Saturday, May 30, 2009
Django says ...
Here's the deal:
I ain't publishing no more anonymous comments. If you're not clever enough to think up a fake name, I'm not going to bother fuckin' with you.
Furthermore, any dumbass who's so dim-witted that he cannot address the topic at hand -- e.g., anyone who wants to bitch about Rush Limbaugh in a thread dealing with, say, cap gains -- he ain't gonna see his comments published, neither.
Oh, and the personal attacks directed toward me are going to stop. Period. They're going to stop on this Web site for sure; and if they continue in any other forum, a pistol-whipping will be the end result.
That's the by-God truth.
Thanks for reading!
Joltin' Django
# posted by Joltin' Django @ Saturday, May 30, 2009
Oops, he did it again! (Lie, that is)
From RedState.com:
Roll Call is reporting that during the typical Friday afternoon document dump — a practice used to hide actions that might prove somewhat embarrassing to the White House — the administration quietly announced that some of the former restrictions on lobbying ballyhooed about during the late campaign have been lifted.
Let special interests ring!
Roll Call (see here, but subscription is required) says that the administration lifted bans on lobbyists that have some part of spending “stimulus” funds. So now getting hooks into bloated federal spending is open season for the very lobbyists that Obama pretended to disdain only months ago.
Read the rest here.
# posted by Joltin' Django @ Saturday, May 30, 2009
Adieu, Robin Smith
Today, the Tennessee Republican Party bids adieu to its most successful chief.
Robin Smith served but two years as chair of the state GOP, but, oh, what a two years it was.
During her two-year term, Smith:
● Engineered a Republican majority in both chambers of the Tennessee General Assembly for the first time since 1869, and, as a result, Tennessee now has a Republican Secretary of State, Treasurer, and Comptroller of the Treasury. Furthermore, all 95 counties in Tennessee now have a Republican-majority election commission for the first time since, well, ever.
● Led the Tennessee for McCain effort. McCain bested B. Hussein Obama 57 percent to 42 percent, thus putting to rest the notion that the the Volunteer State is a "swing state." Obama's poor showing went a long way toward convincing U.S. Rep. Lincoln Davis and former-U.S. Rep. Harold Ford, Jr. to abandon their gubernatorial aspirations. Thus, Tennessee's more or less assured of having a GOP governor come 2011.
Somewhere, Randle Richardson is jealous ...
Give Robin Smith serious props here.
# posted by Joltin' Django @ Saturday, May 30, 2009
Friday, May 29, 2009
History lesson
As B. Hussein Obama begins his grand experiment to run America's auto companies, he needs to consider this:
In 1913 ... thinking it was being overcharged by the steel companies for armor plate for warships, the federal government decided to build its own plant. It estimated that a plant with a 10,000-ton annual capacity could produce armor plate for only 70% of what the steel companies charged.
When the plant was finally finished, however — three years after World War I had ended — it was millions over budget and able to produce armor plate only at twice what the steel companies charged. It produced one batch and then shut down, never to reopen.
In 1913 ... thinking it was being overcharged by the steel companies for armor plate for warships, the federal government decided to build its own plant. It estimated that a plant with a 10,000-ton annual capacity could produce armor plate for only 70% of what the steel companies charged.
When the plant was finally finished, however — three years after World War I had ended — it was millions over budget and able to produce armor plate only at twice what the steel companies charged. It produced one batch and then shut down, never to reopen.
# posted by Joltin' Django @ Friday, May 29, 2009
Corleone Corporatism
Unless you've been living under a rock, you know that the Chrysler Corp. is now a ward of the state; and you also know that nearly 800 Chrysler dealers were recently told that their franchise agreements would be cancelled.
When it comes to America's auto industry, it would appear that the Obama Administration is practicing what can only be described as Corleone Corporatism. First, GM chairman was given an offer he couldn't refuse: either step down or the gov'ment wouldn't give GM the money it needed to stay afloat. Then Chrysler and GM bondholders -- folks who in good faith purchased GM and Chrysler debt hoping for an honest return on their investment -- got the screw. They were more or less forced to take pennies on the dollar for their bonds; and when they protested, they were derided as evil "speculators." (In the Age of Obama, anyone who even feigns a desire to speculate in a financial market is evil incarnate.)
Now, here's even more proof for my assertion that B. Hussein Obama and his loopy band of left-wingers are practicing Corleone Corporatism (corporatism in the circa-1930s-Italy sense):
The initial pass at the list of shuttered [Chrysler] dealers showed they had donated, in the aggregate, millions to Republican candidates and PACs and a total of $200 to Barack Obama.
In fact, I have thus far found only a single Obama donor ($200 from Jeffrey Hunter of Waco, Texas) on the closing list.
Another review of all 789 closing dealerships, by WND, found $450,000 donated to GOP presidential candidates; $7,970 to Sen. Hillary Clinton; $2,200 to John Edwards and $450 to Barack Obama.
Now, and this is important, Chrysler claimed that its formula for determining whether a dealership should close or not included "sales volume, customer service scores, local market share and average household income in the immediate area."
Dealer Jim Anderer told Fox News' Neil Cavuto he can't comprehend how his dealership can be among those killed: he stated that his sales volume ranking is in the top 2 percent of all dealers.
Furthermore, Anderer says explanations aren't forthcoming. "They won't tell us. They seem to be running for cover right now because they won't give us a solid explanation. They come up with all these reasons, but none of them seem to make sense... This is insanity. The government is stealing my business. And they're telling me there's nothing I can do about it... There was no process that you could put your finger on and say, 'Hey, we cut 25 percent of the lowest performing dealers.' They didn't do that. Nobody will give us a real clear explanation of the formula that they came up with."
Anyone who's read or watched The Godfather knows that the Corleones rewarded their friends greatly and punished their enemies severely. When it comes to car policy, if you will, Obama and his minions have been doing the same damn thing.
When it comes to America's auto industry, it would appear that the Obama Administration is practicing what can only be described as Corleone Corporatism. First, GM chairman was given an offer he couldn't refuse: either step down or the gov'ment wouldn't give GM the money it needed to stay afloat. Then Chrysler and GM bondholders -- folks who in good faith purchased GM and Chrysler debt hoping for an honest return on their investment -- got the screw. They were more or less forced to take pennies on the dollar for their bonds; and when they protested, they were derided as evil "speculators." (In the Age of Obama, anyone who even feigns a desire to speculate in a financial market is evil incarnate.)
Now, here's even more proof for my assertion that B. Hussein Obama and his loopy band of left-wingers are practicing Corleone Corporatism (corporatism in the circa-1930s-Italy sense):
The initial pass at the list of shuttered [Chrysler] dealers showed they had donated, in the aggregate, millions to Republican candidates and PACs and a total of $200 to Barack Obama.
In fact, I have thus far found only a single Obama donor ($200 from Jeffrey Hunter of Waco, Texas) on the closing list.
Another review of all 789 closing dealerships, by WND, found $450,000 donated to GOP presidential candidates; $7,970 to Sen. Hillary Clinton; $2,200 to John Edwards and $450 to Barack Obama.
Now, and this is important, Chrysler claimed that its formula for determining whether a dealership should close or not included "sales volume, customer service scores, local market share and average household income in the immediate area."
Dealer Jim Anderer told Fox News' Neil Cavuto he can't comprehend how his dealership can be among those killed: he stated that his sales volume ranking is in the top 2 percent of all dealers.
Furthermore, Anderer says explanations aren't forthcoming. "They won't tell us. They seem to be running for cover right now because they won't give us a solid explanation. They come up with all these reasons, but none of them seem to make sense... This is insanity. The government is stealing my business. And they're telling me there's nothing I can do about it... There was no process that you could put your finger on and say, 'Hey, we cut 25 percent of the lowest performing dealers.' They didn't do that. Nobody will give us a real clear explanation of the formula that they came up with."
Anyone who's read or watched The Godfather knows that the Corleones rewarded their friends greatly and punished their enemies severely. When it comes to car policy, if you will, Obama and his minions have been doing the same damn thing.
# posted by Joltin' Django @ Friday, May 29, 2009
Thursday, May 28, 2009
Tennessee's best mayor
Tennessee has two solid conservatives lined up to run for governor next year: U.S. Rep. Zach Wamp and Knoxville Mayor Bill Haslam.
I like 'em both; however, the more I hear about Haslam, the more I like him, well, more.
Given today's tough economic times, and Tennessee's constitutional requirement that each state budget be balanced, the next governor of Tennessee will have to be an expert on squeezing maximum services from a minimal revenue base. Haslam, as mayor of Tennessee's third-largest city, knows all about doing just that. From a recent Knoxville News Sentinel editorial:
"Haslam’s conservative budget not only keeps the city active and involved; it moves Knoxville carefully through some sluggish waters. Haslam’s new budget includes no tax increase, no planned layoffs and an average raise of about 3 percent for city employees, all while leaving savings and federal economic stimulus money untouched.
Wow. If only Barry Obama could boast of balanced budgets and raises for gov'ment workers and repudiations of Keynesian stimuli.
NOTE: Lest anyone think that my above comments are an endorsement of Mayor Haslam's candidacy, they ain't. I'm gonna listen to what Rep. Wamp and Mayor Haslam have to say over the next, oh, 13 months ... and I'll make my pick soon thereafter.
# posted by Joltin' Django @ Thursday, May 28, 2009
100+ days, 100+ lies ...
Burger King is no longer "Home of the Whopper." That title now goes to the Obama White House.
Since B. Hussein took office, he lied about how much control "his" government would exert over U.S. auto companies; he lied about raising taxes and increasing government spending and his support for congressional earmarks; and now he and his are lying about the vaunted Obama Stimulus enough to ensure a special place and hell for 'em all. To wit:
ABC News' Jake Tapper is perhaps the only network journalist who's not in the tank for Obama. Indeed, he's the only mainstream news guy who's willing to shovel through the Obama Administration's horseshit and ask tough questions. Like this:
TAPPER: All right. Just to follow up, I looked at your "100 Days, 100 Projects" booklet yesterday, and the very first one says, quote, "Using $27 million of Recovery Act funding a public housing development in D.C., the Regency House, has undergone a green retrofit. As part of this upgrade, the building installed solar panels, green roof, rainwater collection system, energy-efficient lighting, as well as water-conserving toilets, showerheads and faucets." But when I called the D.C. Housing Authority, they said only $59,000 was spent of stimulus money, not $27 million, and of these seven things mentioned, only two of the seven were actually done –
[White House Spokesman Robert] GIBBS: I think the mistake — mistake in that one, as you blogged about earlier, took a series of different projects in a cut- and-paste into one.
TAPPER: OK. So it wasn’t as clear and — it wasn’t as accurate as it could have been?
GIBBS: I — I think that’s accurate to say, yes.
At least Barry's official mouthpiece had the good sense to admit that his boss'd been caught fibbing. I'm not gonna hold my breath waiting for CBS, NBC, CNN, MSNBC et al. to report such. Mainly 'cause I don't want to suffocate to death.
# posted by Joltin' Django @ Thursday, May 28, 2009
On Sotomayor
You know, I was going to write an anti-Sotomayor post with the title, "Be Afraid. Be Very Afraid." I was going to reference a famous Jefferson's quote, "If our nation be destroyed, it will be from the judiciary," and I was going to post this amazing video from the Judge, in which ignores everything she was taught in her first-year constitutional law class and states for the record that federal courts are where "policy is made":
Well, it isn't taking very long for some very ugly truths to be revealed 'bout one Judge Stomayor. Like this, from the New Republic of all places:
"Sotomayor can be tough on lawyers, according to those interviewed. “She is a terror on the bench." "She is very outspoken." "She can be difficult." "She is temperamental and excitable. She seems angry." "She is overly aggressive–not very judicial. She does not have a very good temperament." "She abuses lawyers." "She really lacks judicial temperament. She behaves in an out of control manner. She makes inappropriate outbursts." "She is nasty to lawyers. She doesn’t understand their role in the system–as adversaries who have to argue one side or the other. She will attack lawyers for making an argument she does not like." [emphasis added]
RedState.com's Mark Impomeni deftly points out ...
The criticisms of Sotomayor by those who worked with her bear resemblance to those levelled at former U.N. Ambassador John Bolton during his confirmation hearings. Bolton was assailed by Senate Foreign Relations committee Democrats over allegations that he was a "bully" who routinely abused those in subordinate positions. The question of temperament was a key rationale used by Senate Democrats, and some Republican defectors, to deny the impeccably qualified Bolton confirmation.
We'll soon see if Senate Dems are as concerned about bullying, and mellow temperaments, now as they were then. For my money, I'm in the "they ain't" camp.
Well, it isn't taking very long for some very ugly truths to be revealed 'bout one Judge Stomayor. Like this, from the New Republic of all places:
"Sotomayor can be tough on lawyers, according to those interviewed. “She is a terror on the bench." "She is very outspoken." "She can be difficult." "She is temperamental and excitable. She seems angry." "She is overly aggressive–not very judicial. She does not have a very good temperament." "She abuses lawyers." "She really lacks judicial temperament. She behaves in an out of control manner. She makes inappropriate outbursts." "She is nasty to lawyers. She doesn’t understand their role in the system–as adversaries who have to argue one side or the other. She will attack lawyers for making an argument she does not like." [emphasis added]
RedState.com's Mark Impomeni deftly points out ...
The criticisms of Sotomayor by those who worked with her bear resemblance to those levelled at former U.N. Ambassador John Bolton during his confirmation hearings. Bolton was assailed by Senate Foreign Relations committee Democrats over allegations that he was a "bully" who routinely abused those in subordinate positions. The question of temperament was a key rationale used by Senate Democrats, and some Republican defectors, to deny the impeccably qualified Bolton confirmation.
We'll soon see if Senate Dems are as concerned about bullying, and mellow temperaments, now as they were then. For my money, I'm in the "they ain't" camp.
# posted by Joltin' Django @ Thursday, May 28, 2009
Monday, May 25, 2009
Re: Obama Man
If I couldn't listen to the Bob & Tom Show on my way to work each morn', well, I don't know what I'd do.
This -- courtesy of Misters Bob and Tom -- is real funny:
This -- courtesy of Misters Bob and Tom -- is real funny:
# posted by Joltin' Django @ Monday, May 25, 2009
Wednesday, May 20, 2009
Django says ...
Due to a family emergency, The Nigh Seen Creeder will not return until Monday, May 25.
In the meantime, please visit A Man's Gotta Eat for daily Joltin' Django posts.
Merci.
# posted by Joltin' Django @ Wednesday, May 20, 2009
Monday, May 18, 2009
Outlying ...
Not three days ago, I was in a local grocery store when I spied a Time magazine which featured a cover that more or less pronounced the GOP dead.
Well ... Time sorta jumped the gun. To wit:
We've been hearing a great deal about how the troubles of the GOP have reduced the party to a mere one in five voters.
Eh, maybe not, Gallup reports. They asked, "In politics, as of today, do you consider yourself a Republican, a Democrat, or an independent? (Asked of independents: As of today, do you lean more to the Democratic Party or the Republican Party?)"
Their most recent poll, conducted May 7–10, splits 32 percent for each party, with 34 percent for independents. When they press the independents for which party they lean towards, it comes out to another split, this time 45 percent for each. In early April it had been 53 percent for Democrats, 34 percent for Republicans.
An outlier? Or was this spring the peak of a trend?
Well ... Time sorta jumped the gun. To wit:
We've been hearing a great deal about how the troubles of the GOP have reduced the party to a mere one in five voters.
Eh, maybe not, Gallup reports. They asked, "In politics, as of today, do you consider yourself a Republican, a Democrat, or an independent? (Asked of independents: As of today, do you lean more to the Democratic Party or the Republican Party?)"
Their most recent poll, conducted May 7–10, splits 32 percent for each party, with 34 percent for independents. When they press the independents for which party they lean towards, it comes out to another split, this time 45 percent for each. In early April it had been 53 percent for Democrats, 34 percent for Republicans.
An outlier? Or was this spring the peak of a trend?
# posted by Joltin' Django @ Monday, May 18, 2009
VP Joe Biden: Bigmouth, Idiot
To borrow a line from Andy Griffith, VP Joe Biden is worth more, comical-wise, than a barrel full o' monkeys (from the Campaign for Working Families PAC) ...
He has done it again. Vice President Joe Biden has added yet another verbal foul-up to a long list of gaffes, embarrassments and slip-ups. The problem is that this one is more than just silly or stupid. In fact it has implications on national security. The story comes to us from Eleanor Cliff, a liberal and contributing editor for Newsweek magazine. She reports that a few weeks ago at the annual Gridiron dinner, an annual event that brings together media and political elites, VP Biden told his dinner mates the exact locations of the secret bunker that Vice Presidents are taken to in a national emergency. As a result, he has put himself and every future Vice President at higher risk.
You will recall that the Vice President was selected by Barack Obama to be his running mate because the President concluded that Biden had gravitas plus the knowledge of foreign policy that Obama did not have. During the campaign Biden made so many gaffes that he was "demoted" on the campaign trail. Since the new administration has taken office, Biden has provided consistent verbal entertainment. Now he is entering buffoon territory.
I've already predicted that Joe Biden will go the way of Nelson Rockefeller in 2012.
I'll bet there ain't many liberals out there who'd be willing to put their stimulus check(s) up 'gainst a check from my checkbook that Biden's destined to be the Democrats' answer to Dan Quayle.
He has done it again. Vice President Joe Biden has added yet another verbal foul-up to a long list of gaffes, embarrassments and slip-ups. The problem is that this one is more than just silly or stupid. In fact it has implications on national security. The story comes to us from Eleanor Cliff, a liberal and contributing editor for Newsweek magazine. She reports that a few weeks ago at the annual Gridiron dinner, an annual event that brings together media and political elites, VP Biden told his dinner mates the exact locations of the secret bunker that Vice Presidents are taken to in a national emergency. As a result, he has put himself and every future Vice President at higher risk.
You will recall that the Vice President was selected by Barack Obama to be his running mate because the President concluded that Biden had gravitas plus the knowledge of foreign policy that Obama did not have. During the campaign Biden made so many gaffes that he was "demoted" on the campaign trail. Since the new administration has taken office, Biden has provided consistent verbal entertainment. Now he is entering buffoon territory.
I've already predicted that Joe Biden will go the way of Nelson Rockefeller in 2012.
I'll bet there ain't many liberals out there who'd be willing to put their stimulus check(s) up 'gainst a check from my checkbook that Biden's destined to be the Democrats' answer to Dan Quayle.
# posted by Joltin' Django @ Monday, May 18, 2009
Sunday, May 17, 2009
Gov. Jenny, Jen-Jen
According to many folks in the know, Michigan Gov. Jennifer Granholm is on President B. Hussein Obama's short-list for the U.S. Supreme Court.
Given that Granholm has done her level best to make sure none of her constituents have a job ...
... (chart courtesy of RedState.com), she's perfect for a permanent position on the federal bench, 'cause she can "empathize" for all the folks she ran out of a job!
Supreme Court Justice Jennifer Granholm: that'd sum up Obama's America in five words, and it'd be a pretty damn scary sum, indeed.
Given that Granholm has done her level best to make sure none of her constituents have a job ...
... (chart courtesy of RedState.com), she's perfect for a permanent position on the federal bench, 'cause she can "empathize" for all the folks she ran out of a job!
Supreme Court Justice Jennifer Granholm: that'd sum up Obama's America in five words, and it'd be a pretty damn scary sum, indeed.
# posted by Joltin' Django @ Sunday, May 17, 2009
Friday, May 15, 2009
California scheming
California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger -- who once was a Milton Friedman/National Review-reading conservative, but who's "grown" in office to very much resemble the liberal he deposed -- wants to sell the Los Angeles Coliseum, San Quentin State Prison, the Orange County Fairgrounds and other state properties to raise cash "amid the state's growing fiscal crisis" (LA Times, 14 March 2009).
To wit:
Sale of the properties, to be included in the governor's revised budget plan today, would raise between $600 million and $1 billion, although it would not provide financial relief for two to five years, according to the proposal.
If I could bend Gov. A'nold's for just five minutes, I'd clue him in on the perfect solution to his state's money woes: sell California to Mexico.
California is poised to become a de facto Mexican state within the next 20 years, so why shouldn't Mexico be placed on an official hook for California's budget woes and social problems?!
That said, just think what kind of politically correct goodwill Gov. A'nold would get from the world community if he sold, er, returned California to Mexico, thus undoing another vestige of so-called American imperialism.
He'd be a shoo-in for the next Nobel Peace Prize, and he might never again have to answer for his terrible performance in Terminator 3: Rise of the Machines again.
You think I'm kidding, but I ain't ...
To wit:
Sale of the properties, to be included in the governor's revised budget plan today, would raise between $600 million and $1 billion, although it would not provide financial relief for two to five years, according to the proposal.
If I could bend Gov. A'nold's for just five minutes, I'd clue him in on the perfect solution to his state's money woes: sell California to Mexico.
California is poised to become a de facto Mexican state within the next 20 years, so why shouldn't Mexico be placed on an official hook for California's budget woes and social problems?!
That said, just think what kind of politically correct goodwill Gov. A'nold would get from the world community if he sold, er, returned California to Mexico, thus undoing another vestige of so-called American imperialism.
He'd be a shoo-in for the next Nobel Peace Prize, and he might never again have to answer for his terrible performance in Terminator 3: Rise of the Machines again.
You think I'm kidding, but I ain't ...
# posted by Joltin' Django @ Friday, May 15, 2009
Thursday, May 14, 2009
Joe Biden: Math-magician
Speaking on President B. Hussein Obama's "stimulus" plan, Vice President Joe Biden recently said this:
I think that what you’re going to see happen here is the velocity of this [stimulus spending] will increase not just arithmetically, but geometrically here. At least, we’ve got to make that happen.
WTF?!
I work with numbers -- lots and lots of algebraic numbers -- each day, and, thus, it gives me great pause to hear an important government official butcher basic math when discussing U.S. fiscal policy!!
It's bad enough that Joe Biden is a confirmed Keynesian Sucker ("velocity," etc.); but it's now clear that he doesn't know the difference between arithmetic and geometry, or linear and exponential data.
And left-wingers and Commies dared call Dan Quayle "dumb" ...!
I think that what you’re going to see happen here is the velocity of this [stimulus spending] will increase not just arithmetically, but geometrically here. At least, we’ve got to make that happen.
WTF?!
I work with numbers -- lots and lots of algebraic numbers -- each day, and, thus, it gives me great pause to hear an important government official butcher basic math when discussing U.S. fiscal policy!!
It's bad enough that Joe Biden is a confirmed Keynesian Sucker ("velocity," etc.); but it's now clear that he doesn't know the difference between arithmetic and geometry, or linear and exponential data.
And left-wingers and Commies dared call Dan Quayle "dumb" ...!
# posted by Joltin' Django @ Thursday, May 14, 2009
Wednesday, May 13, 2009
"Rasmussen and the quietly rusting Democratic advantage"
Check this out:
As you can see, back in October it was fairly clear that Democrats were enjoying consistent leads over Republicans when it came to how much the public trusted them on various issues. It’s also fairly clear that in most cases, those leads have been savaged. Leading in four categories and tied in one may not sound wonderful; but compared to zero-for-ten that’s not half bad - particularly since it’s looking as if the Democrats are in the process of thoroughly squandering their existing trustworthiness with regard to the economy. The only real disappointment is the government trust numbers (which were much better last month**), but that’s the next project.
What does it mean? Not much, except of course as a helpful reminder that the people who are currently eager to tell you that we’re doomed as a party are not necessarily working from completely accurate data. Hardly surprising: most of those people don’t have your best interests at heart. Or any of your interests at heart, really.
The fact that Democrats are robustly tanking in public opinion polls -- just four months into our messianic president's term -- should tell you something. What it should tell you is this:
Don't bet on Democrats to have a "good day" on 2 November 2010.
Come see me on 3 November, 2010, and tell me I was wrong ...!!!
As you can see, back in October it was fairly clear that Democrats were enjoying consistent leads over Republicans when it came to how much the public trusted them on various issues. It’s also fairly clear that in most cases, those leads have been savaged. Leading in four categories and tied in one may not sound wonderful; but compared to zero-for-ten that’s not half bad - particularly since it’s looking as if the Democrats are in the process of thoroughly squandering their existing trustworthiness with regard to the economy. The only real disappointment is the government trust numbers (which were much better last month**), but that’s the next project.
What does it mean? Not much, except of course as a helpful reminder that the people who are currently eager to tell you that we’re doomed as a party are not necessarily working from completely accurate data. Hardly surprising: most of those people don’t have your best interests at heart. Or any of your interests at heart, really.
The fact that Democrats are robustly tanking in public opinion polls -- just four months into our messianic president's term -- should tell you something. What it should tell you is this:
Don't bet on Democrats to have a "good day" on 2 November 2010.
Come see me on 3 November, 2010, and tell me I was wrong ...!!!
# posted by Joltin' Django @ Wednesday, May 13, 2009
Take me back to 1995!
When Republicans took control of Congress back in 1995, dozens of serious Medicare-reform proposals were introduced ... and all of 'em were rejected, with extreme prejudice, by the Clinton Administration. "Tain't nothing with Medicare!" President Bill Clinton said; and then Clinton, at the direction of Dick Morris, allowed America's airwaves to be saturated with ads that alleged that then-House Speaker Newt Gingrich and then-Senate Majority Leader Bob Dole were going to put the kibosh on the Medicare program. (Remember those "Medicare will soon die on the vine" TV ads, in which the Dems used a five-second, out-of-context quip from Newt? I sure do.)
In 2004, President George W. Bush, with a pocket full o' "political capital," endeavored to reform Social Security. He stated that he wished to emulate Chile's uber-successful public pension program, which allows for a small portion of citizens' monies to be invested in carefully-watched, and conservatively-managed, equity and bond funds. "He's gonna privatize Social Security!" most every elected Democrat, and virtually every liberal blogger, exclaimed. And any and all discussion of serious Social Security reform went right out the fuckin' door, never to be heard o' again (or at least not until we have another Republican president).
Fast forward to 2009 ...
Yesterday the Social Security and Medicare Trustees released their annual reports. The Washington Post provides decent coverage.
Social Security took a double hit: First, the recession lowered payroll tax revenues; second, higher projected life expectancies will mean more seniors collecting benefits. The first payroll tax deficits shifted from 2017 to 2016 while the trust fund’s exhaustion date moves from 2041 to 2037. The biggest change, however, was less reported: Social Security’s total long-term deficit increased by 18 percent, a massive shift.
The Social Security report also showed no Cost of Living Adjustments will be paid from 2010 through 2012. Rising energy prices boosted inflation last year, but the CPI has fallen since then. When inflation is negative, no COLA is paid. Seniors groups are squealing that Congress should pay a COLA anyway. But if inflation is negative and benefits stay the same, the real purchasing power of benefits increases. Seniors groups know this, but they want another increase on top.
The Medicare report showed the system’s trust fund running out in 2017, a two-year shift forward. Administration officials latched onto these findings to promote their health-care reforms, saying that private-sector health-care inflation is what’s driving up costs for Medicare. HHS Sec. Kathleen Sebelius argued that the best way to strengthen Medicare's finances is to "fix what's broken in the rest of the health-care system." But as this chart from Obama’s budget shows, the main entitlement cost driver over the next 40 years isn’t health-care inflation, but simple population aging — more retirees collecting Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid benefits, fewer workers supporting them. But population aging is a problem peculiar to government programs, which focus on seniors, and you don’t need to nationalize health care for working-age Americans to fix that.
As much as Americans have feared global Communists and anti-democratic regimes over the years, I fear that historically misguided, and chronically under-funded, federal programs like Medicare and Social Security pose the greatest existential threat to our Republic.
People retire and they expect "free" income, via Social Security. The same folks also expect "free" health care, via Medicare. Soon there ain't gonna be no money for either Social Security or Medicare. What's gonna happen then?!
Too bad we can't go back to 1995 and do what needed to be done then, and still needs doin' now ...!
In 2004, President George W. Bush, with a pocket full o' "political capital," endeavored to reform Social Security. He stated that he wished to emulate Chile's uber-successful public pension program, which allows for a small portion of citizens' monies to be invested in carefully-watched, and conservatively-managed, equity and bond funds. "He's gonna privatize Social Security!" most every elected Democrat, and virtually every liberal blogger, exclaimed. And any and all discussion of serious Social Security reform went right out the fuckin' door, never to be heard o' again (or at least not until we have another Republican president).
Fast forward to 2009 ...
Yesterday the Social Security and Medicare Trustees released their annual reports. The Washington Post provides decent coverage.
Social Security took a double hit: First, the recession lowered payroll tax revenues; second, higher projected life expectancies will mean more seniors collecting benefits. The first payroll tax deficits shifted from 2017 to 2016 while the trust fund’s exhaustion date moves from 2041 to 2037. The biggest change, however, was less reported: Social Security’s total long-term deficit increased by 18 percent, a massive shift.
The Social Security report also showed no Cost of Living Adjustments will be paid from 2010 through 2012. Rising energy prices boosted inflation last year, but the CPI has fallen since then. When inflation is negative, no COLA is paid. Seniors groups are squealing that Congress should pay a COLA anyway. But if inflation is negative and benefits stay the same, the real purchasing power of benefits increases. Seniors groups know this, but they want another increase on top.
The Medicare report showed the system’s trust fund running out in 2017, a two-year shift forward. Administration officials latched onto these findings to promote their health-care reforms, saying that private-sector health-care inflation is what’s driving up costs for Medicare. HHS Sec. Kathleen Sebelius argued that the best way to strengthen Medicare's finances is to "fix what's broken in the rest of the health-care system." But as this chart from Obama’s budget shows, the main entitlement cost driver over the next 40 years isn’t health-care inflation, but simple population aging — more retirees collecting Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid benefits, fewer workers supporting them. But population aging is a problem peculiar to government programs, which focus on seniors, and you don’t need to nationalize health care for working-age Americans to fix that.
As much as Americans have feared global Communists and anti-democratic regimes over the years, I fear that historically misguided, and chronically under-funded, federal programs like Medicare and Social Security pose the greatest existential threat to our Republic.
People retire and they expect "free" income, via Social Security. The same folks also expect "free" health care, via Medicare. Soon there ain't gonna be no money for either Social Security or Medicare. What's gonna happen then?!
Too bad we can't go back to 1995 and do what needed to be done then, and still needs doin' now ...!
# posted by Joltin' Django @ Wednesday, May 13, 2009
Tuesday, May 12, 2009
Nov. 2010 can't get here soon enough, as far as I'm concerned
This is good news, politically speaking, for the GOP ...
A couple of weeks ago I wrote a post on the predicted unemployment numbers for April. Well, the real numbers came in today, and the result was exactly what they predicted: 8.9% unemployment.
So once again, let’s see how the actual unemployment numbers compare to what Obama’s own economists predicted:
Oh my. It appears that his economists can’t predict very well (that fills me with confidence), and that his stimulus package is providing absolutely no benefit.
And it certainly doesn’t look like his plan has "saved or created 150,000 jobs."
That's bad news, I know, for folks who need a job. But that shit'll change as soon as we get rid of our quasi-socialist president. Mark my words.
A couple of weeks ago I wrote a post on the predicted unemployment numbers for April. Well, the real numbers came in today, and the result was exactly what they predicted: 8.9% unemployment.
So once again, let’s see how the actual unemployment numbers compare to what Obama’s own economists predicted:
Oh my. It appears that his economists can’t predict very well (that fills me with confidence), and that his stimulus package is providing absolutely no benefit.
And it certainly doesn’t look like his plan has "saved or created 150,000 jobs."
That's bad news, I know, for folks who need a job. But that shit'll change as soon as we get rid of our quasi-socialist president. Mark my words.
# posted by Joltin' Django @ Tuesday, May 12, 2009
Monday, May 11, 2009
To tell the troof ...
Right after Pope Benedict XVI said the world'll get peace when Israel and a sovereign "Palestine" are living side by side, Saudi King Abdullah more-or-less stated that Israel ain't gonna have peace unless and until it kowtows to the "57" Muslim nations alligned against it.
The Pope's naive pontifical, well, pontificying can be forgiven. He's expected to be all "peace" and "love" and "understanding," even when he knows spouting such flies in the face of reality and/or common sense.
That said, when the King of Saudi Arabia, who reigns over a nation in which women can't drive cars, and in which drinking beer is a to-be-stoned offense, says Israel isn't doing enough to foster democracy -- well, how come we want to give him, and his 56 other allies, what they want?!
And how come President B. Hussein Obama hasn't yet stepped up and said, "My administration ain't prepared to charter another anti-Israel autocracy in Palestine, no matter what the Pope, King Abdullah, et al. thinks?"
Questions, questions ...
If only B'Obama and his minions would read Mark Steyn, they'd more than know what to do. To wit:
Do you remember the "road map" summit held in Jordan just after the U.S. invasion of Iraq? It seemed a big deal at the time: The leaders of Israel and the Palestinian Authority, the U.S. president, all the A-list dictators of the Arab League. Inside the swank resort, it was all very collegial, smiles and handshakes. Outside, flags fluttered—Jordan’s, America’s, Saudi Arabia’s, Egypt’s, Palestine’s. But not Israel’s. King Abdullah of Jordan had concluded it would be too provocative to advertise the Zionist Entity’s presence on Jordanian soil even at a summit supposedly boasting they were all on the same page. Malmo’s tennis match observed the same conventions: I’m sure the Swedish tennis wallahs were very gracious hosts behind the walls of the stockade, and the unmarked car to the airport was top of the line. How smoothly the furtive maneuvers of the Middle East transfer to the wider world.
When Western governments are as reluctant as King Abdullah to fly the Star of David, those among the citizenry who choose to do so have a hard time. In Britain in January, while "pro-Palestinian" demonstrators were permitted to dress up as hook-nosed Jews drinking the blood of Arab babies, the police ordered counter-protesters to put away their Israeli flags. In Alberta, in the heart of Calgary’s Jewish neighborhood, the flag of Hizballah (supposedly a proscribed terrorist organization) was proudly waved by demonstrators, but one solitary Israeli flag was deemed a threat to the Queen’s peace and officers told the brave fellow holding it to put it away or be arrested for "inciting public disorder." In Germany, a student in Duisburg put the Star of David in the window of an upstairs apartment on the day of a march by the Islamist group Milli Görüs, only to have the cops smash his door down and remove the flag. He’s now trying to get the police to pay for a new door. Ah, those Jews. It’s always about money, isn’t it?
The Pope's naive pontifical, well, pontificying can be forgiven. He's expected to be all "peace" and "love" and "understanding," even when he knows spouting such flies in the face of reality and/or common sense.
That said, when the King of Saudi Arabia, who reigns over a nation in which women can't drive cars, and in which drinking beer is a to-be-stoned offense, says Israel isn't doing enough to foster democracy -- well, how come we want to give him, and his 56 other allies, what they want?!
And how come President B. Hussein Obama hasn't yet stepped up and said, "My administration ain't prepared to charter another anti-Israel autocracy in Palestine, no matter what the Pope, King Abdullah, et al. thinks?"
Questions, questions ...
If only B'Obama and his minions would read Mark Steyn, they'd more than know what to do. To wit:
Do you remember the "road map" summit held in Jordan just after the U.S. invasion of Iraq? It seemed a big deal at the time: The leaders of Israel and the Palestinian Authority, the U.S. president, all the A-list dictators of the Arab League. Inside the swank resort, it was all very collegial, smiles and handshakes. Outside, flags fluttered—Jordan’s, America’s, Saudi Arabia’s, Egypt’s, Palestine’s. But not Israel’s. King Abdullah of Jordan had concluded it would be too provocative to advertise the Zionist Entity’s presence on Jordanian soil even at a summit supposedly boasting they were all on the same page. Malmo’s tennis match observed the same conventions: I’m sure the Swedish tennis wallahs were very gracious hosts behind the walls of the stockade, and the unmarked car to the airport was top of the line. How smoothly the furtive maneuvers of the Middle East transfer to the wider world.
When Western governments are as reluctant as King Abdullah to fly the Star of David, those among the citizenry who choose to do so have a hard time. In Britain in January, while "pro-Palestinian" demonstrators were permitted to dress up as hook-nosed Jews drinking the blood of Arab babies, the police ordered counter-protesters to put away their Israeli flags. In Alberta, in the heart of Calgary’s Jewish neighborhood, the flag of Hizballah (supposedly a proscribed terrorist organization) was proudly waved by demonstrators, but one solitary Israeli flag was deemed a threat to the Queen’s peace and officers told the brave fellow holding it to put it away or be arrested for "inciting public disorder." In Germany, a student in Duisburg put the Star of David in the window of an upstairs apartment on the day of a march by the Islamist group Milli Görüs, only to have the cops smash his door down and remove the flag. He’s now trying to get the police to pay for a new door. Ah, those Jews. It’s always about money, isn’t it?
# posted by Joltin' Django @ Monday, May 11, 2009
How safe are we in Barry's arms ...?!
Former-VP Dick Cheney recently opined that President B. Hussein Obama's administration has left us less "safe." Democrats protested, of course, and now Mr. Independent, Sen. Joe Lieberman, has weighed in. According to Lieberman:
"On balance, we remain as safe as we can possibly be in a world in which there is Islamist extremists who want to attack us."
Oh, yeah?! Reckon ol' Joe's read the following (from the Campaign for Working Families PAC)? I bet not. To wit:
Back in February, President Obama met with 9/11 families and the families of American sailors who died in the 2000 suicide attack on the USS Cole. The meeting was necessitated by the administration’s soft stance in prosecuting the war on terror, the president’s promise to shut down the terrorist detention facility at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, and the decision to drop charges against Abu Rahim al-Nashiri, the suspected mastermind of the Cole bombing. Faced with a potential onslaught of negative publicity from the victims’ families, the Obama White House went into campaign mode and invited 40 family members to the White House. One of those in attendance was Debra Burlingame, co-founder of 9/11 Families for a Safe & Strong America.
Last week, Ms. Burlingame released an op-ed recounting her experience at the meeting and reviewing some of the administration’s actions since that February day at the White House. She said the president warmly greeted the families of the Cole victims and called them the "conscience of the country." President Obama assured them that he would "seek swift and certain justice" for those responsible for the terrorist atrocities on 9/11 and Cole bombing, which killed 17 American sailors. According to Ms. Burlingame, the families pushed back – making the case for GITMO and reiterating the problems with prosecuting terrorists in U.S. courts. The president sought to "assuage their fears" and told the families, "This isn’t goodbye, this is hello," promising an open line of communication if they had future concerns.
Seventeen days later, the administration announced that it was releasing Binyam Mohamed from GITMO. Mohamed had been recruited and trained by Al Qaeda to carry out post-9/11 attacks in America ranging from attacking subways (as Al Qaeda did in London), to spraying cyanide gas in night clubs, to blowing up gas tankers or bringing down apartment buildings with a natural gas explosion. Ms. Burlingame notes other administration actions, including its plans to release some GITMO detainees in America, and concluded, "We’d been had. ... Given all the developments since our meeting with the president, it is now evident that his words to us bore no relation to his intended actions on national security policy and detainee issues. ... I asked Cmdr. Kirk Lippold (captain of the USS Cole) why some of the Cole families declined the invitation to meet with Barack Obama at the White House. [He replied] ‘They saw it for what it was.’" Click here to listen to the mother of one of the Cole victims who refused to meet with President Obama and now regrets having voted for him.
"On balance, we remain as safe as we can possibly be in a world in which there is Islamist extremists who want to attack us."
Oh, yeah?! Reckon ol' Joe's read the following (from the Campaign for Working Families PAC)? I bet not. To wit:
Back in February, President Obama met with 9/11 families and the families of American sailors who died in the 2000 suicide attack on the USS Cole. The meeting was necessitated by the administration’s soft stance in prosecuting the war on terror, the president’s promise to shut down the terrorist detention facility at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, and the decision to drop charges against Abu Rahim al-Nashiri, the suspected mastermind of the Cole bombing. Faced with a potential onslaught of negative publicity from the victims’ families, the Obama White House went into campaign mode and invited 40 family members to the White House. One of those in attendance was Debra Burlingame, co-founder of 9/11 Families for a Safe & Strong America.
Last week, Ms. Burlingame released an op-ed recounting her experience at the meeting and reviewing some of the administration’s actions since that February day at the White House. She said the president warmly greeted the families of the Cole victims and called them the "conscience of the country." President Obama assured them that he would "seek swift and certain justice" for those responsible for the terrorist atrocities on 9/11 and Cole bombing, which killed 17 American sailors. According to Ms. Burlingame, the families pushed back – making the case for GITMO and reiterating the problems with prosecuting terrorists in U.S. courts. The president sought to "assuage their fears" and told the families, "This isn’t goodbye, this is hello," promising an open line of communication if they had future concerns.
Seventeen days later, the administration announced that it was releasing Binyam Mohamed from GITMO. Mohamed had been recruited and trained by Al Qaeda to carry out post-9/11 attacks in America ranging from attacking subways (as Al Qaeda did in London), to spraying cyanide gas in night clubs, to blowing up gas tankers or bringing down apartment buildings with a natural gas explosion. Ms. Burlingame notes other administration actions, including its plans to release some GITMO detainees in America, and concluded, "We’d been had. ... Given all the developments since our meeting with the president, it is now evident that his words to us bore no relation to his intended actions on national security policy and detainee issues. ... I asked Cmdr. Kirk Lippold (captain of the USS Cole) why some of the Cole families declined the invitation to meet with Barack Obama at the White House. [He replied] ‘They saw it for what it was.’" Click here to listen to the mother of one of the Cole victims who refused to meet with President Obama and now regrets having voted for him.
# posted by Joltin' Django @ Monday, May 11, 2009
Friday, May 08, 2009
Just like us?!
Let's see ...
B. Hussein 'n' Joe Biden recently visited a D.C.-area burger joint tryin' to convince us all that they, well, often eat greasy burgers together.
If Biden hadn't stuck his foot into his plugged-head mouth -- "I would tell members of my family - and I have - I wouldn't go anywhere in confined places now. It's not going to Mexico, it's you're in a confined aircraft when one person sneezes" -- do you really think the Prez and Vice-Prez would've gone to a hole-in-the-wall burger restaurant together, in the middle of the day?!
That said, did you catch Obama's request for "Dijon" mustard at said hole-in-the-wall restaurant? Did he learn nothing from John "Droopy" Kerry's asking for Swiss cheese at a famed Philly cheesesteak stand?
And how about First Lady Michelle Obama wearing expensive, high-fashion French designer sneakers in a food-bank ... and then joking, "Everyone should have a chief of staff and a set of personal assistants!"
If Laura Bush'd worn "bling" to a charity event, and if she'd EVER insinuated that "Folks should be so lucky to live like me!", what do you think would've happened?
Lemme know what YOU think would've happened.
B. Hussein 'n' Joe Biden recently visited a D.C.-area burger joint tryin' to convince us all that they, well, often eat greasy burgers together.
If Biden hadn't stuck his foot into his plugged-head mouth -- "I would tell members of my family - and I have - I wouldn't go anywhere in confined places now. It's not going to Mexico, it's you're in a confined aircraft when one person sneezes" -- do you really think the Prez and Vice-Prez would've gone to a hole-in-the-wall burger restaurant together, in the middle of the day?!
That said, did you catch Obama's request for "Dijon" mustard at said hole-in-the-wall restaurant? Did he learn nothing from John "Droopy" Kerry's asking for Swiss cheese at a famed Philly cheesesteak stand?
And how about First Lady Michelle Obama wearing expensive, high-fashion French designer sneakers in a food-bank ... and then joking, "Everyone should have a chief of staff and a set of personal assistants!"
If Laura Bush'd worn "bling" to a charity event, and if she'd EVER insinuated that "Folks should be so lucky to live like me!", what do you think would've happened?
Lemme know what YOU think would've happened.
# posted by Joltin' Django @ Friday, May 08, 2009
Re: "War on Poverty"
Rod Martin -- former policy director to Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee and counsel to PayPal.com founder Peter Thiel -- was a bud 'o mine back in the day. He not only quotes Jack Kemp in the following piece (that's what caused me to go lookin' for it in my files), he also says some things that all Obamaniacs should not only read, they should also be forced to disprove in writing -- in ink or in blood (if they're really serious 'bout what they believe, you see).
Let's hope M Martin gets The Vanguard up-'n'-running again soon ...
The War on Poverty is over -- and the poor lost
So said Jack Kemp well over a decade ago. Kemp was half-right. Today, the poor are with us still -- but so is LBJ's War, now entering its 40th year.
Hailed as a cure-all, this liberal-led War has bled America dry -- materially and morally.
Through Medicare and Medicaid, it replaced free markets and personal choice with the shackles of a one-size-fits-all bureaucracy, creating a costly, unaccountable, hydra-headed monstrosity that slouches towards bankruptcy and entraps those it was meant to help.
Through tampering with Social Security, Great Society architects created sham budget surpluses, postponing the day of reckoning for a system that operates like a Ponzi scheme.
Through exponential expansion of the welfare system, it ignored the prescience of liberal icon FDR, who once deemed permanent welfare "a narcotic [and] destroyer of the human spirit." This abominable system not only weakened personal initiative and responsibility; it tore through civil society like a tornado. As Bill Bennett put it, "Families, churches, and community groups [were] forced to surrender .... to bureaucratic experts. Fathers were replaced by welfare checks and private charities ... by government spending. Religious groups were dismissed as amateurs, and whole communities demolished in slum clearance."
Note the irony: in the name of fighting poverty, welfare wrecked the values and institutions that made victory possible. Welfare was anti-work, anti-life, anti-choice, and anti-family, and few seemed to care.
The perversity extended far beyond the most obvious victims: Uncle Sam taxed productive people to pay others not to work, save, invest, or get married, and to have babies they weren't prepared to raise. Washington punished millions of people for getting a life, while rewarding millions more for getting life wrong. To add insult to injury, Americans were forced to pay more and more into Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security, for the "privilege" of getting less and less in the future.
The War triggered the steepest cultural and moral decline in our history. As unwed pregnancies skyrocketed, so did out-of-wedlock births and abortions. Partially in response to this, the Supreme Court issued its infamous Roe v. Wade ruling thirty-one years ago today, and since then, one out of every three of our children -- a number equivalent to twice the population of countries like Iraq or Australia -- has been killed. Crime and drug use reached epidemic proportions; divorce increased and marriage fell out of favor; and inflation exploded, mocking the thrifty and vindicating the profligate.
Why did this War fail so miserably? Quite simply, it failed to understand people.
It forgot that people are unique, with highly individual circumstances no cookie-cutter program can address. It forgot that human dignity -- exemplified by the Christian doctrine that every person is created in the image of God -- can be discarded only at great cost, that a man robbed of it becomes the animal the secularists say he is. It forgot that humanity is generally self-interested and responds to material incentives: if a woman gets cash for each child born out of wedlock, she will bear more of them, just as a breadwinner facing a higher tax rate for working overtime will cut back his hours.
Perhaps most significantly of all, the warriors of false compassion forgot that eliminating all risk from people's lives requires eliminating responsibility as well. Not only that, but it destroys any hope of responsibly using risk to get ahead, to create some measure of wealth, or to set a proper example for one's children.
Compassion demands we learn the lesson; and indeed, in 1996 when a Republican Congress finally reformed welfare, every form of social pathology began to fall, and 3.5 million fewer people live in poverty today.
Yet we must do much, much more.
We must give Americans back their Social Security savings. We must not tolerate the impoverishment of the elderly when compound interest could make them rich. Even the most conservative numbers show that, if every American could invest his Social Security as he does his IRA, most would retire on almost twice their salary, after inflation. As Britain, Australia and even Chile have shown, we can make this a reality for every family.
We must also reform health care. Immediately, we should give every American the same right leftist Democrats have reserved for big corporations since the New Deal: the right to spend or save every health care dollar tax free. We'll accomplish this through Medical Savings Accounts, similar to your IRA. In so doing, we will radically cut insurance costs both for workers and employers, introduce real price competition into medicine, provide complete insurance portability, and create a vast new pool of investment capital and inheritable wealth for millions of poor and middle class families.
These reforms will change every aspect of American life for the better. We can take great pride in our President's courage in standing for them in his State of the Union. And in enacting them, we can show real compassion toward our fellow man, and end the long leftist nightmare.
Let's hope M Martin gets The Vanguard up-'n'-running again soon ...
The War on Poverty is over -- and the poor lost
So said Jack Kemp well over a decade ago. Kemp was half-right. Today, the poor are with us still -- but so is LBJ's War, now entering its 40th year.
Hailed as a cure-all, this liberal-led War has bled America dry -- materially and morally.
Through Medicare and Medicaid, it replaced free markets and personal choice with the shackles of a one-size-fits-all bureaucracy, creating a costly, unaccountable, hydra-headed monstrosity that slouches towards bankruptcy and entraps those it was meant to help.
Through tampering with Social Security, Great Society architects created sham budget surpluses, postponing the day of reckoning for a system that operates like a Ponzi scheme.
Through exponential expansion of the welfare system, it ignored the prescience of liberal icon FDR, who once deemed permanent welfare "a narcotic [and] destroyer of the human spirit." This abominable system not only weakened personal initiative and responsibility; it tore through civil society like a tornado. As Bill Bennett put it, "Families, churches, and community groups [were] forced to surrender .... to bureaucratic experts. Fathers were replaced by welfare checks and private charities ... by government spending. Religious groups were dismissed as amateurs, and whole communities demolished in slum clearance."
Note the irony: in the name of fighting poverty, welfare wrecked the values and institutions that made victory possible. Welfare was anti-work, anti-life, anti-choice, and anti-family, and few seemed to care.
The perversity extended far beyond the most obvious victims: Uncle Sam taxed productive people to pay others not to work, save, invest, or get married, and to have babies they weren't prepared to raise. Washington punished millions of people for getting a life, while rewarding millions more for getting life wrong. To add insult to injury, Americans were forced to pay more and more into Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security, for the "privilege" of getting less and less in the future.
The War triggered the steepest cultural and moral decline in our history. As unwed pregnancies skyrocketed, so did out-of-wedlock births and abortions. Partially in response to this, the Supreme Court issued its infamous Roe v. Wade ruling thirty-one years ago today, and since then, one out of every three of our children -- a number equivalent to twice the population of countries like Iraq or Australia -- has been killed. Crime and drug use reached epidemic proportions; divorce increased and marriage fell out of favor; and inflation exploded, mocking the thrifty and vindicating the profligate.
Why did this War fail so miserably? Quite simply, it failed to understand people.
It forgot that people are unique, with highly individual circumstances no cookie-cutter program can address. It forgot that human dignity -- exemplified by the Christian doctrine that every person is created in the image of God -- can be discarded only at great cost, that a man robbed of it becomes the animal the secularists say he is. It forgot that humanity is generally self-interested and responds to material incentives: if a woman gets cash for each child born out of wedlock, she will bear more of them, just as a breadwinner facing a higher tax rate for working overtime will cut back his hours.
Perhaps most significantly of all, the warriors of false compassion forgot that eliminating all risk from people's lives requires eliminating responsibility as well. Not only that, but it destroys any hope of responsibly using risk to get ahead, to create some measure of wealth, or to set a proper example for one's children.
Compassion demands we learn the lesson; and indeed, in 1996 when a Republican Congress finally reformed welfare, every form of social pathology began to fall, and 3.5 million fewer people live in poverty today.
Yet we must do much, much more.
We must give Americans back their Social Security savings. We must not tolerate the impoverishment of the elderly when compound interest could make them rich. Even the most conservative numbers show that, if every American could invest his Social Security as he does his IRA, most would retire on almost twice their salary, after inflation. As Britain, Australia and even Chile have shown, we can make this a reality for every family.
We must also reform health care. Immediately, we should give every American the same right leftist Democrats have reserved for big corporations since the New Deal: the right to spend or save every health care dollar tax free. We'll accomplish this through Medical Savings Accounts, similar to your IRA. In so doing, we will radically cut insurance costs both for workers and employers, introduce real price competition into medicine, provide complete insurance portability, and create a vast new pool of investment capital and inheritable wealth for millions of poor and middle class families.
These reforms will change every aspect of American life for the better. We can take great pride in our President's courage in standing for them in his State of the Union. And in enacting them, we can show real compassion toward our fellow man, and end the long leftist nightmare.
# posted by Joltin' Django @ Friday, May 08, 2009
Thursday, May 07, 2009
"Think of This Next Time You're Told the GOP Is Doomed"
Ever since the senile and increasingly clueless Sen. Arlen Specter switched from Elephant to Jackass, the mainstream media has -- and RINOs (Republicans In Name Only) like Colin Powell have -- all but buried the GOP for the next 20-30 years. Well, NR Online's "Campaign Spot" engaging in some troof-telling you're not likely to witness anywhere else:
To read the national media, it's perpetual doomsday for the GOP, stemming from shocking and unexpected developments like Arlen Specter putting his personal ambitions above party loyalty. But as noted earlier today, when you look deeper into some polls, there are quite a few bits of decent-to-good news for Republican candidates in 2009 and 2010. It's a long way off, obviously, but Obamaphoria and a generic ballot advantage hasn't translated into good news for every incumbent Democrat.
There's good news in Senate races in Illinois, Connecticut, and Delaware; there's good news in gubernatorial races in Virginia and New Jersey. Looking past that, the GOP is probably going to take back the governor's mansions in Kansas, Oklahoma, maybe Tennessee, maybe Wyoming. The GOP has to like their early chances in Ohio and Michigan. And perhaps most surprising, in Colorado, former congressman Scott McInnis leads Gov. Bill Ritter, 48 percent to 41 percent, and Ritter's disapproval is 49 percent.
And now there are all kinds of interesting developments in New Hampshire: "Although [former senator John] Sununu has not indicated that he plans to run in 2010, a hypothetical matchup for Senate between Hodes and Sununu is likely to be a close match. If the election were held today, 46% of New Hampshire likely voters say they would vote for Sununu, 41% for Hodes, 2% for some other candidate, and 11% are not sure. Both candidates have the full support of their partisans, and Sununu holds a narrow 38% to 31% lead among Independents."
This is for Judd Gregg's seat; some GOP folk want to persuade him to reconsider his retirement. "Currently, 52% of New Hampshire likely voters said that if the 2010 election were held today, they would vote for Gregg, 36% said they would vote for Hodes, 2% would vote for some other candidate, and 10% are not sure."
If Hodes runs, that creates an open seat; now take a look at the other House seat: "First District Congressperson Carol Shea-Porter’s favorability ratings have remained stable over the past year but her unfavorable ratings have trended upwards over the past year. Currently, 38% of adults in the NH First Congressional District have a favorable opinion of her, 37% have an unfavorable opinion of her, and 27% are neutral or don’t know enough to form an opinion of her. Shea-Porter’s net favorability rating stands at +1%, the lowest it has been since summer of 2008."
Only beef I have NR's analysis is this:
Ain't no maybe when it comes to Tennessee maybe having a Rebublican governor come 2011. Indeed, the only thing astute political observers of TN politics should be asking themselves at this point is this: How bad will the Dem nominee -- be he Herron or McWherter, or be she McMillan -- lose to Rep. Zach Wamp or Mayor Bill Haslam?!
To read the national media, it's perpetual doomsday for the GOP, stemming from shocking and unexpected developments like Arlen Specter putting his personal ambitions above party loyalty. But as noted earlier today, when you look deeper into some polls, there are quite a few bits of decent-to-good news for Republican candidates in 2009 and 2010. It's a long way off, obviously, but Obamaphoria and a generic ballot advantage hasn't translated into good news for every incumbent Democrat.
There's good news in Senate races in Illinois, Connecticut, and Delaware; there's good news in gubernatorial races in Virginia and New Jersey. Looking past that, the GOP is probably going to take back the governor's mansions in Kansas, Oklahoma, maybe Tennessee, maybe Wyoming. The GOP has to like their early chances in Ohio and Michigan. And perhaps most surprising, in Colorado, former congressman Scott McInnis leads Gov. Bill Ritter, 48 percent to 41 percent, and Ritter's disapproval is 49 percent.
And now there are all kinds of interesting developments in New Hampshire: "Although [former senator John] Sununu has not indicated that he plans to run in 2010, a hypothetical matchup for Senate between Hodes and Sununu is likely to be a close match. If the election were held today, 46% of New Hampshire likely voters say they would vote for Sununu, 41% for Hodes, 2% for some other candidate, and 11% are not sure. Both candidates have the full support of their partisans, and Sununu holds a narrow 38% to 31% lead among Independents."
This is for Judd Gregg's seat; some GOP folk want to persuade him to reconsider his retirement. "Currently, 52% of New Hampshire likely voters said that if the 2010 election were held today, they would vote for Gregg, 36% said they would vote for Hodes, 2% would vote for some other candidate, and 10% are not sure."
If Hodes runs, that creates an open seat; now take a look at the other House seat: "First District Congressperson Carol Shea-Porter’s favorability ratings have remained stable over the past year but her unfavorable ratings have trended upwards over the past year. Currently, 38% of adults in the NH First Congressional District have a favorable opinion of her, 37% have an unfavorable opinion of her, and 27% are neutral or don’t know enough to form an opinion of her. Shea-Porter’s net favorability rating stands at +1%, the lowest it has been since summer of 2008."
Only beef I have NR's analysis is this:
Ain't no maybe when it comes to Tennessee maybe having a Rebublican governor come 2011. Indeed, the only thing astute political observers of TN politics should be asking themselves at this point is this: How bad will the Dem nominee -- be he Herron or McWherter, or be she McMillan -- lose to Rep. Zach Wamp or Mayor Bill Haslam?!
# posted by Joltin' Django @ Thursday, May 07, 2009
Wednesday, May 06, 2009
Go Corker, go Corker ...!
.jpg)
No wonder I endorsed Bob Corker back before this blog began:
TARP, the U.S. government's $700 billion Troubled Asset Relief Program, has become a slush fund, said Sen. Bob Corker, (R-Tenn.).
Corker, a member of the Senate Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs Committee, told the annual meeting of the Tennessee Mortgage Bankers Association in Chattanooga that the executive branch can spend TARP money any way it wants.
"It (disbursement of funds and transparency requirements) has not been carried out the way it should have," Corker said in his address to the mortgage bankers, quoted in the Chattanooga Times Free Press.
Despite his criticism of how TARP money is currently being handled, Corker said passage of legislation authorizing the bailout fund probably averted collapse of the financial system.
TARP legislation, requested by former President George W. Bush, was approved by Congress late in 2008.
Last month, Corker and Sen. Mark Pryor (D-Ark.) introduced legislation that would impose strict mandatory reporting requirements for banks who receive TARP funds.
Their proposed bill, the TARP Accountability Act, is designed to plug gaps in the oversight rules which track the billions of bucks the government is passing out and how that money is spent.
Such stepped up oversight is a necessity, according to a report from the Government Accountability Office, released in January.
# posted by Joltin' Django @ Wednesday, May 06, 2009
Dems, let's talk about "freedom" ...!
Last week during l'affaire Arlen Specter, I heard some Democrat talking head/jackass say on CNN that Specter had joined the party of "individual freedom." My right temple immediately started throbbing.
For most Democrats, individual freedom means one thing: unfettered access to an abortion. As a general rule, Dems don't believe in school choice, allowing folks to have more control over their Social Security "contributions," citizen-empowering tax reform (flat tax, Fair Tax, etc.), individual-controlled Health Savings Accounts ... I could go on, and on, and on, and on.
That said, the Mercatus Center at George Mason University has ranked states based on their level of "personal freedom." The most un-free states, naturally, are all controlled by Democrats -- Connecticut, Illinois, Massachusetts, Washington, Hawaii, Maryland, California, Rhode Island, New Jersey, and New York.
Go fuckin' figure.
For most Democrats, individual freedom means one thing: unfettered access to an abortion. As a general rule, Dems don't believe in school choice, allowing folks to have more control over their Social Security "contributions," citizen-empowering tax reform (flat tax, Fair Tax, etc.), individual-controlled Health Savings Accounts ... I could go on, and on, and on, and on.
That said, the Mercatus Center at George Mason University has ranked states based on their level of "personal freedom." The most un-free states, naturally, are all controlled by Democrats -- Connecticut, Illinois, Massachusetts, Washington, Hawaii, Maryland, California, Rhode Island, New Jersey, and New York.
Go fuckin' figure.
# posted by Joltin' Django @ Wednesday, May 06, 2009
Tuesday, May 05, 2009
Where was Al Gore when they needed him?!
This is pretty damn funny:
An expedition team which set sail from Plymouth on a 5,000-mile carbon emission-free trip to Greenland have been rescued by an oil tanker.
Read the rest of the story here.
Oh, and while we're talking about Al Gore, eco-boats and sich, a new Gallup poll indicates that 41 percent of Americans believe global warming claims are "exaggerated." According to Gallup editor Frank Newport, the anti-Al Gore numbers are at a new high.
An expedition team which set sail from Plymouth on a 5,000-mile carbon emission-free trip to Greenland have been rescued by an oil tanker.
Read the rest of the story here.
Oh, and while we're talking about Al Gore, eco-boats and sich, a new Gallup poll indicates that 41 percent of Americans believe global warming claims are "exaggerated." According to Gallup editor Frank Newport, the anti-Al Gore numbers are at a new high.
# posted by Joltin' Django @ Tuesday, May 05, 2009
Memo to Obama: You ain't in Chicago no more
During the 2008 presidential campaign, B. Hussein "Hopeandchange" Obama promised to change the way Washington operated. He's made good on his promise. Only problem is ... his White House seems to think that Chicago-style thug politics is what the nation as a whole needs.
The Washington Examiner reports on a story that's just starting to bubble. Don't be surprised if it gets "-gate" attached to it soon:
Last Friday, the day after Chrysler filed for bankruptcy, I drove past the company’s headquarters on Interstate 75 in Auburn Hills, Mich.
As I glanced at the pentagram logo I felt myself tearing up a little bit. Anyone who grew up in the Detroit area, as I did, can’t help but be sad to see a once great company fail.
But my sadness turned to anger later when I heard what bankruptcy lawyer Tom Lauria said on a WJR talk show that morning. "One of my clients," Lauria told host Frank Beckmann, "was directly threatened by the White House and in essence compelled to withdraw its opposition to the deal under threat that the full force of the White House press corps would destroy its reputation if it continued to fight."
Lauria represented one of the bondholder firms, Perella Weinberg, which initially rejected the Obama deal that would give the bondholders about 33 cents on the dollar for their secured debts while giving the United Auto Workers retirees about 50 cents on the dollar for their unsecured debts.
This of course is a violation of one of the basic principles of bankruptcy law, which is that secured creditors — those who lended money only on the contractual promise that if the debt was unpaid they’d get specific property back — get paid off in full before unsecured creditors get anything. Perella Weinberg withdrew its objection to the settlement, but other bondholders did not, which triggered the bankruptcy filing.
After that came a denunciation of the objecting bondholders as "speculators" by Barack Obama in his news conference last Thursday. And then death threats to bondholders from parties unknown.
The White House denied that it strong-armed Perella Weinberg. The firm issued a statement saying it decided to accept the settlement, but it pointedly did not deny that it had been threatened by the White House. Which is to say, the threat worked.
Read the rest here.
The Washington Examiner reports on a story that's just starting to bubble. Don't be surprised if it gets "-gate" attached to it soon:
Last Friday, the day after Chrysler filed for bankruptcy, I drove past the company’s headquarters on Interstate 75 in Auburn Hills, Mich.
As I glanced at the pentagram logo I felt myself tearing up a little bit. Anyone who grew up in the Detroit area, as I did, can’t help but be sad to see a once great company fail.
But my sadness turned to anger later when I heard what bankruptcy lawyer Tom Lauria said on a WJR talk show that morning. "One of my clients," Lauria told host Frank Beckmann, "was directly threatened by the White House and in essence compelled to withdraw its opposition to the deal under threat that the full force of the White House press corps would destroy its reputation if it continued to fight."
Lauria represented one of the bondholder firms, Perella Weinberg, which initially rejected the Obama deal that would give the bondholders about 33 cents on the dollar for their secured debts while giving the United Auto Workers retirees about 50 cents on the dollar for their unsecured debts.
This of course is a violation of one of the basic principles of bankruptcy law, which is that secured creditors — those who lended money only on the contractual promise that if the debt was unpaid they’d get specific property back — get paid off in full before unsecured creditors get anything. Perella Weinberg withdrew its objection to the settlement, but other bondholders did not, which triggered the bankruptcy filing.
After that came a denunciation of the objecting bondholders as "speculators" by Barack Obama in his news conference last Thursday. And then death threats to bondholders from parties unknown.
The White House denied that it strong-armed Perella Weinberg. The firm issued a statement saying it decided to accept the settlement, but it pointedly did not deny that it had been threatened by the White House. Which is to say, the threat worked.
Read the rest here.
# posted by Joltin' Django @ Tuesday, May 05, 2009
Monday, May 04, 2009
Don't "emotionally distress" me ... or I'll call the Feds!
The left-wing stupid asses who regularly post negative comments here better hope that U.S. Rep. Linda Sánchez (D-CA) don't get her bill passed to make "hatin'" over the Internet a crime. Hatin' defined as ...
Whoever transmits in interstate or foreign commerce any communication, with the intent to coerce, intimidate, harass, or cause substantial emotional distress to a person, using electronic means to support severe, repeated, and hostile behavior, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than two years, or both....
["Communication"] means the electronic transmission, between or among points specified by the user, of information of the user's choosing, without change in the form or content of the information as sent and received; ...
["Electronic means"] means any equipment dependent on electrical power to access an information service, including email, instant messaging, blogs, websites, telephones, and text messages.
I already have my lawyer on speed-dial in anticipation ...!
(HT: The Volokh Conspiracy)
Whoever transmits in interstate or foreign commerce any communication, with the intent to coerce, intimidate, harass, or cause substantial emotional distress to a person, using electronic means to support severe, repeated, and hostile behavior, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than two years, or both....
["Communication"] means the electronic transmission, between or among points specified by the user, of information of the user's choosing, without change in the form or content of the information as sent and received; ...
["Electronic means"] means any equipment dependent on electrical power to access an information service, including email, instant messaging, blogs, websites, telephones, and text messages.
I already have my lawyer on speed-dial in anticipation ...!
(HT: The Volokh Conspiracy)
# posted by Joltin' Django @ Monday, May 04, 2009
Newsflash: Joe Biden's a "crackpot" ...!
Please notice that K. Sebelius never really answers the "crackpot" question ...
Joe "Big Mouth" Biden ain't gonna be on the '12 Democratic ticket. Bank it (apologies to George Plaster).
Joe "Big Mouth" Biden ain't gonna be on the '12 Democratic ticket. Bank it (apologies to George Plaster).
# posted by Joltin' Django @ Monday, May 04, 2009
What a ****in' idiot!
"Sen. Arlen Specter, Pennsylvania Democrat, said part of the reason that he left the Republican Party last week was disillusionment with its health-care priorities, and suggested that had the Republicans taken a more moderate track, Jack Kemp may have won his battle with cancer."
-- Washington Times, May 4, 2009
I guess what ol' Arlen is insinuating is that the GOP historically hasn't been willing to "spend" enough on cancer research and, thus, Jack Kemp is now dead.
Two thoughts:
First, the United States has spent billions and billions of dollars on cancer research since Jack Kemp left Congress. From 2006-2008, the National Cancer Institute's annual budget increased from $4.75 billion to $4.83 billion (Republicans "set" the NCI's budget in FY 2006 and 2007). Other federal agencies, including other National Institutes of Health centers, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and the Department of Defense also received increased funding for cancer research during those years. For Specter to suggest that the GOP has stood in the hospital door, so to speak, when it comes to cancer-research funding exposes his abject stupidity, or senility.
Second, Arlen Specter is a cancer survivor. Notice that he didn't go to Canada, or the United Kingdom, or any other nation with government-provided health care for treatment. He stayed here in the U.S. of A., where advanced cancer treatments were supposedly hindered by the political party to which he then (allegedly) belonged.
Remember when VP candidate John Edwards said wheelchair-bound folks would be able to walk again if John Kerry was elected president? I thought that was a pretty fuckin' stupid comment at the time. Now Arlen Specter's gone and on one-upped Edwards in the stupidity department.
Tell me again, GOP "moderates," why I should be sad that the dumb sombitch left our party ...!
-- Washington Times, May 4, 2009
I guess what ol' Arlen is insinuating is that the GOP historically hasn't been willing to "spend" enough on cancer research and, thus, Jack Kemp is now dead.
Two thoughts:
First, the United States has spent billions and billions of dollars on cancer research since Jack Kemp left Congress. From 2006-2008, the National Cancer Institute's annual budget increased from $4.75 billion to $4.83 billion (Republicans "set" the NCI's budget in FY 2006 and 2007). Other federal agencies, including other National Institutes of Health centers, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and the Department of Defense also received increased funding for cancer research during those years. For Specter to suggest that the GOP has stood in the hospital door, so to speak, when it comes to cancer-research funding exposes his abject stupidity, or senility.
Second, Arlen Specter is a cancer survivor. Notice that he didn't go to Canada, or the United Kingdom, or any other nation with government-provided health care for treatment. He stayed here in the U.S. of A., where advanced cancer treatments were supposedly hindered by the political party to which he then (allegedly) belonged.
Remember when VP candidate John Edwards said wheelchair-bound folks would be able to walk again if John Kerry was elected president? I thought that was a pretty fuckin' stupid comment at the time. Now Arlen Specter's gone and on one-upped Edwards in the stupidity department.
Tell me again, GOP "moderates," why I should be sad that the dumb sombitch left our party ...!
# posted by Joltin' Django @ Monday, May 04, 2009
Sunday, May 03, 2009
Jack Kemp, RIP
Former pro QB, congressman, and 1996 Republican vice presidential candidate Jack Kemp lost his battle with cancer yesterday ... just two days after I bought a great "Kemp for President '96" button in a local thrift store. 'Tis a sad day, indeed.
Here's a piece I wrote back in January when Kemp first announced that he was suffering from
I can't tell you how quickly my heart sank when I learned that Jack Kemp is battling what is probably a pretty aggressive cancer. I became a confirmed Jack Kemp fan after watching his speech at the 1992 Republican National Convention. An uplifting and inspiring speech -- "[Republicans] don't believe compassion should be measured by the size of the safety net, but by the number of rungs on the ladder of opportunity" -- I remember thinking at the time, "Too bad Kemp couldn't be the GOP's nominee."
Sometime in early 1993, I procured a signed copy of Kemp's An American Renaissance in a used bookstore in Clarksville, TN. I read the thing three times through over the course of about four days. It was at that time that I started identifying myself as a "supply-side conservative," which I continue to do to this day. (For a time in the late 1990s, I would only wear Jack Kemp-style "snap-collar" dress shirts.)
Kemp's book, which was published when Jimmy Carter was president, was a foreshadowing of what would happen in the 1980s: he said cutting marginal tax rates would ensure economic growth (true), and he said a full-bore effort to strengthen the U.S. military would eventually end Soviet adventurism (true). Oh, and for good measure, Kemp suggested that there should be a total reform of America's welfare system (which would eventually take place, when a GOP-led Congress forced the issue on President Bill Clinton).
I was one of the happiest sombitches on earth when Bob Dole picked Jack Kemp to join his presidential ticket in 1996. I was bummed that Kemp didn't run for president himself in '96, but I figured he'd be first in line to be the next president if Dole got elected that year. The Dole campaign - as we all know - never took off, and the VP debate that year was a complete disappointment. Kemp, who'd never been known as a hyper-partisan sort, brought kid gloves to his fight with Veep Al Gore and was almost too respectful during the debate. Gore, by comparison, shed his gloves about three lines into his opening statement, and he more or less accused Dole and Kemp of wanting to turn America into a right-wing dictatorship.
As disappointed as I was in Kemp's '96 debate performance, I had by then developed a deep respect for him for co-founding Empower America, a public policy outfit that published heavily-footnoted essays in which it was suggested that supply-side, free market principles could be used to solve social problems. Empower America proposed Enterprise Zones -- which would encourage the creation of small businesses with promises of low-to-no taxes and little regulation -- to revive American. In addition, Empower America was big supporter of charter schools and vouchers. And let me tell you, my fellow College Republicans couldn't keep enough Empower America materials on hand; indeed, EA's glossy brochures and stickers were the first to be snatched from our membership-drive tables.
If you read the whole of Jack Kemp's Wikipedia entry you'll think that he's a liberal - due to his many statements over the years in which he's expressed sympathy for the poor and for racial reconciliation - masquerading as a conservative. It's always been a canard that conservatives don't care a whit for what happens to poor folks and minorities; but, as Kemp has pointed out in the hundreds of op-eds he's penned over the years (practically all of which I've read), just handing out checks ain't gonna help nobody. America should be constructing ladders of economic opportunity, with supply-side, pro-growth fiscal policies. Which brings me back to that 1992 speech ...
Get well soon, Jack Kemp. My prayers are with you.
# posted by Joltin' Django @ Sunday, May 03, 2009
Saturday, May 02, 2009
"Re-making America"
The Dems are hell-bent on instituting government-run health care. This should make any and all liberty-lovin' Americans' toes curl ...
# posted by Joltin' Django @ Saturday, May 02, 2009
You can have him!
Wanna know how come I know Arlen Spector is a hypocrite? Well ...
The hypocritical sombitch should fit right in with the U.S. Senate's Democratic caucus, n'est-ce pas?!
The hypocritical sombitch should fit right in with the U.S. Senate's Democratic caucus, n'est-ce pas?!
# posted by Joltin' Django @ Saturday, May 02, 2009
Friday, May 01, 2009
Obama the over-the-air Liar ...
Or, for those who think calling President B. Hussein Obama "liar" is too harsh, here's a story about how ol' B. is the Obfuscator-in-Chief:
That wasn't me," President Barack Obama said on his 100th day in office, disclaiming responsibility for the huge budget deficit waiting for him on Day One.
It actually was him - and the other Democrats controlling Congress the previous two years - who shaped a budget so out of balance.
And as a presidential candidate and president-elect, he backed the twilight Bush-era stimulus plan that made the deficit deeper, all before he took over and promoted spending plans that have made it much deeper still.
And people still admire this guy?!
That wasn't me," President Barack Obama said on his 100th day in office, disclaiming responsibility for the huge budget deficit waiting for him on Day One.
It actually was him - and the other Democrats controlling Congress the previous two years - who shaped a budget so out of balance.
And as a presidential candidate and president-elect, he backed the twilight Bush-era stimulus plan that made the deficit deeper, all before he took over and promoted spending plans that have made it much deeper still.
And people still admire this guy?!
# posted by Joltin' Django @ Friday, May 01, 2009
Goin' out with a "Bang!"
I am a charter subscriber to The American Conservative. Last week, I received some sad news: TAC is ceasing publication.
I'll bet I've never been in even 75 percent agreement with any issue of TAC. The mag's paleo-conservative writers and editors often seemed to me incredibly naïve to me 'bout things like free trade, foreign policy, and the Israeli-Arab World conflict. (And I was never comfortable with the fact that so many published letters to TAC began with something like, "I'm a liberal and I agree with your ...")
That said, TAC was indespensible when it came to discussions of culture, religion, arts and letters, and what Dr. Russell Kirk called the "permanent things." Indeed, TAC remains the only magazine that I've ever read back-to-front ... 'cause all the Burkean and Muggeridge-style pontificating took place in the back pages. That's what I'm gonna miss.
The American Conservative may be going away; however, it's going out with a big ol' anti-Obama bang. In the April 20 issue, TAC writer Brian Doherty tells us ... well, he tells us the truth 'bout Obama's first 100 Days. Like this:
Here Obama’s grip is far less subtle. He’s clear and decisive: the financial and industrial economy is his, and he’ll do with it as he pleases. What’s decided for the U.S. is what’s decided for General Motors, as presidential pressure pushes out GM chief Rick Wagoner. Obama and his man at Treasury, Timothy Geithner, want the power to confiscate any company whose failure they claim threatens the larger economy.
Now that he occupies the White House, the new president ... seems to believe that his own vision of economic security empowers him to take whatever he wants and make any decision he deems necessary, from curtailing CEO compensation to renegotiating mortgage terms. What private sector? This is economic war!
And lest one think this is all about being faithful stewards of the public wealth, as Obama and Geithner like to play it, the Wall Street Journal reported that an unnamed bank was not allowed to return money the Feds had stuck it with in the first bailout wave. The strings attached to those bailout funds gave the federal government effective ownership over the bank; evidently the Obama administration values an excuse for control more than it values taxpayer money.
It also seems primed to use more traditional means of throwing weight around the national economy. The president’s pick for antitrust chief, Christine Varney, has already cast a stink eye at Google, expressing concern at a conference last year about the company’s "monopoly in Internet online advertising." And Obama’s pick to head the Department of Agriculture, former Iowa governor Tom Vilsack, is an enthusiastic supporter of one of the most foolish and damaging federal economic manipulations around, endless ethanol subsidies. Any noises about damping down agricultural subsidies in general, supposedly part of the "fiscally responsible" Obama agenda, are dying in Congress.
Read the rest here.
I'll bet I've never been in even 75 percent agreement with any issue of TAC. The mag's paleo-conservative writers and editors often seemed to me incredibly naïve to me 'bout things like free trade, foreign policy, and the Israeli-Arab World conflict. (And I was never comfortable with the fact that so many published letters to TAC began with something like, "I'm a liberal and I agree with your ...")
That said, TAC was indespensible when it came to discussions of culture, religion, arts and letters, and what Dr. Russell Kirk called the "permanent things." Indeed, TAC remains the only magazine that I've ever read back-to-front ... 'cause all the Burkean and Muggeridge-style pontificating took place in the back pages. That's what I'm gonna miss.
The American Conservative may be going away; however, it's going out with a big ol' anti-Obama bang. In the April 20 issue, TAC writer Brian Doherty tells us ... well, he tells us the truth 'bout Obama's first 100 Days. Like this:
Here Obama’s grip is far less subtle. He’s clear and decisive: the financial and industrial economy is his, and he’ll do with it as he pleases. What’s decided for the U.S. is what’s decided for General Motors, as presidential pressure pushes out GM chief Rick Wagoner. Obama and his man at Treasury, Timothy Geithner, want the power to confiscate any company whose failure they claim threatens the larger economy.
Now that he occupies the White House, the new president ... seems to believe that his own vision of economic security empowers him to take whatever he wants and make any decision he deems necessary, from curtailing CEO compensation to renegotiating mortgage terms. What private sector? This is economic war!
And lest one think this is all about being faithful stewards of the public wealth, as Obama and Geithner like to play it, the Wall Street Journal reported that an unnamed bank was not allowed to return money the Feds had stuck it with in the first bailout wave. The strings attached to those bailout funds gave the federal government effective ownership over the bank; evidently the Obama administration values an excuse for control more than it values taxpayer money.
It also seems primed to use more traditional means of throwing weight around the national economy. The president’s pick for antitrust chief, Christine Varney, has already cast a stink eye at Google, expressing concern at a conference last year about the company’s "monopoly in Internet online advertising." And Obama’s pick to head the Department of Agriculture, former Iowa governor Tom Vilsack, is an enthusiastic supporter of one of the most foolish and damaging federal economic manipulations around, endless ethanol subsidies. Any noises about damping down agricultural subsidies in general, supposedly part of the "fiscally responsible" Obama agenda, are dying in Congress.
Read the rest here.
# posted by Joltin' Django @ Friday, May 01, 2009
