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.
Wednesday, February 10, 2010
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.
Friday, February 5, 2010
Paul Kanjorski's Progressivism Shows
Paul Kanjorksi is a Pennsylvania Democrat and Representative.
Why, then is he so passionate about ending the Senate's rule that legislation must pass with 60 votes?
Yesterday morning, on CNBC, Kanjorski displayed his Progressive stripes prominently. Just as Glenn Beck has warned, when the going gets tough, the Democratic Progressives are stepping on the accelerator.
To wit, Kanjorski began whining about how some health care had to pass. That it was the duty of Congress to govern.
Nevermind concerns over what they pass. He actually said passage was the most important thing. That Republicans' preferences for other elements in a health care bill were now simply getting in the way of some sort of legislation. So they'll have to be ignored.
So will public preferences to not have the Democrats' ill-conceived health care "reform."
Thus, Kanjorski allied himself with Barney Frank, another Congressional Democrat and non-Senator, in calling for the Senate to rid itself of its 60-vote rule, and pass health care 59-41.
Content for decades with the cloture rule, and happy to obstruct legislation they didn't like since their 1994 loss of control of the House and earlier loss of control of the Senate, Democrats now find it objectionable.
Kanjorski put on display a naked contempt for voters' wishes, claiming that whoever was the majority in Congress had the duty, obligation and, thus, right to pass whatever they liked, because, well, people want active governance. He went so far as to mock-humbly say that even if members of Congress became unpopular and weren't re-elected, it was their duty to give people these new laws. After all, some laws are, according to Kanjorski & Co., better than no new laws.
Even if the new laws violate campaign promises, aren't widely supported, and are pushed via lies and financial sleights of hand.
It's very troubling when Representatives begin agitating for the other House to change its rules. Why, on earth, should a Representative concerning her- or himself with the Senate's rules?
This clearly smacks of Progressive desperation. So desperate that they will just start changing rules which no longer suit them, in naked pursuit of their goals, irrespective of what voters have expressed as their preferences.
We can only hope that Kanjorski's district sees him for the anti-Constitutionalist that he is, and give him an opportunity for career development by electing his opponent in November.
Why, then is he so passionate about ending the Senate's rule that legislation must pass with 60 votes?
Yesterday morning, on CNBC, Kanjorski displayed his Progressive stripes prominently. Just as Glenn Beck has warned, when the going gets tough, the Democratic Progressives are stepping on the accelerator.
To wit, Kanjorski began whining about how some health care had to pass. That it was the duty of Congress to govern.
Nevermind concerns over what they pass. He actually said passage was the most important thing. That Republicans' preferences for other elements in a health care bill were now simply getting in the way of some sort of legislation. So they'll have to be ignored.
So will public preferences to not have the Democrats' ill-conceived health care "reform."
Thus, Kanjorski allied himself with Barney Frank, another Congressional Democrat and non-Senator, in calling for the Senate to rid itself of its 60-vote rule, and pass health care 59-41.
Content for decades with the cloture rule, and happy to obstruct legislation they didn't like since their 1994 loss of control of the House and earlier loss of control of the Senate, Democrats now find it objectionable.
Kanjorski put on display a naked contempt for voters' wishes, claiming that whoever was the majority in Congress had the duty, obligation and, thus, right to pass whatever they liked, because, well, people want active governance. He went so far as to mock-humbly say that even if members of Congress became unpopular and weren't re-elected, it was their duty to give people these new laws. After all, some laws are, according to Kanjorski & Co., better than no new laws.
Even if the new laws violate campaign promises, aren't widely supported, and are pushed via lies and financial sleights of hand.
It's very troubling when Representatives begin agitating for the other House to change its rules. Why, on earth, should a Representative concerning her- or himself with the Senate's rules?
This clearly smacks of Progressive desperation. So desperate that they will just start changing rules which no longer suit them, in naked pursuit of their goals, irrespective of what voters have expressed as their preferences.
We can only hope that Kanjorski's district sees him for the anti-Constitutionalist that he is, and give him an opportunity for career development by electing his opponent in November.
Thursday, February 4, 2010
The New Hidden Unions
Yesterday's lead staff editorial in the Wall Street Journal conveyed a chilling fact. A fact which is displayed on the nearby chart which accompanied the article.
As of last year, US public union membership surpassed that of private unions.A little-known act in JFK's brief presidency was allowing public, state and federal government workers to unionize. In a recent piece on that topic, the author noted that even FDR and LaGuardia opposed this, because they considered government workers honor-bound to serve the people, in exchange for their public-trough-sourced jobs.
It's taken nearly 50 years, but look at the damage JFK wrought.
Here's a good example. It's from the editorial,
"The political scientists Fred Siegel and Dan DiSalvo recently wrote in the Weekly Standard about the 2006 example of former New Jersey Governor Jon Corzine shouting to a rally of 10,000 public workers that "We will fight for a fair contract." Mr. Corzine was supposed to be on the other side of the bargaining table representing taxpayers, not labor."
In the past year, the largest growth segment for employment has been.....government! And the average salary in the sector has risen, as well.
That's right. In the midst of a deep recession, government workers have benefited with more money and more jobs.
Having so many government workers leads to them organizing for higher taxes to pay...themselves. And generally swelling the public sector at the expense of the rest of us who actually work for a living.
If for only this reason, this is why outsourcing as much government work as possible to the private sector, via contracting, is a good idea.
Instead, we now have a larger union bloc voting to expand government than we have private industry union members. By comparison, the private sector unions were a mere distraction.
Wednesday, February 3, 2010
The John Edwards Affair Affair
The past few weeks have seen an explosion of coverage concerning one-time presidential, vice-presidential candidate, and attorney general candidate John Edwards' affair during the last presidential campaign, and subsequent birth of his illegitimate child with Rielle Hunter.
As I'm writing this, I am listening to coverage of former Edwards aide, Andrew Young, on Fox News. The full extent of Edwards' and Young's actions, lies, coverups, etc., is stunning.
As one of the participants in the Fox News discussion just noted, perhaps the worst part of the story is that our nation's liberal-leaning major news media scrupulously ignored the story throughout the campaign. Only the National Enquirer pursued it, as noted in a Wall Street Journal article by the recently-departed managing editor (or publisher- I forget which).
The Enquirer's aim was to clearly depict Edwards' willingness to lie to the media, his wife, and his staff, while also manipulating members of that staff to cover up the truth for him.
The height of this was when Edwards managed to secure Young's consent to falsely claim parentage of Hunter's baby. It's also pretty clear that Edwards funneled campaign money to Hunter, through his now-deceased finance chairman. If this is investigated by the FEC, and Edwards is determined to have falsified records of this expenditure, he could do jail time.
This has gone far, far beyond a trashy tabloid story of sexual misconduct. Edwards had himself seriously considered as the current administration's Attorney General.
The corruption and willingness to turn a blind eye to the misdeeds and lies of liberal Democratic politicians by our nation's mainstream media has become more than an annoyance or embarrassment.
This time, their dereliction almost resulted in a lying scoundrel and potential felon being named as the country's primary law enforcement official.
As I'm writing this, I am listening to coverage of former Edwards aide, Andrew Young, on Fox News. The full extent of Edwards' and Young's actions, lies, coverups, etc., is stunning.
As one of the participants in the Fox News discussion just noted, perhaps the worst part of the story is that our nation's liberal-leaning major news media scrupulously ignored the story throughout the campaign. Only the National Enquirer pursued it, as noted in a Wall Street Journal article by the recently-departed managing editor (or publisher- I forget which).
The Enquirer's aim was to clearly depict Edwards' willingness to lie to the media, his wife, and his staff, while also manipulating members of that staff to cover up the truth for him.
The height of this was when Edwards managed to secure Young's consent to falsely claim parentage of Hunter's baby. It's also pretty clear that Edwards funneled campaign money to Hunter, through his now-deceased finance chairman. If this is investigated by the FEC, and Edwards is determined to have falsified records of this expenditure, he could do jail time.
This has gone far, far beyond a trashy tabloid story of sexual misconduct. Edwards had himself seriously considered as the current administration's Attorney General.
The corruption and willingness to turn a blind eye to the misdeeds and lies of liberal Democratic politicians by our nation's mainstream media has become more than an annoyance or embarrassment.
This time, their dereliction almost resulted in a lying scoundrel and potential felon being named as the country's primary law enforcement official.
Tuesday, February 2, 2010
Fiscal Hypocrisy
Today's Wall Street Journal neatly catalogued the Senators voting against Tom Coburn's amendments to cut spending on a bill raising the federal debt ceiling. Coburn's amendments were to have saved $20B by consolidating various programs across government agencies.
Hysterically Kent Conrad, D-ND, saw his deficit commission go down in flames, then personally turned and voted against the Coburn amendments.
In all, 57 Senators failed to support Coburn's spending cuts. The Journal article notes that the Senate also voted, 61-39, to spend unobligated funds, that is, money appropriated but not yet spent, rather than simply stop the spending.
Hardly promising votes, by either party, are they?
As I believe David Walker, former budget director, said recently, you can't expect commissions in Congress to stop spending. Voters are simply going to have to elect new Senators and Representatives who will finally cut spending.
Hysterically Kent Conrad, D-ND, saw his deficit commission go down in flames, then personally turned and voted against the Coburn amendments.
In all, 57 Senators failed to support Coburn's spending cuts. The Journal article notes that the Senate also voted, 61-39, to spend unobligated funds, that is, money appropriated but not yet spent, rather than simply stop the spending.
Hardly promising votes, by either party, are they?
As I believe David Walker, former budget director, said recently, you can't expect commissions in Congress to stop spending. Voters are simply going to have to elect new Senators and Representatives who will finally cut spending.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
