Vintage Glenn Beck. To write more would be to spoil it.
Enjoy!
Friday, February 12, 2010
Thursday, February 11, 2010
Wonderboy's New Deficit Commission
For eight years or so, we heard complaints about George W. Bush's 'Imperial Presidency.'
Don't look now, but guess who's the new Emperor? Yes, Wonderboy.
In his recent surprise appearance at a White House press briefing, the First Rookie solemnly intoned that, since Congress had rejected the idea of a Deficit Commission, he, by executive order, would create one.
Wow. Talk about the will of the people!
Wonderboy went on to lecture all of us dumber-than-him voters that the deficit is an important problem, so he won't let Congress duck the issue.
Sorry to say, as usual, the slick pol from Chicago is too clever by a half.
It's not the deficit, but, as Ronald Reagan intuitively understood, it's the federal and local government spending levels and growth.
Hopefully, Republicans and conservatives will jointly stonewall this presidential commission, robbing it of any shred of credibility. That means Warren Rudman and his ilk, retired GOP Senators and Representatives, have to swallow hard and resist the temptation for some more national face time, in the interests of showing the commission up for what it is.
Here's a total spendthrift president who has already doubled the planned deficit, spending more than any president since Washington, now concerned about the deficit he has so hugely, personally increased.
The good news about his executive order, however, is that such a commission hasn't any power. As a creation of the executive branch, it can only produce a report. Whereas, say, a Senate commission could have moved swiftly to vote its findings and recommendations into law.
Thank God for small favors.
Don't look now, but guess who's the new Emperor? Yes, Wonderboy.
In his recent surprise appearance at a White House press briefing, the First Rookie solemnly intoned that, since Congress had rejected the idea of a Deficit Commission, he, by executive order, would create one.
Wow. Talk about the will of the people!
Wonderboy went on to lecture all of us dumber-than-him voters that the deficit is an important problem, so he won't let Congress duck the issue.
Sorry to say, as usual, the slick pol from Chicago is too clever by a half.
It's not the deficit, but, as Ronald Reagan intuitively understood, it's the federal and local government spending levels and growth.
Hopefully, Republicans and conservatives will jointly stonewall this presidential commission, robbing it of any shred of credibility. That means Warren Rudman and his ilk, retired GOP Senators and Representatives, have to swallow hard and resist the temptation for some more national face time, in the interests of showing the commission up for what it is.
Here's a total spendthrift president who has already doubled the planned deficit, spending more than any president since Washington, now concerned about the deficit he has so hugely, personally increased.
The good news about his executive order, however, is that such a commission hasn't any power. As a creation of the executive branch, it can only produce a report. Whereas, say, a Senate commission could have moved swiftly to vote its findings and recommendations into law.
Thank God for small favors.
Wednesday, February 10, 2010
Good News About John Murtha!
He's dead!
Yes, indeed, liberal spending and earmark king John Murtha, Representative of the Johnstown area of Pennsylvania, is finally out of the House. Feet first.
Perhaps the most glaring example of Murtha's waste of your money is the needless airport he has continued to feed with taxpayer cash for years. The stories I've read in the Wall Street Journal are revolting. I think the airport has something like only 2 flights per day, and tickets are heavily subsidized by, well, you.
Less visible, but far more corrosive, was Murtha's habit of handing out tax breaks and special legislative favors to any business willing to set up shop in Murtha's district and employee his voters.
We're talking about businesses that had no other reason to be in the middle of Pennsylvania, save some very juicy tax preferences from Murtha.
It's one thing for states to decide to lure businesses and jobs by using their tax policies. It's quite another for a US Representative to use federal taxpayer money to fund sweetheart deals to lure businesses to his own district.
Hopefully, with Murtha's death, someone less damaging to the Republic will be elected in his stead.
But, for now, we can be grateful...and happy...that this uber-liberal spendthrift has finally stopped costing us taxpayers any more money.
Yes, indeed, liberal spending and earmark king John Murtha, Representative of the Johnstown area of Pennsylvania, is finally out of the House. Feet first.
Perhaps the most glaring example of Murtha's waste of your money is the needless airport he has continued to feed with taxpayer cash for years. The stories I've read in the Wall Street Journal are revolting. I think the airport has something like only 2 flights per day, and tickets are heavily subsidized by, well, you.
Less visible, but far more corrosive, was Murtha's habit of handing out tax breaks and special legislative favors to any business willing to set up shop in Murtha's district and employee his voters.
We're talking about businesses that had no other reason to be in the middle of Pennsylvania, save some very juicy tax preferences from Murtha.
It's one thing for states to decide to lure businesses and jobs by using their tax policies. It's quite another for a US Representative to use federal taxpayer money to fund sweetheart deals to lure businesses to his own district.
Hopefully, with Murtha's death, someone less damaging to the Republic will be elected in his stead.
But, for now, we can be grateful...and happy...that this uber-liberal spendthrift has finally stopped costing us taxpayers any more money.
Tuesday, February 9, 2010
Andrew Jackson's Brand of Populism
Michael Barone's editorial in last Thursday's Wall Street Journal, entitled "A Short History of American Populism," was a real eye-opener for me.
I was already familiar with Jackson's anti-Bank of the United States position. And I believe I knew of his opposition to government-financed infrastructure projects.
But I was unaware of the totality of his opposition to any government interference in the economy, as described by Barone in this passage,
"Jackson argued that government interference in the economy would inevitably favor the well-entrenched and well-connected. It would take money away from the little people and give it to the elites."
For a prime current example of this, by the way, see today's related post on my business blog.
As the first great Populist President, it's instructive to note that Jackson wasn't for indulging in government subsidies to the poor. Old Hickory had worked his way up from hardscrabble, uneducated poverty to becoming an attorney, judge, member of Congress and, eventually, President.
Barone moves beyond Jackson, contending that the enduring belt of similarly-descended Scoth-Irish working class people throughout modern day geographically-middle America continue to hold Old Hickory's values in high regard. He charts presidential election results with an eye toward showing the limits of populism, with Bryan's three defeats, and Roosevelt's need for WWII to give him his third term.
Barone closes his argument with these hopeful passages,
"Last year Mr. Obama and his policy strategists seem to have assumed that the financial crisis and deep recession would make Americans look more favorably on big government programs. But it turns out that economic distress did not make us Western Europeans.
Now the president and his advisers seem to be assuming that populist attacks on the rich will rally the downtrodden masses to their side. History does not provide much hope for this audacity. William Jennings Bryan, whose oratorical skills out-shined even Mr. Obama's, got lower percentages of the vote each time he ran."
I was already familiar with Jackson's anti-Bank of the United States position. And I believe I knew of his opposition to government-financed infrastructure projects.
But I was unaware of the totality of his opposition to any government interference in the economy, as described by Barone in this passage,
"Jackson argued that government interference in the economy would inevitably favor the well-entrenched and well-connected. It would take money away from the little people and give it to the elites."
For a prime current example of this, by the way, see today's related post on my business blog.
As the first great Populist President, it's instructive to note that Jackson wasn't for indulging in government subsidies to the poor. Old Hickory had worked his way up from hardscrabble, uneducated poverty to becoming an attorney, judge, member of Congress and, eventually, President.
Barone moves beyond Jackson, contending that the enduring belt of similarly-descended Scoth-Irish working class people throughout modern day geographically-middle America continue to hold Old Hickory's values in high regard. He charts presidential election results with an eye toward showing the limits of populism, with Bryan's three defeats, and Roosevelt's need for WWII to give him his third term.
Barone closes his argument with these hopeful passages,
"Last year Mr. Obama and his policy strategists seem to have assumed that the financial crisis and deep recession would make Americans look more favorably on big government programs. But it turns out that economic distress did not make us Western Europeans.
Now the president and his advisers seem to be assuming that populist attacks on the rich will rally the downtrodden masses to their side. History does not provide much hope for this audacity. William Jennings Bryan, whose oratorical skills out-shined even Mr. Obama's, got lower percentages of the vote each time he ran."
Monday, February 8, 2010
Liberal Democrat Lies As Talking Points
Yesterday, as I was briefly channel surfing in the early afternoon, I came across one of those local access political interview programs.
Being New Jersey-centered, it had the hallmarks of a small-time affair. Among the pundits was an impossibly young woman who was representing the liberal Democratic position.
Although it was ostensibly a local political venue, the topic seemed to be national health care. One of the hosts was asking the young liberal woman what was going to happen with the health care bill now, and the guest dutifully assured the hostess that the House would now pass the Senate's bill, as is.
What came next from her mouth, however, was something for which I was totally unprepared. Two outright lies.
The Democrat's carefully worded remarks were, to paraphrase,
'We have to fix health care, because it's 16% of the economy. And we have to fix the economy, so, because health care is a big part of it, the economy won't be fixed until we fix health care.
And health care is all intertwined. So it can't be solved in small steps. It has to be one big bill, because it's so complex.'
These are two incredibly huge lies. But it shows you how determined the liberal Democrats in Washington are to have their party march in lockstep, even down to some piss ant 20-something liberal Democratic 'strategist' on a local NJ cable political hour.
First, government isn't, and can't, "fix" the economy. This pretty young thing's head is evidently all messed up on how a market economy actually works.
The US economy isn't "broken." It's been in a recession, which is a naturally-occurring phase of any market economy. And if "fixing" the economy involves, to judge by Wonderboy's actions, owning the domestic auto industry and handing it to the UAW, I don't think we need any more of that sort of "fixing." We simply can't afford it.
As to healthcare, it can be reformed. But in steps. It's an outright lie to contend that it's so complex that only a 2,000-3,000 page Congressional bill, which nobody will read in its entirety, and which conveniently rewrites the tax code and other key parts of American life, can provide said reform.
In this recent post, I echoed the GOP's Congressional leadership's call for action on several independent, but related health care points,
"The Congressional Republicans put forth alternative plans and amendments addressing the following aspects of health care reform:
1. Tort reform.
2. Interstate marketing of health insurance
3. Uniform pre- or after-tax treatment of health insurance premiums
4. Removal of mandates so that each buyer may purchase exactly what health insurance fits their needs.
5. Health savings accounts.
6. Federally-provided vouchers to the poor to buy health insurance, including, if necessary, for those with pre-existing conditions, federally-supplied health insurance of last resort.
Congressional Democrats ignored all of these ideas. So did Wonderboy."
Congress could pass legislation on each of these points irrespective of the others. True, together, they'll work much better. But each can stand on its own, contributing, over time, to the slowing in the growth of health care costs, providing equal cost-bases to all Americans for health insurance, and the ability of each person to buy just the health care they want, and no more.
To contend this is not possible is a lie.
Pure and simple.
Being New Jersey-centered, it had the hallmarks of a small-time affair. Among the pundits was an impossibly young woman who was representing the liberal Democratic position.
Although it was ostensibly a local political venue, the topic seemed to be national health care. One of the hosts was asking the young liberal woman what was going to happen with the health care bill now, and the guest dutifully assured the hostess that the House would now pass the Senate's bill, as is.
What came next from her mouth, however, was something for which I was totally unprepared. Two outright lies.
The Democrat's carefully worded remarks were, to paraphrase,
'We have to fix health care, because it's 16% of the economy. And we have to fix the economy, so, because health care is a big part of it, the economy won't be fixed until we fix health care.
And health care is all intertwined. So it can't be solved in small steps. It has to be one big bill, because it's so complex.'
These are two incredibly huge lies. But it shows you how determined the liberal Democrats in Washington are to have their party march in lockstep, even down to some piss ant 20-something liberal Democratic 'strategist' on a local NJ cable political hour.
First, government isn't, and can't, "fix" the economy. This pretty young thing's head is evidently all messed up on how a market economy actually works.
The US economy isn't "broken." It's been in a recession, which is a naturally-occurring phase of any market economy. And if "fixing" the economy involves, to judge by Wonderboy's actions, owning the domestic auto industry and handing it to the UAW, I don't think we need any more of that sort of "fixing." We simply can't afford it.
As to healthcare, it can be reformed. But in steps. It's an outright lie to contend that it's so complex that only a 2,000-3,000 page Congressional bill, which nobody will read in its entirety, and which conveniently rewrites the tax code and other key parts of American life, can provide said reform.
In this recent post, I echoed the GOP's Congressional leadership's call for action on several independent, but related health care points,
"The Congressional Republicans put forth alternative plans and amendments addressing the following aspects of health care reform:
1. Tort reform.
2. Interstate marketing of health insurance
3. Uniform pre- or after-tax treatment of health insurance premiums
4. Removal of mandates so that each buyer may purchase exactly what health insurance fits their needs.
5. Health savings accounts.
6. Federally-provided vouchers to the poor to buy health insurance, including, if necessary, for those with pre-existing conditions, federally-supplied health insurance of last resort.
Congressional Democrats ignored all of these ideas. So did Wonderboy."
Congress could pass legislation on each of these points irrespective of the others. True, together, they'll work much better. But each can stand on its own, contributing, over time, to the slowing in the growth of health care costs, providing equal cost-bases to all Americans for health insurance, and the ability of each person to buy just the health care they want, and no more.
To contend this is not possible is a lie.
Pure and simple.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
