No Runny Eggs

The repository of one hard-boiled egg from the south suburbs of Milwaukee, Wisconsin (and the occassional guest-blogger). The ramblings within may or may not offend, shock and awe you, but they are what I (or my guest-bloggers) think.

Archive for February, 2010

February 12, 2010

Nobody’s a Bigger Nobody Than Me!

by @ 5:57. Filed under Miscellaneous.

For at least the past two years, Democrats have been putting conservatives and Republicans down as a bunch of nobodies.  At a fund raiser in April, 2008, then candidate Obama, called us a bunch of bitter clingers.  In April, 2009 as the tea party protests were gaining momentum, Nancy Pelosi called us astroturf.

A recent Gallup poll had President Obama in a statistical dead heat with an unnamed Republican candidate.  The same poll showed that when a name was put in for the Republican candidate, the highest support was for Mitt Romney at 14%.  You might ask, “What does this mean?”  Well, what it means is that “nobody” is the favorite Republican candidate and, as of today, Nobody is in a dead heat against President Obama in the 2012 Presidential election.

I read the headline of the poll story today, thought about it for awhile and an idea hit me like broken clasp off of Dolly Parton’s bra…I’m a nobody!

Don’t mistake my comment.  I’m not lamenting or feeling sorry for myself.  Actually, I’m elated!  Based on all of the comments from Democrat leadership over the past couple of years I’m Nobody.  Gallup says that with a little effort, I could be the next president!

As I was contemplating whether it was conceivable to run for president (this is all rather sudden), Stephen Green aka Vodkapundit tweeted back:

Problem is, “Nobody” probably polls better against Obama than any of the likely GOP somebodies.

Upon hearing this, I first thought “Now I have trouble.”  But, after thinking about it a bit more it dawned me; I’m not a GOP somebody.  In fact, I’m a general Nobody and I’m also a GOP Nobody!

The way I see things there is no one who is a bigger general Nobody than me.  Even if there was, there is certainly no one who is a bigger GOP Nobody than me!  Based on Gallup, I can be President in 2012 with less effort than it takes me to write a post here a few days each week.

Therefore, after considering the “encouragement” from Vodkapundit, with no further ado, I, Shoebox, the biggest Nobody within the GOP, announce my candidacy for President of the United States! Please note that while Ralph Nader will also likely run as a nobody, he will not run as a GOP nobody!

While I would appreciate you telling other people about my candidacy, don’t bother, I’m Nobody so they won’t know me!

Here’s my first campaign poster.  What do you think?

February 11, 2010

Open Thread Thursday – the nuclear edition

This is the Emergency Blogging System. It has been activated because the Iranians supposedly are “nuclear”. We’ll discuss that after we bring back one of the old Scramble songs…

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3wafLyT451o[/youtube]

The first thing to remember is that the Iranians have had a bit of a history of overstating technological achievements. However, given that the Mad Mullahs that run Iran see the US as the Great Satan and have vowed to extinguish both the US and Israel by every means available, it is prudent to treat the news as credible.

They claimed to have achieved 20% uranium-235 enrichment. That is far beyond what the typical reactor needs, though there are certain types of reactors that do use it, mostly Japanese- and Russian-design fast/breeder reactors. The Iranians claim to want to use it in a research reactor to produce medical isotopes; however, this appears to be the first time the existence of that “reactor” has been mentioned. Also, there are doubts on whether the Iranians can create fuel rods out of 20% 235U.

20% 235U enrichment also is significantly below the standard for nuclear weapons. However, it can be fashioned into a crude and huge weapon suitable for shipment in a transport container or cargo plane.

And now this thread is yours. This concludes the Emergency Broadcast System portion of this post.

February 10, 2010

Cartilage from stem cells

by @ 18:00. Filed under Health.

(H/T – Kevin Binversie)

ScienceDaily reports that researchers at a Big Ten university found a way to do the naturally-impossible using stem cells – create new cartilage in adults:

Northwestern University researchers are the first to design a bioactive nanomaterial that promotes the growth of new cartilage in vivo and without the use of expensive growth factors. Minimally invasive, the therapy activates the bone marrow stem cells and produces natural cartilage. No conventional therapy can do this….

Damaged cartilage can lead to joint pain and loss of physical function and eventually to osteoarthritis, a disorder with an estimated economic impact approaching $65 billion in the United States. With an aging and increasingly active population, this is expected to grow….

Type II collagen is the major protein in articular cartilage, the smooth, white connective tissue that covers the ends of bones where they come together to form joints.

“Our material of nanoscopic fibers stimulates stem cells present in bone marrow to produce cartilage containing type II collagen and repair the damaged joint,” Shah said. “A procedure called microfracture is the most common technique currently used by doctors, but it tends to produce a cartilage having predominantly type I collagen which is more like scar tissue.”

The Northwestern gel is injected as a liquid to the area of the damaged joint, where it then self-assembles and forms a solid. This extracellular matrix, which mimics what cells usually see, binds by molecular design one of the most important growth factors for the repair and regeneration of cartilage. By keeping the growth factor concentrated and localized, the cartilage cells have the opportunity to regenerate.

As Kevin noted, embryonic stem cells are (once again) not involved. Why do I get the feeling that UW backed the wrong end of stem-cell research?

Evan “Waldo” Bayh (D-not exactly IN)

by @ 17:03. Filed under Politics - National.

Remember when the Left made hay with former Sen. Norm Coleman’s DC housing arrangements? Jim Geraghty the Indispensible found that Sen. Evan Bayh (D-IN Who Knows Where) used the business address of his campaign treasurer as his “home-state address of record” on his current Statement of Candidacy. Said Statement of Candidacy was filed with the secretary of the Senate, and signed by Bayh, in July 2005.

While the Constitution is silent on the DC-area living arrangements of Senators, it isn’t exactly silent on where a Senator must be living at the time of his or her election. From Article I, Section 3 (emphasis added):

No Person shall be a Senator who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty Years, and been nine Years a Citizen of the United States, and who shall not, when elected, be an Inhabitant of that State for which he shall be chosen.

Roll bloat – Owning the roll edition

by @ 16:13. Filed under The Blog.

BigFurHat found the Obamese thread Shoebox put together, and his (or perhaps her) readers kicked in some seriously-good suggestions. Based partly on that, partly on The Obamas comic, and partly on the other work the gang does there, it’s past time to add iOwnTheWorld to the seriously-overstuffed roll.

The Party of “No”

by @ 5:21. Filed under Economy, Politics - National.

Earlier this week, President Obama announced that he would hold a televised meeting that would include himself and leaders of both Congressional Chambers on February 25th.  According to Obama, the purpose of the meeting is to hear ideas from all parties, forge them in a bipartisan bill and get health care reform passed.

Coincidental with the announcement of his desire to hear Republican input on health care, Obama has increased the volume and frequency of accusing Republicans of being the “party of no.”  Last Wednesday, President Obama called Republicans “obstructionists” during a meeting with Democrat lawmakers.  On Monday of this week, President Obama characterized the Republican desire to start the health care process over again as “doing nothing.”  With this kind of rhetoric, some, including myself, wonder whether President Obama is sincere in is attempt to hear ideas or whether the health care meeting is a first step in an attempt to color the Republicans as the “party of no” in an attempt to save the sure November disaster waiting for the Democrats.

Today, President Obama had a closed door meeting with Nancy Pelosi and John Boehner.  The meeting was set to discuss what was to be included in and how to pass a “jobs bill.”  Reportedly, on the topic of credits for jobs created, Nancy Pelosi expressed skepticism of the bill and said that she knew of no one who believed the plan would actually create any jobs!

Hallelujah!  I’m not sure that I’ve ever agreed with Nancy Pelosi before!  Further, I think this may be the first time this session that Pelosi and Boehner agree, although they may not realize it!

Boenher has diagnosed the problem properly.  Jobs are not returning because businesses have too many uncertainties.  Health care costs, energy costs, capital gains, income taxes and many other items are currently being considered by the Obama administration.  In each case, the administration is proposing legislation that would either cost businesses more or put further regulation on their ability to do business.  When businesses see uncertainty that they have no ability to hedge against, they respond by taking less risk.  Taking less risk translates to less hiring and fewer jobs.

Pelosi is also right, even though she doesn’t know why.  Given the uncertainty described previously, jobs credits will have little to no effect on hiring.  The issue, simply, is that employers are not hiring because they see high risk in expanding their business.  Increasing hiring, even if it’s partially paid for by the government, does nothing to change the broader economic issues.

Who would have guessed that when it came to assessing a jobs program, Nancy Pelosi and John Boehner would be on the same side of the argument, neither party wants to pursue one.

So, who’s the “party of no” now?

February 9, 2010

Drinking Right officially postponed 1 week

by @ 14:05. Tags:
Filed under Miscellaneous.

This is the Emergency Blogging System. It has been activated because for the first time in history, Drinking Right has been postponed due to the weather, with the main Drinking Right next week (aka Fat Tuesday and local non-partisan primary day). However, if one is brave stupid, Steve will still be at Papa’s somewhere around 7 tonight because he has a snow beast, and Nick might be there because he’s within walking distance.

This has been the Emergency Blogging System.

Tuesday Hot Read Part Deux – David Dodenhoff, Ph.D’s “Government Doing What Government Does: The Case of Food Stamps in Wisconsin”

by @ 8:04. Filed under Politics - Wisconsin.

David Dodenhoff, Ph.D, took a look at the shocking growth of food stamps in Wisconsin for the Wisconsin Policy Research Institute, specifically the 50% growth between 2002 and 2008. The takeaway (emphasis in the original):

That, unfortunately, is the way government tends to work. When elected officials act, they typically claim to be addressing some public policy problem or other. It’s funny, though, how the solutions they proffer always seem to solve a political problem, namely, “How can I maximize my chances for reelection?” New programs and extensions of existing programs, like SNAP, allow politicians to distribute benefits to particular constituencies, while spreading the costs over a broad base of taxpayers. The political benefits are obvious; whether or not progress has been made on the underlying policy issue is almost beside the point.

Bureaucrats have a similar problem to solve: “How can I keep my job?” Negotiated civil service and union protections are part of the answer. Another answer, though, is this: “Make yourself indispensible.” New programs and extensions of existing programs mean that there’s always more work to be done, which makes the idea of bureaucratic downsizing a very hard sell.

The result is a public sector that sees its own unrelenting growth not as many Americans see it—that is, as an urgent problem—but as a solution; in fact, as the one solution that always makes sense.

Tuesday Hot Read – Matt Lewis’ “Questioning the trajectory of Rep. Ryan’s rising star”

Matt Lewis remembers that voting record matters, which tends to be bad news for one Paul Ryan –

Though he talks like Nobel Prize-winning economist Milton Friedman, some of Ryan’s most high-profile votes seem closer to Keynes than to Adam Smith. For example, in the span of about a year, Ryan committed fiscal conservative apostasy on three high-profile votes: The Troubled Asset Relief Program, or TARP (whereby the government purchased assets and equity from financial institutions), the auto-bailout (which essentially implied he agrees car companies – especially the ones with an auto plant in his district—are too big to fail), and for a confiscatory tax on CEO bonuses (which essentially says the government has the right to take away private property—if it doesn’t like you).

While Ryan’s overall voting record is very conservative, the problem with casting these high-profile votes is that they demonstrate he is willing to fundamentally reject conservatism when the heat is on.

Because it is impossible to believe the highly intelligent and well read Rep. Ryan was unfamiliar with conservative economic principles, one must conclude he either 1). Doesn’t really believe in free market economics, or 2). Was willing to cast bad votes for purely political purposes.

From my standpoint, ignorance can be forgiven and overcome; the other explanations, however, seem to be disqualifiers for higher office.

Yes, folks, that is Nick Schweitzer Matt linked to. Speaking of that, Nick was prophetic on what the bailouts of GM and Chrysler would lead to…

What this bailout proposes is to replace that system with one in which the Executive branch, through a “car czar”, and also through various financial carrots and sticks, take control of that reorganization. The danger in doing so is that not only will the bailout money be wasted, but now politics will enter into how the reorganization takes place. If you thought the current system of ear marks, and special favors in bills was bad, just wait and see what little favors GM, Ford and Chrysler are forced to do… whether it will actually help make a successful company again or not. This is once again an unprecedented growth in executive power, which makes our President even more like a King that before.

As for the charges, damn near everybody who doesn’t have a conspiratorial mind got fooled on TARP. However, by the time the auto bailouts came around, the “fool me twice” principle came into play. Ryan’s suggestion was to use previously-programmed-yet-unspent money for plant modernization to do the bailout, which given that the bailout was used as leverage for a takeover, is not exactly defensible. I’ll note that neither the GM truck plant in Janesville (Ryan’s hometown) nor the Chrysler engine plant in Kenosha got saved in the end.

Regarding the pay limit, that is an off-the-record answer.

Beware of the BHAG Trap! (A Solution)

by @ 5:35. Filed under Miscellaneous.

Shoebox is right (see previous post).  The President and congressional leaders have proposed a draconian takeover of the healthcare system.  So if they back off just a bit, Republicans might be comfortable.  Just like going from a goal of 20% sales growth to 10%. So, how do the Republicans avoid this, and still win the argument in front of the American people?  They need to be clear and concise right up front.

John Boehner or some other Republican spokesman needs to do an opening statement that goes something like this: “Mr. President, we are here tonight to discuss health care reform. We asked that the slate be wiped clean, and that we start over.  You have not agreed to that. But it is important the American people understand why Republicans are unwilling to work within the current framework.

Mr. President, you have a very different view of how medical services should be delivered. You believe that government should be allowed to compete with private business; that politicians and bureaucrats should make critical decisions about who gets what kind and quantity of health care services.  Republicans disagree.

People come to America from all over the world to obtain medical care.  That, sir, is not an accident.  It is the result of having the best health care delivery system in the world.  And that system was built by making the doctor patient / relationship paramount, and allowing free markets to foster unparalleled innovation and efficiently allocate resources.  And then there is our dedication to the sanctity of life, regardless of the age of the individual.  Republicans have offered plenty of ideas, all of which have been ignored by Democrats and special interest groups meeting in private.  Should you choose continue down the path that has destroyed the health care systems of many other nations, we will gladly be the party of “no.”  And rest assured, Mr. President, the public will reward us in November 2010 and beyond.”

Now, put yourself in Mr. Obama’s position.  What do you say next?

Beware of The BHAG Trap!

by @ 5:31. Filed under Miscellaneous.

After over two decades of work with large wireless companies, you can bet that I’ve been exposed to nearly every main stream theory or philosophy on change management that has existed. Do this, don’t do that. Encourage these people, use a stick on those people etc. etc. While I don’t buy all of the theories, I have to admit that I did learn a few things from the training and put that knowledge to work in some of my current engagements.

One theory that was not precisely a change management technique but has application there is call a BHAG. A BHAG is a Big Hairy Audacious Goal. The BHAG was popularized by James Collins in his book “Good to Great.” Collins used a BHAG as a goal that an organization could focus on. While they may have been so large that they weren’t always attained, they provided a focal point for everyone in the organization to measure against and see if the work they were doing or the plan they were looking to implement, moved them closer to or further away from the BHAG.

The translation of a BHAG for use in change management worked like this. Let’s say you had a company that typically saw sales growth of 5% annually. Let’s also say that you needed to improve on that and get to 10%. In many institutions, a change like that will be met by numerous people who tell you how and why that growth can’t be achieved. Knowing that that would occur, on a few occasions, instead of saying we wanted to grow by 10%, we’d say that we wanted to grow by 20%. Upon saying that, we would get the same group of folks telling us how and why we couldn’t achieve that growth. We’d then sit down and put a plan together with our teams for achieving 20% growth. At the end of the plan, the same people who were complaining at the start were typically still complaining. Once we completed the detailed plan we’d come back and tell folks that after taking the input, 10% is a more attainable goal. In nearly every instance, once we let them back to 10%, people would let out a collective “Whew,” and move forward executing on the 10% plan which is what we wanted all along.

By using the BHAG approach, we went through the same caterwauling and planning that we would have gone through had we originally set a 10% target. But, by using the BHAG, we allowed people to expand the belief in their own abilities beyond that what they otherwise thought they could do. If we had started at 10%, it would have been very likely that we ended up with a plan that had 6% or 7% growth.

What’s this got to do with anything?

President Obama has invited Senate and House leadership to a televised meeting to discuss Placebocare. Ostensibly, President Obama wants to find a way for the Republicans and Democrats to “come together” and pass a plan.

Folks, there is nothing about this plan to like. Short of starting all over, there should be no negotiation of any kind.

I’m afraid that the Republican leadership will not have the spine or knowledge of their own principles to stand up to this takeover of health care. I’m afraid that what could happen is that Obama views the current plan as a BHAG, that he might come back and offer a couple of Republican carrots; say something like, “we’ll look at tort reform,” or “we’ll look at more competition across state lines,” without any commitment to actual legislation. The problem with this is that if the Republicans allow this line of discussion, they will get caught in the BHAG trap and end up looking like the losers of this event.

I was discussing this concern with Birdman today and he had the perfect approach to avoiding the BHAG trap. Read the next post to see if you don’t agree with his approach.

February 8, 2010

The New Populists

by @ 13:53. Filed under Miscellaneous.

According to Merriam-Webster, a populist is someone who is, “a believer in the rights, wisdom, or virtues of the common people.”  Historically, populist movements have gone beyond elevating the common man, and have condemned the institutions that make up the status quo. Today’s populists call themselves the Tea Party movement, and my gut tells me they are a different breed of populist.

The vast majority of Tea Party types are disaffected conservatives and libertarians.  I know the Sarah Palins of the world want us all to believe there are as many frustrated Democrats and independents in the Tea Party crowd as there are angry Republicans and libertarian leaners.  Nonsense.  The Tea Party folks are for limited, constitutionally constrained government, minimal regulation, low taxes, and a minimum of bureaucracy.  People who believe in that kind of stuff most likely have never met a Democrat.

But here is where it gets interesting.  I don’t believe these people are anti-establishment, or anti-Ivy League education, or anti-bank, or anti-business.  But they are against establishment types, Ivy League school graduates, bankers and businessmen who are able to stack the deck.  Big businesses, big banks, and well-educated people are all fine and even virtuous, so long as they have to play by the same rules as the rest of us.  Let the big bank, the big car company or the big brokerage house go down if it fails.  Don’t allow Goldman Sachs to be a feeder system for the executive branch.

The 21st Century populist is not a Kansas farmer protecting agrarian interests, or a union member trying to “get his” from a Pittsburgh steel company.  Today’s populist is simply saying that he/she wants a fair shot, and does not want to be taxed to pay off the moron who drove Bank of America into the ground.  Seems reasonable to me.

Bounce? What bounce?

by @ 12:54. Filed under Politics - National.

Rasmussen Reports’ Daily Presidential Tracking Poll shows that whatever bounce Barack Obama got post-State of the Union speech has gone. This weekend’s numbers:

Saturday – -15 Approval Index (26% strongly approve/41% strongly disapprove), -11 overall differential (44% approve/55% disapprove)
Sunday – -17 Approval Index (26%/43%), -12 overall (44%/56%)
Monday – -15 Approval Index (26%/41%), -8 overall (46%/54%)

The average between the beginning of the year and the SOTU address is a -14.42 Approval Index (26.21% strongly approve/40.63% strongly disapprove) and a -5.71 overall differential (46.79% approve/52.50% disapprove). I believe the operative word is, “Splat!”

Talk to the hand, Palin/Hawkins edition

by @ 11:06. Filed under Politics - National.

John Hawkins answers the complaints from the oh-so-“tolerant” Left about Sarah Palin’s use of her hand to hold a couple of bullet points on her speech before the “National Tea Party Convention” Saturday. John, you should’ve used the backhand.

Monday Hot Read – Eric’s “Super Bowl XLIV Recap”

by @ 10:57. Filed under Sports.

All you need to know about the 44th edition of The Championship Game That Cannot Be Named™ can be found at Eric’s recap of the game:

One thing is certain in all of this. The Saints are no longer losers. They are now the very best.

On this day, we all wanted to be in that number. The Saints went marching in.

In 213 days, the NFL 2010 season kicks off. Before that is the NFL Draft.

The Saints are the defending champions, and Super Bowl XLIV is in the history books forever.

31-17 Saints

I strongly recommend you read the entire writeup. It is far better than anything you’ll find on any sports page, local or national.

Drinking Right – We’re tougher than DC edition

This is the Emergency Blogging System. It has been activated because of the approaching Perfect Drinking Right Snowstorm.

Don’t let the storm that’s supposed to dump 14 inches of snow on Milwaukee between tonight and Wednesday morning stop you from enjoying the February edition of Drinking Right. After all, it won’t be 14 inches by 7 pm tomorrow, when DR starts. As always, we will be gathered at Papa’s Social Club, 7718 W Burleigh in Milwaukee.

This has been the Emergency Blogging System.

February 7, 2010

Obamaese

by @ 12:25. Filed under Miscellaneous.

I’ve periodically translated different phrases that President Obama uses on a recurring basis.  As an aside, can anyone think of a prior President who was so dependent on a small, recurring set of phrases?  Anyway, it’s been a while since I’ve published these in a coherent fashion.  As Obama and the Democrats become more vocal as they try to figure out which direction is up, I thought it would be helpful to publish these so that you can have them in the back of your mind as you hear published statements.

If you have any phrases that you’re aware of and that I haven’t captured, drop them to me at Shoebox@norunnyeggs.com.  I’ll provide a proper translation and include them in future updates.

I don’t want to run – should always be followed by “but I will take over.”

As I have repeatedly said – the fact that you haven’t agreed with me in the past on this issue is not a reason that I should reconsider my position. Rather, it is a reflection of your lack of intelligence and reverence for my omnipotence.

Shovel Ready – any project that rational taxpayers would vote you out of office for if you had voted to fund it.

Stimulus – a spending bill that contains “Shovel Ready” projects that is passed only with Democrat support

Uniquely Qualified – an individual who is either a tax cheat or has other ethical issues such that they wouldn’t be hired for and can only get a role through appointment to a Democrat legislator or Democrat Administration role.

Czar – An unelected, unaccountable bureaucrat, whose purpose is to expand government programs, imposes regulation, hire more conscripts for SEIU and reduce freedom for ordinary Americans.

Let me be clear – A phrase preceding a statement that certainly won’t be clear and is probably a lie.

Unprecedented – Does not mean “unprecedented” in the context of American history. Rather, it is unprecedented in the experience of Obama. Thus, he has no reference point from which to view or address the specific issue.

Inherited from the previous administration – I know this has nothing to do with other administrations. If I couldn’t blame those guys, how else could I get you to agree to the suicidal proposal that now follows?

I will not rest – I really don’t care what you or anyone else says about this matter. I will push this issue no matter how unpopular or how damaging it is to America. In fact, the louder you complain, the more sure I am that I am right!

February 6, 2010

Toasting the House of Lords, Part II

by @ 11:12. Filed under Miscellaneous.

Many on the left are now complaining that the Senate Republicans’ willingness to filibuster any major legislation has somehow tainted the process of legislating.  Or, as Jacob Weisberg writes in slate.com, the filibuster rule, ” . . . has devolved into a super-majority threshold for any important legislation.”  And to that charge I make two points: 1) Yes; and 2) that is the way it is supposed to be.

As hard as it is for liberals and progressives to accept, this country was founded on the notion that government action (especially action by the central government) should be viewed with suspicion.  Large scale changes dictated from Washington should not easily pass.  When one political party controls the presidency and both houses of Congress, the only protection against an over zealous government is the requirement that the controlling party must obtain at least some support from the minority party.

I hope some day we can actually turn this ship around and start moving back toward a constitutionally constrained government.  In the meantime, the only hope is to slow the ship down, which gives us a better chance to turn back before hitting the iceberg known as socialism.

February 5, 2010

Friday Hot Read – Matthew Continetti’s “The Assault on Paul Ryan”

by @ 9:59. Filed under Politics - National.

The Weekly Standard‘s Matthew Continetti deconstructs the One Week Hate unleased by the Left upon Congressman Paul Ryan (R-WI, and my Congresscritter):

Key fact: Ryan’s plan preserves the current entitlement system for everyone over the age of 55. The rest of us will see dramatic changes in the structure of Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and the tax code–changes the CBO says will solve the long-term budget problem, in ways that increase individual choice and limit government’s scope. If nothing is done, America faces high interest rates, inflation, and economy-crushing tax rates. Is this the future Democrats prefer? After all, they have provided no alternative way to achieve the Roadmap’s outcomes.

As a matter of fact, they do prefer that to one with low interest rates, low inflation and low tax rates, especially if that invovles a limited scope of government and increased individual choice. In fact, the Left is more afraid of limits on government and the corresponding increase in individual freedom than they are about going the route of the Soviet Union.

Never Allow A Crisis To Go To Waste

by @ 5:10. Filed under Economy, Politics - National.

Talking just days after the election as he talked about the challengesPresident elect Obama faced, Rahm Emanuel made his famous quote:

Never allow a crisis to go to waste.

Emanuel explained this quote by saying that extreme circumstances allow you the opportunity to do big things.  The Democrat trilogy of Obama, Reid and Pelosi have spent the first 13 months of the Obama administration fulfilling Emanuel’s prophecy.

Health care “reform”, cap and trade, take over of portions of the financial and automotive industry, moving terror trials to New York and appointing Cabinet memebers and Czars who are out right Marxists are all examples of the Obama Administration doing “big things” because they thought they could.

The response to Obama’s action have been definite and specific.

Beginning as early as April of last year, people gathered in various parts of the country under the banner of Tea Parties.  Initially, these gatherings were a general protest against ever growing government, the taxes required to support it and the freedom that it extinguished. 

As time went on, the tea parties came to be a lead organization for protests against the attempt to take over the health care industry via the proposed health care “reform.”  Later, they became a major driver in the near victory of Doug Hoffman in NY.  Most recently, the financial support from those aligned with the tea parties allowed Scott Brown to be elected to the seat previously owned by Ted Kennedy and along with it, defeat Obama’s desire to control the health care industry.

It’s clear that much of the American population, including those affiliated with the tea parties, have grown tired of President Obama’s approach.  Whether it is ideology, naievete or stupidity, it is clear that Obama’s policies are driving us quickly to the edge of a financial cliff.

This week, President Obama proposed a nearly $4T budget with a deficit of nearly $1.6T.  These number are obscene by any definition.  What makes the situation move beyond obscene to grotesque is Obama’s chiding that we must become fiscally responsible and that somehow these numbers are a result of President George Bush’s making.

Folks, this budget needs to be defeated.  We need to do to it what was done to health care reform.  We need to take it apart line by line, word by word and expose it to the American people.  Unless Americans are unwilling to make any sacrifices, in which case we’re screwed, they will quickly see an audacity similar to that of health care reform and revolt against it.  If we have any hope of reversing the coming fiscal disaster and possibly, the ruin of our country, we need to start now! 

We’ve removed the super majority in the Senate and with it much of Obama’s political capital.  We have the momentum, the American people and principle on our side.  We have elections on the mind of every House member and many endangered Senators.

If ever there was a time to take on a challenge as large as fundamentally changing how budgets are viewed in Washington, now is the time.  If we wait until the next budget, people may be lulled to sleep thinking that the newly elected Republicans will solve the problem.

Rahm Emanuel laid out our came plan perfectly: Never allow a crisis to go to waste.  In extreme circumstances we have the opportunity to do big things.  Doubt me?  Ask the people of Massachusetts!

February 4, 2010

Permanent Casting

by @ 9:50. Filed under Economy, Elections, Politics - National.

Happy Blogiversary to me!  Two years ago I posted for the first time at Norunnyeggs.  Thanks to you for reading, encouraging and correcting me.  Thanks to Steve for his long suffering of allowing me to squat on his site!

Hopefully, the following is worthy of a 2 year blogiversary posting!

Quick, what do the following actors have in common?

Alan Alda, Carroll O’Connor, Ted Danson, James Garner and Kelsey Grammer.

Each of these actors, while having a varied and successful career having played numerous other characters, are immediately recognized for a single role that they played.  Alan Alda is forever Hawkeye from MASH.  Carroll O’Connor is immortalized as Archie Bunker.  Ted Danson is Sam Malone, James Garner is Jim Rockford (or Bret Maverick if you’re of a certain age) and Kelsey Grammer was Frasier Crane across two long running sitcoms.  These actors are victims of typecasting. 

Typecasting occurs when an actor or actress becomes so associated with a type of role, or specific role that no matter how hard they try, they are never able to fully keep people from thinking of a new role as an extension of the role they were type-casted as.  Typecasting varies in severity.  Some people, like James Garner, while fondly remembered for a role, go on to have very successful careers with other roles and genres.  In the most severe cases, typecasting can be so severe that actors or actresses are unable to get another role beyond the one that they were typecast in.  The most notorious of this level of typecasting was George Reeves who once he became Superman, was Superman even on TV shows that had no connection to the character.

President Obama has released his budget proposal for the next year.  His budget encompasess total spending of $3.8 trillion and a deficit of $1.56 trillion.

While President Obama has taken nothing from the Scott Brown victory, numerous Democrats in both the House and the Senate seem to be attempting to position themselves as aligned with the fiscal sensitivities of the populous.  From the WSJ:

“I guess I don’t understand…the vision of the administration when it comes to putting in place economic policy that works for our nation in today’s economy and the economic climate today,” Sen. Lincoln said during the same hearing with Mr. Geithner.

and:

“I don’t know anybody in business who hires an employee because they’re going to get a tax credit,” said Rep. Thompson during the hearing of the House Ways and Means Committee.

There are scores of additional examples of Democrats now trying to convince their constituents that they aren’t aligned with those tax and spend liberals in Congress.

The problem for those Democrats now attempting to become the next Ron Paul is that nearly every one of them seem to have limits to their new found fiscal conservatism.  From the Baltimore Sun:

A headline on the 2010 campaign website of Sen. Blanche Lincoln (D-Ark.), blares her opposition to Obama’s farm budget: “Blanche stands up for Arkansas farm families,”

And

Sen. Arlen Specter (D-Pa.), a recent party-switcher, questioned trade policies battering the steel industry. Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N.Y.) asked about health care for first responders involved in the Sept. 11attack. The message from Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Ca.): “California is hurting.”

And

Elsewhere around the country, Rep. Suzanne Kosmas — a freshman Democrat from a Republican leaning part of Florida — minced no words in complaining about Obama’s proposed cuts to the NASA budget. The space industry is one of the largest employers in her district.

“The president’s proposal lacks a bold vision for space exploration and begs for the type of leadership that he has described as critical for inspiring innovation for the 21st century,” said Kosmas.

And

In the swing state of Missouri, Democratic Senate candidate Robin Carnahan wasted no time this week denouncing Obama’s budget as profligate.

“I’m disappointed in the president’s budget recommendation,” she said. “Missouri families have to balance their checkbooks and our government is no different.”

Clearly, Democrats are trying to show their fiercer, budget hawk side.  After all, it wasn’t just the threat of health care that got Scott Brown elected and has put a number of the Dem’s jobs in jeopardy.  Equally, the ever ballooning spending and deficit has also gotten people’s attention.  Also clearly, while they talk budget hawk out of one side of their mouth, the Dem’s hawkishness ends right at the end of the particular program or jurisdiction that they have their nose stuck into!

As hard as Democrats may try from now until November, to paint themselves as characters other than the fiscally  irresponsible characters they are, it won’t work.  The Dems have become victims of their own “success”.  They were swept into office promising not one, but a whole flock of chickens in every pot, never considering how they were going to pay for those chickens.  Now that they find that those chickens actually cost money, and they don’t have any, they are left with the choice of not providing the chickens or attempting to con the public into believing that continuing investment we get from China each month is not really anything to worry about. 

The public is not buying a word of the Dems attempt to claim fiscal responsibility.  Like George Reeves the Dems are irreversibly typecast.  Try as they may, no one, at least not for this election cycle, will believe their claims that they can actually play a different role.

Open Thread Thursday – Demon Sheep edition

by @ 8:06. Filed under Open Thread Thursday.

If you haven’t noticed the #demonsheep phenomenon on Twitter, head here for Carly Fiorina’s glass-house rock-throw at one of her opponents in the California GOP gubernatorial race. There can be only one song for today…

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I6U4XakchT0[/youtube]

I’ve done enough wonky posts for a while, so somebody, anybody, step up and feed me material.

February 3, 2010

Another look at the mid-term Social Security crater

by @ 22:41. Filed under Social Security crater.

(H/Ts – Dad29 and Hot Air Headlines)

Back in September, Ed Morrissey found, and I expanded upon, a dire look at the Social Security “Trust” Funds from the Congressional Budget Office that said the combined OASDI “Trust” funds would start running primary (cash) deficits in FY2010 and run them for much of the decade. Allan Sloan over at Fortune found some worse news in the January 2010 CBO budget outlook:

Instead of helping to finance the rest of the government, as it has done for decades, our nation’s biggest social program needs help from the Treasury to keep benefit checks from bouncing — in other words, a taxpayer bailout.

No one has officially announced that Social Security will be cash-negative this year. But you can figure it out for yourself, as I did, by comparing two numbers in the recent federal budget update that the nonpartisan CBO issued last week.

The first number is $120 billion, the interest that Social Security will earn on its trust fund in fiscal 2010 (see page 74 of the CBO report). The second is $92 billion, the overall Social Security surplus for fiscal 2010 (see page 116).

This means that without the interest income, Social Security will be $28 billion in the hole this fiscal year, which ends Sept. 30….

If you go to the aforementioned pages in the CBO update and consult the tables on them, you see that the budget office projects smaller cash deficits (about $19 billion annually) for fiscal 2011 and 2012. Then the program approaches break-even for a while before the deficits resume….

I did so, and just like in September, I found some rather “curious” claims of economic boom. In fact, the new “boom” is even more unbelievable than the old “boom” (note; the September 2009 CBO GDP estimates come from summer 2009 budget update).


Click for the full-size chart

Between this fiscal year and FY2019, instead of a cumulative Social Security primary deficit of $100 billion, we’ll have a cumulative Social Security primary deficit of $157 billion. That is, of course, if we actually do get all the economic and tax growth that the CBO seems to hope we will. If we don’t, the chart I put together back in September showing just how easy it was to turn the CBO’s hope into red ink as far as the eye can see will be rosy.

That also doesn’t include Obama’s plan for a second round of $250 checks to every Social Security recipient. That is a drag of another $13 billion on this year, which would make this year’s cash deficit somewhere around $51 41 billion.

Revisions/extensions (4:42 pm 2/4/2010) – The internal copy editor failed me, as I made a basic math mistake. Thanks to Hot Air commenter WashJeff for the catch once Ed Morrissey made the news a front page post.

We Still Have To Lead!

by @ 13:01. Filed under Politics - National.

Refusing to take any message of “you’ve gone too far” out of the Scott Brown victory, President Obama told Senate Democrats that he is moving full steam ahead with his agenda:

“We’ve got to finish the job on health care. We’ve got to finish the job on financial regulatory reform. We’ve got to finish the job, even though it’s hard.”

Defiantly, Obama blamed Republicans for the inability to pass the health care legislation.  Never mind that up until Scott Brown, Republicans had no was to delay the legislation had Democrats themselves been united.

Obama urged the Senators to forge ahead with even greater urgency.  With regard to the loss of the Senate super majority, Obama said:

We still have to lead.

Leading is well and good.  In fact, I’d welcome some rational leadership from this administration.  The challenge with leading is that you should have an idea of where the path you are leading along goes.  If you don’t, charging ahead full steam without any caution could create some unexpected problems:

Wednesday Hot Read – Warner Todd Huston’s “Illinois Shows Limitations of Tea Party Movement”

Warner Todd Huston has some lessons for the Tea Party movements in the wake of yesterday’s elections in Illinois:

Let’s take the race for Senate in Illinois as exhibit “A.” Of course the good old boys in the state party went with Mark Kirk, the center left candidate from a northern suburb of Chicago. He was the he-can-win candidate and the establishment choice. Not one Tea Party group, though, wants Kirk and for good reason — and I heartily concur with them, as it happens. So who was the “Tea Party candidate,” the one meant to beat out Kirk, the one backed by the newly found power of the Tea Party movement? There wasn’t one. There was three.

Sadly, the Tea Partiers in Illinois split their vote all up. Some Tea Party Groups went with Don Lowery and some went with Patrick Hughes. A few even went with John Arrington. Hughes, of course, was the only one that had even a remote chance as far as voter polls were concerned. Hughes at least registered in the polls, Lowery and Arrington barely showed up at all….

The sad fact is that the Illinois Tea Party groups didn’t spend any time organizing, polling each other, coordinating with each other. There was no effort from one Tea Party group to reach out to another one and work together. They all stayed in their own little area, met in their own little meetings, had their own little candidates forum, and made their own little decisions….

One thing is sure, if Tea Party groups want to become a political force for good, they have to coordinate farther out than their own towns and county. If they don’t they will risk making themselves irrelevant just as they did in the Senate race and Governor race in Illinois. That means organizing, whether they like it or not because organization wins elections. It’s just that simple.

The Tea Party folks certainly do not have to take on all the characteristics of the failed Party organizations they oppose. But they must get over this fear of organizing. If they don’t they will not be able to wield the power they might actually have behind them. Worse the parties that are a bit scared of them right now will surely find themselves able to ignore the Tea Parties if they ultimately find no threat from them.

[No Runny Eggs is proudly powered by WordPress.]