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 October, 2009

October 22, 2009

Hot Read Thursday – William Ahern’s “Can Income Tax Hikes Close the Deficit?”

by @ 11:13. Filed under Politics - National, Taxes.

William Ahern of The Tax Foundation asks the question, and pretty much answers it in the negative. You’ll have to go over there for the lengthy explanation as well as the charts, but I’ll give you a feel for the analysis for the “ebb tide of deficits” year of 2012, as well as a note that the analysis assumes that the higher tax rates won’t influence the larger economy:

This analysis assumes that individuals would not change their income-earning or tax-planning behavior in response to higher tax rates. That is, they would earn the same amounts as they would with current tax rates, and they would fill out their tax returns in the same way they do now. But of course they would alter their behavior. With high-income people paying a federal tax rate over 90 percent, and most states adding on about 8 percent, plus local income taxes and payroll taxes, tax rates would be over 100 percent for many households. In other words, beyond some point government would be taxing away all earnings and there would be no incentive to work….

…(E)ven in 2012 and 2013, when projected deficits are the lowest, according to the Administration, tax rates would have to be levied at prohibitively high levels to erase the deficit. For example, in 2012, even after the top two tax rates have been raised from 33% to 36% and from 35% to 39.6%, all the rates would have to be multiplied by 1.87 to raise enough to erase the deficit (see Table 3).

Average tax payments would rise precipitously in 2012 if that were the year targeted for eradicating the deficit, though not as steeply as in 2010.

Table 4 shows the effect on average tax payments in 2012 if Congress decided to close the deficit that year. Low-income filers (AGI between $0 and $20,000) would pay $248 instead of $129; middle-income filers (AGI between $75,000 and $100,000) would pay about $13,700 instead of $7,000; and the highest-earning filers (AGIs over $1 million) would pay about $1,650,000 instead of $935,000.

Walker, 7 supervisors to furlough themselves

by @ 10:36. Filed under Politics - Milwaukee County.

While the story in today’s Milwaukee Journal Sentinel is heavily-slanted in favor of the supervisors, so much so that they include three supervisors donating 4 days’ worth of pay to entities other than the county government, it is encouraging to see that Milwaukee County Executive Scott Walker and several members of the County Board are taking the same 4-day lack of pay that they are having most of the county workers take, even though state law says that they cannot change their pay in office.

This stems from last week’s 16-1 vote by the County Board to order most of the county’s workers to take four unpaid days off between now and the end of the year. Supervisor Christopher Larson, in a moment of clarity, circulated a memo to the other supervisors asking they forego 4 days’ of pay (roughly $780 out of their $50,679 annual salary), and Supervisors Paul Cesarz (my supervisor), Mark Borkowski, Patricia Jursik, Joseph Rice, Joe Sanfelippo, and Jim “Luigi” Schmitt said they would do so. Borowski gave the following quote to the Journal Sentinel: “What’s fair is fair. I’m going to treat myself like a regular county employee.”

In a separate action, Milwaukee County Executive Scott Walker said that he would return $1,936 (four days’ worth of the executive’s pay), in addition to the $10,000 he already returns.

Meanwhile, Supervisors Gerry Broderick, Lynne De Bruin, and Johnny Thomas said they would donate an equivalent amount to various charities and non-county-government entities. De Bruin noted that her donation to a Milwaukee County Zoo trust fund for animals could be deducted from her taxes.

Now, to the stupid statements uttered by some of the supervisors. First up, the aforementioned Schmidt. We actually have two of them from him; that he doesn’t have the spare cash to give up $780 in one fell swoop, and that he already “sacrificed” by giving up the enhanced pension benefits (a 25% boost in the payments plus an unlimited-time backdrop) that he voted for. Points of order #1 – the county workers aren’t being asked to give up those four days of pay in one fell swoop. In fact, it is spread over four biweekly pay periods. Somehow I think Schmitt can come up with four payments of $190.

Point of order #2 – the major long-term problem with county finances is due in large part to those enhanced pension benefits Schmitt voted for.

Next up on the stupid statement parade – Supervisor Theo Lipscomb, who said he gave up $25,000 a year to work in county government and is officially undecided on whether he’ll take some personal pain. What, he couldn’t figure out that being a Milwaukee County Supervisor means that he doesn’t really have to give up anything from his other job? Of course, considering his leanings, he seems to view government as a bottomless piggy bank.

Finally, we have the one person who explicitly rejected the idea of giving anything back, John Weishan. News flash for Karen’s little brother – that’s your budget that’s blown up since you overrode almost all of Walker’s vetoes.

Going down, down, down, down

by @ 8:44. Filed under Politics - National.

Rasmussen Reports has the mostly-bad news for Barack Obama in today’s edition of the Daily Presidential Tracking Poll, a 3-day rolling average of 1,500 likely voters asked to rate the President’s job approval. The dirty details:

  • Total disapproval beats total approval 52%-47%, the twelth consecutive day that more people disapprove of Obama’s job performance than approve of it (at least to the nearest whole percentage point). Also, it has been 17 days since more people (again to the nearest whole percentage point) approved of Obama’s job performance than disapprove of it.
  • The Presidential Approval Index, which is the percentage of those who strongly approve minus the percentage of those who strongly disapprove, is once again tied for its lowest rating at -13, marking the first time it has been in double-digit negatives for 7 consecutive days. Worse, the last time it was not in negative territory was on 6/29, when it was +1.
  • Among independents, the Presidential Approval Index is a whopping -22 (18% strongly approve, 42% strongly disapprove)
  • Forgot to mention originally the 26% Strong Approval overall is Obama’s worst performance to date, and that Obama is within the error of rounding of losing “Strong Approval” among Democrats (if it already hasn’t been lost; the publicly-available numbers are rounded to the whole percentage point, and that is at 50%).

No wonder he and his ilk want the opposition, whether it be Fox News, insurance companies, the financial services industry or the US Chamber of Commerce, to be shut up.

Revisions/extensions (8:53 am 10/22/2009) – Forgot to include one key bad element.

October 21, 2009

Crap, Double Crap and Triple Crap

by @ 5:48. Filed under Politics - National.

Lots of bad new of you’re a Democrat

It’s got to be depressing look up from that ever deeper hole each day!

Can you tell which party is in control by these stats?

Finally, Congratulations Republicans, you’re more trusted on every issue. The question is, are people voting for you or are they just really pissed with the Democrats? One leads to electoral victory, the other means you’re the lesser of two evils which only holds votes until a Democrat arises who is anywhere to the right of President Obama

October 20, 2009

Sorry about the silence

by @ 15:06. Filed under Miscellaneous.

I’ve just been completely out of it. Consider this an early edition of Open Thread Thursday.

How Do You Hide $475 Billion

As amusing as the answer might be, the correct answer is not, “With a REALLY large mattress!”

A couple of weeks back, the Senate Finance committee passed the Baucus bill version of Placebocare.  Much heralded at the time, was the announcement that the Baucus bill had managed to meet President Obama’s promise that socialized health care would cost less than $1 Trillion for the first 10 years.  In fact, the Baucus bill purported to leave lots of wiggle room for CBO fine tuning, with a price tag of merely $829 Billion dollars.

Philip Klein at the American Spectatortook a look at the Baucus costs and found something interesting; the 10 years of costs really only included 4 years of the Baucus program being full implemented.  In the words of Desi Arnaz, “Oh Lucy, you forgot something!”

The graphical presentation from Klein clearly shows the problem in the cost analysis:

Baucusbill

You can see that while there are some costs in the early years, the Baucus bill costs don’t hit their trend line until 2016. The graph shows clearly that 2010 through 2015 do not reflect the same program as that from 2016 on.

OK, we have a gap. The logical next question is, “If $829 billion isn’t the true 10 year cost, what is?”

I began with the information provided by Klein and look at the per person costs of the Baucus plan based on the projected estimation of the US population.  This review shows that the Baucus bill assumes that after adjusting for population, they have baked in an average of a 7% inflation rate from 2016 on.  I used this same 7% inflation rate and worked backwards from 2016 and further adjusted for the projected inflation.  I then did a calculation of what the Baucus bill might cost, with these assumptions, if it was fully implemented from day 1 in 2010.  The calculations are in the following spreadsheet:

Baucus cost

Column “B” is in 1,000’s, “D” and “E” are $.  The others are in billions.

Assuming a 7% inflation rate and increasing population growth, my calculation shows that if the Baucus bill were fully implemented on day 1 rather than 6 years later, the total cost for the 10 years would be well over President Obama’s commitment of $1 trillion dollars.  In fact, the cost would likely be $475 billion, 57% more than what was trumpeted by the Finance committee.  Rather than $829 billion dollars, the true 10 year cost would be over $1.3 trillion dollars!

Q: How do you hide $475 billion dollars? 

A: Claim to pay for the program for only 40% of the time!

October 19, 2009

Set Your DVR

by @ 10:42. Filed under Health Care Reform, Politics - National.

The latest Rasmussen poll is in and it’s not good for Placebocare.  Only 42% now support “reform” that is anything but.  24% strongly support the legislation and 42% strongly oppose it.

While most of the numbers in the latest poll, other than support is back near its lowest level, haven’t changed, there is one statistic that I found very interesting.  When asked what effect the proposed legislation would have on the cost of health care, 18% answered that the legislation would cause those costs to decrease!  Who the heck are these people?  I can only believe that they are the same folks who believe that the final plan will be a “bipartisan plan!

While the tact the Democrats will take to attempt to pass this atrocity is not yet certain, one thing is certain.  The last time the polling dipped towards the low 40’s% support, President Obama showed up in prime time to buoy it.  With insurance companies, the Chamber of Commerce and other organizations now coming out against Placebocare, the public momentum is not on the side of the Democrat’s.  If polling support drops below 40%, even the Democrats won’t be able to hold together to push this through.  Expect to see another prime time address from President Obama.  You can set your DVR by it!

This Just In….

by @ 5:33. Filed under Obama worship, Politics - National.

The latest White House attempt to marginalize Fox News was on display this weekend. In separate interviews, Rahm Emanuel and David Axelrod attempted to say that Fox really wasn’t news. They both went on to say that Fox does things to make money.

Quick, someone contact ABC, NBC and CBS!  I think we have a news flash!

There was a time where the “Big 3” nearly financed the rest of their viewing offerings with the money they made off of the commercial revenue of their nightly news broadcasts.  As recently as 1980, nearly 55 million people nightly, watched the Big 3 network news each evening.  Last year that number was down to 25 million.  In the latest week, less than 21 million people watched the Big 3, a drop of nearly 20% from just last year.  The chart below shows the steady downward trend of network news viewership of the past 3 decades:

news

If that all wasn’t bad enough, in a recent survey, the total percentage of people who identified one of the Big 3 as the news organization they turned to most was a combined 27.3%. That number for the Big 3 was down almost 3% from 2007. In the same survey, Fox news was identified as the news organization people turned to the most by 28.4%, up nearly 2% since 2007.

I’ll bet the White House thought the Big 3 folks generated “news” when they made lots of money.  Are they now saying that NPR is the only arbiter of what is and isn’t news?  I suppose with all of the newspapers that are going out of business due to lack of subscribers and profit, they could also be purveyors of “news?”

Does the White House really believe that their words will convince those who trust or rely on Fox news not to?  Well, if they believe we buy the line about our insurance not changing with Placebocare, I suppose they could believe this as well.  The problem is, too many folks have now learned the line and repeat each time they hear a whine from the White House about how someone has maligned them, “Who you going to believe, me or your lying eyes?”

October 16, 2009

Weekend hot read – Robert Stacy McCain’s “NY-23 EXCLUSIVE PROFILE: Conservative Doug Hoffman: ‘Citizen Who’s Had Enough'”

by @ 22:26. Filed under Politics - National.

Robert Stacy McCain took a look at the special election taking place in New York’s 23rd Congressional District, where a liberal Repubicrat, a no-name Democrat, and a Conservative Party candidate are vying for the seat vacated by freshly-minted Secretary of the Army John McHugh (R). I do have to point out that there are a bunch of political parties in New York, though everybody ultimately caucuses with one or the other of the major national parties. Let’s let Stacy pick up the tale mid-stream (you will need to go to The American Spectator to get the links, and trust me, you’ll want to follow the links):

The Democrats’ first-choice candidate begged off, leaving the party’s nomination to Owens, a Plattsburgh lawyer. What shocked and angered many Republicans — both in New York and nationwide — was the way the state GOP leadership hand-picked Scozzafava, a state legislator so liberal as to be to the left of many Democrats in Congress. Conservative columnist Michelle Malkin described Scozzafava as an “ACORN-Friendly, Big Labor-Backing, Tax-and-Spend Radical in GOP Clothing.”

Hoffman has explained that Scozzafava’s connections with county GOP chairmen likely influenced the state party’s decision to choose her over eight other candidates seeking the Republican nomination. “It was an anointment . . . The party bosses, the lords of the backroom, made this selection,” Hoffman said Wednesday in an interview with reporters and bloggers….

Ninety percent of House Republican members have reportedly refused to donate to the Scozzafava campaign, and House Republican Conference Chairman Mike Pence of Indiana has notably refused to endorse her. When conservative Texas Rep. Jeb Hensarling, under pressure from House GOP leadership, spoke up in support of Scozzafava, he drew a firestorm of criticism from conservative bloggers.

Hammered by hard-hitting ads from Hoffman — as well as from the free-market Club For Growth, which has backed the Conservative Party candidate — Scozzafava’s campaign was reportedly nearly broke earlier this week. But Friday, the Republican National Committee confirmed to Congressional Quarterly that it had made a “six-figure” transfer to the NRCC in order to fund the Scozzafava campaign — producing yet another round of conservative denunciations of national GOP leadership. The grassroots outcry grew even louder when it was learned that former House Speaker Newt Gingrich was also supporting Scozzafava.

Go, read it all.

Can Obama Constitutionally accept the Nobel Peace Prize?

(H/T – Hot Air Headlines)

Ronald D. Rotunda and J. Peter Pham address that in today’s Washington Post. Within the confines of a relatively-short column that is optimized for print (specifically, no links) and briefly goes beyond the bounds of the Nobel and into the Collar of the King Abdul Aziz Order of Merit (Saudi Arabia’s highest honor) accepted by both Presidents Barack Obama and George W. Bush, it is in the main a decent look. Before I get to my non-scholary look, however, I do have a point of order to make – as far as the Enoulments portion of the Constitution is concerned, the Constitution, and the laws and regulations set within the bounds thereof, do not care whether the impetus for an award issued by a foreign government is for past actions or the hope of future actions. Other portions of the American body of law may well distinguish between the two, but the discussion of that point, or the merits (or lack thereof) of the award itself is not germaine to this post.

Like Routunda and Pham, I start with Article I, Section 9, which states, “And no Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under them, shall, without the Consent of the Congress, accept of any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince or foreign State.” Obama does hold an office of Trust, specifically the Office of President. The Norwegian Nobel Committee, which has announced that it will award the Nobel Peace Prize to Obama, is appointed by and reports to the Norwegian parliament, which makes it an agent of a foreign State.

Congress can pass a resolution consenting to Obama receiving the Peace Prize and all of its associated awards and gifts. If that is done, that would be the end of the Constitutional question. However, if that is not done, other mechanisms are in place to govern the implemtation of the Emoulment Clause.

While Routunda and Pham rely on a 1993 opinion from the White House Office of Legal Council that the clause applies when a foreign government acts through “instrumentalities”, I’ll head to 5 USC § 7342, which deals with the “(r)eceipt and disposition of foreign gifts and decorations”. By definition, the United States Code applies to the President, and also by definition, it defines a “foreign government” as:

(A) any unit of foreign governmental authority, including any foreign national, State, local, and municipal government;
(B) any international or multinational organization whose membership is composed of any unit of foreign government described in subparagraph (A); and
(C) any agent or representative of any such unit or such organization, while acting as such

The Norwegian Nobel Committee is appointed by the Storting, Norway’s Parliament, which makes it a unit of foreign governmental authority, and makes anything given by it subject to the United States Code.

Continuing with 5 USC § 7342, as well as the eCFR version of 41 CFR § 102-42 (current as of 10/14/2009, though I note that the official 2009 version of 41 CFR § 102 has not been released even though it was supposed to be released on 7/1/2009), it actually has different definitions for “gifts” and “decorations”, which is important because the 10 million Swedish crowns ($1.4 million at current exchange rates) given to the Laureate is not part of the Nobel award ceremony, and the US Code defines the disposition of the two differently. It defines a “gift” as “a tangible or intangible present (other than a decoration) tendered by, or received from, a foreign government”, while it defines a “decoration” as “an order, device, medal, badge, insignia, emblem, or award tendered by, or received from, a foreign government”.

While the US Code is silent on who the “employing agency” of the President is, 41 CFR § 102-42.70 states, “The National Archives and Records Administration normally handles gifts and decorations received by the President and Vice President or a member of the President’s or Vice President’s family.” Do keep this in mind because I will come back to it.

Since the US Code deals first with the disposition of “gifts”, I will first deal with the cash prize. 5 USC § 7342(c)(1) gives automatic Congressional consent to four types of gifts: those with “minimal value” (defined as under $335 as of last year), travel outside the US if allowed by the employing agency regardless of value, those of any value if the gift is accepted on behalf of the United States and the gift is given to the United States government upon acceptance, and those above the “minimal value” if refusal of the gift would “likely cause offense or embarrassment or otherwise adversely affect the foreign relations of the United States”.

In that last case, 5 USC § 7342(c)(2) says the person who accepts a tangible gift has 60 days to turn over that gift to his or her employing agency for disposal or official use. While 5 USC § 7342(e)(1) authorizes the employing agency to return the gift to the person who received it, 41 CFR § 102-42.20(b)(2)(ii) requires that all cash gifts that have “no historic or numismatic value” be deposited into the Department of the Treasury.

Allow me to restate that for those who missed the lengthy explanation – While Obama can accept the $1.4 million in cash without Congressional approval if he claims that refusing it would harm foreign relations with Norway, by law he must turn it over to the Department of the Treasury.

Now we can get to the Medal and Diploma, as well as the title itself. All three are inarguably “decorations” under the US Code. 5 USC § 7342(d) allows employees, including the President, to accept and keep decorations without specific Congressional consent only if they were “tendered in recognition of active field service in time of combat operations or awarded for other outstanding or unusually meritorious performance, subject to the approval of the employing agency of such employee. Without this approval, the decoration is deemed to have been accepted on behalf of the United States, shall become the property of the United States, and shall be deposited by the employee, within sixty days of acceptance, with the employing agency for official use, (or) for forwarding to the Administrator of General Services for disposal in accordance with subsection (e)(1)….” Since the Code of Federal Regulations states that the National Archives and Records Administration handles gifts and declarations foreign governments give to the President, unless they decide that it is being awarded for “outstanding or unusually meritorious performance”, while Obama can still be the person to temporarily take possession of the award, he must by law do so on behalf of the United States instead of himself, and must relinquish everything to the National Archives.

I may not have access to Nexis-Lexus, but a quick search through both Yahoo News and Google News yields no sources saying that the National Archives has done so. Of course, there are several weeks left for them to do so, or alternatively for Congress to explicitly consent to Obama receiving the award.

Again, let me restate – Without either National Archives or Congressional approval, while Obama can temporarily take possession of the non-monetary instruments of the Nobel Peace Prize, he must by law do so not in his name but in the name of the United States, and then by law must relinquish all instruments of same to the National Archives.

They Also Believe Humans Evolved From Aliens

by @ 15:16. Filed under Health Care Reform.

Only 18% Expect Final Health Care Plan To Be Bipartisan

October 15, 2009

Open Thread Thursday – Vaporbill edition

by @ 6:51. Filed under Open Thread Thursday.

So all the Democrats (including Olympia Snowe) voted for the Baucus Vaporbill version of PlaceboCare. That leaves me too sick to do a proper OTT post, so you’ll just have to send me your links.

October 14, 2009

The utter hypocrisy of the Nobody but Fucking Liberals gang (formerly known as the National Football League)

by @ 20:58. Filed under Politics - National, Sports.

What do you suppose the difference is between this

NFL owners meeting in Boston this week approved (Stacy Ann “Fergie” Ferguson,) the Black Eyed Peas singer as a part owner, but the team has yet to complete an agreement with her, Dolphins chief executive officer Mike Dee said in an e-mail Tuesday.

…and this

(Rush) Limbaugh was to be a limited partner in a group headed by St. Louis Blues chairman Dave Checketts. Checketts said in a statement Wednesday that Limbaugh’s participation had become a complication in the group’s efforts and the bid will move forward without him….

Three-quarters of the league’s 32 owners would have had to approve any sale to Limbaugh and his group. Earlier this week, Indianapolis Colts owner Jim Irsay predicted that Limbaugh’s potential bid would be met by significant opposition. Several players have also voiced their displeasure with Limbaugh’s potential ownership position, and NFL Players Association head DeMaurice Smith, who is black, urged players to speak out against Limbaugh’s bid….

At the NFL owners meetings this week in Boston, NFL commissioner Roger Goodell addressed Limbaugh’s potential involvement in the league and said “divisive comments are not what the NFL is all about.”

Goodell added: “I’ve said many times before, we’re all held to a high standard here. I would not want to see those comments coming from people who are in a responsible position in the NFL — absolutely not.”

I guess singing about being a nymphomaniac while being an ardent member of the ObamiNation counts for far more than decrying the gang infusion of the NFL (something that Mr. Jane Skinner is supposedly against) while not being a card-carrying, or any other kind of, member of the ObamiNation.

Wednesday Hot Read – Gateway Pundit quotes The Won

by @ 11:09. Filed under Miscellaneous.

Jim Hoft provides just a sampling of the “wit and wisdom” of the 2009 Nobel Piec…er, Peace Prize Winner. My favorite:

Obama on the killer Iranian regime murdering their own people in the street:
“The Iranians are having a robust debate.”

Laid off? Turn off that tip jar and shut down the ads

by @ 9:41. Filed under Economy, Politics, The Blog.

(H/T – Fred)

Forbes reported on the case of the propreitor of STL Meal Deals, Karin. Karin, who had been laid off from her job at a law firm in New York and moved to St. Louis to try to find work in the paralegal field, started up the blog in April to write about local restaurant promotions. She signed up for Google’s AdSense, which sent her her first check, for $100 and change, 3 months later when she reached that amount. Up to the point where she took down the ads, she earned a total of $238.75.

That’s when the problems really started. She informed New York’s Department of Labor of the payment, as she was receiving unemployment compensation to the tune of $405 per week from the state of New York. Their rules state that if one works at least one day and receives any compensation for that work, benefits would be cut a minimum of 25%, and if that compensation exceeds the unemployment compensation, that week’s benefits would be cut to $0.00.

The DOL initially cut her unemployment compensation to $300, and sent her a form to fill out and send to her employer. Karin, unsure of whether Google qualified as the employer, asked for clarification, and was told that the AdSense payments were considered “residuals” and thus not reportable. She then re-filed her claim, saying that the AdSense payments, which was generated from her blog, were her sole non-governmental source of income. The DOL responded by launching an investigation of her “business”/blogging activities, suspending her unemployment benefits entirely, declaring her “self-employed” (with the AdSense income reportable), and directing her to delcare that she was “working” every time she updated her blog.

Forbes has yet to get an answer on whether the DOL considers AdSense payments “residuals” or “self-employment income”, though they did get a response that those payments are “uncharted territory”.

I’m a bit more comfortable with my decision to not have either ads or a tip jar at this place, especially since I have both a co-blogger and several guest-bloggers.

Complete this statement – “When history calls,…”

In case you haven’t heard the (lack-of-)reasoning Sen. Olympia Snowe (R-ME) gave for voting for the Baucus Vaporware version of PlaceboCare, she said, “When history calls, history calls.” I’ve got my fair share of Morons that supposedly read this place, so I know you can do better than the second half of that.

Have at it, and don’t worry about keeping it clean. I’ll even get you started off right…

“When history calls, I take a shit the size of Rhode Island.”

October 13, 2009

How much per Porkulus job – Wisconsin edition

by @ 16:33. Filed under Economy, Politics - Wisconsin.

WisPolitics carried a press release from the Doyle administration claiming that just short of $680 million in 1st-reporting-quarter Porkulus spending “created” or “saved” 8,284 full-time jobs, including over 6,100 “essential” government jobs “saved” (e.g. firefighters, police offers and teachers). Doc over at The Autopsy hammers for effect on the “essential saved” jobs:

And let’s be honest, this is a little bit of legerdemain. Do you think Wisconsin would really lay off 6100 firefighters, policemen and teachers? Of course not. That would be political suicide for Democrats as each is unionized. (I’m a teacher in a public school, and I’ve lost 5% of my income.) So did the stimulus really “save” those jobs? No. What it did was allow the state to say they would have cut those jobs had there been no stimulus.

As an analogy, suppose I get $100,000 from a benefactor, then say, “Thank goodness I got the money, or I would have had to sell my kids for medical experiments!” Would I really sell my kids? Of course not. But that’s the impression I’m giving by saying they were “saved” by the $100,000 donation.

Not to be outdone, Republican Party of Wisconsin chair Reince Priebus said:

The Doyle Administration’s announcement that its use of stimulus dollars has lead to saving or creating 8,284 state jobs is an embarrassment to our state. Not only did these ‘jobs’ come at a cost of over $82,000 each, policies like combined reporting and higher taxes have cost Wisconsin over 130,000 jobs in the past year alone. Doyle and the Democrats are out of touch and out of ideas, and, sadly, Wisconsin is out of jobs because of their failed policies.

I’ll point back to something the Fond du Lac Reporter noted when the Fond du Lac County Board rammed home a massive tax increase for the benefit of Mercury Marine – for a tax subsidy to an employer to make economic sense, it should be somewhere on the order of $20,000 per job. Last I checked, $82,000 is well above $20,000.

The biggest laugh is White House-mandated math that allows the state to claim those over-6,100 jobs “saved” and less-than-2,100 jobs “created” (assuming that any were actually “created” as opposed to “saved”) as a direct result of Porkulus “created or saved” 22,100 jobs over 6 months and will “create or save” 70,000 jobs over the 2 years of Porkulus. There is no way that a government job creates almost 3 private-sector jobs over 6 months or 9 private-sector jobs over 2 years.

Even if that were the case, note how many jobs Wisconsin has lost over the last year with the various new taxes and the cratering of the economy – 130,000. That is what is called an EPIC FAIL.

Watching The Doctors, Q&A edition

by @ 16:04. Filed under Health Care Reform.

Once again, the Senate’s Doctors, Dr. Tom Coburn, M.D. and Dr. John Barrasso, M.D., are answering questions about PlaceboCare. Assuming I’ve got the right embed code, here it is…

Live Video streaming by Ustream

Kohl’s to close Menomonee Falls distribution center

by @ 10:52. Filed under Business, Politics - Wisconsin.

That is the word that just came in from JSOnline.com:

The Kohl’s Corp. announced Tuesday that it would close its huge distribution center in Menomonee Falls on Jan. 29, 2010.

The decision affects approximately 250 workers, according to Vicki Shamion, a Kohl’s spokeswoman.

However, the workers will be offered their identical jobs at the company’s network of 10 other distribution centers around the country if they stay at the company through Jan. 29, when the center is scheduled to shut down….

Shamion said the decision to close the center was based “on the overall effectiveness of the distribution network.” She said that, after study, the company concluded that the Menomonee Falls center could not be reconfigured to “allow for expanded capacity.”

“It was a difficult decision,” she said.

The inventory at the Menomonee Falls site will be moved to the Kohl’s distribution center in Ottawa, Ill.

Left unmentioned in the article or by the PR flack are a couple of key items:

– The deteriorating tax climate in Wisconsin, specifically several mandated increases in the unemployment tax due to both the insolvency of the fund and actions of the Legislature.

– The weight limits in the not-soon-to-be-rebuilt Zoo Interchange, specifically the 30-ton limit on the northbound I-894-to-northbound US-45 ramp. Since almost all of the inbound truck traffic would use that ramp, that puts a crimp in the flow of goods into the distribution center.

I have to wonder how long until the corporate headquarters follows the distribution center to the land of the toll booths. After all, even though it is a Wisconsin company, it is called “Kohl’s Illinois, Inc.”

October 12, 2009

Unprecedented Consensus

by @ 20:18. Filed under Health Care Reform, Politics - National.

“Unprecedented consensus” from Republicans is what President Obama is calling the support of several RINOs and other Republicans who are not, and haven’t been in leadership roles for a number of years.

I don’t have much time to totally fisk his comments as I’m traveling and have little/weak wifi. Suffice to say it this way:

Drugs attached to the Presidency began with Bill Clinton claiming “he didn’t inhale.” They were elevated in stature when Barack Obama admitted he had tried cocaine. It now appears that drug use is regular fare at the White House. It’s the only way one could hallucinate any kind of “consensus” in support of placebocare amongst Republicans.

October Drinking Right – your 24-hour warning

by @ 19:00. Filed under Miscellaneous.

This is the Emergency Blogging System. It has been activated because Steve is trying to maintain two blogs at the moment.

No Runny Eggs has issued a Drinking Right Warning for souteast Wisconsin, to be in effect at Papa’s Social Club, 7718 W Burleigh in Milwaukee, from 7 pm CDT Tuesday, October 13, 2009 until such time we finish drinking. You are advised to be there to give the soon-to-be-birthday boy Nick Schweitzer a shot.

Repeating, No Runny Eggs has issued a Drinking Right Warning in effect for tomorrow night.

This has been your 24-hour warning. Do not say that you weren’t invited.

New NRE Poll – Why does the entirety of government need to take the same furlough day?

by @ 18:35. Filed under NRE Polls, Politics - Wisconsin.

Since silent E asked the question, and because I need to generate some content here, it’s time to put up a new poll.

Why does the entirety of government need to take the same furlough day?

Up to 1 answer(s) was/were allowed

  • To maximize the inconvenience so that the people will willingly tax themselves more to avoid the next disruption. (89%, 25 Vote(s))
  • Something I missed (do comment in the thread) (7%, 2 Vote(s))
  • To show the people that they're doing "something" about responsibility. (4%, 1 Vote(s))

Total Voters: 28

Loading ... Loading ...

October 11, 2009

Why the Taliban cannot be separated from Al Qaeda

by @ 20:06. Filed under War on Terror.

(H/T – Allahpundit, who asks the $64,000 question on why the “moderate” Taliban won’t give up Osama bin Laden)

Bill Roggio and Thomas Joscelyn explain why we must defeat the Taliban, as well as the other affiliated Afghani insurgencies. In a nutshell:

  • All three of the main Afghani insurgent groups, the Quetta Shura Taliban, the Haqqani Network, and the Hezb-e Islami Gulbuddin, have extensive personal leadership-to-leadership ties to Al Qaeda, established over decades of cultivation by Al Qaeda.
  • The relationship between Al Qaeda and the Taliban is so enduring that they still fight side-by-side in both Afghanistan and Pakistan, and still offer mutual-praise eulogies for each other.
  • Al Qaeda still enjoys working relationships with both elements of Pakistan’s Inter-Services Intelligence Agency and the Iranian leadership.

There is much more that deserves to be read. I will, however, leave you with the conclusion:

In conclusion, the war in Afghanistan is part of a multi-dimensional contest for power between, on the one hand, al Qaeda and its allies and, on the other, America and her allies. The idea that al Qaeda is a discrete organization that can be neatly separated from the Afghan insurgency is a fantasy. All three of the major branches of the insurgency, as well as their sponsors, are closely allied with al Qaeda and have been for years.

Air strikes using drones are a valuable tool for disrupting al Qaeda’s external network, thereby hampering the terror network’s capacity to strike the West. But such strikes are a tactic, not a strategy. And, it should be noted, these strikes have frequently killed senior Taliban commanders as well. This only emphasizes the degree of cooperation between the Taliban and al Qaeda.

A more robust game plan for Afghanistan, and the region, is required. We understand that there is no immediate discussion of entirely drawing down America’s or NATO’s forces. But a more comprehensive commitment than that which is presently being employed is needed.

Should the insurgents conquer Afghanistan once again, there is no doubt that al Qaeda would return to its former safe haven. But that is, in some ways, the least of our concerns. Their return to power would be a victory for all of those forces that spawned al Qaeda in the first place.

Cross-posted at Sister Toldjah, where I’m helping to fill in for an ailing Sister Toldjah.

Odd NFL fact of the day

by @ 8:58. Filed under Sports.

Despite the presence of five 4-0 teams (four of which are playing today), there are only 3 games where both teams are above .500:

– Cincinnati (3-1) at Baltimore (3-1)
– Atlanta (2-1) at San Francisco (3-1)
– New England (3-1) at Denver (4-0)

There is also only one game where both teams are under .500 – Cleveland (0-4) at Buffalo (1-3), despite all six teams that are winless (Cleveland, Tennessee, Kansas City, Tampa Bay, St. Louis, and Carolina, which already had its bye) playing this weekend.

BTW, take the Packers over the Bye because they are getting 3.

October 10, 2009

Weekend Hot Read – Anita MonCrief’s “How This Ex-Liberal Found Fortitude and Her Way Home”

by @ 19:28. Filed under Miscellaneous.

I cannot say enough how honored I am to have met Anita MonCrief, first at RightOnline in Pittsburgh in August, then again at the Defending the American Dream Summit last weekend. She is as down-to-earth as can be even after she became a main target of the Left for abandoning them and blowing one of the first whistles on ACORN.

She wrote down a brief history of her journey from being a liberal to a self-thinking person. The close:

Putting political ideology aside for a moment, I will tell anyone that there has been a certain amount of inner peace that I have never had before and I have noticed more harmony in my family. For the first time in my adult life I can honestly say that I am not at war with myself or the world. I never knew that by changing my political beliefs that I would find my faith, change the course of my life and end a self destructive pattern of victimhood.

[No Runny Eggs is proudly powered by WordPress.]