause.

But I sure as hell have a problem with adults telling pre-teens Allah will protect them from the blast of the bomb the adult wants the kid to carry. That's some really sick shit.

Let me put it more clearly: If you believe this tactic is in any way reasonable or justifiable, you're a crazy, twisted, sick son of a bitch.

The mission was as simple as touching two wires together, the little boy was promised. The resulting blast would kill the American infidels – but God would spare him from the flame and shrapnel. He would be unharmed and free to run back to the men who had fitted his bomb vest.
Minutes before he was due to execute the attack, however, he realised the lies of his recruiters seeking to turn him into a human bomb.

"I saw it was a very black thing they wanted me to do," he recalled. "I began to cry and shout. People came out of their houses and asked what was wrong. I showed them my vest. They called the police who took the bombs off me."
Afghan security officials say the boy's story is not unusual. In the past year insurgents have used a wave of child suicide bombers, some as young as 10, since small boys can pass through checkpoints and security cordons more easily than men.
A senior Afghan intelligence official estimated that more than 100 had been intercepted in the past 12 months, including 20 from the Kandahar area in the south. The insurgents seek to exploit the innocence of their recruits and turn it into a weapon.

The largely illiterate boys are fed a diet of anti-Western and anti-Afghan government propaganda until they are prepared to kill, he said. They are also assured that they will miraculously survive the devastation they cause.

"They are often given an amulet containing Koranic verses. Mullahs tell them, 'When this explodes you will survive and God will help you survive the fire. Only the infidels will be killed, you will be saved and your parents will go to paradise'."
The Taliban denies using children as bombers, saying its battlefield code forbids military use of pre-pubescent boys. But Nato and Afghan security officials said the tactic is widespread. Child bombers have been used by the Haqqani network, a group aligned with the Taliban.

Boys are frequently chosen from the madrassas, or Islamic schools, in Pakistan's tribal areas, where poor families send their sons for a free education.

"They send them because they can't feed them sometimes. They have 10 sons and they can't feed them," said the Afghan official.

Gul Khan, who looks no older than 10, said his father had insisted he go to a madrassa in Pakistan.

"Each day they were preaching that we would tie bombs on to our bodies and attack foreigners in Afghanistan," he said after escaping and being arrested at the border.

"They told us the bombs would not kill us, only the Americans would die and you can come back to us."

One of these two is...

2012-01-14T07:20:00.000-08:00

Now *this* is funny:

h/t The Peoples' Cube

Court cases that trashed our Constitution

2012-01-10T21:06:00.000-08:00

Over the last century Congress, the courts and the executive branch have slowly but surely trashed the Constitution--a process that continues to this day.

Usually these moves have been small enough that only the most ardent defenders of the Constitution even noticed. But occasionally the bites have been large and scarcely concealed (GM and AIG, for example). Here's one of the classic cases (I'll try to add others in the future):

In 1938 Congress passed the Agricultural Adjustment Act, under congress seized the power to have the federal government dictate to each and every farmer in the nation the maximum number of acres of wheat he would be allowed to plant.[!]

The stated purpose of the act was to "stabilize" [i.e. support] the price of wheat by controlling the total amount of wheat produced by all U.S. farmers.

[The Wiki article adds, "The motivation behind the Act was a belief by Congress that international fluctuations in the supply and demand for wheat were leading to wide swings in the price of wheat, which were deemed to be harmful to the U.S. agricultural economy." No idea whether this statement is based on a statement by congresswhores or is simply supposition on the part of the author, but either way it illustrates a lack of understanding of economics, since U.S. production limits wouldn't have any effect on wheat production in other countries, and thus couldn't eliminate price swings. This logical flaw is also seen in the wording of the court's opinion, which refers to large swings in wheat exports. Since wheat was freely traded internationally, the exports from other nations would have a huge effect, and could scarcely be controlled by congress.]

Roscoe Filburn, a farmer, planted more grain on his land than the government regulator allowed. He had no intention of selling his wheat, but wanted to use it to feed his own chickens. Nevertheless the government fined him and ordered him to destroy his crop.

The government claimed congress had the authority to dictate the number of acres of wheat farmers planted [they actually wrote "regulate" because it sounds nicer than "dictate"] because of the Constitution's "interstate commerce clause." Filburn countered that because he had not sold his grain but had used it to feed his own chickens, his wheat never entered any form of "commerce" at all--much less “interstate commerce.”

But astonishingly (unless one is a seasoned student of politics) the U.S. Supreme Court ruled against him, holding that his use of grain he grew to feed his own chickens “affected interstate commerce"!

Specifically, the court held that any wheat grown by Filburn reduced the amount of wheat he would otherwise have had to buy on the open market to feed his chickens. Since he was able to avoid buying grain in the market, the court found that Filburn's acts affected interstate commerce, in which case the Constitution's "commerce clause" properly applied.

Wait, it gets even goofier.

The Court unanimously held that the power to "regulate interstate commerce" included the power to "set all prices at which that commerce occurred." It is vital to note that this crucial "finding" is actually simply judicial fiat. Its source is the *assumption* that since prices clearly play a role in commerce, the Founders *must have intended* that congress have the power to regulate prices.

It doesn't take a philosophy major to see the flaw in such "reasoning."

As far as I know, there are no words in the Constitution or the writings of the founders that bear on the question of how the Founders defined "interstate commerce." Unless I've overlooked the relevant essay or section, it suggests the court's finding was manufactured out of thin air. Or as it's often phrased, the court "pulled this finding out of its ass."

There's a Latin phrase for that, but I can't remember it.

The court's "because we said so" logic is most nakedly exposed in the opinion of justice Robert H. Jackson, who fretted that purely local activities...

...cannot be regulated under the commerce power because their effects upon interstate commerce are, as matter of law, only 'indirect.' [T]here is no decision of this Court that such activities may be regulated where no part of the product is intended for interstate commerce or intermingled with the subjects thereof. [However,] [w]e believe that a review of the course of decision under the Commerce Clause will [show] that questions of the power of Congress are not to be decided by reference to any formula which would give controlling force to nomenclature such as 'production' and 'indirect' and foreclose consideration of the actual effects of the activity in question upon interstate commerce."

That an activity is of local character may help in a doubtful case to determine whether Congress intended to reach it.... But even if [Filburn's] activity be local **and though it may not be regarded as commerce,** it may still...be reached by Congress if it exerts a *substantial* economic effect on interstate commerce[,]...irrespective of whether such effect...might at some earlier time have been defined as 'direct' or 'indirect.'

Those not in the legal profession probably have to read Jackson's convoluted phrasing a few times (as I had to) to grasp the likely meaning: He's saying "Words like 'local,' 'production' and 'indirect' are too restrictive. We declare that congress--and my fellow judges and I--have the power to look at the aggregate effect of ANY economic activity when deciding whether it 'affects' interstate commerce."

In the second 'graf Jackson adds that 'even though Filburn's activity may *not* be regarded as commerce, congress can still control it if the activity has a "substantial" economic effect on interstate commerce.

This seems to be a major slip, since no one could claim with a straight face that Filburn's "excess" wheat production had a "substantial economic effect on interstate commerce." To recover, Jackson put the second part of this new weapon elsewhere in his opinion: That even if a specific action by an individual clearly had *no* substantial effect, the court would nevertheless support government regulation of the activity if the *aggregate effect* of lots of people doing the same thing *would* have an effect.

Pretty neat trick, eh? Here's another look at the overreach, from the opinion:

The stimulation of commerce is a use of the regulatory function [as much as] prohibitions or restrictions thereon. This record leaves us in no doubt that Congress may properly have considered that wheat consumed on the farm where grown, if wholly outside the scheme of regulation, would have a substantial effect in defeating and obstructing its purpose to stimulate trade therein at increased prices.

So first the court arbitrarily decides--pulls out of the air--that government "stimulation" of commerce is included in the enumerated power to "regulate" interstate commerce. It then vaults to the equally arbitrary conclusion that "this record leaves us in no doubt" that congress may have considered that growing and consumption of wheat on one's own farm was within congress's power to dictate [though the opinion uses the word "regulate" because...well, you know], since if not, it "would have a substantial effect in defeating and obstructing its purpose to stimulate trade therein at increased prices."

One is almost astonished by how many unsupported conclusions can be crammed into a single paragraph.

The sleaziness--the crappy, duplicitous, underhanded doublespeak--of the government is clearly shown in this graf from Jackson's opinion:

[Filburn claims] that this [act] is a regulation of production and consumption of wheat. Such activities are, he urges, beyond the reach of Congressional power under the Commerce Clause, since they are local in character, and their effects upon interstate commerce are at most 'indirect.' In answer the Government argues that the statute regulates neither production nor consumption, but only marketing;

Wait...wasn't the whole basis of the case the government's claim that Filburn had "produced" too much wheat? How the hell do they then pivot 180 degrees and claim the statute does NOT regulate "production nor consumption, but only marketing"?

Of course this is exactly what the Obama administration did with the Health Care "Reform" Act: "We absolutely promise it's NOT a tax, ain't gonna raise anyone's taxes." Until they get challenged on the legality of forcing people to buy health insurance. Then suddenly--voila!-- it's legal precisely because it's a tax, and the government has the power to levy taxes.

Point is that Justice Jackson should have been smart enough to call foul on this, but didn't.

Result: By this decision the court effectively eliminated all Constitutional limits on the powers of the federal government. Because if the courts hold that a farmer growing food *for his own use* "affects interstate commerce," then everything does.

If congress has the power to "stimulate" interstate commerce, what power remains in the Constitution that would prevent congress from giving billions of dollars to a favored company to "stimulate" production of overpriced electric cars, or solar panels?

And of course, the current Dem congress and present-ent would answer: "Nothing."

==

'Filburn' is a textbook case of judicial overreach--making crap up to support a desired outcome not supported by the Constitution. But great questions aside, the details of 'Filburn' are even more stunning:
A government bureaucrat decreed that Filburn's 1941 "allotment" for wheat planting would be 11.1 acres, at a "normal yield" of 20.1 bushels of wheat per acre, thus yielding 223 bushels of wheat. Filburn--who presumably knew something about expected yield per acre for the farming methods he could afford to use--planted 23 acres and harvested 239 bushels.

Ignoring wider Constitutional issues for a moment (which are of course the real issue in this case), let us note for the record that the relatively limitless resources of the federal government were brought to bear on one poor farmer for the *net result* of producing ...*sixteen bushels* of wheat over what the bureaucrats had already planned for.

Shocking, but as we've come to see, hardly surprising.

There is no law more far-reaching than the law of unintended consequences. It may well be that the congresswhores who passed the "Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1938" were acting with good intentions. After all, wild price swings from year to year can certainly be terribly hard on farmers, and make it hard as hell to know what to do *next* season.

But forgive me if I'm a bit skeptical. Because I'm more inclined to believe that 70-odd years ago congress operated pretty much the same way it does today: Rampant corruption, vote-buying, bribery and log-rolling. Plus, I think we've seen enough proof that congresswhores don't bother reading the crap they pass (and probably didn't even back when bills were a few dozen pages long instead of 2000-plus).

So I'm more inclined to think nobody in congress thought about the unintended consequences of this bill--any more than most of 'em do today.

But congresswhores aren't expected to be brilliant intellects. By contrast, we expect the nine justices of the U.S. Supreme Court to be constitutional scholars, and the most incisive minds in the country.

Mix corrupt, inattentive or easily bribed congresscritters with a goofy Supreme Court and--voila!-- an instant, unConstitutional power-grab by the federal government.

And this highlights three major, recurring flaws in our system: First, voters keep electing a substantial number of corrupt, inattentive, greedy, self-serving people to congress. [Certainly not all, but the good guys are hugely outnumbered.]

Second, congress and the courts keep trying to grab more power over *everything.*

And third, the courts routinely use unconstitutional criteria to interpret laws passed by the corrupt, moronic congresswhores--and always in the direction of grabbing more power for both branches.

What could possibly go wrong?

Two competing theories of the future

2012-01-10T14:48:00.000-08:00

For the past three years the best minds I know have grappled with the question of which of two theories of America's future is most likely.

One theory is that even with all our problems--the world's and our financial systems about to crash, endless government deficits, corrupt politicians, downward-spiraling education system, a preznit who's ordered an EPA reg that will result in scrapping between 20 and 30 percent of America's coal-fired electric plants, et cetera, that there's a quiet majority of Americans who are still hard-working and pretty well educated. And eventually, when the Democrats and handful of corrupt Repubs get the hell out of the way, this quiet, almost invisible group will tighten their chinstraps and save the country.

For brevity's sake I'll call this theory "the optimists."

The second theory is that it's too late for a "soft landing"--that a collapse on the order of that of the Roman empire is now unavoidable, and that it will almost certainly take at least two decades to recover even to reliable electricity and water supplies in many cities, much less to an era where every other driveway in blue-collar neighborhoods had a 50-mph bass boat and a hot new car.

Folks who put stock in this second theory have observed that most cities depend on a constant stream of food from farms and factories, and that if this stream were interrupted for any reason, food would last about 3 days.

Of course we can expect that if this happened everyone would calmly listen to and follow the instructions from government, which would then take over the clearing of highways and elimination of hijacking gangs, and would have things back to normal in about...oh, about...never.

If--again, *if*--one single cog in the incredibly intricate machine that is a modern economy breaks, and the break affects the entire nation, there's virtually no chance the gummint will solve things before the gangs take to the highways.

So the question then becomes, What are the chances of a 'major' break in the system?

Let's see what the 'official experts' have to say.

"Official Expert:" "There is absolutely no significant chance of that happening."

Me: "When the Boeing 747 was introduced, what was the concensus of "official" expert opinion on how long it would be before two loaded ones collided?"

Expert: "Wha--what does that have to do with the analysis of complex failure modes?"

Me: "It's exactly on point. The so-called experts said it couldn't happen, and in fact it happened less than ten years after first flight."

Expert: "You'll have to take that up with the people who said it couldn't happen. I wasn't consulted on that matter."

Me: "But just now you said a major social breakdown couldn't happen, right?"

Expert: "Yes, yes, but that's different."

Me: "Exactly how is it different?"

Expert: "Oh my, look at the time! I have a *really* important meeting in thirty minutes. If you'd like to discuss this further, call my office."

I suspect most of you can see that little encounter as if it were already on tape.

Of course not all "experts" are idiots, but I get the impression that a lot of 'em--and about half those working for the gummint--are, um...suspect at best. It may be that they really know they're just spouting the "government bullshit" line and don't believe what they're telling us. Damned if I know. But reading transcripts of press conferences by, say, Obama press secretary Jay Carney suggests that they're all quite comfortable spouting bullshit, secure in the knowledge that no one in the MFM will call 'em on it.

For a good sample of these two competing theories, go here, and read the comments. There are some very experienced, very smart and literate people there.

Are all Democrats leftist socialists? Maybe not...

2012-01-10T08:32:00.000-08:00

In reviewing recent posts it occurs to me that I may have been too broad in lambasting "Democrats" as favoring unlimited government and as enemies of freedom, free markets and individual achievement.

I based these conclusions on two things: The known, provable statements of Dem pols; and the adoring comments of Dem/"progressive" bloggers.

It occurs to me that it's at least theoretically possible that there may be a few thousand folks out there who are nominally Democrats but don't agree with the Dem leadership or the idiotic, goofy lefty bloggers. Haven't met any such critters yet but I'm happy to concede the possibility that they may exist.

If so, there may actually be small pieces of common ground between us. I think we can agree that the government shouldn't bail out Wall Street firms--in any way, shape or form; nor banks or bank-like companies. Let the sumbitches fail, let stockholders and depositors over the FDIC insured limits lose the excess, and it'll keep everyone on their toes from then on.

If you believe there's far too much federal welfare--including the legislative and financial abomination known as ObamaCare--and that people should be willing to work for a living, then we have some common ground.

If you believe the EPA is a rogue agency, being used to destroy jobs and businesses under the guise of "protection", and to deprive individuals of the use of their own land on spurious grounds that once every decade it gets wet and is therefore a "protected wetland", we have common ground.

If you believe no level of government should ever give money or loan guarantees to a private company--no matter how large, how unionized or how well connected to the preznit (re: half a Billion taxpayer bucks given to Solyndra, even as it was going bankrupt) --then we have common ground.

If you believe an employer has the right to require those applying for a job to have a highschool diploma--or a masters or PhD if they wish!--without getting sued by the federal government, we have some common ground.

If you believe the "Occupy" movement is mostly composed of spoiled rich kids and drug users looking for more government giveaways (paid for by hard-working taxpayers), we have common ground.

If you believe every person has the right to armed self-defense, and that no government agency has the right to take away that right, then we have common ground.

If you believe no government pension should be more than the average for private-sector employees, we have common ground.

If you believe people shouldn't be allowed to buy "junk food"--cokes, beer, twinkies and such--with food stamps (now euphemized as "EBT"--electronic benefit transfer cards), we have common ground.

During Obama's three years in office, unemployment has risen roughly 50 percent, but the cost of the government's food stamp program has *doubled*. If you think that statistic suggests that there's a hell of a lot of fraud and waste in the food stamp program, and it should be eliminated, we have common ground.

While there's always been waste in military procurement and weapons systems, if you believe cutting back on the number of trained, combat-ready troops and pilots is an invitation to be attacked, we have common ground.

If you've noticed that the federal government is deliberately allowing unrestricted illegal immigration, and that it has even filed suit against states that have enacted policies designed to uphold current federal immigration law, and you believe this will absolutely have utterly devastating consequences on our nation--as we're already seeing in California and Arizona--we have common ground.

I could go on but you get the point. If you're one of my few readers--maybe friends of Cal and Megan?--feel free to add any other suggestions of possible common ground between conservative Repubs and Dems.

King Barack violates Constitution--again. MSM cheers.

2012-01-04T08:27:00.001-08:00

Need a prime example of Dem double-standards? Go here. It's an AP story about Obama's intent to use a "recess appointment" to install Richard Cordray as head of the newly-created Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.

For those of you under about 30, a recess appointment is a legitimate procedure that allows a prez to appoint an agency head--someone who would normally have to face confirmation by the senate--while congress isn't in session. The Founders created this power to keep the central government working normally if a cabinet-level vacancy came up while congress wasn't in session.

Virtually all presidents have made recess appointments. But when George W. Bush was prez, Democrats wanted to prevent Bush from making any more recess appointments, so they came up with a clever scheme: They would call the senate into "pro-forma" session every three days. No business was done--indeed, virtually no one was even present--but by technically never being out of session for more than three days in a row, it did what the Dems intended.

Of course King Barack has no intention of respecting such procedural moves, even when devised by members of his own party, and has announced that he doesn't consider himself bound by this precedent.

And hypocritically (but not surprisingly), asshole Dimicrat senate majority leader Harry Reid--who called the senate into such pro-forma sessions when Bush was prez-- today issued a statement saying he supported Obozo's decision to tell the senate to go fuck itself.

I may have mangled a couple of words near the end of Reid's statement, but the gist is clear.

Hypocrisy. Hypocrisy. Hypocrisy. Democrats. Democrats. Democrats. Hopefully when you stupid, hypocritical assholes are starving and freezing in the dark--after Obozo has hiked the price of electrical power by killing coal plants, and food is ten times more expensive due to massive inflation by your boy's massive deficits, you'll realize how cheaply you sold out your country.

UPDATE: Just so you know, the Democrat establishment universally applauded this move. Click here to see a summary of the reactions. And Nancy Pelosi praised the move as "bold" and said Democrats are glad Obama "took the lead."

"Constitution? We don't need no steenkin' Constitution! Cuz' we're Democrats."

Venezuela's murder rate is ten times the world average. Why?

2012-01-04T07:45:00.000-08:00

The average murder rate for the whole world is 6.9 per 100,000 people.

In Venezuela it's about ten times higher, at 67 per 100,000. And that's just the murders that are reported; it's alleged that many aren't reported because of fear of reprisal or a belief that the police won't even bother trying to solve them.

In 1999 Venezuela's murder rate was about one-fourth of today's level.

That same year Hugo Chavez was elected president.

Chavez is notorious for his disregard of his country's consitution and other laws.

Say, you don't suppose there could be any connection between Chavez's imperial presidency and the murder rate, do ya?

Lib solution for lawbreaking: Re-name the act so it doesn't!

2012-01-04T07:10:00.000-08:00

The "Occupy DC" movement has been doing their camping thing at two locations in D.C. One of those is McPherson Square. It's run by the U.S. Park Service, and overnight camping is prohibited.

At least officially prohibited.

If you're a Dem supporter, you can get around that by simply perverting the language.

Thus the Park Service has deemed the continuous (as in, overnight, for dozens of weeks) occupation merely a "24-hour vigil."

Isn't that precious? If you're a liberal, and something you like violates some law, just rename whatever is causing the conflict, so that it no longer violates the law or reg.

For example, vote fraud would be renamed as "creative expression in ballot arrangement."

Illegal immigration would be renamed "equal opportunity access."

Islamic mobs murdering Christians in numerous African hellholes would be renamed as "protected expressions of religious beliefs."

Hey, this is easy!

King Obozo sayeth: Words mean exactly what I want them to mean--no more and no less.

Newest EEOC position designed to kill more jobs here

2012-01-03T15:25:00.000-08:00

Just saw that the Equal Opportunity Employment Commission has posted an "advisory letter" on its official website notifying employers that adding the line "requires high school diploma" to a job description may bring the hounds of the EEOC down on them.

Yep, really. Of course an employer can offer, in defense, proof that the job in question actually does require that the holder has graduated from high school.

One teeny-tiny problem: How the hell do you *prove* that?

What unique skill or set of skills does one acquire merely from having a HS diploma that they couldn't acquire any other way?

The answer, of course, is that there aren't any.

So as a result, if this "advisory letter" becomes official policy (a mysterious, quiet process that occurs behind closed doors), employers won't be able to require a HS diploma.

Which got me to thinking: What if the reason I want my employees to have a diploma is simply that in my expert opinion as founder and/or owner of my own damn company, *I* have decided I want it to be that way?

And the gummint's response is..."Because we say you can't do that."

I gotta say, under our current government I would not under any circumstances start a company in the U.S.

If government bureaucrats think they're better qualified to run a business, let them do it. But frankly, I think there's *way* more than enough evidence to believe that government screws up almost everything it touches.

You want more jobs in the U.S.? Kill the EEOC. And every agency that acts like it.

How Wall Street bought the Obama administration

2011-12-29T05:56:00.001-08:00

I've got a lot of Dem friends who believe Dems are friends of the poor and would never give billions of tax dollars to Wall Street.

They also believe forcing banks to give mortgages to people who couldn't possibly make the payments had nothing to do with the eventual collapse of the mortgage industry. Oh well, can't fix stupid.

This article explains how Wall Street "bought" the Obama administration. They did it by the time-tested method of campaign contributions, which resulted in some of the most inept, see-no-evil Wall Streeters being appointed to regulatory positions.

Go read it.

Read this article

2011-12-28T19:06:00.000-08:00

It's a cliche that the education of American students is growing worse every year. There are several theories as to the cause: Some blame a near-compulsory edict in highschools to pass everyone, regardless of proficiency.

This is surely true to some extent, but this is being reduced by state requirements that students pass proficiency exams to graduate.

A second theory is that the teachers themselves have, on average, declined in knowledge and talent. More inquiry needed here, I think.

Yet a third theory is that curricula have been vastly watered down by politically-correct crap, so that students spend less time learning core skills.

And a final theory is that over time, the very top positions in education have gradually been filled with people who are themselves so indoctrinated with leftist crap and political correctness that they bend all policies they touch to serve the Left's goals.

Regardless of one's favorite theory, you need to read this article. The money quote:

Increasingly, undergraduates are not prepared adequately in any academic area but often arrive with strong convictions about their abilities. So college professors routinely encounter students who have never written anything more than short answers on exams, who do not read much at all, who lack foundational skills in math and science, yet are completely convinced of their abilities and resist any criticism of their work, to the point of tears and tantrums: “But I earned nothing but A’s in high school,” and “Your demands are unreasonable.” Such a combination makes some students nearly unteachable.

Interesting stuff. And the conclusion is a hoot:

The article touches only lightly on a more serious possibility: what if the system leaders themselves can’t tell the difference between a credential and an education--because they themselves are only credentialed? Then the blind would be leading the blind.

In that case, the highest reaches of society could be manned by mediocrities who’ve been selected to edit prestigious journals without ever writing an article; who’ve been elected lawmakers without ever compiling a legislative record; who’ve presided over a depression and yet compare themselves to the greatest of past leaders — to Lincoln and to Roosevelt. Thank God things haven’t reached that point.

For those who aren't political junkes: In answering a question Obozo ranked his accomplishments in office behind just 3 other presidents: Lincoln, FDR and one other (I think Teddy Roosevelt, but unsure).

So yes, things clearly have reached that point.

U.S. missiles found in ship headed for China--BBC

2011-12-23T22:46:00.000-08:00

Here's something novel:

Finland has impounded a ship bound for China carrying 69 [U.S.] Patriot surface-to-air missiles. The missiles were discovered during a customs search on the Thor Liberty, owned by a Danish company, at the port of Kotka, about 120 kilometres from Helsinki. The BBC is reporting the missiles were found in containers marked fireworks.

Containers marked "fireworks," eh? Probably just a mis-translation.

Later a German Defense Ministry official said the missiles were part of a German delivery for South Korea under a longstanding agreement. But the ship was unquestionably docking in Shanghai first.

Still unanswered is whether the missiles were indeed marked "fireworks." Also, how in the world could any legitimate government believe it was reasonable to ship advanced anti-missile missiles anywhere via China?

One thing you can count on: If this turns out to be a sale arranged by Obozo and company, U.S. outlets will quickly lose interest in getting to the bottom of this story.

Lying at the Department of InJustice

2011-12-23T06:19:00.000-08:00

Stephanie Celandine Gyamfi is a career employee of the Department of Injustice's "Voting Rights" section.

A day ago she reportedly admitted to investigators from the department's Inspector General that she lied to investigators three times during an earlier investigation of leaks of sensitive case material to left-wing blogs and newspapers.

There's now a bet on whether she'll be fired or even mildly disciplined.

After all, lying to investigators is only a problem if it's a conservative lying. Dems get away with it all the time, courtesy of our lying, Dem-loving media.

Oh, and how do we know she's a Dem? Well, pictures of her office befor the 2008 election show the walls plastered with pro-Obozo posters.

Imagine the howls of outrage if a career employee lied to protect a conservative president.

But if you're a member of the correct party, all is cool.

We are no longer a nation of laws, but a nation of corrupt, lawbreaking apparatchiks willing to do anything to advance their Party, their cause.

I'll be shocked if this corrupt piece of work doesn't keep her job without so much as a slap on the wrist.

A once-great nation crumbles before our eyes

2011-12-22T06:23:00.000-08:00

Despite the nation's financial disaster, the huge increases in electricity costs that Obama and the Democrats have set in motion, and the disaster of a tide of illegal immigrants pouring across an undefended border, most of you believe your lives will still play out pretty much as they have in the past.

I do *so* hope you're right. But you're almost certainly wrong--badly--and your naivete is touching.

Victor Davis Hanson was once like you. He lives on a farm in California's Central Valley, and writes that thieves are stealing everything they can get their hands on there.

"Hey, what's the big deal?" libs and Dems retort. The poor thieves are just trying to feed their families, or right historic injustices, so we shouldn't get upset.

Except they're stealing wire from street lights. In Fresno, hundreds of street lights have been stripped. In a desperate effort to stop this crime, city workers are now putting concrete armor around the bases. He reports that hundreds of bronze commemorative plaques have been ripped off of public buildings in his local town--presumably for their scrap value.

An old school had its bronze bell stolen. Even manhole covers have been taken--again presumably for scrap. The list is endless.

In our new Vandal state, one successful theft begets another.... In my case, one night an old boat in the barn was stripped. Soon the storage house was hit. Ten days later, all the antique bolts and square nails were taken from the shop. Usually — as is true with the street lights — the damage to the buildings is greater than the value of the missing items.
I spoke with another group of farmers at a rural fairground. Every single person I talked to has had the copper wire ripped out of his agricultural pumps within the last two years.

By what magic force will this not soon expand to where you live?

I'm not anti-immigrant, so save your breath. What I am is angry at the thugs who destroy street lights and steal manhole covers--or anything else.

675 Pakistani women victims of "honor killings" so far this year

2011-12-20T11:26:00.000-08:00

December 20, 2011

AT least 675 Pakistani women and girls--included at least 71 under the age of 18--were murdered during the first nine months of this year for allegedly defaming their family's honour, a leading human rights group said today.

The official said figures were still being compiled for the 4th quarter and that a full report would be released in February.
Activists say murders of girls for "defaming the family's honor" are often dismissed by Pakistani police as private, family affairs.

Around 130 of the women killed from January to September were accused of marrying without permission. Some victims were raped or gangraped before being killed, he said.

Wait a second: This can't possibly be true, because there's not a single mention of it in the NY Slimes or the WaPo. (Link is to some paper in Australia or something. They probably don't even speak English there, so how can we trust 'em to report the truth?)

Plus, if it was true, American feminists would be bouncing off the ceiling demanding that the U.S. gummint cut all aid to Pakistan until they started frying some of the murderers of female family members. After all, U.S. feminists always sound off when crazy men start killing women, right? So this report must be false. Or else feminists are hypocrites. And that's hard to even imagine.

But seriously: Where's the outrage from the Left/"progs" about this? The Left/libs were outraged! by the spectacle of a rogue female U.S. soldier posing for pics with Iraqi prisoners wearing a dog leash, so you'd think that consistency would demand that... Ah, wait, yes, what was I thinking?

Let me conclude by saying that I've always been grieved by stories of so-called "hunters" shooting caged animals, or of people throwing bags of unwanted kittens or puppies in a river to drown. Should we not speak out at least as strongly to condemn the murderous thugs in Pakistan who murder equally defenseless females in Pakistan for having the audacity to (gasp!) marry without permission?

EPA gives tax dollars to modern-dance troupe for...

2011-12-18T06:38:00.000-08:00

Saw a short item about the EPA giving a paltry $25,000 tax dollars to a "modern dance" troupe in Utah to perform modern dance pieces about the environment, for grade-schoolers.

Predictably, one person interviewed thought the EPA had no business doing that, while the head of the troupe couldn't imagine what the fuss was about. As she put it, "We take federal money in this state for all kinds of projects, why not environmental education?”

Equally predictably, someone else noted that "It helps underprivileged children."

(How watching a modern-dance performance could possibly help an underprivileged kid wasn't explained.)

Then it struck me where I'd heard all this before: Davy Crockett--the famous frontiersman--represented Tennessee in the U.S. House of Representatives, and one winter while he was there a fire broke out in Georgetown, burning many homes and leaving scores of people homeless.

Crockett had witnessed the fire and the shivering victims, so when a bill was introduced in the House a few days later to provide a sum of money for their relief, he voted for it.

Later while doing some "electioneering" back in his home district, Crockett happened on a farmer plowing. The farmer recognized Crockett and proceeded to tell him that while he'd voted for him in the previous election, he wouldn't be doing so again. The reason, he said, was Crockett's vote in support of the bill providing taxpayer money to the fire survivors.

Crockett was taken aback. How could anyone object to the government relieving the suffering of victims of an act of God?

The farmer countered that the problem was that the Constitution didn't give congress the power to do such a thing. If Crockett and other reps believed the document gave them such a power, there was no limit to the amount of tax dollars representatives could vote to favored causes. As the farmer put it (wanting to use an absurdly high number to make his point): If congress felt free to appropriate $20,000 to a cause, why could they not as easily vote twenty million?

Why not indeed.

Moreover, there was no limit to the reason a congressional appropriation might be made. That is, if representatives violated the Constitution by giving tax money to one group or activity, what would bar them from doing the same for any other cause, no matter how goofy?

Crockett said he felt stunned. He confessed that he'd never considered the matter in that light, and was simply being compassionate to those in obvious need.

The farmer replied that he wasn't at all opposed to showing compassion for those in need, but that the Founders--for very good reasons--didn't grant congress (or any other branch) the power to give charity. If the fire survivors needed $20,000 to relieve their suffering, said the farmer, such an amount could easily be raised from the wealthy in Washington.

Alternatively, each member of congress could have donated a week's pay and raised most of that sum. But of course they had no need to give their own money when they could give yours.

Interesting stuff.

I'm becoming convinced that about three-quarters of liberal politicians and voters are like Crockett: they've simply never considered the ramifications of the policies they push. They simply believe it's the government's job to award money to things like dance troupes doing environmental dance pieces for school kids. It never occurs to them that this is the certain, absolute road to ruin.
===

It should be noted that there's considerable doubt that the speech referenced in the link--from work by Edward S. Ellis--was actually given. Similarly, there's no evidence that the farmer Ellis describes as helping Crockett see the light about the nature of the Constitution is real. Nevertheless, the article makes a great and valid point.

Obama: "Capitalism has never worked."--WaPo

2011-12-07T06:48:00.001-08:00

The Washington Post has been a mouthpiece of the Democratic party for my whole life. Accordingly, if they write something mildly unflattering about a Democrat, chances are good that the story isn't fabricated.

A week ago a Post reporter wrote that Obozo said, in effect, that capitalism has never worked.

Hmm....

Seem t'me it works a hellofa lot better than socialism/communism. Need examples? See Cuba, North Korea, East Germany before reunification.

Of course if you refuse to take advantage of a free education (through high school), prefer hangin' on the corner to taking a low-wage job, spend all your money on crack and booze and have no concept of "deferred gratification," it's no wonder socialism is attractive! The gubmint will GIVE you food, housing, and checks. What could possibly be better?

Socialism "works" for those who don't want to or can't. Capitalism works for folks who are self-starters, well motivated. And the results of each system are just what you'd expect.

Funny that Obozo doesn't recognize that.

Or maybe he does, and his support of socialism is deliberate.

Chilling thought.

Two experiments on whether socialism is better than freedom

2011-12-06T06:40:00.000-08:00

The Occupy crowd--including its well-to-do supporters among academics, Hollywood residents and Democrat leadership--wants more socialist policies. More freebies, more welfare state, less free market activity. Because private business is eeevil, dontcha know.

Great takedown of that thinking here. And a great summary by a commenter (edited):

The world has had a chance to observe two perfect experiments in the relative benefits of communism/socialism versus freedom/capitalism: East Germany vs. West Germany, and North Korea vs. South Korea.
In both cases there were no significant differences in the two populations, climate or natural resources. The only difference was the ruling ideologies.

Result: On one side blight, decay, starvation, misery, paranoia, repression.
On the other a cornucopia of production, wealth, openness, freedom.

Ask a typical US college professor and he’d say Side A was capitalism and Side B was communism/socialism.

But to any normal person the results of these two real-world, side-by-side experiments are both clear and stark. Pity that American education is so misguided and left-leaning that most Americans under the age of 30--including virtually the whole Occupy crowd--haven't a clue about this.
Starting with our President.

And for a fun experiment, ask any college student about the Berlin wall and the whole East/West Germany divide. They don't know because they weren't taught. Note it's been 23 years since the wall was torn down!

(H/t Peterike, Wretch, Maetenloch at Ace's.)

House subpoenas Corzine to testify

2011-12-04T07:17:00.000-08:00

I see Jon Corzine, the former head of bankrupt commodities brokerage firm MF Global, has been subpoenaed to testify on December 8th about his role in the collapse of the firm he headed, "MF Global."

For those with short memories, MF Global has been charged with using roughly a Billion bucks of investor funds for its own purposes--as opposed to investing investor funds in investor-owned accounts. This is illegal, and tantamount to theft.

As you can probably guess, the misappropriated money vanished, and very few details have emerged about exactly how that occurred.

All that's publically known is that the collapse was the result of huge investments in "European sovereign debt"--a strategy reportedly pushed by Corzine himself.

Ah, but here's the twist: Corzine is a former Democrat governor and Dem U.S. senator from New Jersey. As such he will almost certainly refuse to testify to anything meaningful. And the Dems will block efforts to slap him with any penalty.

What do you think would happen to some poor conservative businessman who refused to testify after being subpoenaed?

Different rules for different political classes, eh?

We are no longer a nation of laws, but a nation run--and ruined--by political corruption.

It's a mystery to top Democrats

2011-12-03T05:02:00.000-08:00

Throughout history, poverty is the normal condition of man. Advances which permit this norm to be exceeded — here and there, now and then — are the work of an extremely small minority, frequently despised, often condemned, and almost always opposed by all right-thinking people. Whenever this tiny minority is kept from creating, or (as sometimes happens) is driven out of a society, the people then slip back into abject poverty.
This is known as "bad luck."

-R.A. Heinlein

Funny stuff. The Obozo administration--abetted by top Democratic congresscreeps like Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, Dick Durbin and others--constantly pontificate about the need to "create more jobs." But they seem to think the way to create jobs is to hire more gummint workers.

Are these top Dems really that clueless about where jobs come from? I really believe most of 'em really are. They've been living on the public checkbook for so long that they've forgotten (if they ever knew) that most jobs are created by businesses.

Having forgotten this, they constantly pass laws that make it increasingly hard for businesses to operate in the U.S.

And then when unemployment soars, they are...truly mystified.

Must be bad luck.

Occupy Wall Street: goofy socialists, and Dems love 'em

2011-11-23T14:36:00.000-08:00

Don't know what I can say about the "Occupy" movement that hasn't already been written: Bunch of spoiled, socialist whiners, agitating for "free" "government" handouts--which in fact are paid for by you and me.

You think you're *entitled* to free college tuition? You have the gall to claim a free ride in college is a "basic human right"?

Um...how to put this? Oh yeah: Kiss my ass.

You think it's the government's responsibility to create a job for ya? And not just a minimum-wage job, but one paying *way* above that, commensurate with your estimate of your fabulous skill level, eh?

I say again: Kiss my ass.

Do you think government creates most jobs (or at least the worthwhile ones)? In that case, extrapolate your...uh...'novel' model to the whole economy: If everyone gets a paycheck from the government, who pays the taxes to fund the whole deal? Oh, I forgot: government employees pay taxes too, so it should all work out, right?

But wait...If *everyone* gets a gubmint check, wouldn't everyone have to pay all they earn in taxes to keep things rolling? Otherwise how would you fund it?

Oh, right, I hear you: Years of Democrat/socialist bullshit have taught you that government can constantly run huge deficits. Unlike a private company, gummint doesn't have to make a profit, or even break even. So problem solved, right?

Except...take a look at Greece, for starters. Even a nation can't keep borrowing forever without repayment, any more than you can.

If you think that's wrong, try asking a bank for a loan after you've ruined your credit, declared bankruptcy, maxed your credit cards and so forth. Let us know how well that works for ya'.

Unless, of course, you're "politically connected"--like the execs at Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac or Solyndra. In that case you can award yourself millions in unearned "bonuses" by cooking the books to make it look like you met an awesome goal.

You prolly didn't know, but cooking the books to award yourself a huge bonus used to be a criminal offense. (Still is if you're a conservative.)

I'm also astonished that so many seemingly mainstream Democrats support the crazy goals of the OWS crowd--like "Destroy Capitalism" and so on. Seems to me this shows the fundamental ethical bankruptcy of the Dem/lib/"prog" crowd, but that's probably just my old-school bias.

Well, I've ranted enough for now. Happy Thanksgiving to all.

Time Mag writer: "Solyndra is perfectly sound."

2011-09-21T20:51:00.000-07:00

Time Magazine has been a pro-Democrat mouthpiece for my entire life. They're a lot like the NYTimes: never met a Democrat or Dem idea they didn't like, but they're death on any proposal made by the GOP.

So I wasn't too surprised to read a column by a prestitute of an employee for Time named Michael Grunwald, opining on the recently bankrupt Solyndra. Grunwald's main point seemed to be to get snippy with Republicans who were starting to ask pointed questions about the company--like how they managed to walk off with half a Billion of taxpayer funded loans, when their business plan was garbage from the get-go.

Example:

I happened to visit Solyndra’s headquarters today, so maybe I can help the Republicans with their investigation. For starters, the reports of Solyndra’s death have been greatly exaggerated. And while reasonable people can disagree about the loan guarantee program, it’s not the boondoggle its critics suggest.

Wow. So much snark and so many errors packed into such a small paragraph! Grunwald's column was dated June 24th of this year. The company filed for bankruptcy August 31st. So Grunwald's soothing reassurances lasted all of two months or so.

Grunwald also take pains to reassure readers that the Obama administration's "loan guarantee program" isn't a boondoggle. But what else would you call it when a company shakes the taxpayers down for half a billion bucks and still fails. Sound management, Democrat style?

Go read Grunwalds article. Guy is so full of crap I'm surprised he can see to type.

Execs to plead the 5th to avoid testifying before congress

2011-09-21T07:11:00.000-07:00

News flash: A House committee has asked executives of Solyndra--the bankrupt "green jobs" company that somehow (!) got half a Billion of your dollars to fund a business scheme that consisted of "make product for X, sell for one-half X"--to appear before them to explain the details of how the loan was obtained.

The flash is: The execs will reportedly "take the fifth," refusing to testify to avoid incriminating themselves.

Can you imagine the screams from the Left/Democrats/"progressives" if this was congressional Democrats investigating a loan program run by a Republican prez, and the beneficiaries refused to testify??

And it gets even better: The source has this quote:

The Solyndra executives had been asked to testify last week but delayed their appearance, saying they would cooperate this week and promising not to invoke their rights to avoid self-incrimination.

Did you get that? They avoided appearing *last week* by promising they'd cooperate this week! And they *promised* not take the fifth!

Yeah.

And yet one week later...

If I were the Repubs I'd jail these SOBs for a month for "contempt of congress." But Repubs are too wussy to do that. So we'll see this again and again, as long as they're investigating a Dem prezident.

I'm sure my Dem readers will want to know the source of this report. Fair enough. After all, if it came from Fox News or some blog or the Republican committee chair it would automatically be dismissed as a total lie, right?

You're absolutely right to be skeptical. (I don't believe a word published in the NY Times, for example.) And sure enough, the source is that bastion of right-wing plotting, ....the Washington Post.

But hey, there wasn't a single bit of incompetence or kickbacks or shady dealing going on. No sir! And you can believe that because...the liberal media says so. And they're absolutely impartial--not in the tank for Obama and the Dems at all.

And you can believe that because...they say so.

Major Obama fundraiser was "overseer" of loan-guarantee program

2011-09-18T04:58:00.000-07:00

Yesterday the Boston Herald ran a story on the Solyndra scandal, trying to explain why the Obama regime essentially gave half a billion dollars to a company that their own experts said was a disaster headed for bankruptcy.

The focus of their article was a top Obama fundraiser named Steve Spinner, and here's what they found:

Spinner was a Silicon Valley investor who founded a sports and wellness company before he joined the administration in April 2009 after serving on Obama’s transition team. He was named an advisor to Energy Secretary Steven Chu and was charged with helping oversee a loan guarantee program authorized by the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, the economic stimulus program.

I think the problem here is that unless this guy has a lot of accomplishments not discovered by the Herald's reporter, the only thing he should have been advising the government on was sports and wellness. To appoint him as an "advisor" to the head of the DOE--and then give him the job of "overseeing" the loan guarantee program to companies claiming to have ideas for green energy--would seem the height of incompetence.

If the story is correct, Spinner was a political cheerleader/fundraiser who in prior administrations would have been appointed ambassador to Baluchistan or some similar place. Instead Obama put him in as the overseer of a $28 Billion dollar boondoggle program.

Can anyone be surprised at the outcome?

National debt skyrocketing, Obama wants to spend even more

2011-09-14T06:15:00.000-07:00

A month ago the excellent Mark Steyn wrote a column titled "Mad Debt--A threat to liberty." I've taken the liberty of editing it below. So if something sets you off, don't blame Mark.

Under the “historic” “resolution” of the debt crisis, the government has promised to cut federal spending by $900 billion over ten years. “Cutting federal spending by $900 billion over ten years” is Washington gobble-speak for increasing federal spending by $7 trillion over that period. But since they’d originally planned to increase spending by eight trillion, Washington considers that a cut.

Wow. So if they’d planned to increase spending by $10 trillion and then settled for merely spending the $7 trillion, they could have saved three trillion instead of a paltry one trillion. See how easy this is?

As part of this historic “cut,” congress also raised the “debt ceiling”--to roughly $15 trillion bucks. Do you think your congressman or senator has any serious intention of having the goverment repay the 15 trillion racked up in his and your name?

Look into their eyes and you can see the answer. And if they aren't willing to pay down the debt now, what are the chances they’ll do so by 2020 when, under these historic “cuts,” the debt’s up to 23-25 trillion?

I’m not a “declinist”-- I’m way beyond that, in the express lane to total social collapse. The fecklessness of Washington is an existential threat not only to the solvency of the republic but to the entire world. If Ireland goes under it’s lights out on Galway Bay, but when America goes under it will drag the entire developed world down with it.

When I go around the country saying stuff like this, a lot of folks agree. And they usually say, “Fortunately I won’t live to see it.” I always reply that unless you’re over 90 you will live to see it. Forget about mid-century. We’ve got about four years to try to turn this thing around.

If we fail, by 2020 just the interest payments alone on the government's debt will be greater than our entire defense budget.

We'll be spending one-fifth of all federal revenue on...interest payments.

Do we have to tell you that this means this vast amount of money won't be available for spending on real needs? If you're a Democrat or "progressive" apparently we do.

Pious celebrities often simper that they’d be willing to pay more taxes for more government services. But a fifth of what you pay won’t be going to government services at all. Unless by “government services” you mean the People’s Liberation Army of China--which will be entirely funded by U.S. taxpayers by about 2015.

And these numbers assume interest rates will remain at their present historic low of three percent or so. Last week one of the Obama administration’s favorite economic analysts predicted that in just ten years, interest rates on ten-year U.S. Treasury notes would be almost nine percent.

That's three TIMES the current interest rate.

If that forecast is right the Chinese will be able to quintuple the size of their armed forces at no net cost to them--since we'll be paying them that in interest.

Time is running short. If you think we’ve got until 2050 or 2025, you’re part of the problem.

Yes.

9/11

2011-09-11T09:03:00.000-07:00

On this tenth anniversary of 9/11 I urge y'all to click here and read Mark Steyn's take.

Steyn isn't a U.S. citizen but he nails what's wrong with America better than anyone.

Our government and education system--including prestigious universities--have been taken over by "political correctness" and "metrosexuals," and until we get rid of the perps at the top of each of those institutions, Muslim fanatics will keep up their efforts to explode things here--because there's no down-side to doing so.

Palestinians celebrated the acts of 9/11 not only then but also yesterday.

To Rick Perry and the other GOP candidates: Pledge that your first act if you're elected will be to kill *every penny* of the $300 MILLION taxpayer dollars "our" government gives the Palestinians every year. Zero *everything,* including food aid.

If the rest of the world loves 'em so much, let the rest of the world give 'em what they wish.

Then just wait for the first liberal twit to whine that we're being mean to the poor folks.

If they wanted our money and food, perhaps someone on their side of the fence should have told 'em it wasn't very smart to celebrate the murder of 3000 Americans.

Did PBS cover an Obama gaffe?

2011-09-10T15:25:00.000-07:00

When Obama addressed congress last Thursday, one of the vignettes he used was about Abraham Lincoln. Here's what the NY Times reporter heard Obama say:

We all remember Abraham Lincoln as the leader who saved our Union. Founder of the Republican Party. But in the middle of a civil war, he was also a leader who looked to the future.

After the speech people began to note that the Republican party actually wasn't founded by Lincoln, who joined two years after the party was in fact founded.

Let me quickly say that I never knew who founded the party so I'm not very concerned that Obama made a mistake. What interests me is that when PBS initially posted their version of the transcript, the line about Lincoln was missing.

They've since corrected their so-called transcript. Turns out they simply posted the prepared text of the speech that was given to PBS by the president's staff, and didn't contain the "founder" line, and the network simply published what they were handed instead of listening to the actual speech and publishing what was actually said.

But imagine the furor in the press if Palin or Bachman or Perry--or Bush--had made this exact statement!

"You need a license to breathe"--small town in Indiana

2011-09-06T20:58:00.000-07:00

This will make your blood boil.

Some jerkwater town in Indiana--Burns Harbor, to give scorn where scorn is way past due--passed an ordinance that requires that anyone who wants to sell *anything* in that town must first apply for and be issued a license.

So whaddya have to do for a license? Simply be fingerprinted, pass a background check (!), and fork over a hundred bucks to the miserable excuse for a council.

Now, ain't nobody gonna miss much by not being able to sell stuff in a town of 1,156 people. But of course that's not the point. Because if this is allowed to stand, every jerkwater council from here to New York will jump on that same train.

Far too many city councilmen are morons--the kind of people who could be persuaded to vote against half of the amendments in the Bill of Rights--assuming they even know what they are.

Politicians are not to be trusted, period. And that mistrust goes up exponentially the farther up the chain you go. Problem in a small town is, they get in, and reward fifty friends, and you can never get them out.

Read the linked article.

The guy who signed off on a half-Billion loan to bankrupt company

2011-09-06T06:41:00.000-07:00

In researching how a startup company with a lousy business plan managed to tap taxpayers for $535 million and then go bankrupt just 8 months later, I ran across this piece on a techie website. It's an interview with the guy who runs the DOE's loan program.

The guy--Jonathan Silver--had been a venture capitalist, so you'd think he'd be very savvy when it comes to reading balance sheets and evaluating business plans. The author says Silver described his job as overseeing the application process, the analysis and the negotiations for loans and loan guarantees.

Sounds like the exact guy who would have had to approve the Solyndra loan guarantees.

Oh, Silver also had one other responsibility: he said he was also responsible for staffing. Meaning--obviously--that he selected the folks on his staff.

That means they owe their jobs to him.

As he said in another interview (video about halfway down the page), in Jan 2009 there were nine people on the staff, and 18 months later there were 175 or so.

Starting to see the problem yet?

In reading paragraph after paragraph of the guy's comments, it's clear that he loves "investing" in companies. It's exciting, there's a chance for a big breakthrough, yada yada. But unfortunately, he's not putting his own money at risk in these ventures, but yours.

And lots of it: Between the so-called "stimulus" bill and the Obama administration's love of so-called "green jobs" (anyone remember Van Jones?), Silver had found a virtually unlimited source of funds. Seventy Billion bucks. And wanted more.

What happens when you give a venture capitalist comparatively unlimited funding and give him the task of investing in risky, cutting-edge ventures? You get a slew of risky loans.

That's fine for people investing their own hard-earned dollars. But when the guy is "investing" your money, most of us would expect less cheerleading and a helluva lot more critical analysis.

Read the interview at the link. The guy sounds really sharp, but because he's been untethered from the constraints of sound investing, the results you get are...political.

How "global warming" advocates censor published studies

2011-09-06T06:16:00.000-07:00

If you're not familiar with the details of the fight over "anthropogenic global warming" --AGW--let me take one minute to brief you:

The pro-AGW crowd believes that not only is the Earth warming at an unprecedented rate, but also that the main cause of this warming is carbon dioxide from human activity such as burning gasoline, oil, natural gas and coal.

Accordingly, they see the solution as cutting way back on those activities--as you probably know.

What you may not know is that for the last 15 years or so, editors of scientific journals have consistently rejected any submitted paper (scientific study) that debunked any aspect of the pro-AGW theory.

Because there are usually only a handful of scientific journals relevant to any highly specialized field (say, atmospheric physics), a half-dozen "reliable" editors could block publication with almost total efficiency. That put authors of debunking studies in the position of having to go to an "off-topic" journal if they wanted to get their work published.

This in turn allowed the pro-AGW crowd to claim that every paper critical of AGW was garbage, "since the only place they could get it published was in this off-topic journal."

Neat way to shape the concensus, and thus public opinion, eh?

But once in a while this "perfect defense" slips up: Two researchers in Alabama submitted a paper to the journal "Remote Sensing." Following normal procedures, the journal assigned three reviewers to ensure that the researchers had used sound methodology and calculations. It passed all three and was published.

This is critical: Passing a review by three respected reviewers indicates that the paper appears to be scientifically sound.

But then someone who wasn't part of the review process realized that the paper debunked part of the AGW theory--rather sharply. This could not be tolerated, and the gatekeepers reacted: The editor of the journal resigned.

As far as I am aware, this is completely unprecedented. The editor did nothing wrong, the reviewers were randomly picked and well qualified, and their reviews of the science were solid. So why would the editor resign?

One theory is that the pro-AGW establishment forced him to resign as a show, while simultaneously promising him another position at comparable pay.

This theory is supported by the contents of the editor's letter of resignation, in which the only substantive reason he could give for resigning was that by chance, the three reviewers selected "probably" were "skeptics"--meaning they had reservations about the theory that humans are the primary cause of global warming.

Then someone else noted that if--as Al Gore and others claim--virtually every expert agreees that "the science is settled" that the theory is correct, the odds of randomly selecting 3 guys who disagreed with that theory were one in 100,000 or so.

Supporting this is the editor's use of the word "probably" to modify "skeptics." This is tantamount to admitting that the editor has no evidence for his claim and in fact didn't bother checking. In other words, it's a bullshit excuse.

I suspect the real reason the editor was "forced" to resign is that he didn't select the three reviewers from the known pool of true believers--which would have led to yet another rejection of a debunking study.

Next time some moron tells you "the science is settled," just laugh.

Can we impeach NOW??

2011-09-03T12:46:00.000-07:00

Suppose that back when Bush was president a company producing, oh, say Humvees for the Army had asked the government to guarantee loans to it of, oh, say half a Billion dollars.

And suppose a year or so later the company went bankrupt--leaving taxpayers on the hook for the half-billion.

Suppose further that a cursory investigation showed that the company had been making and selling its Humvees at a loss all along, so that it never realistically had any prospect of making a profit.

Finally: Suppose it turned out that White House officials had pressured the Army to guarantee the loan, vaulting the company past two dozen other companies that had applied for similar loan guarantees earlier.

Do ya think this just might possibly have been front-page news? News that would have led off all the nightly network news programs every evening for a month or more, like Abu Ghraib?

Okay, now suppose that same story happened today, with the Obama White House. Wouldn't you think that'd be as big a story as if it had happened when Bush was prez?

Apparently not.

If you're curious, the company is Solyndra, and the loan guarantee--the first such guarantee made by DOE under the woeful $787 Billion "stimulus" bill--was for $535 million. Just so we're clear, that's over half a Billion bucks. And now that the company has collapsed, the lenders are looking to us taxpayers to pay it back.

But wait...it gets better!

This loan guarantee was honcho'd by the Dept. of Energy, and when the company folded, the Republican chair of the House Energy and Commerce committee asked the DOE to provide documents that might shed some light on the question of how the loan came to be approved, who pushed DOE to approve the guarantee, and why no one in that department seemed to have even a vague hint that the company was in financial trouble.

In fact, the DOE helped get the loan restructured just five months before the company folded. Either no one looked at the company's financials, or every DOE employee who did was incompetent. Or in on the scam.

Members of the House committee had apparently gotten tips that the company was in trouble, and committee investigators had six months ago had started questioning the company's executives, lobbyists, and investors, as well as officials at the DOE and OMB. Everyone questioned told Committee investigators the company was financially sound.

As for the demand to produce records: The DOE initially made some motions to comply, but then began missing deadlines. Finally on July 14 the committee decided it had had enough of that crap and issued a subpoena to the Office of Management and Budget, demanding that requested documents related to approving the loan guarantee be turned over by July 22nd.

You'll be shocked to hear that OMB failed to comply with the subpoena.

For most people, failing to comply with a legal subpoena is a jailable offense.

And so we're perfectly clear: every Democrat on the Oversight Subcommittee voted against issuing the subpoena. But it passed on a straight party-line vote.

Reportedly the administration is now cooperating again. But excuse me if I'm skeptical. Plus, the agency had from March 14th--the date of the initial demand--until August to vacuum their files (if needed) and get their stories straight.

Amazing that Obama claimed he was going to have the most transparent administration ever, and then we see crap like this.

Here's hoping the Republicans stop pussyfooting around and get to the bottom of this report of White House pressure. Use your subpoena power. And if the WH stonewalls, go to the Supreme Court just like the Democrats did with Nixon.

EEOC demands that company let alcoholic driver drive their trucks

2011-09-03T05:13:00.000-07:00

The federal "Equal Employment Opportunity Commission" has a history of making crazy rulings and then suing businesses into the poorhouse. Since they have essentially unlimited resources, it's hard for a company to beat them even when they're clearly being arbitrary, capricious and stupid.

Combine that attitude with the draconian powers of the "Americans with Disabilities Act" and you've got the bureaucratic equivalent of the perfect storm.

Their latest is suing a trucking company that pulled one of its drivers off the road after he admitted to having an "alcohol problem."

The company has a long-established policy to do that, apparently believing that the risk to both the public and the company of an alcohol-related crash are too great. It didn't fire the driver, but gave him a non-driving job--one that paid less. The former driver refused to show up for the non-driving job and was fired.

The EEOC says alcoholism is a "recognized disability" under the ADA. And according to that law--which has morphed from good intentions into a legal monster--it's illegal to "discriminate" against anyone with a disability.

So now the EEOC is demanding that the company re-hire a man with self-admitted "alcohol problems" as a driver of big rigs. Oh, and give him back pay, compensatory and punitive damages and compensation for lost benefits.

I understand that the ADA was passed with the intention to do good, but it's hard to see how forcing companies to let alcohol-plagued drivers continue to drive is a good policy.

Except that it continues to provide a good living for thousands of government employees filing crazy lawsuits.

What's this "cause-and-effect" stuff?

2011-09-01T07:42:00.000-07:00

Further to my previous post on the CERN experiment that seems to have proved pretty conclusively that global warming is caused by cosmic rays seeding cloud formation, and that cosmic rays vary on their own without any man-made influence:

A commenter at PJM noted that this unexpected discovery opens up lots of other possibilities for similar surprising breakthroughs:

Could high government spending possibly have an effect on our huge national debt?

Could extortionate union rules have anything to do with businesses moving overseas?

Could the distrust of Muslims have anything to do with their habit of launching terrorist attacks?

Could the government paying welfare to single mothers possibly have any effect on the increasing number of out-of-wedlock births?

Could the burden of ObamaCare, increasingly harsh regulations and inflammatory anti-business rhetoric have anything to do with unemployment, and the reluctance of small businesses to add new employees?

Gee, it's hard to imagine that there could possibly be any cause-and-effect relationship with any of the above. It just doesn't seem logical.

No more logical than thinking the sun might be the major factor in any global warming.

Experiment finds global warming caused by sun; AGW crowd censors results

2011-08-31T05:43:00.000-07:00

Next time you hear Al Gore or some other global-warming moron claim that "the science is settled" that human activities are causing the planet to warm, just laugh.

For almost two decades now, the theory of "anthropogenic global warming"--that humans are causing it--has been pushed with a ruthlessness that's astonishing. When anyone voiced even the mildest skepticism about the theory, the pro-AGW fascists immediately rallied their network of friendly journalists to villify and discredit the skeptic.

Pro-AGW scientists also worked hard to ensure that experiments that had a good chance of debunking their pet theory didn't get any funding.

Fifteen years ago a pair of Danish scientists speculated that cosmic rays might have a much larger role in forming high-altitude clouds than had previously been thought. They proposed an experiment using the CERN particle accelerator that would either prove or disprove the theory.

Sounds harmless enough, eh? But the AGW establishment saw a big danger to their stream of government grants: Clouds reflect the sun's energy away from the earth, so anything that affected the amount of clouds formed would play a huge role in climate change.

Since it was already known that the number of cosmic rays reaching earth varied over time, and was controlled by the sun's magnetic field, it followed that IF the theory was right, a huge chunk of global warming would be due to...the sun, not humans.

Accordingly, pro-AGW scientists succeeded in killing funding for the Danish cosmic ray experiment for a whole decade. It was finally funded due to the great efforts of one one scientist who was willing to stand up to the mud-slinging from the AGW establishment.

The results of the experiment were released last week, and show convincingly the role of cosmic rays in cloud formation. But if you think the AGW establishment has been defeated you're naive: CERN--the lab where the experiment was done--is totally dependent on government funding, so its executives are careful to avoid offending the politicians that control those funds. Thus the bosses at CERN ordered the Danish team to avoid “the highly political arena of the climate change debate,” telling them “to present the results clearly but not interpret them” and to downplay the results by “mak[ing] clear that cosmic radiation is only one of many parameters.”

For the AGW establishment, it doesn't matter what the science actually shows as long as you can control what's printed about it later.

Democrat intellectual: "Danger isn't huge debt, but Fox News and WSJ"

2011-08-29T06:57:00.000-07:00

Did you hear the one about the U.S. being in great danger because we owe $14 Trillion dollars on money the government's borrowed?

Turns out that according to a former Secretary of Labor for Bill Clinton, the U.S. is NOT in any jeopardy because of our huge national debt!

Whew, that's such a relief! For a second there I was gettin' pretty worried.

But this same guy says we ARE in danger, just not from the huge debt. Instead, he claims the peril is due to--are you sitting down?--lies allegedly told by Fox news and the Wall Street Journal's editorial page.

His actual tweet (7 a.m. Central time today) was:

America is imperiled not because we're broke but because Americans are being fed continuous lies by Fox News and WSJ editorial page.

The stunner is that this isn't just some anonymous socialist idiot spouting off at Democratic Underground or Daily Kos, but Robert Reich--a guy regarded as one of the main intellectual lights of the Democratic party.

Again: He's widely regarded as one of the main intellectual lights of their party.

Why would Reich claim our huge debt is NOT a problem? Could it possibly be one more move designed to shift blame from failed Democratic/Socialist policies of the welfare state onto the convenient enemies of that state, Fox and the WSJ?

Looks like Reich is angling for a job in Obama's wreck of an administration.

Baghdad Bob

2011-08-28T08:32:00.000-07:00

Saddam Hussein's "Information Minister"--his public-relations man--was an affable guy who the western press nicknamed "Baghdad Bob."

Bob will forever be remembered for the demonstrably false statements he made in April, 2003 when U.S. battle tanks entered Baghdad at the end of that short, decisive military campaign.

As our tanks rolled into Baghdad, journalists embedded with our troops used satellites to send out video of columns of tanks rolling past identifiable city landmarks. These were flashed around the world instantly. An hour later, in a film clip that's become famous, Baghdad Bob repeatedly and vehemently denied to dozens of assembled video journalists that there were any American troops in the city.

The juxtaposition of these two videos--American tanks rolling into the city versus Bob's brazen denials--perfectly illustrated the fact-free zone in which Hussein lived: All Iraqi citizens constantly told him how wonderful he was. Because he was the arbiter of all favors and power, Iraqis tried to curry favor with him and his crazy thug sons. But the truth was far different.

Whether Bob knew the American tanks were three miles away and was simply lying in an effort to keep the support of Iraqis a bit longer or was simply unaware of the situation I don't know. But either way, the accidental airing of the two live clips just a few minutes apart is without equal as a metaphor for either blatant lying or cluelessness.

Flash-forward just eight short years: We see Obama repeating that jobs are his number-one focus, a laser focus, the first thing he thinks of each morning. We hear him jabber about cutting spending, while simultaneously increasing "investment." Then minutes later you see the unemployment rate staying put, new jobless claims "unexpectedly" rising, more businesses closing, more wasting of taxpayer dollars on a week-long, ten-million-dollar vacation, and you think...

We elected Baghdad Bob.

Libyan rebels may have uncovered 25-year-old hoax

2011-08-27T08:03:00.000-07:00

If you're over 50 or so, you may remember that back in 1986, Libyan "agents" (terrorists) bombed a nightclub in Germany that was popular with U.S. troops stationed there. After determining who the bombers were, President Reagan said, in effect, "If you bomb U.S. personnel, you'll pay a price," and he ordered U.S. forces to bomb Qadaffy's compound in Tripoli.

Not wanting that to happen again, Qadaffy announced that the raid had killed his six-month-old adopted daughter, Hana, and showed friendly journalists the body of a baby that age.

Predictably, leftist media outlets around the world pushed the story endlessly, reinforcing the meme that the U.S. routinely went around the world killing babies.

Any of that ring any bells?

Now it turns out that may have all been a hoax: Libyan rebels who overran Qadaffy's main residence/bunker report finding an entire group of files on "Hana," who now seems to be a 25-year-old doctor practicing in Tripoli.

Interesting.

If this person does turn out to be Qadaffy's adopted daughter--proving the hoax--wonder if we'll get any corrections (and apologies) from Time, Newsweek and all the other lefty rags that bought the propaganda hook, line and sinker?

Big Labor to give less $ to Dems? Not a chance!

2011-08-25T05:57:00.000-07:00

Frankly I'm surprised we didn't see what follows a LOT sooner:

AFL-CIO president Richard Trumka announced that the labor federation--the nation’s largest--will give less money to Democrats in the coming election cycle.

Since this is extremely unlikely to be true, one immediately wonders what the catch is. And here it is:

The labor group plans to create a new "political action committee" (PAC) to spend money independently and directly, rather than donating to candidates. This would allow it to spend unlimited amounts of money on political activity, rather than being limited by campaign finance laws to only relatively small contributions.

In other words, the headlines on this story are deliberately misleading: there’s no indication Labor is going to ditch the Dems. They’re just going to spend their money “independently” campaigning for Democrats so they can sidestep contribution limits.

For corporations and individuals this wouldn't be very attractive, since campaign contributions are (or at least used to be) tax-deductible but independent advocacy isn't. But the unions are awash with forced dues money, and couldn't care less about the tax deduction because in theory they're non-profit outfits.

As I said, I'm surprised they didn't do this years ago.

NASA to pay publisher to produce inspiring fiction about...NASA!

2011-08-24T06:12:00.000-07:00

With the space shuttle having flown its last mission, NASA has lost the capability of launching men into space and thus is facing likely downsizing.

Since the number-one goal of bureaucrats is power, which is roughly proportional to the number of people in your organization, the agency has been desperate to find ways to avoid the reductions.

One way is to get the public to see you as absolutely essential.

Solution? The agency has signed an agreement with a publisher to create a series of "NASA-inspired works of fiction"--stories relating to current and future missions and operations.

"Ultimately this agreement will benefit the public, as we look for innovative ways to communicate our past and current achievements, while focusing on the needs of the future," said a NASA spokesperson.

Yeah. I can see all kinds of benefits to the public from paying PR flacks to write glowing fictional works mentioning NASA. Sure.

Actually, if the government ever does get serious about cutting spending--try not to die laughing--this may turn out to be a popular bureaucratic tactic. Imagine how the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (yeah, I know they changed the name) could polish its image by paying some flack to write glowing fiction about tracking the thousands of heavy weapons the agency allowed drug cartels to buy and smuggle into Mexico.

In a recession-hammered economy, a few dozen of these deals could create jobs for literally hundreds of out-of-work writers and PR flacks.

It's a win-win.

What's wrong with this picture?

2011-08-24T05:35:00.000-07:00

Sunday, on the national mall in Washington D.C., next to the Lincoln memorial, a memorial to Martin Luther King was opened to the public.

Its centerpiece is a 30-foot tall statue.

Carved by a chinese sculptor. In China. Then shipped here and reassembled.

Wait, it gets better.

According to the N.Y. Post, the "foundation" in charge of getting the memorial built paid King's family $800,000--plus another $70,000 "management fee"--for the right to use his likeness and phrases from his speeches around the memorial.

Now, I'm a great fan of the free market. And it's true that in most cases a person's "likeness" is his intellectual property. But to demand to be paid to allow someone to build a memorial to your ancestor on the national mall--man, talk about tone-deaf.

Federal Reserve finally discloses its loans to banks

2011-08-23T08:52:00.000-07:00

After repeated Freedom of Information Act requests, months of litigation and an act of Congress, the Federal Reserve has finally--and obviously reluctantly--disclosed how much of your money it loaned to various banks and other financial institutions in its efforts to solve the "mortgage crisis" of 2008.

Before getting to the details, let's try to give some perspective to the outrage:

In 2006, as home prices peaked, the 10 biggest U.S. banks and brokerage firms had their best year ever, earning combined profits of $104 billion.

Just two years later, with home prices collapsing and record numbers of foreclosures (most due to defaults by borrowers who would never have qualified for a loan under time-tested standards), the U.S. Treasury loaned these same top-ten firms $160 Billion to keep them in business.

The media reported this, typically with some degree of outrage about the Bush administration bailing out "its friends in the banking business."

Now comes the forced disclosure that the Federal Reserve loaned banks and "other financial institutions" as much as $1.2 trillion of supposedly-maybe-perhaps public money. That's seven times more than the U.S. Treasury bailout.

Just the three biggest recipients alone--Morgan Stanley ($107.3 billion), Citigroup ($99.5 billion) and Bank of America ($91.4 billion), got more in loans than the combined profits of the ten largest banks in their record year.

Another shocker is that almost half of the top 30 recipients of Fed loans were European firms.

In an effort at damage control, the Fed says it hasn’t lost any money on these loans. Of course it can't know that until they've all been repaid, can it? And if you think they've all been repaid, you probably shouldn't be voting because you're too gullible: In order to do that the banks would have had to record eleven times more profit in the last two years than they did in their record year of 2008.

Didn't happen. So the Fed is...how do you say it? Oh yeah: spouting crap.

The Fed also says it has actually “netted $13 billion in interest and fee income” over the past two years. Let’s assume all of that $13 billion was interest. $13 B in interest on a $1.2 Trillion loan for two years works out to an interest rate less than one-half of one percent.

To say thats a good rate for the banks is an understatement. By comparison, the interest the government pays on our national debt – a phenomenally low rate that we’re damned lucky to have – is about nine times higher.

Why did the Fed fight so hard for so long to keep 90% of its loans secret? The Fed says it's because “releasing the identities of borrowers and the terms of their loans would stigmatize banks, damaging stock prices or leading to depositor runs,” according to Bloomberg. Thus any banking and borrowing decisions you made during this time were made without knowing the facts--because the most important objective was to maintain the illusion of stability. At least that's the judgment of people you don’t get to vote against.

(If you don't trust the information because of the link used, here's the original data at Bloomberg Financial.)

How the media supports Democrats, part gazillion

2011-08-23T06:51:00.000-07:00

Ever seen stories in the mainstream media that make some of the following points?:

When Republicans win an election, the media says the public is "acting irrationally" and "lashing out."

But when Democrats win, the media describes the result as a "repudiation of Republican principles and ideas."

An election where 63 Democratic house members lost to Republicans and just two Republican congressmen lost to a Democrat should qualify as a repudiation of Democratic policies. Instead the MSM described voters as being in an "anti-incumbent mood" (never "anti-Democrat").

When Democrats block a Republican bill the MSM describes the blockers as "making a principled stand."

But when Republicans block Democrat legislation the MSM wails about "government paralysis," "gridlock," describing Republicans as "petulant" and "the party of No." The MSM never describes Repubs as making a principled stand.

When Bush was in office the MSM wailed to the heavens about a federal budget deficit of $400 billion.

But when Obama racks up a single-year deficit 3 or 4 times higher than Bush's worst, the MSM defends Obama by saying, Well, Bush had huge deficits too.

It goes on and on.

(h/t to commenter Ben at Ace's place)

Free lunch for everybody! Well, borrowed tax money but...

2011-08-22T06:52:00.000-07:00

Think the federal government has cut out wasteful spending? Think again:

The Department of Education is starting a pilot program--budget $4.5 billion--to provide free lunches to ALL public-school students in Detroit.

That's "all"--regardless of income.

Detroit is one of three pilot programs starting this month, but the plan is to expand the program to similar districts nationwide.

The rationale for the program is...are you sitting down? The administration says it wants to pay for rich kids' lunches to keep less-fortunate kids from feeling bad.

“We’ve worked very hard to reduce the stigma,” Aaron Lavallee, a U.S. Department of Agriculture spokesman, told the Detroit News. “We’re seeing a lot of working-class families who’ve had to turn to free school meals to feed their children.”

If that's true, wouldn't free lunches the next popular social fad? In which case wouldn't it be regarded as a coup instead of a stigma?

“Now all students will walk through the lunch line and not have to pay,” says Mark Schrupp, Detroit Public Schools COO. “Low-income students will not be easily identifiable and will be less likely to skip meals.”

With logic like this, you expect the next program will be to give new cars to all 16-year olds, so poor kids driving old beaters don't get their feelings hurt.

And if you protest, you’re a terrorist.

WaPo: who better to discuss power production than our food-section contributor?

2011-08-20T06:00:00.000-07:00

Ezra Klein is an idiot. A moron. A pencil-necked geek whose only qualification to do anything seems to be that leftists in New York and Washington think he writes cutesy, cutting-edge commentary.

Fair enough. If you care, you can now see his idiocy for yourself by clicking on this link, to a WaPo article entitled "Getting ready for a wave of coal-plant shutdowns."

In it Klein holds forth on the EPA's "flurry" of new rules on emissions from coal-fired powerplants. The electric power industry has claimed the new rules are so costly that one-fifth of all coal powerplants are too old to economically be modified to comply, and so they'll have to be shut down.

Since almost half of the nation’s electricity comes from coal, that means an instant loss of almost ten percent of generating capacity. But Klein says not to worry.

Also, complying with the rules on the remaining plants will cost utilities an estimated $129 billion. But since utilities are corporations that don't have to make a profit, they'll eat the extra cost, instead of passing it on to consumers in the form of higher electric bills.

Okay, that's a joke: Obviously the cost of complying with the new rules will be passed along to you as higher electric bills. Also there will probably be some lost jobs--but hardly enough to worry about with unemployment at 9.2%.

Klein calls on his engineering degree and his experience as an economics analyst for the electric power industry to reassure us that the power industry is crying wolf--there's really nothing to worry about, and the new rules will be risk-free to you.

Okay, that's another joke, as here's Ezra's C.V. in a nutshell, from the Post's website:

Ezra Klein writes an opinionated blog on economic policy, collapsing banks, cap and trade, health care reform and pretty much anything else.... Before coming to The Post, he was an associate editor at the American Prospect. Klein has appeared as a guest on CNN, MSNBC, NPR and C-SPAN....[He] will also be a regular contributor to The Post's Food section.

So let's see if I've got this right: A former associate editor at a leftist mag, with zero background in electric power or engineering, is given a forum in a reasonably influential paper to argue that contra to what the power industry is saying, new EPA rules forcing a shutdown of one-fifth of the coal-fired powerplants in the country will neither cut power production nor will it raise your electric bills.

Oh, wait. Now I see how he's had the brazenness to do this: The Congressional Research Service--allegedly a "non-partisan" outfit--has issued (wait for it) a report expressing skepticism.

Well okay, sparky, what's it say? Here's Klein's take:

The report notes that “there is a substantial amount of excess generation capacity at present,” caused by the recession and the boom in natural gas [power]plants.

So we've got "substantial" spare capacity...at present. But the present has this funny way of vaporizing into...the past. The actually relevant question is, will we have enough generating capacity five or six years from now? Because even Klein notes that the excess capacity he finds so reassuring has been "caused by the recession."

What happens when the recession eventually ends (which is what most of us expect to happen if Obama is defeated next year)? If a recovery soaks up all the spare capacity, we're on the verge of rolling blackouts.

At which point lefties like Klein will be squawking the loudest about the awful lack of planning on the part of utility executives--no doubt part of crafty plan to force higher electricity prices on the poor working stiff!

And the other part of Klein's "spare capacity" is due to powerplants fueled by natural gas. Oh yeah, very clean, fairly quick construction. But wait...I seem to remember back when Carter was president, natural gas was getting a bit short in supply, so the grabberment decreed that starting right then, no one could build any new gas-fired powerplants in the U.S.

The theory was that utilities can afford to buy all the costly gear needed to be able to use coal fairly cleanly, but steel mills and factories and homes mostly had to use natural gas. So if there was a gas shortfall, the grabberment didn't want to pit homeowners against powerplants in a bidding war for natural gas.

When you think about it, it seems like a good idea.

But the ban on gas-fired plants was eventually torpedoed by environmentalists. So now we'll have plenty of coal but fewer powerplants that use it, and much greater demand for natural gas. And if there's a shortage or supply disruption for gas, Washington will have to order electrical generation curtailed if homeowners are to avoid freezing.

What a great choice! That's some really great planning there.

And this is what passes for brilliance in Washington.

NYC mayor: Best way to increase jobs is to bring in more immigrants??

2011-08-19T22:07:00.000-07:00

Full-throttle stupidity can be found anywhere, and especially in city officials--whether the city is small or huge.

So it is with a video of NYC mayor Bloomberg opining on the best way to create jobs in America: Here's the transcript:

Mayor Bloomberg said Friday that the “single biggest” thing President Obama can do right now to spur job creation in the United States is to allow more immigration.
“Most importantly, we want to get immigrants from around the world to come to America,” Bloomberg said.
“That’s the single biggest thing the president could do...is open up the borders to those that will create jobs here.”
He told CBS that immigrants “don’t take away jobs” but rather they create jobs for people already living in the United States.

This is stupid on steroids. Immigrants "create jobs for people already living here"? Really?

So all the unionized construction guys who've been claiming immigrants have been taking work away from them by being willing to work for less...were lying? Mistaken, maybe?

I dunno, maybe this is some novel academic theory none of us has ever heard of.

Wait, I've got it: This is a setup so Obozo can "correct" Bloomie and thus stick up for his union friends. Or something.

Nah, just a goofy pol talking out of his a$$. Thoroughly nuts.

It's now official: Illegal immigrants can stay in the U.S. indefinitely

2011-08-19T05:53:00.000-07:00

For over six months now, all the signs have suggested that the Obama administration had quietly made it their policy to allow illegal immigrants to stay in the U.S. as long as they wished, as long as they had no record of "serious" crimes.

At first the administration denied this was their policy (since it would clearly violate the Constitution's requirement that the president enforce the laws of the U.S.), then they clammed up. But now, with Obama's re-election chances falling, they've officially announced it.

Q: Why would Obozo's handlers do something that would anger so many voters?

A: Apparently they believe they'll get more votes--they'll lose a few current voters but hope to gain more immigrant votes than they'll lose.

Q: I didn't think illegal immigrants could vote unless they became citizens. So how could they help the Democrat vote before then?

A: Haven't you seen how polished the Democrats are at stealing elections? Hell, dead people vote Dem, Mickey Mouse is a registered Dem, people living at addresses that turn out to be vacant lots vote Dem. With real live people it will be even easier to cast fraudulent ballots.

Note the source for the quote below: The Democrat-loving Associated Press.

WASHINGTON (AP) — The government says many illegal immigrants who don’t have criminal records but are facing possible deportation will get to stay in the U.S. indefinitely and have a chance to apply for a work permit.
Deporting illegal immigrants who are convicted criminals will be the Obama administration’s priority.
Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano says authorities will make a case-by-case review of the approximately 300,000 illegal immigrants who are facing possible deportation.
Immigration advocates say the Obama administration hasn’t lived up to its promise to only deport the “worst of the worst,” as the president has said.

You were warned this was coming. You didn't believe the Democrats could be this brazen. And note that's "Democrats" rather than just Obama, because if senate Dems opposed this move Obama would be impeached and convicted in a heartbeat.

Refusing--I say again, refusing--to enforce the law by deporting people who have entered this country illegally--i.e. in violation of the laws of this nation--is a direct violation of the Constitution and thus is an impeachable offense.

If he can violate this law with impunity (as he will), what law will be next? What would prevent him from ordering his corrupt treasury secretary to seize your bank accounts or stock holdings? If you answered, "Why, that would be illegal!" you still don't get it.

Here's another quote from the article that pinpoints the Democrats' clear, blatant, egregious move to nullify the laws of the U.S. when they know they don't have the votes to get the law changed in congress (i.e. the legal, time-honored way to do it):

Laura Lichter, president-elect of the American Immigration Lawyers Association, said...the [new] policy does bring administrative changes to the immigration system at a time when congressional action seems unlikely.

Yep, it sure does bring changes all right.

Wake. The. Hell. UP !!

"Congress is so stuck in its partisan politics, the immigration situation is getting worse and worse and worse," Lichter said. "This is the administration's only way, and frankly a very appropriate way, to come up with an interim fix."

Ah yes, of course: Wanting the Obozo administration to actually enforce the laws of the U.S. is being "stuck in partisan politics."

And by "fix" Lichter doesn't mean "stop illegal immigration and deport those here illegally" but rather, to institute a policy that is clearly contra to the law, to simply allow illegals to stay here "indefinitely."

They sure put the "fix" in all right. Wake. The. Hell. UP !!

Finally: We already have illegals flooding across the border (though said to be a bit fewer at the moment with our unemployment rate so high). What effect do you think this new official policy will have on the rate of people entering the U.S. illegally?

Now, do you think the cunning policy-makers in the Obama administration didn't think about this and take it into account when planning this official announcement?

Wake up!

UPDATE: The quoted article was far too candid in reporting the story--it attributed the new policy directly to the Obama administration. Apparently someone on the Obama crew noticed, because the AP article was quickly rewritten to make it less obvious.

Take the headline: It now reads "U.S. makes criminals priority for deportation." Now that's something the average voter would love, since--well, hasn't everyone who's entered the U.S. illegally broken the law? And isn't someone who breaks the law a criminal by definition?

Now the first paragraph of the AP story as originally posted:

The government says many illegal immigrants who don’t have criminal records but are facing possible deportation will get to stay in the U.S. indefinitely and have a chance to apply for a work permit.

In the revised version the first 'graf now reads,

Many illegal immigrants who were facing deportation despite having no criminal record will be allowed to stay in the country and apply for a work permit under new rules from the Homeland Security Department.

Looks substantially the same. But notice the first version gives the source as "the government." Since Obama is in charge of the administration, many voters would understandably believe this change was approved by him (which of course it was). That's far too candid. So the AP rewrites it to read "under new rules from Homeland Security."

Also note that the illegal immigrants were facing deportation "despite having no criminal record." The artful phrasing implies that illegal immigrants haven't broken any laws. Because they have "no criminal record." A seed has been planted in the minds of readers.

One of the hardest changes to spot is because it's not there. Just kidding: it's a word--and actually a significant concept--that's been omitted in the rewrite. If you didn't spot it on the first read, take another look.

It's the word "indefinitely." The very first sentence of the original article said that illegal immigrants "will get to stay in the U.S. indefinitely." That's far too candid an admission, so that "psychological flag word" was taken out of the revised version.

The story's second paragraph has also been totally rewritten:

Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano announced Thursday that the department will focus on deporting illegal immigrants who are criminals or pose a threat to national security or public safety.

The original version said "Deporting illegal immigrants who are convicted criminals will be the Obama administration’s priority." The problem was that this specifically put the phrase "the Obama administration" near the top of the story, which again would make the association too obvious.

Solution: Change the focus to Napolitano.

Did you notice the other significant change? The original said the priority would be on deporting "convicted criminals." The rewrite says "will focus on deporting illegal immigrants who are criminals."

Wow, thinks the average voter, that's great, right? Means the government's gonna deport 'em all eventually, right? 'Cause, y'know, that "criminal" thingy.

But of course this is not the policy--the administration doesn't propose to deport "criminals," and for the rewrite to omit "convicted" took an overt decision. That is, the rewrite misleads the average voter into thinking the Obama crew is getting tough on illegal immigration, when the reverse is true. And again, it cleverly breaks the association between "criminal" and "illegal immigrant." That is, when it comes to immigration you can break the law and yet magically not have committed a crime!

Wire-service stories don't rewrite themselves. Unless the writing was grammatically atrocious (it wasn't) or someone attributed a quote incorrectly (that doesn't seem to have happened in this case), you don't rewrite just for fun. Someone picked up a phone and "strongly suggested" that the story needed to be rewritten.

What's the underlying cause of riots?

2011-08-18T12:56:00.000-07:00

From the always-delightful ... oh, why not try guessing?

Why were young people in Britain tearing apart their cities, burning down businesses and stealing electronics and designer clothes? Because the cops shot someone? Please.

What has angered rioters in Greece, Paris and Vancouver? Are they jobless? Government benefits being cut? Their hockey team lost? They might as well destroy police cars because they're upset about rainy days.

Why were public sector union workers in Wisconsin busting up the capitol and physically attacking Republican legislators? MSNBC's Ed Schultz says it was because Republicans were trying to take away the people's "civil rights."

Why were black and Hispanic gang members looting after the Rodney King verdict? An L.A. policeman recently told me that the gang members he arrested in the riots said they didn't know or care about Rodney King.

Why were masked hoodlums smashing Starbucks windows in Seattle a decade ago when some bankers came to town? They're against the "global economy"? What does that even mean?

Liberals love mobs because rioting and anarchy is their path to power.

Making sound proposals based on facts and logic is not their metier. Making impossible promises to the easily fooled is their specialty. For more on this, see "The 2012 Democratic Platform."

The Democratic Party is currently promising to "save" Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid in their present form. But according to Obama's Treasury Secretary, Tim Geithner, in less than 10 years spending on those three entitlement programs alone, plus servicing the national debt, will consume 92 cents of every dollar in the federal budget.

The Democrats are openly lying to voters. It's a mathematical impossibility for these programs to continue without major reform now, or complete bankruptcy later -- and not very much later.

But Democrats' real achievement has been in destroying the family, and thereby creating an endless supply of potential rioters.

When blacks were only four generations out of slavery, their illegitimacy rate was about 23 percent (lower than the white illegitimacy rate is now). Then Democrats decided to help them! Today--just two generations since LBJ's Great Society programs began--the black illegitimacy rate has tripled to 72 percent.

Meanwhile, the white illegitimacy rate has septupled, from 4 percent to 29 percent.

Instead of a "War on Poverty," it should have been called a "War on the Family."

The vast and permanent underclass created by the welfare state is a great success story for the Democratic Party, since it creates a loyal constituency of deadbeats who automatically vote Democrat in order to keep their "free" taxpayer-funded benefits flowing.

As long as Democrats are serving their principal constituency -- recipients of taxpayer money--they don't seem to be much concerned about what happens to the rest of society.

Instead they champion any mob that will increase their political power. Liberals promote welfare dependency, class warfare, endless government programs staffed with public sector workers, street protests, coddling criminals and physical attacks on their ideological opponents.

And then congratulate themselves on create a new cadre of reliably Democratic voters.

Some Leftists crowing about Wisconsin recall

2011-08-18T05:45:00.000-07:00

A leftist pinhead by the name of Greg Sargent writes a column for the WaPo, and argues that the recent recall elections in Wisconsin killed governor Scott Walker's working majority in that state's senate and all but ensures that he'll lose a recall election in 2012.

That's certainly possible, as the state does seem to be evenly divided. Since I don't live there, to me the outcome is of academic interest only. The reason I posted this is that I urge you to click on the link and read the comments to Sargent's article.

About a third of the commenters not only sound crazy but also amazingly combative.

Interes funny: Every article I've seen on Wisconsin says that Walker's new procedures have already closed a billion-dollar budget shortfall. Since these are articles in the lefist "MSM" I can't believe they'd lie to favor a Republican governor.

Which raises a few questions for Wisconsin residents:

Is your budget in better shape with the Walker changes, or is the MSM lying?
Other things equal, do you feel it's better for a state to have a balanced budget?
Is it true that once Walker allowed school systems to get health-insurance bids from more than just the union-owned company, that company drastically cut its own bid for the same coverage?
Do you approve of the tactic of legislators fleeing the state to avoid a vote on a measure they know they don't have the votes to win?
Will you approve of the same tactic if it's used by Republicans?

Suddenly the MSM loves both Bush and Romney. Wonder why?

2011-08-18T05:05:00.000-07:00

For roughly a year now Mitt Romney has been widely considered the most likely Republican nominee for 2012. And during this entire time the mainstream media has been running or broadcasting stories that emphasize his negatives.

But now that Perry is in the race, suddenly I'm starting to see stories in the MSM touting Romney's admirable qualities. Gee, wonder what caused that sea change?

Prediction: Between now and the day the Republican nominee is locked in, you'll see *lots* of stories in the MSM noting how many fabulous qualities Mitt Romney has. Because the Left/Dems would far rather run against Romney than Perry.

Similarly, CNN always had the knives out for George W. Bush--couldn't run the man down often enough. Yet yesterday CNN ran this piece comparing Perry--unfavorably, of course--to Bush. The CNN propagandist says Perry has the “anti-version” of Bush’s “charisma and charm” that made people want to vote for Bush.

Now personally, I thought W was both funny and down-to-earth. Unpretentious. But when I hear CNN talk about Bush having "charisma and charm" I'm thinking, Wow, these guys must be really worried about Perry.

Seattle program gets fed grant to make money vanish

2011-08-17T06:10:00.000-07:00

Want to see how government rolls up its sleeves and solves a problem? Well last year Seattle got a $20 million grant from the federal gummint (that would be from us taxpayers) to insulate 2,000 low-income homes.

That works out to a net cost of ten thousand bucks per home, but what the hell--it's a gummint project so we'd expect some waste. Plus they were gonna spend a chunk of that money *training* folks to use a caulking gun or unroll rolled-up insulation. In fact, they were planning to "create" (as in, "created or saved") a whole bunch of jobs at the same time.

And not just any ol' jobs, but real honest-to-goodness "living wage" Jobs! None of those cheap-ass jobs in factories or Starbucks.

If fact, the grant writer said the money would create--by coincidence--2,000 such Jobs. So we'll cut 'em some slack here, since some of that money was to be used for...you get the picture.

So...how'd they actually do with that $20 million of your money?

As of last week they'd insulated ("retrofitted") a total of 3 homes.

Wait, that must be a typo, right? Should be 300, right? I mean, they'd said they were gonna insulate 2,000 low-income homes, and even 300 would be a huge failure. To have insulated just...three?... I wouldn't think it possible that anyone could be that incompetent without getting fired.

So let me check the source. Yep, three homes.

Typical Seattle liberal: "Welllll, that's probably because once they got to studying the economic effects, they realized that creating jobs was SO much more important, so they ended up putting 98 percent of the grant money into job creation instead. Yeh, dat's da ticket."

Okay, so how many jobs were created?

Answer, according to the former Seattle Post-Intelligencer (now on-line after folding the print edition...because it was so hugely profitable and had so many readers)?

14.

C'mon, that must be fourteen hundred. Darn typos.

Nope. Fourteen jobs, period.

And as the PI article euphemistically notes, "Many of the jobs are administrative, not the entry-level pathways once dreamed of for low-income workers."

This, dear readers, is classic government: Throw tens of millions of precious dollars at a program, run by ultra-liberals with zero business experience, whose only qualifications are 1) they support the Democrats in power in DC; and 2) they've got a grant writer who knows what buttons to push to make the grant machine pay off.

And then when the program achieves less than one-tenth of one percent of the results it claimed would be achieved, hope that no one notices.

On the other hand, from the grant writer's standpoint it was a huge success--and you can be assured he's already put his "success" on his resume.

Similarly, the grant funded 14 "administrative positions" for a year, quite nicely, thank you. From the standpoint of those grandees as well, the program worked perfectly.

Think on this all-too-typical tale next time Obama and the Dems propose a second huge "stimulus" bill to fix the nation's economy, at the bargain price of only mumble-billion dollars.

Oh, and I'm not picking on the dumb liberals in Seattle. I'm sure in at least half of the 57 states the results would have been just as laughably bad.

No such thing as an "illegal immigrant"--Fox

2011-08-16T20:27:00.000-07:00

Today's reporters are notorious for being politically correct: There are certain terms and phrases that, even though accurate, simply can't used in reporting stories.

Here's an example:

Though most farm workers are here legally, the Pew Hispanic Center estimates that about a quarter of them are ______.

The most logical phrase to complete the sentence is "here illegally." But the actual report used "undocumented"--a euphemism that avoids the implied criticism of "illegally."

The sentence above was used in a story by Fox News reporter Judson Berger. Unknown whether the euphemism was used by Berger or substituted by an editor.

California Dems and the "Amazon tax"

2011-08-16T19:30:00.000-07:00

Liberals have a consistent blind spot: They believe that if they pass laws or regulations to take more money from people, the people will keep doing exactly the same things, in the same quantities and locations, as they did before the libs upped the taxes or regs or whatever.

Case in point: Companies that sell their products in the state where they're located understandably have to collect and remit state sales tax. But companies that sell their product out of state can't be compelled to do that when they sell to a resident of another state.

When internet-based companies started booming several years ago, lots of states tried to force those companies to remit sales taxes even if they were located in another state. Supreme Court told 'em to F. O.

Now comes California: Scores of billions in debt, the Dem legislature tried a variation: They claimed that out of state companies that had "affiliates" in CA were actually located there, and thus that the parent companies had to collect the tax on sales to CA residents.

Amazon and other big internet companies claimed this was unconstitutional, but that even before it went to court, they'd simply sever affiliate ties in that state.

The Dems passed the law anyway, calling their bluff.

Except the companies weren't bluffing, and now the state has seen several either leave or sever profitable affiliate relationships within the state.

Governor Brown and the California Democrats failed--as they always fail--to recognize that people change their behavior if government changes the rules on their efforts.

Obama's bus tour

2011-08-16T13:01:00.000-07:00

Obama is campaigning through the midwest by bus.

Some wag suggested naming the effort "Rolling Blunder."

Some other suggestions:
The Audacity of Dope Tour
Someone on Rick Perry's staff suggested "Magical Misery Tour"
Running On Empty
Don't Worry, I'm in Charge Tour
It's all George Bush's Fault tour

Obama tells car industry to stop making so many SUV's and trucks??

2011-08-16T12:00:00.000-07:00

Comrade Obama is campaigning through the midwest on a big ol' bus--because that shows voters what a regular guy he is.

Yeah, that's what his re-election advisors think he needs to do to be re-elected.

So this "regular guy", man of the people, brilliant extemporaneous speaker, is speaking at a town hall forum in Cannon Falls, Minn--no Republicans, no hostile questions. And he says:

You can’t just make money [by making] SUVs and trucks. There is a place for SUVs and trucks, but as gas prices keep on going up, you have got to understand the market. People are going to try to save money.

Now, you have to remember, Obama is a guy with zero experience running a business, no experience in manufacturing or financial analysis. This isn't disqualifying, but you'd think the guy would have the sense to confine himself to broad platitudes and leave the details to the guys who're involved with each specific industry.

But of course, not Duh Won. Though he can push consumers toward smaller cars by simply continuing his drilling slowdown until gas reaches $5 a gallon, or some higher price.

When Obama essentially decreed that Chrysler and GM bond-holders would get just ten cents on the dollar, and a huge block of stock would be given to the United Auto Workers, did that fix GM's underlying problems (excessive retiree and health care costs, and less-than-stellar products)? Of course not. Instead the Unions just got more control of it. And they promptly doubled-down on stupidity.

Thus we have the Volt: even with a $7,500 per car government rebate, GM only sold something like 350 last month. The public simply isn't impressed.

But this doesn't stop Obozo from telling people, "You can’t just make money [by making] SUVs and trucks." Okay, so what should they make?

Oh, look at the time! I'm late for my next fundraiser! Nice talkin' to ya!

Anyone who had been paying attention during the mortgage meltdown would have known that when the government starts meddling in the marketplace, things go bad in a hurry.

The justification for Fannie and Freddie was that they would help more people buy homes. Which everyone knew was the key to stable neighborhoods and societies.

The result was catastrophic, as unqualified buyers walked away from homes they couldn't afford and defaulted on mortgages they never should have been approved for.

Let us be more clear: Government is thick with two kinds of 'experts" or consultants: One class is composed of dilettantes, people who have never worked in the private sector but believe their degree or their title qualifies them to tell businesses how to operate. Outcome: too obvious to explain.

Second class: Top execs and former execs of major companies. These people know how business works, and if they were honest they might help install some good programs. But all they want to do is increase profits for their former employer (in which they usually still own a lot of stock). So they recommend establishing a program that will enrich corporate suppliers, regardless of whether it does anwhere near what the original objective was.

Given a choice between the two, I'd rather fight the second guy, because at least he can be identified, tried and jailed. The bureaucrat will always remain invisible to outsiders--it's part of their job training.

Flashmobs: The new carjacking

2011-08-15T14:09:00.000-07:00

Remember the epidemic of carjackings about ten years ago? Thugs would jump inside a car stopped at a traffic light or gas station and force the driver to drive off. In many cases they'd kill the driver and dump the body--all to steal a car.

Because the crime took place at unobserved intersections or gas stations, thugs realized it was relatively risk-free, which resulted in several hundred (if not thousands) of such crimes.

Now we're seeing what appears to be the new equivalent of carjacking: the "flashmob." If you don't already know, click here to see one in action.

Then click here to see a list of known flashmob crimes in the U.S. Note the incidence each year: one or two each in 2002, '05, '06 and '07. Then eight in 2008, 37 in 2009 (32 of those in one city, Denver), 26 in 2010 (various cities), then this year an explosion: 78 so far.

This is a classic exponential growth rate, suggesting huge popularity among the thug/leech class, and zero fear of being prosecuted or shot.

Those of you with good memories will recall that the carjacking epidemic lasted several years, and at its peak there were several a week nationwide. It lost its luster for the thug class when cops and judges began to crack down and throw the book at perps: a 20-year sentence does eventually get the attention of all but the brain-dead.

Flashmob crimes will almost certainly take much longer to extinguish, for three main reasons: First, the perps are likely to kill or injure fewer victims than the carjackers did. This is partly because each member of the mob is likely to only loot a few tens of dollars, so there's no point in killing the witnesses/victims. As the libs say, these are just crimes against property, so...no big deal. Because as the libs say, property is theft.

Unless it's their property, of course.

Second: The welfare state worm has had another decade to burrow into the nation's psyche, so more of the public is disposed to tolerate theft by "the poor."

Third: Barack Obama and Eric Holder. These two have turned the United States into a nation of connections rather than a nation of laws. 'Nuff said.

Oh, and if you want a better idea of what these groups are like, try these clips:
http://tinyurl.com/6a9faey

http://tinyurl.com/43m8u64

http://tinyurl.com/3j4lnm5

http://tinyurl.com/3up2rg6

http://tinyurl.com/5w5g76q

http://tinyurl.com/3vvdt42

http://tinyurl.com/6yq797p

http://tinyurl.com/3vfcgbl

http://tinyurl.com/3wmzowa

http://tinyurl.com/3pgo935

Dalrymple on the U.K. riots

2011-08-14T19:11:00.000-07:00

Theodore Dalrymple is the pen name of a man who spent several years working as an M.D. in both the U.K. prison system and in the poorest neighborhoods of that country. He writes for City Journal, and for many years he's warned about the state of whatever passes for "mind" among the stoned, strung out "yob" culture in the U.K.

Short answer: No one has formulated--much less tested--a workable recovery mechanism for these people.

They believe they're entitled to a high standard of consumption, even if they do nothing all day but drink and get high. And if they don't receive the things to which they feel entitled, they see it as proof that society is being unfair to them.

They believe these things because leftist intellectuals and left/liberal politicians constantly tell them they're true. And a huge social-welfare industry--compose of public employees and a core of sharp attorneys--make a good living catering to the needs of these people and ensuring that the government continue to pay them as much as possible.

These are people who have never held a job, who were raised in single-mother households where no one in their circle had a regular job. The notion of getting up early and going to work for eight or ten hours is absolutely beyond belief for them.

They have lived their entire lives on the taxpayer's dime, but lack the education and perspective to find this fact the least bit unsettling--let alone alarming. On the contrary, they understandably want the government to give them more money so they can buy more things.

They've gotten an expensive education but have no skills that would command more than minimum wage. And in the U.K., being unemployed and on the dole pays as well as a minimum-wage job. Thus all unskilled labor in England is done by foreigners, while low-functioning locals remain permanently unemployed--and permanently subsidized by taxpayers.

Lacking any sort of discipline or ambition, marriage is unheard of. As in the U.S., children are raised by the mothers and trigger higher welfare benefits. The sperm donors rarely play any role in raising their offspring, thus ensuring that those children will follow exactly the same path as their parents.

With essentially no positive role models nearby, no one can even imagine any other way of living. And as long as the welfare state keeps it more lucrative to stay on the dole than to work, why would anyone take a more difficult road?

If election were held today, Obama would....

2011-08-14T11:36:00.001-07:00

If you're a conservative, you may not like what you're about to read. But unlike most liberals/Democrats/"progressives" we prefer to confront uncomfortable facts straight-on instead of pretending they're not there. So....

Gallup's latest poll of Obama's approval rating shows that he's above 50% in just 16 states. That initially sounds pretty good for our side, but unfortunately those states have a lot of electoral votes.

Moreover, it's been shown that incumbents almost always do better than the polling results when matched against a specific candidate instead of a generic member of the opposing party. Thus once the Republican nominee is known, we can expect Obama's support to rise a couple of percent.

So as a first hack, if we assign Obama the electoral votes of the states where he currently has at least a 48% approval rating, he'd win 263 electoral votes.

Takes 270 to win.

That's not bad news for us--frankly, given the percentage of idiots in the electorate I'm amazed that Obama's not leading by 20 or so.

However, if one more smallish state (7 or more EVs) goes blue--or if the "generic vs. specific opponent" effect actually turns out to be worth 3% or more instead of two percent as I've assumed--then Obama wins. Again, based on Gallup results of a week ago.

The above results are not cause for wailing and rending of garments. What they tell us is that we'll have to make a maximum effort next November to prevent this clever Kenyan socialist from getting another four years to continue destroying our long-suffering nation.

What got us $14 Trillion of debt? "A perfect storm"

2011-08-14T06:54:00.001-07:00

As more Americans have begun looking at both our staggering national debt and huge, continuous yearly deficits, many have started to wonder how the hell the nation's political "leaders" could have put us on this path.

While it's a cliche that money is fungible (so one can't blame just one program for our debt), it's also true that so-called "entitlement programs" now account for over half of all government spending. They're now so vast that if we eliminated all other federal spending, just these programs would exceed national income. So that's a reasonable place to look for starters.

So did no one bother to realistically estimate the cost of the various "entitlement programs?" Or did the pols simply ignore the forecasts and vote for the programs to win their own re-elections? (How typical.)

Whatever the reason, we owe it to ourselves and our kids to find out--and then to create lethal measures to prevent politicians from repeating this disaster. If the U.S. survives the next decade, of course.

For what it's worth, here's what I've found:

When JFK was assassinated in 1963, his vice-president--Lyndon B. Johnson-- stepped into the presidency. Johnson was the antithesis of JFK: Where Kennedy was sophisticated, urbane and charming, Johnson was crude, loud, overbearing. He was the stereotype of the obnoxious Texan, and the only reason Kennedy chose him for his running-mate was that Johnson would win the vital electoral votes of his home state for the Democratic ticket.

It's not an overstatement to say that the northeastern Democratic elites who loved Kennedy hated Johnson--a fact of which Johnson was keenly aware.

Derided by Democratic elites as a crude lout, Johnson quickly began looking for ways to burnish his image. His solution was in ramrodding into law a cause Kennedy had been exploring: creation of a conglomerate of "entitlement programs" aimed at giving money and services to the poor. Johnson called these programs "the Great Society."

Had Kennedy tried to introduce these programs while he was president, it's likely that the normal adversarial American system of government would have forced him to do so incrementally, giving congress and voters a chance to see how well they worked before they were expanded to fatal levels.

But the assassination--essentially broadcast live to the nation--was so devastating that it elevated JFK to virtual sainthood overnight. Once that happened, no congresscritter wanted to be seen as opposing anything JFK ostensibly wanted, so anything that could reasonably be said to be one of his wishes was now a legislative slam-dunk.

Thus the massive edifice of entitlement programs--and the unthinking, financially unsound expansion of older social welfare programs like Social Security--was adopted because of the socio-political equivalent of the perfect storm: The shocking assassination of a young, handsome, charismatic president; the ascension of his crude and widely disliked veep to the presidency; Johnson's overwhelming resentment of his sophisticated and widely loved predecessor and his need to win his party's support, regardless of the cost; and the unwillingness of congressmen to vote against programs said to have been cherished goals of the slain former president.

Against this powerful combination of factors, no cautionary analysis would have ever seen the light of day. It was the perfect storm.

Parents: Show this to your kids and explain it. Because it's absolutely certain that they never learned any of this in school--by design.

Leftists: "Obama's problem is he's not liberal enough!"

2011-08-13T15:06:00.000-07:00

I'm starting to see more and more editorials and comments by libs in the MSM that accuse the America-hating socialist in the White House of not being liberal enough.

Yes, you read that right. They say he's been too cautious. NYT columnist Paul Krugman described Obama as "centrist, moderate." And my favorite: the Left claims he's been too eager to compromise with Republicans on key points. If only he'd get tough with those stupid right-wingers! they lament.

Was Obamacare too cautious? I guess some leftists think so, but the rest of us? Last I heard, likely voters were running two to one against it, and for repeal.

It won zero Republican votes in the House, so if Obama was compromising during that battle, he's as bad at compromise as he is at speaking without a Teleprompter.

On the debt-limit crisis, Republicans in the House passed a bill that gave Obama virtually everything he wanted, and before it could be tabled in the senate Obama announced that because it didn't contain higher taxes he planned to veto it even if the senate passed it. Of course senate Dems weren't willing to let their leader take the heat for doing that, so not enough votes were available to reverse senate leader Reid's tabling order.

In other words, Obama not only didn't compromise, he threatened a veto if he didn't get 100 percent of the terms he wanted.

And yet amazingly, the Left comes up with this "He's too eager to compromise" crap.

So the question is, do the morons on the Left really believe this crap, or are they deliberately lying to win a larger goal? My money's on the second choice, because by portraying Obama as too cautious, too centrist and too eager to compromise, the Left immunizes him against charges of simply being a terrible leader.

A London editor on what's causing the riots

2011-08-11T19:29:00.000-07:00

Max Hastings writes for the U.K. Daily Mail. Here's an edited version of his take on the cause of the riots there:

The people who wrecked scores of city blocks, burned vehicles and terrorised communities have no moral compass to make them susceptible to guilt or shame.

Most have no jobs to go to or exams they might pass, and live in single-mother homes, or one in which the father is unemployed.

They are illiterate and innumerate--essentially wild beasts, responding only to instinctive animal impulses — to eat and drink, have sex, and steal or destroy the property of others.
For the depressing truth is that at the bottom of our society is a layer of young people with no skills, education, values or aspirations. They have their being only in video games and street-fights, casual drug use and crime. The notions of doing a nine-to-five job, marrying and sticking with a wife and kids or learning to read properly are beyond their imaginations.
Every company manager knows that if he hires an East European worker he'll get an employee who will 1) show up; 2) work harder; and 3) be better-educated than his or her British counterpart.Who do we blame for this state of affairs?
Ken Livingstone, contemptible as ever, declares the riots to be caused by the Government’s spending cuts. But the rioters’ behaviour isn't due to deprived circumstances or police persecution.
Of course it is true that few have jobs, learn anything useful at school or feel loyalty to anything beyond their local gang. This is not, however, because they are victims of mistreatment or neglect, but because it is fantastically hard to help such people without imposing a measure of compulsion which modern society finds unacceptable.
These kids are what they are because nobody makes them be anything different or better.
A key factor in delinquency is lack of effective sanctions to deter it. From an early stage, feral children discover that they can bully fellow pupils at school, shout abuse at people in the streets, urinate outside pubs, hurl litter from car windows, play car radios at deafening volumes, and, indeed, commit casual assaults with only a negligible prospect of facing rebuke, far less retribution.

Anyone who reproaches a child, far less an adult, for discarding rubbish, making a racket, committing vandalism or driving unsociably will receive in return a torrent of obscenities, if not violence.

So who is to blame? The breakdown of families, the pernicious promotion of single motherhood as a desirable state, the decline of domestic life so that even shared meals are a rarity, have all contributed importantly to the condition of the young underclass.The social engineering industry unites to claim that the conventional template of family life is no longer valid. This has ultimately been sanctioned by Parliament, which refuses to accept, for instance, that children are more likely to prosper with two parents than with one, and that the dependency culture is a tragedy for those who receive something for nothing.

The judiciary colludes with social services and infinitely ingenious lawyers to assert the primacy of the rights of the criminal and aggressor over those of law-abiding citizens, especially if the offender is young.

The police, in recent years, have developed a reputation for ignoring yobbery and bullying, or even for taking the yobs’ side against complainants. The problem is that the law appears to be there to protect the rights of the criminal instead of the victim.

Police regularly arrest householders who have tried to protect themselves and their property from burglars or intruders. Thus it's hardly surprising that criminals have gotten the message that they have little to fear from the cops.

A century ago no child would have dared to use obscene language in class. Today it's commonplace. It symbolises their contempt for manners and decency, and is often a foretaste of delinquency. If a child lacks sufficient respect to address authority figures politely, and faces no penalty for failing to do so, then other forms of abuse — of property and person — come naturally.
So there we have it: a large, amoral sub-culture of young people who lack education because they have no will to learn, and skills which might make them employable. They are too idle to accept work waitressing or doing domestic labour, which is why almost all such jobs are filled by immigrants.
They have no code of values to dissuade them from behaving anti-socially or, indeed, criminally, and virtually no risk of being punished if they do so. They have no sense of responsibility, and look to no future beyond the next meal, sexual encounter or TV football game. They are an absolute deadweight upon society, because they contribute nothing yet cost the taxpayer billions.
Liberals consider them victims because society has supposedly failed to provide them with opportunities to develop their potential. Nonsense. Rather, they are victims of a perverted social ethos which pushes entitlement and denies the underclass the discipline — tough love — which alone might enable some of its members to escape from the swamp of dependency in which they live.
Unless and until those who run Britain introduce incentives for decency and impose penalties for thuggery, there will never be a shortage of young rioters and looters such as those of the past four nights.

Wow.

Bizarre ideas about the U.K. riots

2011-08-11T11:06:00.000-07:00

The U.K. riots are (were?) tremendously destructive. And the rioters--looters, really--were just out to steal whatever they could. But in the minds of some, it's really not their fault.

Here's a typical comment:

Of course the riots are terrible and need to be stopped but do people really believe that depriving poor people is going to solve the problem?

Ya know, I don't recall hearing a single government official or party leader saying "We can stop the riots if we just deprive the poor!" But when someone is allowed to get away with framing a question like this, it falsely implies that someone did.

The commenter is probably conflating the fact that the U.K. government has proposed hiking tuition at state-run universities, along with some very small cuts in some of the more egregiously lavish welfare perks. These changes sparked a lot of anger--as one would expect. But to say they "deprive the poor" is quite a stretch.

Of course, not a stretch for anyone who supports the idea of the Welfare State.

Did crazy welfare benefits play a role in the U.K. riots?

2011-08-11T06:45:00.000-07:00

Like millions of us, Richard Fernandez has been watching the riots in the U.K. He notes that virtually all the riots have no connection to the original event, in which police fatally shot a gang member while trying to arrest him.

Fernandez lived in the Filippines during Marcos and survived violence from both left and right. It's given him a keen eye for spotting trouble before it arrives. Here's his take:

Left to themselves, the [offspring] of the Welfare State would fare poorly. Without skills, having torched their surroundings...they would pick their surroundings clean and then [starve to death].

But even the hardest-boiled conservatives are unlikely to let that happen--and so this [cohort of shiftless louts] will have to be rescued from natural selection to at least some extent. But to what extent?

The bounds of the problem are obvious. People must not be [totally] shielded from the consequences of their actions [but] neither must they be left to die. Between these extremes there might be some trajectory of “tough love” which [might reduce the numbers of those who refuse to work].

Just idly curious: Why should the state--more precisely, the dwindling number of working, taxpaying citizens--make more than a nominal effort to shield anyone from the consequences of their actions? After all, doesn't it seem that the whole idea of "being free" implies the ability to make your own decisions and then either reap the consequences whether they're fabulous or sad?

Second: Once the Welfare State has created an idle, dependent class, does anyone see any hope of reversing that process? A few decades ago some fraction of shiftless and often criminal louts could sometimes be moved to responsibility by fathering a child--and the realization that if they didn't start working, that child would almost certainly spend time hungry and cold. But now that the state has taken responsibility for all children, that no longer happens.

At least there's one good from the U.K. riots: They've made it possible for Americans to discuss the problems created by Leftist policies--i.e. the welfare state. Before a few days ago anyone who predicted this sort of thing was dismissed as a "wingnut" or right-wing raaacist. So even if we do nothing to avoid the same riots here, at least we now have a chance to discuss the problems that have already laid the groundwork for them.

Because sadly, we will do nothing to change course. Having created a cohort completely dependent on government checks, the Left will never admit that this was a bad idea, but will blame corporate jets or "subsidies" to oil companies, or "the rich" when the inevitable riots materialize.

Being a progressive means not only never having to apologize, but never even having to admit that your policies were fatally flawed. It will always be someone else's fault.

George W. Booosh!

Have we lost America?

2011-08-10T18:01:00.000-07:00

Someone at another blog noted that we began to lose America when the politicians said the equivalent of "We know what we're doing. Here's your government check."

The guy lamented that the big-government welfare state has become so deeply entrenched that the chances of recovering are down to 50/50. But then he added a great rallying line:

"I want to save America, not just stretch out the decline!"

Damn, that's good.

Now, how do we do that?

For starters, he noted that the low-information voters--who comprise at least half the electorate--don't know jack about Keynesian theories, let alone the rebuttals to those theories. Macroeconomics? You'd have better luck trying to teach your dog calculus.

Short answer: No one has yet found a way to get low-information voters to see the inexorable result of demanding "freebies" from taxpayers. Their sphere of interest ends at their hand. Any proposal that doesn't contain the magic word "free" will be either ignored or angrily condemned--often with the term "raaacist", even though whites benefit from the same programs.

Thus the battle is for the independent or swing voters. At the moment that group seems to be less impressed with Dem/liberal/"progressive" policies than in years past.

Hopefully that distaste will last through November of 2012.

If you subsidize something, you get ___ of it.

2011-08-09T21:40:00.000-07:00

At Ace of Spades they've been discussing the deficit, and how we might reduce government spending. One commenter wrote,

For most of human history (before 1960) people were motivated to work hard and make smart fiscal and personal choices--because if you didn't, you died.

If you spent all your money on clothes, you starved to death--because back then the government didn't hand out food stamps (which are actually credit cards now).

If you didn't save for retirement, then when you quit working you lived in the streets or with your family if they would have you.

Now that government has ensured that people pay absolutely no price for making bad decisions, how can we be surprised when people keep making them?

What happens in America today if someone spends all their income on drugs? Well you can get a Section-8 voucher for free housing, food stamps to feed yourself, and almost every city offers money to the poor in some fashion or another. If you're 65 you can get on Medicare--regardless of whether you paid anything into it--and if you're under 65 and poor you can get Medicaid and have taxpayers pay for your medical care.

I think it's time we revert to a society in which people pay for their mistakes. I suspect we'll find they make a lot fewer of them.

I have no problem with taxpayers helping people who are mentally and physically disabled, but a society where 50% of citizens are supported by the state isn't viable.

Well said.

To cut spending, GOP will have to be the "mean parent"

2011-08-09T20:39:00.000-07:00

Ace, proprietor at Ace of Spades, notes that that the Dems aren't willing to offer their own budget. That's a brilliant more on their part, because it means that if there is to be any reduction in spending it will have to come from the Republicans.

That puts the GOP in the tough position of having to be the mean parent who enforces a painful correction on a rebellious kid. Fully half the electorate will think, "Why should I vote for those pricks that want to cut my 'freebies' when I can vote for a Democrat who's promised to keep 'em coming and then some?"

He concludes,

The GOP is offering tough medicine--medicine [that's] not polling well, but also not catastrophically. The GOP is offering its agenda, [which] is full of tough, unpopular stuff.

Bingo. But he thinks the public may be savvy enough to see the truth:

At some point the Democrats will be compelled...to offer their actual agenda -- and we'll see how that fares when the public understands what they mean by a 'balanced approach.'

Savvy, well-informed electorate, eh? Much as I would love to believe this, unfortunately I don't. It seems far more likely that the 50% of the public that don't pay one cent of federal income taxes will be absolutely delighted by a plan that increases spending and raises taxes--and whether on "the rich" or on everyone above $30K a year won't matter to them one bit.

Add the five percent of rich, tax-paying but guilty liberals and there's a Dem majority.

Finally Ace notes that Obama, Reid and Pelosi have implied that closing tax loopholes on corporate jets, and taxing the wealthiest one percent will solve the nation's deficit problems. He correctly notes that this is pure horseshit. Problem is, you need to be numerate, literate and well informed to reach that conclusion.

Fully 52% of the electorate fails one or more of those tests.

Tax the rich! Wait, didn't congress try that in 1990?

2011-08-09T17:35:00.000-07:00

Walter Williams is a professor of economics at George Mason University. He noticed that Obama's idea of raising taxes just on the rich was tried before in the U.S.

Well then, how'd that work out? Below is an edited version of Williams' findings:

Barack Obama has called for a luxury tax on corporate jets as a means of raising revenue. He figured this should be a slam-dunk because his base envies the rich.

Back in 1990 Congress tried imposing a 10 percent luxury tax on yachts, private airplanes and expensive cars and costly jewelry purchased in the United States. Sen. Ted Kennedy and senate majority leader George Mitchell crowed publicly about how the rich would finally be paying their fair share of taxes. What actually happened was quite different.
Within eight months after the law took effect, Viking Yachts--the largest U.S. yacht maker--laid off 1,140 of its 1,400 employees and closed one of its two manufacturing plants. Before it was over Viking Yachts was down to 68 employees.
In the first year, one-third of U.S. yacht-building companies stopped production, and the industry lost 7,600 jobs. By the time the tax was repealed, 25,000 workers had lost their jobs building yachts, and 75,000 more jobs were lost in companies that supplied yacht parts and material. Ocean Yachts trimmed its workforce from 350 to 50. Egg Harbor Yachts went from 200 employees to five and later filed for bankruptcy.
The U.S., which had been a net exporter of yachts, became a net importer as U.S. builders closed their doors. Companies in Europe, Taiwan and the Bahamas immediately saw their sales rise--which added zero to U.S. tax revenue.
Congress had gleefully predicted the luxury tax on boats, aircraft, expensive cars and jewelry would raise $31 million a year in revenue. Instead it destroyed thousands of jobs in the aircraft and yacht-building industries, costing the government millions in unemployment benefits and lost income tax revenues.
The Joint Economic Committee concluded that the value of jobs lost in just the first six months of the luxury tax was $160 million.

Finally, after three years, congress repealed the tax.
Why did dreams of greater revenue not materialize? Kennedy, Mitchell and their congressional colleagues simply assumed that the rich would buy the same things after the tax was enacted as they did before. Like most politicians then and now, they believed that people don't respond to price changes.
People always respond to price changes. The only debatable issue is how much and over what period.

Now Obama wants to repeat this disastrous experiment. Is it likely that in the two decades since 1990, American nature has changed? If Congress imposes a luxury tax on corporate jets and other luxury items, will Americans behave differently this time? In other words, are federal tax revenues likely to rise if Obama's tax proposal is enacted?

I don't believe Obama is dumb enough to believe that a tax on corporate jets would be a revenue generator. Instead, I believe his goal is to inspire envy and resentment against wealthy Americans as a tool in pursuit of his higher-tax agenda.

The way this Williams guy criticized Obama's proposal, he must be a raaacist.

Oh, wait: Walter Williams is black. And a very keen student of both economics and history.

Liberals, unions, Move-on push new stimulus program

2011-08-09T17:15:00.000-07:00

From pro-Democrat site "The Hill":

Liberals outline stimulus agenda in 'Contract for the American Dream'

Liberal organizations and unions are frustrated that President Obama has not aggressively pushed a new jobs stimulus agenda, and are offering a consolidated fall agenda for Democrats to [push] as an alternative to austerity.

Now, would that be the "austerity" of a failed $800 Billion "stimulus" bill, that produced jobs at the bargain price of barely $200,000 per job?

Or would that be the "austerity" of raising the debt ceiling by $2.4 Trillion, at a time when every country in the world is saying "You're borrowing too damn much as it is"?

Would that be, perhaps, the "austerity" of hosting dozens of White House dinner parties featuring $100-per-pound Wagyu steak, while most people were struggling to make their mortgage payments?

Or would that be the "austerity" of taking the enormous Boeing 747--Air Force One--for the 150-mile hop from Andrews AFB down to a conference at Williamsburg, Virginia?

Or the "austerity" of "only" playing 79 rounds of golf this year?

Damn, those Obamas have so much of that "austerity" going on. If only they'd just loosen up and spend some of that sweet taxpayer money for a change, the economy would probably...hell, I can't write that with a straight face.

Van Jones demands Jobs!

2011-08-09T16:23:00.000-07:00

Former Obama "green jobs czar" and sometime communist Van Jones is now working for Move-on.org. Today at 2:37 pm Eastern time he sent the following email to everyone on Move-on's mailing list. Here's how it began:

Dear Friend,
Since the tea party took our economy hostage to protect tax breaks for the wealthiest among us, we’ve seen:
the first downgrade of U.S. credit in history;
the stock market drop 10%; and
Congress’ disapproval rating hit a historic peak.
So, if you’re sick and tired of Washington’s games, you’re not alone.But just getting angry isn’t going to solve anything. What we need are solutions and action. What we need are Jobs, not Cuts—just like Americans want.

Let me fill in the rest:

We need Jobs! We demand Jobs! Jobs, with a capital J! And where we gonna get all those Jobs we demand? By growing government, that's how. Because that's the only kind of Jobs that are worth having! Good, solid UNION jobs. Ones you can't be fired from if you gots more important things ta do some days and need ta be somewhere else.

You may have heard that Jobs are created by businesses bein' started or growing. That ain't true. Most of the things created by businesses are TAX BREAKS fo' da rich. They create a few jobs--but see that's a *small* J. That stands fo' those sorry-ass jobs where you actually gotta show up and work and all. That ain't the kind of Job I'm talkin' bout. You don't want those little-j jobs.

Now Brother Barack, he wants to extend your unemployment benefits and cut your taxes. Because he knows that when people got more money, they spend more and the economy grows, right?

But now business, that's a different story, right? Cause when you cut taxes on business, they don't spend it. They just keep it themselves. So we got to RAISE taxes on business. Cause it's jus not fair that some people be ownin' businesses an all. And we be all about fairness!

Okay, I denounce myself. But man, listening to an Obama buddy preachin' about needin' jobs, and knowing that the guy is all about taxin' the hell out of every business within reach--or even forcin' companies to shut down if they don't hire the right people, or make loans in the right areas--it's pretty funny stuff.

Just keep telling yourself that the biggest creator of jobs is the government, Van.

Reuters provides cover for Obama

2011-08-09T06:46:00.000-07:00

Reuters has been shamelessly pro-Obama all along. Following is from a story titled "Obama says he inherited economic problems":

Obama noted that the United States had seen 17 months of consecutive private-sector job growth, rising corporate profits and stabilized credit markets under his watch.

I'm calling bullshit on this. Since March of this year, 900,000 fewer Americans are working full-time. Were none of those job losses in the private sector?

This story has all the earmarks of propaganda: It's virtually unsourced--the story says only that Obie was "speaking at a Democratic fundraiser"--and paraphrases rather than giving an exact quote. Of course this could just be sloppy reporting.

Another indication that it's propaganda is in the last 'graf:

At a separate event...Obama [said] revenues needed to be raised, the tax code would have to be reformed, and modest adjustments to the Medicare healthcare program would have to be enacted.

Modest adjustments, huh? In this context that's political-speak for "cuts." But of course the Dems have constantly claimed it's the Republicans who are threatening to cut Medicare. This carefully constructed narrative would be damaged if Obama admitted that he wanted to cut that program.

Solution? Don't call it a cut; call it an "adjustment." So Dems get a win-win: Sophisticated investors listening to Obie knew he was calling for cuts, but if anyone were to ask a direct question later (as if Obozo would ever take questions except from his safe friends) they can say with a straight face "That's an outrageous tea-party slur! We never called for cuts to Medicare!"

Clever, huh.

All that's necessary is to ensure that the reporter and editor will play ball, instead of using the more usual (and shorter) "cuts." So how do Obie's handlers know they can trust a news agency to...oh, right.

Is the Welfare State financially viable today?

2011-08-09T04:59:00.000-07:00

A columnist for the U.K. "Telegraph" writes,

The truly fundamental question that is at the heart of the disaster toward which we are [all] racing is being debated only in America: Is it possible for a free market economy to support a democratic socialist society?

That's a great question, though it's still a bit wide of the mark. It should be,

Can any form of government support a socialist society (welfare state)?

Let me explain.

Marx's militant socialism offered a very attractive alternative to the then-prevailing capitalist/industrialist-vs.-workers model. At least it was attractive to workers, who Marx ostensibly regarded as the most important component of society.

After the Bolshevik Revolution, the crowned heads of Europe were scared witless that those heads could end up on pikes if the revolutionary flames came their way. To head off that prospect they adopted government programs that gave the benefits of socialism to everyone, without requiring a revolution.

Neat idea, huh.

The same thing happened in the U.S.

I know the Social Security folks made a big show of doing the math to compute the tax rate needed for the assumed benefits, but not sure if there were any efforts made to do the math in Europe back when nations were adopting the welfare state to head off revolution. Certainly Marx didn't want to bother with any math, since a) it was harder than writing rousing demonizations of capitalists; and b) it might have shown the whole venture to be financially unworkable.

And the governments that adopted socialism peacefully didn't bother because their leaders were simply doing whatever they thought was needed to keep their heads attached to their necks. So I'm not sure how much objective, rigorous math has been done on the financial viability of the welfare state that socialism claims is everyone's absolute right.

Moreover, any early analysis would have used a population growth rate much higher than we have today.

And that's the big wild-card: the shape of the population pyramid. Back when socialism was first introduced, the average family had five kids. Today the average family has less than two kids, and we're almost to zero growth.

Back when Marx was working his class-warfare evil, the welfare state would have had many more workers to carry the burden. But when a country nears ZPG, the ratio of workers to retirees falls dramatically, so to be financially solvent the system requires taxation levels that will almost certainly be unacceptable to workers.

Of course the demographers at the Social Security Administration have been saying for decades that SS is headed for insolvency for exactly this reason. I've just never heard anyone take the next logical step to prove that when a nation approaches zero population growth, the welfare state becomes non-viable regardless of the system of government.

Obama: "We must live within our means--except for this huge new program."

2011-08-08T15:58:00.000-07:00

From Obama's weekly address, Saturday, August 6, 2011
(source: the White House website)

This week Congress reached an agreement that’s going to allow us to make some progress in reducing our nation’s budget deficit. Through this compromise, both parties are going to have to work together on a larger plan to get our nation’s finances in order. That’s important. We’ve got to make sure that Washington lives within its means, just like families do. In the long term, the health of our economy depends on it.
But in the short term... we ought to give more opportunities to all those construction workers who lost their jobs when the housing boom went bust. We could put them to work right now, by giving loans to companies that want to repair our roads and bridges and airports....

Lemme get this straight: You just got congress to raise the debt limit by $2.4 Trillion. In fact, you insisted on that huge number because you didn't want to get hammered by this issue before the elections. And your administration is running a current-year deficit of $1.4 Trillion. And you just said "We’ve got to make sure that Washington lives within its means, just like families do." And then you turn right around and propose a huge new federal program to put tens of thousands of idle homebuilders to work building roads and airports???

Was this a secret contest to see how many contradictions you could cram into a single minute or something?

Scenes we'd like to see

2011-08-08T15:32:00.000-07:00

Quote from Obama's speech today (from the White House website):

The fact is, we didn’t need a rating agency to tell us that we need a balanced, long-term approach to deficit reduction.... [nor] to tell us that the gridlock in Washington over the last several months has not been constructive, to say the least. We knew...that a prolonged debate over the debt ceiling -- a debate where the threat of default was used as a bargaining chip -- could do enormous damage to our economy and the world’s. That threat [of a U.S. default]...has now roiled the markets and dampened consumer confidence and slowed the pace of recovery.

"Question, Mr. Resident. "

"Yes?"

"Wasn't the debt-ceiling bill passed and signed a week ago?"

"I'm not sure. Being president is so hard, working from dawn until dusk to keep everything running smoothly...."

"Well, it was."

"Was that your question?"

"No, sir. My question is: Just now you said the debate over the debt ceiling -- 'where the threat of default was used as a bargaining chip' -- had 'roiled the markets and dampened consumer confidence and slowed the pace of recovery.' How can the threat of default still be a factor in the 1100-point drop in the market--or either of the other two factors you mentioned--when congress raised the debt limit by $2.4 Trillion dollars a full week ago?"

Obama speaks; investors respond with a big raspberry

2011-08-08T12:40:00.001-07:00

Obama made a speech today--his first to the public since the downgrade. Here are the highlights:

He quoted a major investor saying the U.S. should have a triple-A rating;
Said "markets continue to affirm our creditworthiness";
Called for tax hikes
Will present a plan "real soon" (kidding: "in the next couple of weeks") to lower the deficit;
Called for more government "stimulus" to create more jobs;
Called for yet another extension of unemployment benefits;
“No matter what some agency says, we will always be a AAA country”
Says “markets agree” we should have AAA rating.

When he began speaking, the Dow Jones industrial average was down 400 points. After his masterful, reassuring speech (the cadences that some idiot talking head named Matthews claimed gave him "tingles up his leg"), the market paused to weigh his words.

After carefully considering Obie's points, the Dow responded by dropping another 233 points in 90 minutes.

Back when I was flying we had a saying: You can defy the laws of aerodynamics...just not for very long. Barky combined a mellow voice and a great smile with crappy socialist nostrums and zero experience in running anything successfully, and for awhile the nation followed a lovely arc through the fiscal heavens.

Turned out to be a ballistic arc.

Democrats blame tea party for debt downgrade

2011-08-08T08:12:00.000-07:00

Heard the latest Democrat talking point? "Tea Party Downgrade."

Yep, the Dems and their media friends are claiming the recent downgrade of the U.S. credit rating was caused because congressional members of the tea party threatened to block any action if they didn't get their way.

Truly amazing. Breathtaking in its lying audacity. Because the official records of congress show that House Republicans passed a bill that raised the ceiling and cut spending, and sent it to the senate in a timely manner.

Anyone remember what happened next? Oh, dat's right: Democratic senate leader Harry Reid refused to allow the bill to even come to the floor, either for open debate before the public, or for a vote.

Does that sound like the Democrats were being responsible adults, trying their best to negotiate a compromise bill? Or does it sound like a petulant child threatening all manner of destruction if he doesn't get his way?

Did Reid ever seriously explain why he tabled (killed) the House bill? If he did, it never made the internet.

Let me try some logic here: If Reid really thought the House bill was fatally flawed, wouldn't you think he'd welcome the chance to have his Dem team demonstrate that on the senate floor? Of course he would.

Even more so because since the Dems control the senate, they'd have a huge advantage in being able to set the terms for any floor debate.

But even with this huge advantage, Reid didn't allow a debate. Reason? He knew that in an open debate the Dems would have gotten clobbered, in public, on live television.

Example: David Axelrod can go on all the Sunday talk shows and claim that Republicans want to end Social Security and Medicare. But if a senator tried that bullshit on the senate floor, the GOP whip would call him out and demand proof of that lie. None would be forthcoming.

So with Democrat Reid having killed the House bill to resolve the crisis, the Dems now have the audacity to blame the tea party?

Hitler was right: When you lie, don't waste time with small ones, but go right for the Big Lie. Early and often.

ABC doesn't disclose that financial analyst is major Obama supporter

2011-08-08T06:12:00.000-07:00

One of the many ways the so-called mainstream media slant their broadcasts to boost politicians or candidates they like--without appearing to be biased--is to give ten minutes of supposed "analysis" to a person said to be an expert in a particular area.

What they don't say is that the supposed expert is a major supporter of politician X.

That's what ABC did a couple of days ago when they invited "financial contributor" Mellody Hobson to blast rating agency Standard and Poor's for cutting the rating on U.S. debt. Hobson criticized S&P, claiming that "everything they do is suspect."

Message received. But ABC didn't disclose that Hobson was a major fund-raiser for Obama in 2008 and also in the current campaign.

Because if they'd made that full disclosure, roughly half their viewers might have been a great deal more skeptical of Hobson's blast.

Can't have that, can we?

The debt bomb

2011-08-07T09:08:00.000-07:00

I've always been amused by the "bright boys" from elite universities who claim the economic equivalent of "Newton's laws don't apply to MY theories, because I'm so much smarter than the rest of you."

Specifically, I'm looking at the guys who claimed the federal government could continue to spend far more than it took in in taxes--borrowing the shortfall--year after year, with no consequences whatsoever.

If this strikes you as crazy beyond belief, congratulations.

And yet just a week ago the top men in congress and the Obama administration labored to produce a "deal" that would trade our life savings for a handful of magic beans.

Well, pretty close, anyway: What literally happened was that Congress agreed to let Obama borrow an additional $2.4 Trillion, in exchange for a solemn promise by Obama and all the Dems to drastically cut government spending.

Now if you've studied politicians much you may be more than a bit skeptical about believing anything they say. But this, gentle reader, is different. Because it was a *promise*. A solemn promise.

Give me a few seconds, please.

Thanks. Yeah, I was just trying to see if I could say that with a straight face. Couldn't do it.

So even though it doesn't matter: How much spending did they promise to cut, you ask? The PR answer is "$900 billion over ten years." But the real answer is: Even with the proposed cuts, the U.S. debt will still increase by $7 Trillion over that same ten years.

Take a few seconds to let that sink in.

They promised--solemnly--to cut spending, yet debt will still increase. Not only that, but the debt increase will be seven times more than the promised "cut."

Does this sound like the work of serious, competent thinkers, or idiots intent on putting off the disaster one more year?

And just as an aside, what does it say about the contempt these jackasses have for you and me that they would try to pass this deal off as a work of pure genius instead of the bad joke it so obviously is?

If you hadn't already heard, the ludicrous inadequacy of the "deal" is the reason the stock market dropped 512 points last Thursday.

So what happens when a country consistently spends more than it makes? Amazingly, we don't have to just guess, because we actually have examples: Greece, Italy and Spain, to name three.

What happens is that investors--nervous about a country's ability to pay its debts--stop buying a nation's paper until the yields rise enough to make it worth the risk. For Italy and Spain those rates are around 6.5%, or roughly twice the rate paid by the U.S. government.

Mark Steyn observed that at current interest rates, by 2020 just the interest alone on U.S. debt will consume a full one-fifth of all government revenue.

And that's if interest rates stay at current levels. If they follow the path of Italy, Spain and Greece, you can expect the amount consumed by interest to double.

You need to understand this situation fully and completely, because that's the only way anyone would be willing to support the admittedly hard actions necessary to pull out of this crash dive.

Back in the 1980s either Ecuador or Peru (never can remember) found itself a bit farther down the debt road than we are now. Specifically, analysts found that the entire value of the nation's exports wouldn't be enough to service the country's debt.

I'll tell you what happened some other time. Right now you need to hear something crucial: This wasn't your fault.

A whole bunch of judges, congressmen and half a dozen presidents who thought they were smarter than the Founders gradually dismantled the Constitution, letting the federal government start programs to "give" benefits to citizens. The Founders knew these would bring disaster, and tried their best to restrict government.

It didn't work.

The pols pushed the benefit programs (later called "entitlements") because they wanted to be re-elected. The judges didn't do their job of defending the Constitution's clear commands because they had chowder for brains.

Okay, close: They were liberals who felt the government should do whatever was being proposed at the time because it would help the poor, or children, or...some needy person or group.

And as a result of these good intentions from short-sighted people, the whole magnificent machine is about to come crashing down.

Unemployment DOWN, over 100,000 jobs added! Oh, wait...

2011-08-06T13:50:00.001-07:00

If you're a political critic you probably already know that the "official" unemployment reported by the gummint and released Friday fell a tenth of a percent, from 9.2 to 9.1 percent as businesses added 117,000 jobs last month.

Woohoo! Right?

Ah, not quite. Turns out the number of Americans actually working last month fell by 38,000.

Of course you knew that, since it was one of the key figures included in every media report on the employment picture.

What? You never heard that 38,000 fewer people were employed last month??

Yeah, well...that would be because almost no MSM outfit saw fit to report it. They stayed with the "117,000 NEW jobs!" and "unemployment DOWN!" Because they aren't biased in favor of Obozo at all.

You'd think that if the economy added jobs, and the unemployment rate dropped, more people would be working, right? So what's up?

Would you believe, the gummint deliberately fudges the numbers?

You think I'm kidding, but not so: Turns out the Bureau of Labor Statistics removes people from the "unemployed" classification if they've been out of work for more than two years or so. That is, they're still most certainly unemployed but simply aren't counted in the total any longer.

If that's not a blatant fudge I can't imagine what would qualify better.

To be fair, this has been the policy for many years. It's just that before the current recession the gummint would only pay unemployed people for 40 weeks or so, and most managed to find a job by the end of that period.

But as part of the recover acts, congress changed the law to keep federal u/e bennies coming for 99 weeks (and Obozo just said he want to increase even that number). Once you're out of the workforce that long, coming back in in the same field is quite a bit more difficult. So the numbers of people dropping off the U/E rolls is substantial.

And sure enough, a component of the unemployment statistics called the Household Survey shows that just since March, the U.S. has lost more than 900,000 full-time jobs.

On the positive side, adding 117,000 jobs in July is much better than the dismal showings of May and June. So even if fewer people are employed, at least we may be getting closer to stopping the fall.

If you believe 'em, that is.