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 September, 2009

September 30, 2009

From DC hot read – House Budget Committee Republicans’ “Bigger Government”

by @ 19:13. Filed under Politics - National.

I almost had the Emergency Blogging System do this post because the news is that dire. The House Budget Republicans compared and contrasted the growth of the federal payrolls to the shrinkage of the private-sector payrolls. I’ll give you the meat of the piece (the emphasis is in the original):

While private-sector employment has continued declining, government has expanded. Federal jobs have increased by 43,000 since the start of the year, 25,000 of which followed enactment of the ARRA. But this figure vastly understates the government’s employment growth, because it includes the workforce reduction at the Postal Service. If the USPS is excluded, Federal employment has increased by more than 65,000.

By next year, Federal employment will have risen by 15.6 percent since 2006, the period of Democratic control of Congress – an increase of about 286,000 full-time equivalents [FTEs], according to administration figures (see Table 1 and Table 2 in the appendix of this document). The growth of non-defense agencies has been larger, at 20.5 percent. Even if the Defense and Commerce Departments are excluded – the latter to account for the large force of temporary hires for next year’s census – Federal civilian employment will have expanded by nearly 12 percent since 2006. The vast majority of this growth – 102,800 positions – will occur in 2009 and 2010; and this does not include the additional Federal employees who will be needed as a result of cap-and-trade legislation, the planned government takeover of health care, financial regulation, and other components of the President’s agenda.

In other words, while the economy has been shrinking, the government has expanded in absolute terms. Since the beginning of the recession, the economy has lost 7 million jobs, while the Federal Government has added 75,000 jobs.

A bonus item from the “Change in Civilian Federal Employment” table on the last page – the only agencies (other than the USPS) that will see a decrease in employment rolls in 2009-2010 will be the Department of Agriculture (800 FTEs, or 0.8% of the workforce) and the Small Business Administration (also 800 FTEs, but 20% of the workforce). Somehow I don’t think that’s a coincidence given Obama’s hostility toward farmers and small business owners.

Wow, cool post Shoebox.

by @ 14:15. Filed under Liza.

Place your orders for the Claire Booth Luce Policy Institute Calendar.  I wonder how many of those ladies have restraining orders  out against Steve?  (I kid because I love)

Can you imagine the liberal version?  Perhaps we should start with Helen Thomas?

Go to fullsize image

Oh well, on my site I like to have fun with quotes: movie quotes, random quotes, drinking quotes, famous quotes.  By the way, did you hear that the WTF is now the TFW?

While the Egg-Man is away I thought it might be fun to do Liza Random Quotes.

In Hollywood now when people die they don’t say, ‘Did he leave a will?’ but ‘Did he leave a diary?’

In other news taxpayers will fund abortions, Congress says gimme gimme, Chicago asks for the Audacity of Nope, Obama hands out another $5 billion we don’t have, and some old writings are coming to beer town.

I Love, I Love, I Love My Calendar Girl(s)

by @ 5:50. Filed under Conservatism.

First, let’s set the mood:

The Claire Booth Luce Policy Institute has created a calendar. OK, so far, who cares! This calendar has a full year of calendar girls (I’m getting interested now). Not only that but it has 12 of the most attractive (OK, maybe Phyllis not so much but…) conservative women as the monthly “pin ups.”

Here’s a group shot of the women:


You can see the individual shots here.

Guys, I think you’ll agree that not only are conservative women the most attractive, you would actually look forward to the pillow talk!

September 29, 2009

Steve is gone.

by @ 18:24. Filed under Miscellaneous.

Steve threw open the Guest Blogger sign again.

He’s out in DC seeing the sites before AFP’s Defending The American Dream Summit

Of course we all know the truth.  Rumor has it the Smithsonian has opened a new Liza Minelli exhibit and the Egg-Man just had to be first in line.  We’ll keep the joint up to date in his absence.


Unpatriotic AND Selfish!

It’s been just over a year since Joe Biden called 95% of Americans unpatriotic:

“We want to take money and put it back in the pocket of middle-class people. It’s time to be patriotic … time to jump in, time to be part of the deal, time to help get America out of the rut.”

Apparently, Biden wasn’t the loan wolf that I thought at the time.

In a recent poll, Rasmussen found that 29% of Americans believe that you are selfish if you put the economy ahead of global warming.  Fortunately, there are a whole lot more people, 49% who disagree with this assessment.  Additionally, 65% believe jobs are more important than global warming.  It’s good to know we still have a plurality, if not a majority of sanity yet in this country.

In case you missed it, the $1,761 annually per family that cap and trade will cost us will mostly go back to the government.  While President Obama isn’t able to determine what is or isn’t a tax, I can.  If you pay the government, you can call it what you want but it boils down to a tax.

Don’t like increased taxes?  Want more jobs and a better economy?  Not only are you unpatriotic you’re also selfish!

September 27, 2009

Eggs on the road – Fall DC edition

by @ 18:42. Filed under Miscellaneous.

If it’s about the first week in October, it’s time for Americans for Prosperity’s Defending the American Dream summit. Once again, I will be dropping in a couple days early, specifically on Tuesday.

Do consider this your 42-hour warning.

September 26, 2009

I Inherited It!

by @ 19:39. Filed under Obama worship, Politics - National.

Um, maybe not:

59% Say Americans Angrier Now Than Under Bush

And lest you think it’s just the conservatives getting all lathered:

69% of GOP voters say the level of anger is higher now, a view shared by 53% of Democrats and 56% of voters not affiliated with either party.

Nope, it’s a majority of each political persuasion.

Let’s look back at Barack Obama’s Denver acceptance speech.  After calling out differences on gun rights, gay rights and illegal immigration, Barack Obama said:

But this, too, is part of America’s promise, the promise of a democracy where we can find the strength and grace to bridge divides and unite in common effort.

I know there are those who dismiss such beliefs as happy talk. They claim that our insistence on something larger, something firmer, and more honest in our public life is just a Trojan horse for higher taxes and the abandonment of traditional values.  And that’s to be expected, because if you don’t have any fresh ideas, then you use stale tactics to scare voters.

If you don’t have a record to run on, then you paint your opponent as someone people should run from. You make a big election about small things.

And you know what? It’s worked before, because it feeds into the cynicism we all have about government. When Washington doesn’t work, all its promises seem empty. If your hopes have been dashed again and again, then it’s best to stop hoping and settle for what you already know.

We’ve been told time and again how Barack Obama is the smartest President ever.  While I doubt he has any idea what a can of Spam costs, or even how to cook it, his speech did show him prescient.  Washington doesn’t and doesn’t want to work and people’s hopes are dashed.  This is what has people angry and it is this that has the nation divided.

I doubt Obama sees division within the country as a statement of any kind on his leadership or to be more precise, his complete lack of leadership.  Rather, like the deficits that he has increased exponentially, Obama, having been told that the nation is more divided now than ever would utter his answer that provides absolution from all accountability of his own actions:  “I inherited it from the previous administration.”

Unintended Consequences

Yes, this could be on just about any government program; Cash for Clunkers that has dried up the car market or the stimulus package that has stimulated no hiring but that for the government (or maybe that wasn’t “unintended?”)  No, this time it’s about the Swine Flu.

Item number 1:
Seasonal flu shot may increase H1N1 risk

Seems their finding a more than statistical anomaly, of people getting the swine flu after getting their regular flu shot.  The working theory is that because these shots expose you to a tamed down version of the bacteria or virus that it actually stimulates the body to create an entry point for another disease.

While I’m sure that this kind of stuff happens all the time without serious ramifications, the WHO’s and Federal Government’s continual gong banging about the impending annihilation of species: homo sapien  due to the swine flu, will make this a very complicated issue if it is proven out.

On a side note,  the information and study is coming out of the Canadian health system.  The supporters of Obamacare continually tell us how much better Canadian health care is so there’s no reason to question the veracity of this information.

Item #2:

Swine-flu false alarms crowd area ERs

Houston’s ERs are being over run by people who believe they have swine flu and need immediate treatment.  It seems that the continual gong banging by the WHO and Federal Government has a fair number of people over reacting.  Even mild flu symptoms have people piling into the ER demanding treatment. 

What’s the solution to over crowding from the medical folks?  Same as it has been from time in memoriam:  Take two aspirin and call me in the morning:

Instead, consider “telephone triage,” said Dr. Herminia Palacio, Harris County’s public health authority.

She said patients and parents should ask: “Am I somebody who needs to come in to be seen or am I somebody who can really stay at home and manage myself?”

That seems like a good common sense answer. 

Isn’t ER overuse and crowding one of the things that Obamacare is supposed to solve for us?  I wonder why the triage approach wouldn’t work for the clogging of the emergency rooms by folks who have all kinds of other issues.  If you come to the ER and you don’t warrant that kind of treatment, the ER sends you down the road to an urgent care or in some cases, even tells you to take two aspirin and call back in the morning!

I remember hearing President Obama tell us how unscrupulous doctors increased their fees by doing unnecessary procedures.  He wants to punish them and drive them from medical practice.  Under Obamacare, I wonder what the penalty would be for a government that hypes and over hypes issue after issue which results in a crisis where none really exists?  That’s exactly what’s happening in the case of the swine flu.

September 25, 2009

May God Forgive You!

by @ 8:33. Filed under Miscellaneous.

John Hawkins has done his annual survey of those considered most despised on the right.  Unlike Keith Olbermann, John asked right wingers for their opinions. 

My list to John, unranked was this:

Colin Powell
Joe Scarborough
Olympia Snowe
Susan Collins
Lamar Alexander
Michael Smerconish
Christopher Buckley
Arne Carlson
Scott McClellan
Chuck Hagel

You can see the entire list here.

September 24, 2009

Forbes weighs in on the business climate

R&E part 2 (10:38 pm 9/24/2009) – How can I forget my hat-tips? Patrick and Huckleberry Dumbell were all over this before I got to it.

Shoebox reported on the Tax Foundation’s 2009 Business Tax Climate report, which put both Wisconsin (43rd) and Minnesota (44th) in the Doghouse Ten. Forbes has some relatively-good news for one of those states, and some really-bad news for the other:

– Minnesota, buoyed by its 6th-best quality-of-life and top-10 labor rank, ranked as the 17th-best state for business. However, the news isn’t all good; its growth potential was the only other of Forbes’ 6 criteria to rank in the upper half (20th), with its regulatory climate (30th), business costs (32nd) and economic climate (35th) below par. Worse; it slipped from 11th just last year.

– Wisconsin, on the other hand, is the third-worst state for business, behind only Michigan and Rhode Island. The only above-average item in Wisconsin is quality-of-life (11th), with business costs ranking 35th, labor rank 36th, regulatory climate 37th, economic climate 41st and growth prospects 45th. Like Minnesota, Wisconsin slipped from last year; unlike Minnesota, the fall was from 43rd to 48th.

Why do I get the feeling that weighed in on Ron Kind’s decsion to stay in Congress?

Revisions/extensions (10:35 pm 9/24/2009) – Corrected the 2008 Wisconsin rank.

Some Of These Things Are Not Like The Others

Take a look at this image that shows how business friendly the tax status is of each state.

tax climate

Hey, Minnesota and Wisconsin, do you see which end of the spectrum you’re on?

Hey, Minnesota, how are those two neighbors to the west, the one’s who have no unemployment problem doing?

Hey, Minnesota, how do the state budget problems of those two neighbors to the west compare to yours? (hint, they do have any problems)

Hey, Minnesota and Wisconsin, want to be more depressed?  Read more at the Taxprof!

Revisions/extensions (3:20 pm 9/24/2009, steveegg) – Allow me to ask a few questions for the Wisconsin half of the readership:

Hey Wisconsin, you see that state to the east and the state to the south? That’s right; Michigan and Illinois are more open to business than Wisconsin.

Hey Wisconsin, how do the budget woes of that state to your west compare to yours (note to Shoebox, that’s one thing in Minnesota that isn’t as bad as it is in Wisconsin)?

Hey Wisconsin, how does it feel to be highlighted as one of the states that got it wrong in Tax Foundation’s report (see page 26)?

Hey Wisconsin and Minnesota, how is the individual-income AMT working out? Related to that, hey Minnesota, how is the corporate-income AMT working out?

Hey Wisconsin and Minnesota, what are you going to do about the politicians who admit that their confiscatory tax policies are driving jobs away (see page 7 of the report), yet make them more confiscatory?

Revisions/extensions (3:39 pm 9/24/2009, shoebox) One more….Hey, Minnesota, Wisconsin and any other state or Federal Government that thinks you can tax the “rich” with impunity without repercussion, read this!

The Social Security crater continues

I was originally going to append this to my post from the other day, but there are too many new items to cover.

First, Tom Blumer over at both NewsBusters and BizzyBlog has some disturbing news on the immediate taxation front. He looked up the payroll/self-employment tax numbers for the current quarter (2009 Q3/FY2009 Q4), compared them to the same quarter last year, and found that they were off 2.0% for July and 2.9% for August. Specifically for Social Security, the payroll/self-employment receipt numbers were off 1.7% for July and 2.4% for August.

Worse, the September numbers look like they’ll be another massive disappointment, with withheld income/payroll/self-employment tax receipts off over 17% through the third Monday of the month (9/21/2009 and 9/22/2008) and self-employment tax receipts off over 40% though the same period, or a net drop of almost 25%. Since not all income is taxed, the percent that the Social Security receipts would drop are necessarily a bit less. I’ll return to that momentarily.

Related to that, Tom noted that I could still be too optimistic in giving Social Security three years of 4.59% growth. I decided to re-run the numbers, capping the growthn at 4.02% (what the CBO calls for in FY2015), which reduces the rates in 2012, 2013 and 2014. That yields a minimum yearly primary deficit of $6 billion in FY2012, with FY2013 having a $10 billion primary deficit and FY2019 having a $101 billion deficit. I specifically avoided attempting to model what not having the “interest” that would be required to keep Social Security whole to plow back into the special bonds and certificates would do to the overall “trust fund” picture, but it is safe to say that complete exhaustion would be quite a bit earlier than 2037.

Second, the August 2009 “trust fund” numbers are finally in from Social Security, and the primary deficit is $5.833 billion, the worst since at least 1987. That puts the rolling 12-month primary surplus at $26.859 billion.

Since the September 2008 primary surplus of $3.126 billion drops off the rolling 12-month total, if there is a net zero primary surplus/deficit for September, that would put the FY2009 primary surplus at $23.733 billion. If there were a primary deficit between $5.234 and $6.233 billion, the CBO estimate of a FY2009 primary surplus of $18 billion (rounded to the nearest billion) would be correct. It would merely take a drop in Social Security payroll/self-employment taxes of about 7.4% to get there.

Game-changer – WisPolitics says Ron Kind is NOT running for governor

by @ 8:47. Filed under Politics - Wisconsin.

All WisPolitics has at this point is that their sources say that Congressman Ron Kind (D-La Crosse), who previously scheduled satellite TV time for today, will be using said time to announce that he will not be seeking the Democratic nomination for governor.

If true, that would be a serious bullet dodged for Scott Walker and Mark Neumann, the two major official candidates for the Republican nomination. While Kind would not have been able to bring over most of his federal campaign funds (at least if the Government “Accountability” Board is consistent), he would have brought a proven ability to raise funds, a telegenic face, and a lack of ties to the continuing mess the Wisconsin Democrats are making in Madison.

September 22, 2009

Hot Air exclusive – CBO says Social Security to run in the red 2010 and 2011

Ed Morrissey obtained the summer 2009 Congressional Budget Office report on the health of the Social Security “Trust Fund”, and the news isn’t good. The same CBO that, last year under now-Obama budget director Peter Orszag, claimed that the combined OASDI trust fund would not begin to run a primary deficit (what Ed calls a cash deficit and what I’ve called an ex-interest deficit) until 2019, is now saying, at least to Congressmen, that it will run a primary deficit in 2010 and 2011, briefly run a cash surplus between 2012 and 2015, and return to what is presumably a permanent primary deficit in 2016.

I guess that is what the ranking member on the House Committee on Financial Services, Rep. Spencer Bachus (R-AL) was refering to when he told his hometown paper that Social Security would go into the red before 2012 if things didn’t improve dramatically. The 2010 primary deficit is also something predicted in the 80%-confidence curve of the stochastic model.

I do have a problem with the CBO’s numbers starting with 2012, when they claim that the OASDI primary surplus would begin its last run in the black. They assumed a 6.19% growth in revenues derived from the payroll tax in 2012, and a 5.69% growth in revenues in 2013. I decided to re-run the numbers using the still-high 4.59% growth in revenues called for in 2014 for those two years, and low-and-behold, the primary deficit never quite turns around:

On a related note, the Office of the Chief Actuary does not have the August 2009 “trust fund” performance available yet. However, the 12-month primary surplus between August 2008 (when the “trust fund” began running monthly primary deficits) and July 2009 is only $32.5 billion, with 8 of the 12 months having a primary deficit.

Revisions/extensions (10:27 am 9/22/2009) – Corrected a typo due to a misread of the chart. The CBO predicts permanent red ink for Social Security beginning in 2016, not 2017.

R&E part 2 (10:49 am 9/22/2009) – A couple of housekeeping items:

First, thanks for the link, Ed. Without you getting the numbers out of the CBO, I wouldn’t have been able to run with them.

Second the cumulative 10-year primary deficits of $152 billion (if CBO’s numbers are right)-$264 billion (if my numbers are right) will need to be added to the overall 10-year deficit of $9 billion and overall projected debt of $22 billion as they are currently unfunded liabilities.

R&E part 3 (6:02 pm 9/22/2009) – In case you missed the trackbacks on Hot Air, some more good reading can be found at both Ace of Spades HQ and Daily Pundit. Bill Quick notes that the bipartisan Party-In-Government will not let SocSecurity fail spectacularily, though I note that the numbers simply aren’t there for a 1983-style fix, and that final failure isn’t slated for another 25 or so years. The Morons are, as always, our informative and entertaining selves.

R&E part 4 (10:45 am 9/24/2009) – The conversation continues above, with some new numbers from both Tom Blumer and the Social Security Administration.

Well, Duh!

by @ 5:50. Filed under Economy, Politics - National.

It was probably, in the end, a complete waste of taxpayer money.

Oh, just read the article and think of how many different activities that phrase could fully summarize.

h/t Instapundit

September 21, 2009

by @ 19:00. Filed under Miscellaneous.

Obama at Risk of Being on D-List of Presidents

Personally, I think he’ll have to ace his final to get a “D”…

Well, There You Go Again!

by @ 17:25. Filed under Health Care Reform, Politics - Minnesota.

Why is it that the man who is supposed to have been the brightest, best spoken, deepest thinker and yes, clean, has so much trouble with something as simple as a dictionary?

In an interview with George Stephanopoulos on Sunday, President Obama refused to admit that his tax was a tax:

STEPHANOPOULOS:  That may be, but it’s still a tax increase.

   OBAMA:  No.  That — that’s not true, George.  The — for us to say that you’ve got to take a responsibility to get health insurance is absolutely not a tax increase.

   What it’s saying is, is that we’re not going to have other people carrying your burdens for you any more than the fact that right now everybody in America, just about, has to get auto insurance.  Nobody considers that a tax increase.  People say to themselves, that is a fair way to make sure that, if you hit my car, that I’m not covering all the costs.

   STEPHANOPOULOS:  But it may be fair, it may be good public policy…

   OBAMA:  No, but — but, George, you — you can’t just make up that language and decide that that’s called a tax increase.  Any — if I — if I say that right now your premiums are going to be going up by 5 percent or 8 percent or 10 percent next year, and you say, “Well, that’s not a tax increase,” but, on the other hand, if I say that I don’t want to have to pay for you not carrying coverage, even after I give you tax credits that make it affordable, then…

   STEPHANOPOULOS:  I — I don’t think I’m making it up.  Merriam- Webster’s dictionary:  Tax, “a charge, usually of money, imposed by authority on persons or property for public purposes.”

   OBAMA:  George, the fact that you looked up Merriam’s dictionary, the definition of tax increase, indicates to me that you’re stretching a little bit right now.  Otherwise, you wouldn’t have gone to the dictionary to check on the definition.  I mean, what…

What?  “You can’t just make up that language?”  How can the use of Webster’s definition of the very word being debated be “making up language?”
OK, well, if the actual definition doesn’t count, can we look at how the item functions to determine its definition?
In an AP article, Clint Stretch, head of the tax policy group for Deloitte, a major accounting firm said:

If you put something in the Internal Revenue Code, and you tell the IRS to collect it, I think that’s a tax.  If you don’t pay, the person who’s going to come and get it is going to be from the IRS.

Well, that seems pretty obvious and conclusive.

Politicians have always played loose with definitions.  I have no doubt that if we looked hard enough we would find a Southern Democrat of the time claim that the Civil War was fought over the issue of state’s rights rather than the final resolution of an issue that wasn’t resolved at the founding of the country and had finally ripened within the enlightened nation to a point where its implications could no longer be ignored!

Yes, politicians have always been challenged to stay within the bounds of Webster’s definitions.  However, I don’t think it was until Bill Clinton told us that “sex” wasn’t “sex” that Democrats viewed dictionaries as yet another tool perpetuated by the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy.  So now we know, that because of Webster’s work, “sex” isn’t “sex” and a “tax” isn’t a “tax.”

If It’s Free, I’ll Take Two

by @ 5:25. Filed under Health Care Reform.

Here’s a Rasmussen poll that is sure to knock your socks off.  When asked, a majority of the uninsured thought Obamacare sounded pretty good to them.  I was a bit buoyed seeing that only 58% thought it sounded good.  Apparently the other 32% have some level of personal responsibility.

The survey found that when viewed on the basis of their political ideology, the uninsured’s perspective doesn’t look much different than the insured:

Sixty-eight percent (68%) of uninsured Republicans oppose the plan while 88% of Democrats favor it. Those not affiliated with either party are evenly divided.

Perhaps the most interesting bit of information from the poll was this:

Thirty-four percent (34%) of the uninsured voters are under 30. In Election 2008, just 18% of voters were that young.

People under 30 are the group easiest to insure.  In general, this age group is the healthiest and has the fewest by far, of any pre existing conditions.  This means that rates for their insurance would be relatively cheap, especially if they were getting only catastrophic insurance and that they would have few issues that would prevent an insurer from making them an offer of coverage.  Along with this, there are many state programs that provide financial assistance for low income, temporarily unemployed and other reasons that someone in this younger age group may not be able to afford insurance.  Yet, with all these advantages, they make up over 1/3 of the uninsured and likely a significant portion of the folks who think that Obamacare is just the thing we need.

Under all Democrat plans there will be a penalty or tax if you don’t have Obamacare.  The tax or penalty will likely be as much and possibly more than those same under 30s would pay today for catastrophic health care.  I wonder if anyone has explained to the under 30 crowd that Obamacare does not mean free health care?  I suspect not.  I suspect the reason that the under 30 crowd is so enamored with Obamacare is the same reason they are enamored with other government run programs.  For many of the under 30 crowd, if the government is paying for it, it’s free so they’ll take two.

Who’s The Racist Now?

by @ 5:12. Filed under Obama worship, Politics - National.

Saturday, I informed you about the new definition of racism.  No longer does racism have to do with someone’s race.  No, according to the Left, racism now is based on any disagreement with liberals, Democrats or elites.  This new definition would make all of us that don’t fall into the group of liberals, Democrats or elites, racist at all times regardless of what our views on race really are.  In contrast, this new definition would make it definitionally impossible to be racist if you were within the group of liberals, Democrats or elites can be racist.  Or does it?

New York Governor David Paterson has had an “unusual” term.  After assuming office as a result of the resignation of Eliot Spitzer’s prostitution revelations,on his second day in office, both Paterson and his wife acknowledged having extramarital affairs, one with a state employee.  In his inaugural speech, Paterson called the New York legislature

the least deliberative and most dysfunctional in the nation.

After Hillary Clinton resigned her Senate position to become Secretary of State, Paterson was a character in Caroline Kennedy’s vaudeville like attempts to be appointed as her replacement.  In the final scene, after abruptly declaring she was not interested in the role, Paterson claimed he had “never intended” to pick her.

New York’s financial situation is perhaps the most vexing issue Paterson is facing.  Like many states, New York is facing a budget shortfall.  Being a large state, New York’s short fall has been, well, large.  Paterson’s budget called for tax increases on nearly everything one could imagine taxing.  By one account, the tax increases proposed by Paterson would increase the taxes on the average New York family by nearly $4,000 each year.

As a result of his policy and personal handling of issues, Paterson is polling a 60% disapproval rating.  Polls have also showed Paterson trailing possible Republican contender, Rudy Giuliani by 15 points.

Facing a possible rout by Republicans in an important, reliably liberal state, Democrats are now pressuring Paterson to back off of his bid for reelection (or election if you’re a purist) to Governor.  Some Democrats are even suggesting that Paterson ought to resign to allow someone else a chance to get a running start at the role.  In this article covered by NewsMax, even President Obama is now encouraging Paterson to drop out of the Governor’s race.  To date, Paterson has not obliged any of the requests.

While I’m sure there are many Republicans who are unhappy with Paterson as Governor, it’s not they who are making news asking him not to run; it’s Democrats.  That must mean that there are Democrats who are unhappy with a Democrat.  Further, that must mean that there are Democrats who are unhappy with another Democrat who happens to be black.  Finally, there is a Democrat President, who happens to be black, who is unhappy with Paterson, a Democrat who happens to be black.

If a Democrat, who happens to be black, is unhappy with the abilities of another Democrat, who happens to be black, and asks the second Democrat, who happens to be black, not to run for office, we now know the reason for the dissatisfaction is due to racism.  I’m left with just one question, who’s the racist; the Democrat who happens to be black or the Democrat who happens to be black?

September 19, 2009

Jumping The Racism Shark

Here’s a joke that is going around the internet:

A Republican, a Democrat and a person of color were walking down the street.  The Democrat looked at the Republican and said “You’re a racist!”

Ha, ha, ha, ha!

OK, I haven’t really heard that joke yet.  It does however, describe the Left’s view of Republicans and people of color.  It now seems that regardless of the situation, the Left believes that all interactions that Republicans have with people of color are tinged with racism. 

The race situation has become so contorted that no matter what Republicans do, they lose on the issue.  When Republicans fight for school vouchers, a program that has been shown to benefit students of color often more than caucasion students, Republicans are claimed to be racist for fear of tearing apart highly segregated inner city schools.  When Republicans appoint or hire people of color into leadership positions i.e. Condoleezza Rice, Colin Powell, Michael Steele, the candidates are charged with some form of Uncle Tomism and Republican’s are charged with tokenism.

As the debate on Obama’s agenda has escalated, there has been an equal escalation in the claims of racism against those who oppose Obama.  The racism claims were initially isolated.  In the last week however, hardly any discussion of Obama’s policies or those opposing them is had without overt or subtle claims of racism against President Obama.  Most notably this past week was Maxine Water’s demand to know what the tea party participants are thinking and Nancy Pelosi’stearful concern of returning to the 70’s where, incidentally, the culprit was a whacko leftist not a Republican.

Those who know the Left and their unimaginative, repetitive tactics, are not surprised that they have invoked racism nor that it slips off their tongues as easily as raising taxes does as a solution to all budget problems.  However, even I am left with my jaw hanging after reading the latest view of the Right’s supposed racism.

After stating that his gut and Maureen Dowd’s are the same (What happens if one of them doesn’t like Thai food?) New Republic writer, John McWorter identifies a new source of our disgust with Obama’s agenda:

And yet, even if Dowd and I are correct that Wilson’s outburst was motivated by dislike for blacks, I’m not entirely sure that I, or anyone else, should care. Consider a hypothetical: Wilson, we can presume, would have been pleased as punch if the new black president were a Republican and were up at the podium singing the praises of small government and sending immigrants back to where they came from. This thought experiment does not exonerate Wilson of the charge of racism; what it does mean is that we are talking about a racism more complicated than the bigotries of old, a racism intertwined with other brands of animus (against liberals, against Democrats, against elites) to an extent we can only speculate about.

According to Mr. McWorter, racism is no longer an issue of intolerance of another race.  Rather, racism, in Mr. McWorter’s view, is now the disagreement or intolerance of philosophies held by liberal, Democrats or even self proclaimed elites!

Beyond surprising Noah Webster, McWorter’s new definition of racism is going to come as a surprise to a whole bunch of other folks.  Certainly,  Abraham Lincoln would be surprised to learn that his opposition to the Left’s support of slavery, was racist.  I suspect Lyndon Johnson and Martin Luther King would be surprised that they were also racists as they opposed policies that had been implemented and institutionalized by Democrats for generations.

According to Mr. McWorter You, I and anyone else who opposes any solitary policy or legislative sentence proffered by a Democrat, are racist.  No longer is there any concern for how ill thought or destructive to America a policy is, from now on, all policies from the Left are right.  Unless of course you are a racist.

“Jump the shark” is a colloquialism used to denote the point where traditional or commonly understood approaches veer off into absurdity or out-of-the-ordinary characterizations. I suggest that “Jump the shark” no longer adequately defines the extreme to which this phenomena can mutate. From now on “Jump the shark” shall be referred to as “disagreement is racism.” Compared to “disagreement is racism,” “Jump the shark” seems almost normal.

Eggs on the road – Tea time

by @ 11:59. Filed under Miscellaneous.

If all goes well, I should be at Veterans Park for the Milwaukee Tea Party by 1 pm. The fun starts at 3, but I recommend getting there early.

September 18, 2009

Will This Help Charlie Gibson’s Awareness?

by @ 12:51. Filed under Miscellaneous.

Counting Czars

by @ 10:05. Filed under Politics - National.

Here’s the DNC’s idea of a convincing ad:

Interestingly, the issue of “who has hired the most czars” has become a bit of a political football as of late.

Lou Dobbs reports that the DNC is inaccurate and that Bush only had 10 Czars

While the Washington Post says about Bush’s Czar count:

By one count, Bush had 36 czar positions filled by 46 people during his eight years as president.

But, as Senator Lamar Alexander lays out in this interview, the issue isn’t really the number of “special advisers” or czars.  The issue is that Obama is unprecedented in his use of unconfirmed, unvetted by Congress, czars!

So who’s right?  Well, at a certain level, who cares!

If the DNC’s point is that it’s OK for Barack Obama to have a bunch of czars because Bush had a bunch of czars, their ears are more tinned than Jack Haley!  The Left has no love for Bush, period and the Right has no love for Bush’s expansion of  government and providing the jumping off point for Obama’s rush to socialism.

President Obama has taken no responsibility for any of the negative things his administration has been involved with.  I looks lik the DNC, in a clumsy fashion, is following in the logic of Obama’s recurring excuse when confronted with bad news:

Hey, don’t blame me, I inheirited this mess!

September 17, 2009

Confused? You’re Not The Only One

by @ 11:45. Filed under Health Care Reform, Politics - National.

With the addition of the Baucus bill it’s getting hard to keep track of what proposals are included in which of the various health care proposals. Bottom line is that they all have a mandate for having health insurance and they all have a public option although it is hidden under different names (coop) depending upon the bill you are looking at.

If you are feeling confused by what is being discussed under the various scenarios, you can surely have empathy for the senility creeping into Harry Reid’s head. At the news conference yesterday, Harry was one of the few immediately greeting the Baucus bill:

This is a good bill. This is a balanced bill,” he told reporters at a Capitol Hill news conference. Earlier, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., said, “Everyone should understand it’s just the beginning, but it’s a good beginning.”

But…..somewhere in his walk down the office halls he seemed to forget his earlier support:

“While this draft bill is a good starting point, it needs improvement before it will work for Nevada,” Reid said in a statement. “During this time of economic crisis, our state cannot afford to shoulder the second highest increase in Medicaid funding.”

Harry appears to believe that he can have his cake and eat it too.  He believes he can say one thing as leader of the Senate and something very different as the Senator from Nevada.

I wonder if Harry has ever heard Al Gore discuss the laters invention of the internet?

Open Thread Thursday – The Histamine Edition

by @ 6:20. Filed under Open Thread Thursday.

Allergies are simply knocking me flat, so I’m glad it’s Open Thread Thursday. In place of the usual music, I present the best PSA from the late Henry Gibson (from “Kentucky Fried Movie”)…


Have at it.

[No Runny Eggs is proudly powered by WordPress.]