Last week's tussle over pork being stuffed into the Iraq funding bill provided voters with a clear view of how Frisco Nan (Pelosi), the House Speaker, has already broken her promises for better fiscal management of the budget.
Her main man, Pennsylvania Rep John Murtha, was caught threatening Mike Rogers, a Republican, with a total elimination of any funding requests for his district, because Rogers challenged a specious earmark project in Murtha's district.
According to the House's own rules, this type of intimidation and coercion is supposed to be illegal. So much for the Democrats new broom sweeping clean.
In fact, they had to lard the Iraq funding bill with quite a bit of pork, in order to tempt some of their own party to vote for it, despite it being vetoed the first time around.
As I wrote in my prior post, here, the Congressional Democrats are on record now breaking promises, left and right. Mostly left, of course.
Seriously, they've tried to unplug the funding for the war in Iraq, but without actually taking responsibility. They've now returned to earmarking, and even last minute insertions of them, a la Tom Delay- something they vowed to 'clean up' if they won control of the Lower Chamber.
Honestly, you can't make stuff up that's as good fodder for election campaigns as these actions by the liberal House Democrats.
Another reason to have bright hopes for a return to Republican control of at least one House next election, if not both, even by slim margins.
Tuesday, May 29, 2007
Congressional Democrats Run to the Left on Iraq
This past week's Congressional buckling under to President Bush's refusal to sign an Iraq funding bill with a withdrawal timetable has accomplished what conservatives (like me) expected all along.
Frisco Nan, Reid, and their cohorts showed their true colors, trying to force a withdrawal from Iraq, without actually taking responsibility for it. It backfired, they couldn't override the veto, and had to back down.
But they are on record as having now voted, clearly and decisively, to cut and run in the face of global terrorism.
Additionally, it forced Hillary to run left, in order not to be outflanked by Obama Bim Baden and Chris Dodd. All three are on record now as having voted to gut support for our armed forces, and try to pretend we are a continental island in a troubled world.
Was 9/11 that long ago, that these Democrats think American voters won't recall that this type of thinking didn't work before? I continue to believe that they have badly misunderstood American voter sentiments, i.e., whether or not we should be in Iraq, we are, so let's win this time. Unlike the liberal Democrats' sabotage of our Vietnam policy during the Nixon administration.
Thanks to President Bush's fortitude, the Republicans now have the gift of a big, fat target at which to aim in the 2008 elections. The liberal Democrats are now "out" as soft and spineless on Iraq and the war on terror. This should result in GOP seat gains, and maybe a return to majority, in both Houses during the next election.
Frisco Nan, Reid, and their cohorts showed their true colors, trying to force a withdrawal from Iraq, without actually taking responsibility for it. It backfired, they couldn't override the veto, and had to back down.
But they are on record as having now voted, clearly and decisively, to cut and run in the face of global terrorism.
Additionally, it forced Hillary to run left, in order not to be outflanked by Obama Bim Baden and Chris Dodd. All three are on record now as having voted to gut support for our armed forces, and try to pretend we are a continental island in a troubled world.
Was 9/11 that long ago, that these Democrats think American voters won't recall that this type of thinking didn't work before? I continue to believe that they have badly misunderstood American voter sentiments, i.e., whether or not we should be in Iraq, we are, so let's win this time. Unlike the liberal Democrats' sabotage of our Vietnam policy during the Nixon administration.
Thanks to President Bush's fortitude, the Republicans now have the gift of a big, fat target at which to aim in the 2008 elections. The liberal Democrats are now "out" as soft and spineless on Iraq and the war on terror. This should result in GOP seat gains, and maybe a return to majority, in both Houses during the next election.
Tuesday, May 22, 2007
More On The Faux Global Warming Hysteria
Saturday's Wall Street Journal featured an interview by Kim Strassel with Robert E. Murray, CEO of Murray Energy.
It's a great article. Through his interview with Ms. Strassel, Murray exposes the hidden surprise that the liberal left, and large business CEOs, have in store for the average American.
Stratospheric energy costs amidst dwindling energy supplies. Welcome to Jimmy Carter's world of energy supply mismanagement, Part 2.
Basically, Murray notes that coal is one of the major fuel sources that allows Americans to consume energy at a relatively low cost. But it is number one on the global warming police's hit list of energy sources.
According to Murray, the result of attempting to squeeze coal out of America's energy mix will only result in: lost jobs, regional recessions, much higher energy costs, and actual supply shortfalls.
Murray then goes on to skewer those large companies- GE, DuPont, Alcoa, Caterpillar, Shell, ConocoPhillips, BP, Entergy- whose CEOs have jumped on the CO2 cap trading program. Their argument is that if they don't participate in the design of the program, they'll only suffer more.
Murray argues that, by joining in, these influential CEOs have given up the war without a fight. He wrote a letter to the CEO of Duke Power, outlining his points, and his contention that, ultimately, after the short-term effects of selling cap credits had worn off, Duke's growth and profitability would suffer, as America's capacity to generate power waned.
Jim Rogers, Duke's CEO, replied, in part,
"Legislation is coming. We can help shape it, or stand on the sidelines and let others do it."
I must say, I agree with Mr. Murray. Contributing to wrong-headed legislation will backfire on these companies. By jumping on the bandwagon now, they could potentially delay the eventual realization that this entire hysteria is a growth-curbing, standard-of-living destroying mistake foisted upon us by the liberal left. Having muzzled much of academia's sources of disagreement, they will use these companies' participation as evidence of even big business' capitulation.
Ten years hence, when our economic growth has slowed because of a foolishly self-imposed CO2 limit, jobs are scarce, and incomes have stalled, these companies will be held responsible, along with the liberal Democrats who initiated this hoax.
To read more about my own views, go here, as well as reading my pieces labelled 'global warming.'
The only good news is likely to be that, as the price paid for 'addressing' imagined human sources of global warming hits home to voters, the Democrats could find themselves out of quite a few gubernatorial, House and Senate seats, not to mention the Presidency, for some time.
It's a great article. Through his interview with Ms. Strassel, Murray exposes the hidden surprise that the liberal left, and large business CEOs, have in store for the average American.
Stratospheric energy costs amidst dwindling energy supplies. Welcome to Jimmy Carter's world of energy supply mismanagement, Part 2.
Basically, Murray notes that coal is one of the major fuel sources that allows Americans to consume energy at a relatively low cost. But it is number one on the global warming police's hit list of energy sources.
According to Murray, the result of attempting to squeeze coal out of America's energy mix will only result in: lost jobs, regional recessions, much higher energy costs, and actual supply shortfalls.
Murray then goes on to skewer those large companies- GE, DuPont, Alcoa, Caterpillar, Shell, ConocoPhillips, BP, Entergy- whose CEOs have jumped on the CO2 cap trading program. Their argument is that if they don't participate in the design of the program, they'll only suffer more.
Murray argues that, by joining in, these influential CEOs have given up the war without a fight. He wrote a letter to the CEO of Duke Power, outlining his points, and his contention that, ultimately, after the short-term effects of selling cap credits had worn off, Duke's growth and profitability would suffer, as America's capacity to generate power waned.
Jim Rogers, Duke's CEO, replied, in part,
"Legislation is coming. We can help shape it, or stand on the sidelines and let others do it."
I must say, I agree with Mr. Murray. Contributing to wrong-headed legislation will backfire on these companies. By jumping on the bandwagon now, they could potentially delay the eventual realization that this entire hysteria is a growth-curbing, standard-of-living destroying mistake foisted upon us by the liberal left. Having muzzled much of academia's sources of disagreement, they will use these companies' participation as evidence of even big business' capitulation.
Ten years hence, when our economic growth has slowed because of a foolishly self-imposed CO2 limit, jobs are scarce, and incomes have stalled, these companies will be held responsible, along with the liberal Democrats who initiated this hoax.
To read more about my own views, go here, as well as reading my pieces labelled 'global warming.'
The only good news is likely to be that, as the price paid for 'addressing' imagined human sources of global warming hits home to voters, the Democrats could find themselves out of quite a few gubernatorial, House and Senate seats, not to mention the Presidency, for some time.
Saturday, May 19, 2007
Health Care Insurance in Illinois
Last Monday's Wall Street Journal contained an editorial describing Illinois' recent debacle with 'universal' health care.
Essentially, Governor "Blowdryavitch," as he is known in the state, attempted to push through a $7.6B tax increase, exclusively on businesses, to pay for health care.
A word to the wise liberals pre-2008. It backfired. So badly that, before the end of the story, Blagojevich was repudiating his own plan!
Along the way, the Illinois Democratic House Speaker, Madigan, the Lieutenant Governor, Quinn, and Chicago's Mayor, Dick Daley, all refused to support it. In the end, the legistlators nixed it because they realize that they have to go back to these businessmen for campaign funds. A law like this could give the Illinois legislature, or Governor's mansion (empty now, anyway..but that's for another post) back to the GOP.
To quote Daley,
"To describe every major CEO in Illinois as fat cats is a mistake...They don't have to be here. They can go to Wisconsin. They can go to Indiana. They can go to India. They can go to China. So if you want to beat up businesses, go beat 'em up, and when they leave, just wave to 'em and they're going to wave back to you."
Even Jesse Jackson went on record as preferring to keep jobs in the state to having health care without a way to pay for it.
John Edwards, of course, wants the equivalent of the Illinois plan nationally. Obama Bim Baden is curiously silent on the Illinois debacle. So is Hillary, who also occasionally claims the state as her 'home.'
Is it the liberal health care canary in the coal mine?
Essentially, Governor "Blowdryavitch," as he is known in the state, attempted to push through a $7.6B tax increase, exclusively on businesses, to pay for health care.
A word to the wise liberals pre-2008. It backfired. So badly that, before the end of the story, Blagojevich was repudiating his own plan!
Along the way, the Illinois Democratic House Speaker, Madigan, the Lieutenant Governor, Quinn, and Chicago's Mayor, Dick Daley, all refused to support it. In the end, the legistlators nixed it because they realize that they have to go back to these businessmen for campaign funds. A law like this could give the Illinois legislature, or Governor's mansion (empty now, anyway..but that's for another post) back to the GOP.
To quote Daley,
"To describe every major CEO in Illinois as fat cats is a mistake...They don't have to be here. They can go to Wisconsin. They can go to Indiana. They can go to India. They can go to China. So if you want to beat up businesses, go beat 'em up, and when they leave, just wave to 'em and they're going to wave back to you."
Even Jesse Jackson went on record as preferring to keep jobs in the state to having health care without a way to pay for it.
John Edwards, of course, wants the equivalent of the Illinois plan nationally. Obama Bim Baden is curiously silent on the Illinois debacle. So is Hillary, who also occasionally claims the state as her 'home.'
Is it the liberal health care canary in the coal mine?
Presidential Candidate Videos
Fred Thompson evidently received a letter from Michael Moore, inviting him to a debate. I didn't catch the opening act, but apparently Fred castigated Moore for visiting Cuba to make a one-sided video/film about the economically-wrecked island's great health care system.
Here is Fred's response, on YouTube.
Also featured in today's Wall Street Journal was this funny, mock job interview by Bill Richardson as a Presidential candidate.
Apparently, Hillary did one on finding a theme song for her campaign, with an allegedly humorous reference to her inability to sing. I won't bother posting that link, as I am not planning to view it. My stomach's a little tender for that kind of abuse.
Here is Fred's response, on YouTube.
Also featured in today's Wall Street Journal was this funny, mock job interview by Bill Richardson as a Presidential candidate.
Apparently, Hillary did one on finding a theme song for her campaign, with an allegedly humorous reference to her inability to sing. I won't bother posting that link, as I am not planning to view it. My stomach's a little tender for that kind of abuse.
Wednesday, May 16, 2007
Barney Frank's Mistaken View
I saw an interview of Barney Frank the other day on Larry Kudlow's CNBC program. Kudlow was discussing the House's intended bill to levy punitive taxes on owners/partners of private equity firms, "just because."
True to confiscatory form, Frank jocularly intoned that if someone made several hundred million dollars one year, he didn't personally see it as affecting to require that person to pay, say, thirty or thirty-five million of it to the Feds. Talk about incenting economic activity.
However, the House member from Massachusetts went on to articulate- if that's the right word for Frank's speech- his view of what measure best reflects the health of the US economy.
Are you surprised to hear that he focuses on the 'average wage'. Yes, the old-style, clock-punching average weekly/hourly wage measure.
However, economist Brian Wesbury has discredited this measure repeatedly, most recently in an article in the Wall Street Journal.
Wesbury's sensible contention is that many small businessmen have converted to subchapter S corporations or LLCs, so that their reported incomes roll up on a 1040 form, and escape characterization as wage income. Thus, these higher incomes don't flow into Frank's "average wage" numbers.
Further, as more companies pay incentive compensation, the 'average wage' is unlikely to reflect this, since it's a one-time income payment. Wesbury had other reasons for preferring the household incomes survey to the payroll data for assessing US worker incomes health. But, essentially, he argued, convincingly, that today's economy has moved away from the old 'wage' economy, such that much income escapes payroll surveys, but is captured in tax and household incomes survey data.
No wonder Congressman Frank is so out to lunch on good economic sense. He uses the wrong measure, from a bygone era, and pronounces our healthy economy to be sick, not to mention its incomes too skewed for social stability.
True to confiscatory form, Frank jocularly intoned that if someone made several hundred million dollars one year, he didn't personally see it as affecting to require that person to pay, say, thirty or thirty-five million of it to the Feds. Talk about incenting economic activity.
However, the House member from Massachusetts went on to articulate- if that's the right word for Frank's speech- his view of what measure best reflects the health of the US economy.
Are you surprised to hear that he focuses on the 'average wage'. Yes, the old-style, clock-punching average weekly/hourly wage measure.
However, economist Brian Wesbury has discredited this measure repeatedly, most recently in an article in the Wall Street Journal.
Wesbury's sensible contention is that many small businessmen have converted to subchapter S corporations or LLCs, so that their reported incomes roll up on a 1040 form, and escape characterization as wage income. Thus, these higher incomes don't flow into Frank's "average wage" numbers.
Further, as more companies pay incentive compensation, the 'average wage' is unlikely to reflect this, since it's a one-time income payment. Wesbury had other reasons for preferring the household incomes survey to the payroll data for assessing US worker incomes health. But, essentially, he argued, convincingly, that today's economy has moved away from the old 'wage' economy, such that much income escapes payroll surveys, but is captured in tax and household incomes survey data.
No wonder Congressman Frank is so out to lunch on good economic sense. He uses the wrong measure, from a bygone era, and pronounces our healthy economy to be sick, not to mention its incomes too skewed for social stability.
On Scandals
I was reading through the Wall Street Journal today, and happened upon a piece about Federal prison farms. It discussed the typical view of them as a cushy place where non-violent criminals do easy time. However, apparently some of the 'perks' have been reined in now.
One of the former inmates interviewed for the piece was Webster Hubbell. Hubbell's conviction on various charges while in Clinton's Justice Department landed him in a Federal prison farm.
And that got me to thinking.
I hear all these accusations George Bush's administration as corrupt or scandalous. I don't think any of his cabinet officers or deputy cabinet officers have been jailed for corruption. To my knowledge, none are currently serving time in a Federal prison, farm or otherwise.
For scandal, Clinton's administration was really up there. You had Hillary and her friend, Mickey Kantor, being investigated and charged by Judge Royce Lambert for being, then not being, Federal employees on Hill's Healthcare Taskforce, depending upon which classification suited her best that day. And let's not forget his Commerce Secretary, Ron Brown, in the midst of being investigated for gross and significant graft and bribe-taking. He died in rather suspicious circumstances while on a work-related trip.
How convenient.
But let's not forget the biggest embarrassment of them all. The big cheese of scandal- Bill himself. The infamous cigar and the intern on her knees. Bill's equally famous equivocations before a grand jury on the meaning of sex, so that he could say, with a straight face, "I did not have sex with that woman." Sure, Bill. Sure.
And for my liberal acquaintances' education, Bill was not impeached for adultery. He was impeached for obstruction of justice. If not for some procedural fumbling by the House team, he probably would have been convicted.
No, no matter what liberals tell you about the current administration, Clinton had it all over this one when it came to scandal and shameful behaviors in office.
One of the former inmates interviewed for the piece was Webster Hubbell. Hubbell's conviction on various charges while in Clinton's Justice Department landed him in a Federal prison farm.
And that got me to thinking.
I hear all these accusations George Bush's administration as corrupt or scandalous. I don't think any of his cabinet officers or deputy cabinet officers have been jailed for corruption. To my knowledge, none are currently serving time in a Federal prison, farm or otherwise.
For scandal, Clinton's administration was really up there. You had Hillary and her friend, Mickey Kantor, being investigated and charged by Judge Royce Lambert for being, then not being, Federal employees on Hill's Healthcare Taskforce, depending upon which classification suited her best that day. And let's not forget his Commerce Secretary, Ron Brown, in the midst of being investigated for gross and significant graft and bribe-taking. He died in rather suspicious circumstances while on a work-related trip.
How convenient.
But let's not forget the biggest embarrassment of them all. The big cheese of scandal- Bill himself. The infamous cigar and the intern on her knees. Bill's equally famous equivocations before a grand jury on the meaning of sex, so that he could say, with a straight face, "I did not have sex with that woman." Sure, Bill. Sure.
And for my liberal acquaintances' education, Bill was not impeached for adultery. He was impeached for obstruction of justice. If not for some procedural fumbling by the House team, he probably would have been convicted.
No, no matter what liberals tell you about the current administration, Clinton had it all over this one when it came to scandal and shameful behaviors in office.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
