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.
In a letter sent to leaders of the Senate, President Obama now claims that Inspector General of the Americorps, Gerald Walpin, was fired because he was:
so “confused” and “disoriented” that there was reason to question “his capacity to serve.”
If that is grounds for termination in the Obama administration can someone explain to me how Joe Biden, Nancy Pelosi or Harry Reid are allowed to stay in office?
Just wondering…..
First, in case you haven’t see it, the video:
Note President Obama’s fixed stare. Note the unblinking eyes. Note how he focuses all of his thoughts and his entire being on the fly that had dared to invade his personal space.
As Russia unilaterally rolled in Georgia, than Senator Obama, was unable to determine the oppressive side and said:
“I think it is important at this point for all sides to show restraint and to stop this armed conflict.”
President Obama and his team were caught surprised and flat footed as North Korea test fired three rockets and test detonated a nuclear device. The best President Obama could muster was this statement:
“We will work with friends and allies to stand up to this behavior.”
In the past week another sham election was held in Iran. At least 7 Iranians have been killed in protests focused on demanding fair elections. Obama’s response:
“It is not productive, given the history of US-Iranian relations to be seen as meddling – the US president, meddling in Iranian elections.”
Three examples where human rights and human lives were/are clearly being destroyed. Yet, President Obama can barely manage a frown of discouragement let alone clear and concise statements in support of those being oppressed. When it comes to human life, President Obama seems unable to recognize evil or attain a level of righteous indignation on behalf of those oppressed or yearning for freedom.
No, no indignation for humans but let a single fly invade his personal space during his time, in his interview and Obama becomes singularly focused like Tiger Woods with an eagle attempt for the win on the final hole of the Masters.
President Bush saw three countries that promoted evil in the world. President Obama only sees a fly.
I don’t know if you’ve noticed but President Obama and his administration have taken over the dictionary. Well, not exactly the whole dictionary, yet, but they have given new meaning to a number of words and phrases that haven’t had a change in their meaning from the advent of the English language until now. I haven’t been able compile the complete list of the New Obamaese Dictionary definitions but I have a few that you should be aware of.
Shovel Ready – Any project that rational taxpayers would vote a politician out of office for if they had voted to fund it during normal legislative processes.
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 Administration role. (see Czar)
Czar – an individual who is given absolute power over a portion of the economy for which they have absolutely no working knowledge. Czar’s are often “Uniquely Qualified.”
I don’t want to run – A phrase used immediately prior to a: blaming one’s predecessor, b: expressing surprise that the situation was much worse than you had thought and c: making a claim that the actions you have taken will be “temporary.” Typically, a Czar who is Uniquely Qualified is appointed to run the business that “I don’t want to run.”
As I have repeatedly said – A phrase used to point the listener to a specific one of the many positions the speaker has taken on a particular topic. It is not used to dismiss the positions not addressed during the use of this phrase, only to make you think the speaker has actually made a final decision, at least until they next use of the phrase: As I have repeatedly said…
I’m trying to keep a list of these. If you have others, send them along. Who knows, we may be able to give Webster a run for his money by the end of four years.
I’ve shared before about a General Manager that I worked for in wireless. He used to tell us “Two does not make a trend.” It was his way of telling us that we shouldn’t get too giddy about a couple of success, that we needed a string of successes before we could claim a winning idea. I never heard exactly how many did make a trend. However, I’m pretty sure that President Obama is noticing a trend.
Monday as President Obama shared his ideas for solving the high costs of health care with the AMA, he was booed. He was booed because his plan didn’t contain the obvious need to include malpractice reform in his plan.
A couple of weeks back, Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner was laughed at by Chinese University students as he told them: he stood for a “strong dollar,” but that China should let its currency appreciate relative to the dollar, which, of course, would mean a weaker dollar. He simultaneously told China that their investments in US Treasury bonds were safe.
And early last year Obama was booed by the NAACP as he tried to warm to the crowd with stunning rhetoric like:
“I eat fried chicken, why sometimes I go to bed with a bucket of KFC, so I can eat it while I fall asleep, and again when I wake up in the morning.”
My point in this is not that Obama or his administration, gets booed or laughed at. Rather, my point is that for all of the accolades about his speaking ability and intelligence, President Obama, whether with friendly, neutral or unfriendly audiences, continues to misread his audience.
President Obama and his administration believes that just because they say it, it must be so. They believe that audiences somehow leave their God given brains at home and pant like Pavlovian dogs at whatever Obama or his spokesperson says.
Doubt me?
Obama is out pushing his medical insurance programs. He claims that by implementing the new plan he will reduce costs. Unfortunately for Obama, the CBO came out today and blasted his assumptions saying Obama’s plan will add an additional $1 Trillion to the deficit (remember, this is the deficit that Obama continues to claim he “inherited” and that he would cut in half) and that it will only cover an additional 16 to 17 million people.
Folks, if the net cost over 9 years to cover an average of 16.5 million people is $1 Trillion, that averages to over $6,700 per year, per person. For the average family of four, that is almost $27,000 per year. As a self employed individual I buy my family’s insurance so believe me I know how expensive health insurance is. However, $6,700 per year for your average individual isn’t just covering the basics, that’s enough to cover with a gold plated plan. It appears that once again, with government involved, costs don’t come down, they go up.
I think I hear the national health plan boo birds warming up in the wings!
I’m back! I’ll tell you more about why I’ve been gone (if you care) at the end of the post. First, on to the lie of the day:
Over the weekend Joe Biden started building the case of excuses for the Obama administrations inept handling of the economy. In an interview Sunday Biden said:“everyone guessed wrong.”
Ummmm, excuse me Vice President Biden but not “everyone” guessed wrong. In fact, the very economists who you claim “guessed wrong” knew that what Obama advocated for would have a dismally ineffective impact on the economic situation.
At the risk of saying “I told you so” loudly enough so as to be heard over the cacophonous echoing that is the noise of an empty political head like Joe Biden, let me say “I told you so” and Christina Romer, one of the very economists that Biden refers to, told you so!
Please reread this post where I provide the link to Romer’s own research that showed that “stimulus” at best gets a 1X multiplier while tax cuts provide a 3X multiplier. Also, please reread this post where I link to Romer’s own research that showed that stimulus packages don’t work because the government applies them to the wrong things and does so too late to have any effect.
Well, now that I think about it maybe I have to agree with Joe that everyone did “guess” wrong! But isn’t that just the problem? Regardless of the issue the Obama administration doesn’t want to be constrained by facts. The Obama administration is more focused on what they want the world or the particular situation to be rather than the reality of it. The result is that they continue to bumble and stumble their way around “guessing” at what they can do rather than using knowledge, facts and the information their very own people have, to deal with the issues they confront.
Perhaps the greatest irony of this whole issue is that Obama claimed his administration would be one that really focused on the facts and not emotion as he stated in his inauguration speech: “We will restore science to its rightful place.” Stay tuned for a lot more problematic “guessing” as Obama tries to solve the health care “crisis” and the global warming “crisis.”
__________________________________________________________________________________________
Where have I been? Well, if you must know (we must, we must (my homage to “Blazing Saddles”)), I have been working on an intraparty campaign in MN. I worked for the Dave Thompson campaign as he ran for the State Party Chair of the Minnesota Republican Party.
Dave was a fantastic candidate who really connected with the grassroots of Minnesota. He forced the entrenched machine candidate to commit to an open and inclusive party process, something the machine candidate has personally fought for years.
In the end, we didn’t prevail. However, Dave’s message, charisma and candor reinvigorated a large number of folks who had nearly given up on the MNGOP. We’ll now wait and see whether the new chair keeps to his campaign commitments and embraces all activists who believe in liberty and conservatism. If not, we’ll see if he reverts to his previous exclusionary approach which will cause the MNGOP to fracture and allow a blue state that should be red to be permanently dyed blue. Stay tuned, the state convention is in September, we’ll know then!
Bonds: Treasury prices fell, with the yield on the benchmark 10-year bond rising to 3.71% – it’s highest since mid-November. It stood at 3.51% late Tuesday. Treasury prices and yields move in opposite directions.
Revisions/extensions (6:49 am 5/28/2009, steveegg) – I presume Shoebox ran out of time to explain why a high yield/low price on Treasuries is not exactly a good thing, so you’re left with the economic understudy to do the explaining. The CNNMoney blurb actually does a fair job of at least touching on that:
– The appetite for short-term (specifically in this case, 5-year) notes represents a lessening demand for longer-term notes (which explains the nearly-failed auction of 30-year notes the other week).
– Mortgage rates are tied to the 10-year yield, and rising interest rates could stifle any “recovery” in the housing market.
– The record amounts of debt coming to market could overwhelm it. Indeed, the Federal Reserve already is soaking up a lot of Treasury securities because there just isn’t enough money out there to buy it all.
First, a little music to set the mood:
This week Drudge ran the headline:
Obama Says We’re Out of Money
Oh yeah, big fat surprise that is! While the headline is a bit out of context in that Obama was discussing health care, the overall take is correct. Obama recognizes that he has spent more than he has, by a long shot, and realizes that he must find a way to cut costs or increase revenue or leave office with most Americans longing for another Carter term because in comparison, it was nirvana! The problem Obama has though is that he has no clue how big the hole is that he has dug for himself and the nation.
Back when Obama released his fairy tale titled “A budget proposal,” I laid out the many problems with his budget and why he would never come close to closing the gaps on the deficits that he has created. In this post I pointed out several issues that would cause his budget to fail. As of today we have enough information to conclude that Obama’s budget assumptions have failed on two key issues.
Obama’s budget assumes a dramatic improvement in unemployment rates. This improvement is key on two fronts. First, it reduces the outflows of expenses in unemployment compensation. This is a huge budget item at both the Federal and State level. Second, when people go back to work, income taxes get paid thus increasing the tax revenue. Obama’s budget assumptions had the 2009 unemployment rate at 8.1% with 2010 improving to 7.9%. Of course, the same team that put this budget together was also the team who never saw total unemployment exceeding 8.0% with the enactment of a stimulus package so we know that numbers aren’t really their thing. The CBOs most recent survey of private sector forecasts of unemployment now shows that the most optimistic assessments have the unemployment rate averaging 8.8% for 2009 and increasing to 9.0% in 2010.
Second, I warned you that Obama’s budget had a wildly optimistic long term interest rate assumptions. For 2009 the Obama budget assumed the 10 Yr. treasury would be at 2.8%, for 2010 the assumption was 4.0% Well, get ready, that bubble is about to burst as well.
This week the Financial Times is reporting that sales of debt for private businesses is again increasing. While that is good and it shows a data point of improvement in the economy, it’s bad for Obama. As private enterprise increases its desire for debt, at the same time that the government is having to finance huge amounts of additional debt, the overall demand will cause all interest rates to increase. Already the 10 yr Treasury which was running under 3% at the end of April has increased to over 3.4%. That’s a 20% increase in rates over Obama’s assumptions and we’re barely three months past the date of the assumption issuance.
For the past two years Senator, PEBO and now President Obama has been running from one corner of the globe to another apologizing for what he believes, have been heinous actions by the US. You know, actions like freeing oppressed people, calling evil evil and using our economic tools to encourage dictators (hello Fidel!) to broaden involvement in governments and economies that have created the greatest gulfs between “haves” and “have nots” through the use of government intervention. I watch Obama’s groveling around the world and wonder: “When will he apologize to the American people?” I doubt his teleprompter will ever allow that to happen!
First, sorry I’ve left Steve hung out to dry for the past few weeks. I don’t want to go into it right now but I’ve been working on a “special project” here in MN for the past few weeks and just haven’t had the time to spend on the blog end. More on the special project later.
Now, on to our regularly scheduled program.
To my surprise, President Obama has managed to keep his net favorable ratings above the zero level into May. With the way things were going early in April, I would have bet that he would have dipped below zero by now. However, not all is good news in the Obama camp.
First, Rasmussen continues to show an eroding net positive rating for the President. For the past two weeks the net positive, according to Rasmussen Reports, has been bouncing around in the low single digits. Saturday, the net positive had dropped to just +1. While the President’s personal popularity remains high there are continuing indications that support for his policies are not. Which brings me to…
Second, also according to Rasmussen Reports, one of the bluest states around, New Jersey, appears to have an incumbent Democrat Governor who is in real reelection trouble. Depending upon the poll, current Governor, John Corzine is down by as much 15 points to a potential Republican challenger. The main issues in the campaign seem all related to the economy in New Jersey. In fact, Rasmussen makes the statement:
this race could come down to a referendum on the first year of the Obama administration. The economy clearly has hit New Jersey as hard as any other state, with many New York City commuters across the Hudson River being decimated by the financial mess on Wall Street.
I have to say I’m surprised that any Democrat is feeling pressure as a result of Obama’s economic policies. After all, just last week, President Obama, in his most recent preemption of prime time television in which he answers questions that have as much relevance to the country’s challenges as Simon Cowell does to men’s fashion trends, told us that his economic plans were working. In fact, he had already identified 150,000 jobs that had been saved or created since the stimulus bill was passed.
The stimulus bill was signed February 18th, just 10 weeks ago. With 150,000 jobs already saved or created, that’s 15,000 per week. At that clip, we’ll see nearly 500,000 more created or saved this year and another 650,000 created or saved prior to next year’s election for a total. With a total of 1.3 million jobs saved or created by next year’s election, it’s hard to imagine any incumbent being concerned about the President’s economic policy. 1.3 million is a lot of jobs is a lot of jobs! A lot of jobs; if any of them really exist. Maybe Corzine should start worrying!
I participated in a Tele-Townhall provided by Minnesota 6th CD Representative, Michelle Bachmann. Yes, THAT Michelle Bachmann. Can you turn on any Fox program and not see Michelle on it?
Representative Bachmann took questions from call participants during the townhall. One of the questioners asked what the mood in D.C. was regarding the tea parties. Representative Bachmann noted that there were over 2,000 tea parties across the U.S. She said that folk in Washington had clearly noticed but she wasn’t sure whether the events were going to change the spending behavior of Congress. As proof of her concern, she offered the following two bills.
This bill provides $25 million over 5 years to foreign countries:
H.R. 388: Crane Conservation Act of 2009
To assist in the conservation of cranes by supporting and providing, through projects of persons and organizations with expertise in crane conservation, financial resources for the conservation programs of countries the activities of which directly or indirectly affect cranes and the ecosystems of cranes.
The other bill is:
H.R. 411: Great Cats and Rare Canids Act of 2009
This bill spends $25 million over 5 years in foreign countries:
To assist in the conservation of rare felids and rare canids by supporting and providing financial resources for the conservation programs of nations within the range of rare felid and rare canid populations and projects of persons with demonstrated expertise in the conservation of rare felid and rare canid populations.
No, you didn’t misread this. The House has voted to spend $10 million each year to take care of other country’s cranes, cats and dogs. How nice!
Earlier this week, President Obama made a big to do out of calling for his cabinet to find $100 million of budget cuts. When challenged about the laughable size of the cuts, the ever funny White House spokesman Robert Gibbs said:
“He knows and the American people know that continuing to run up deficits … and to continue to have those expand year after year after year is unsustainable. Despite much derision, that’s why the president is seeking cuts both large and small. That’s why the president has undertaken greater transparency as it relates to spending and the stimulus and I think the president overall wants to give the American people assurance that the government can use the money from them wisely.” (emphasis mine)
Wisely! To be fair, these bills have not been passed by the Senate nor signed by the President. I’ll be following them to see what does happen to them. Regardless, if paying for other country’s dogs and cats is using the American people’s money wisely, at least according to the House supported by over 50 Republicans, than it’s apparent that the message of the tea parties has not yet crossed inside of the Washington beltway!
During his most recent “U.S. apology tour of the world,” President Obama made this statement to Nicaraguan President Daniel Ortega’s diatribe on the U.S.:
“To move forward, we cannot let ourselves be prisoners of past disagreements. I’m grateful that President Ortega did not blame me for things that happened when I was three months old. Too often, an opportunity to build a fresh partnership of the Americas has been undermined by stale debates. We’ve all heard these arguments before.”
Again, the person who the Left claims is the smartest President ever seems to have some challenges working with math.
First, according to the alleged certificate of live birth that he has posted, Obama was born in August of 1961. My history books show the the Bay of Pigs occurred in April of 1961. It would seem like his living presence missed the event he referenced by nearly 4 months. Before you claim that Obama was “In Utero” and therefore, assuming a 9 month gestation, he would be somewhat right, remember that Obama has shown through his legislation and votes that a baby is not alive, or even a life of any kind until after it is born and than survives attempts by the delivering physician to kill it during the first few moments after being separated from its mother.
Another problem with Obama’s math is this: Obama seems to believe that because he wasn’t born he holds no responsibility for the specific event. He somehow separates himself personally from the fact that he is THE representative of the United States and what it stands for. If Obama can do this, shouldn’t the same hold true for other Americans?
In 1961, with a few exceptions, you need to be 21 to vote for elected office. I would proffer that using Obama’s logic, anyone who was not yet 21 in April of 1961 had no responsibility for the Bay of Pigs. After all, they weren’t able vote in the administration that launched the attack. Obviously, anyone born after April of 1961 also would not be responsible for the Bay of Pigs. Roll the calendar forward and the extension of Obama’s logic suggests that only people who today, are 69 or older could even possibly be responsible for the Bay of Pigs.
Bear with me as I walk through this next part. The 1960 election determined the administration of the Bay of Pigs. In 1960 there were 170 million people in the US, approximately 65% were of voting age. Of that, approximately 64 million voted. Of those that voted, approximately 50% voted for the Kennedy administration. Today, approximately 12% of the population are 69 or older. If you do the math, it turns out that just 3.5% of the US population, alive today, could be responsible for the Bay of Pigs. With a current population of approximately 303 million people, only 10.6 million Americans alive today could be responsible for the Bay of Pigs.
60 million people voted for John McCain and Sarah Palin in the last election. 60 million people voted against having Barack Obama as President. While we can argue as to what degree, 60 million people voted for a smaller government with less interference than what we have with President Obama. If President Obama can routinely ignore 60 million voters whom he has sworn to represent, why is he worried about what some third world dictator and thug thinks about decisions made nearly 50 years ago that may, in the best case, have been enabled by a mere 10.6 million voters?
The answer of course, is all to apparent. While President Obama isn’t able to do simple math of any kind, he is able to do the simplest of math. In President Obama’s mind, 10.6 million people aren’t the issue, 60 million people don’t matter. For Obama, all history, US and otherwise, begins and ends with him. If an event happened before he could be accountable for it, it didn’t happen. If an event happened when he could be held accountable for it and he can find a way to avoid accountability, than George Bush did it. In the mind of Obama, the only number that matters is the loneliest number, 1. Obama’s comment had nothing to do with the impact on the US, the country he is supposed to represent. His comment was all about a potential reflection on him, personally.
The only math that President Obama has successfully mastered is the function of 1.
Depending upon the counts you believe, last weeks tea parties were somewhere between a series of interesting local events and the beginning of a significant grass roots movement. Of course, the MSM has been trying to tell us that the tea parties don’t even measure to warrant local, let alone national coverage. However, they haven’t been able to block blog posts and pictures that show them to again be performing selective journalism.
It is now blase to discuss the MSM’s inability to cover news events. It’s also blase to talk about Democrat reactions to the tea parties even though there were many Democrats participating in these events. What is not blase, and in fact borders on alarming, is this poll by Rasmussen Reports:
51% View Tea Parties Favorably, Political Class Strongly Disagrees
According to Rasmussen, while 51% of the American populace vies the tea parties favorably and only 33% unfavorable, if you look only within the political class, those who believe political leaders know more than the general public, dramatically disagree:
While half the nation has a favorable opinion of last Wednesday’s events, the nation’s Political Class has a much dimmer view—just 13% of the political elite offered even a somewhat favorable assessment while 81% said the opposite.
Worse, if that’s possible is this:
Among the Political Class, not a single survey respondent said they had a Very Favorable opinion of the events while 60% shared a Very Unfavorable assessment.
Could it be that the Political Class is a bit too closely aligned with this perspective:
David Axelrod, a top adviser to President Obama, on Sunday characterized the protests in dozens of cities on the day federal income taxes are due as potentially “unhealthy.”
Hmmmm, sounds like they’ve read Napolitano’s report on the characteristics of home grown terrorists!
Finally, there is this little tidbit:
One-in-four adults (25%) say they personally know someone who attended a tea party protest. That figure includes just one percent (1%) of those in the Political Class.
So while 1/4 of us know someone who attended and over 51% believe the tea parties were positive, only 1% of those living off the government dole in some fashion or another, are able to look outside of their fishbowls.
I guess this all makes sense. After all, if you’re living off the government, the last thing you’d want to have happen is have someone threaten its life blood!
During last years campaign, as Exxon announced record setting profits, than, Senator Barack Obama said:
“No U.S. corporation ever made that much in a quarter,” Obama said. “But while Big Oil is making record profits, you are paying record prices at the pump and our economy is leaving working people behind.”
McCain’s response, Obama said, is to propose a corporate tax plan that would give “$4 billion each year to the oil companies, including $1.2 billion for Exxon Mobil alone” and a gas tax holiday that Obama said would only “pad oil company profits and save you — at best — half a tank of gas” over an entire summer.
This week, Wells Fargo, one of the banks that was forced to accept TARP fund reported record setting profits of $3 Billion. In regard to this amazing, government supported, excess profit, President Barack Obama said:
zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
Huh, no comment. Radio silence.
Wells Fargo was forced to take $25 billion from the government. An amount that its CEO didn’t want. Barack Obama complained venomously last year, about $4 billion provided to Exxon. However, $25 billion seems to be just OK.
If the truth be told, the $4 billion that was “given” to Exxon was really not “given” to Exxon. The $4 billion were largely accelerated depreciation on drilling assets, a pretty good policy if you want to encourage energy production. The money “given” to Exxon didn’t cost taxpayers a dime and in fact, if you consider that increased energy production has the effect of lowering energy prices, the taxpayer likely came out ahead.
On the other hand, the $25 billion dollars Wells Fargo was forced to accept is coming directly from the taxpayers pocket. If not today, certainly tomorrow in the form of the higher taxes that will be required to pay off the debt that was incurred to put this money into Wells Fargo.
Actually, in the world of Obama, Exxon and Wells Fargo are situations for which identical outcomes are being attempted. In both cases, Obama’s reaction, or lack of one, is a result of his desire to control the company or industry that the afflicted is in.
In Exxon’s case, Obama found the profits obscene. He proposed a windfall tax profit. He did this not just to enrich the treasury but to cow Exxon and other players in the industry into doing things his way. This is also a big reason why Obama wants a carbon tax or something similar. By increasing the costs on the energy companies he knows that energy costs will increase. There is no “alternative energy” that will do more than light a candle. With no real alternative, consumers will be soon condemning the energy companies just like they have been condemning banks and investment companies who they see as “deserving” the beat down they are getting.
In Wells Fargo’s case, Obama is oblivious to the profits and worse, seems uninterested in recovering the money that the American taxpayers have gone on the hook for. Obama is uninterested in Welss Fargo’s profit because he has already taken control of this industry and is uninterested in releasing that control.
Yes, President Obama’s actions can cause confusion to those who attempt to view situations from a logical perspective. Confusion until you remember that all of his actions are after the same end result, control of the enterprise that is in the cross hairs.
Note this press release from today:
Dave Thompson Announces Candidacy to become next State Chair of the Minnesota Republican Party
The Republican Party needs a leader who can clearly communicate the Party vision, champion a Republican majority in the legislature and return the Party to its core principles.
When asked about the current political climate in Minnesota, Thompson replied, “I believe Republican Party principles reflect the values and priorities of most Minnesotans. Unfortunately, the Republican Party principles have not been clearly communicated in a way that allows this majority to see that Republican principles are the same as the principles that guide their own lives. As a result, a large Democratic majority controls the Minnesota House of Representatives and the Senate, thus not having enough Republicans to sustain a gubernatorial veto. We cannot afford more of the same.”
Dave is uniquely qualified to undertake this important leadership role as State Chair. For the last 7 plus years Dave has hosted “The Dave Thompson Show”, a program aired on locally owned, AM1500 KSTP. In addition, he has been part of a debate segment known as “Face Off” on KSTP TV’s Emmy Award winning news program, “At Issue with Tom Hauser”. Both of these high profile positions have afforded Dave the opportunity to cultivate and hone his understanding of the issues necessary to lead the Republican Party.
Dave is a life long Minnesotan. He graduated in 1984 from the University of North Dakota with majors in economics and political science. He received his law degree from the University of Minnesota Law School in 1987 and has been a practicing attorney representing businesses in workers’ compensation disputes, contract negotiations and estate planning.
Dave and his wife have been married 23 years, and live with their 2 children in Lakeville.
The two other candidates for party chair are Tony Sutton and Carrie Ruud.
Tony is a party insider who has served as Treasurer under current Chair Ron Carey, as Republicans have watched their seats drop to a point where they can barely sustain a veto from Pawlenty. Nuff said!
Ruud is a former State Senator who has some difficulty figuring out what it means to be a conservative. Along with voting for both the Twins and Gopher stadiums she also voted to support a sales tax increase that would have the funds dedicated to the environment and cultural programs.
Thompson has held to conservative principles for as long as I’ve heard him. He’s not afraid to congratulate the folks who take the principled stance or to take down the folks who have strayed. Perhaps most importantly, Thompson is an outsider to the “insiders club” of Minnesota politics and understands that the Republican party can not be a top down organization but needs to support and enable the local organizations that put their souls and sweat into getting their candidates elected.
Stay tuned, I think some shake up in the Republican Party at all levels, may be the only thing that ultimately save it and avoid a third party split.
I wrote here about President Obama’s steadily declining approval numbers. I posted a poll asking when his net positive number, as measured by Rasmussen Reports, would drop below 0. One of the options in the poll was by today, April 3rd. If you voted for that option you were close but no cigar!
Rasmussen reports that Obama’s net approval rating has dropped to it’s lowest level thus far +3, just barely above sea level.
Of interest in the poll this week is that for the first time in over a month there was a day, March 31st, where Obama’s net approval number moved back into positive double digit territory at +11. I’m guessing it was not coincidental that this was the same day that President Obama left the United States. I suspect many people, myself included, felt safer with him gone.
Also interesting this week is that after a couple of days of higher than recent ratings, Obama’s ratings are right back on the path to go below zero in the not too distant future. Again, I doubt it is any coincidence that the new low approval rating comes on the day when it is obvious that Obama is not staying in Europe but is planning to come back to the US.
If Obama really does pay attention to polling do you think we could find him a nice, lonely, isolated island far from the shores of the US to live on? It would help his approval rating!
America’s oil bust
BRADFORD, Pa. (CNNMoney.com) — Six months ago this oil town in Western Pennsylvania was booming. You couldn’t find a worker to paint a house, let alone man a drill rig. The nearby oil fields buzzed with activity as high prices drove a production frenzy.
Now this boomtown’s bustle is as quiet as the surrounding late-winter forest.
but, but, but I thought we were supposed to be getting all kinds of “Green Jobs!” I thought we were going to grow jobs! Is it possible that Obama’s plan to “grow green jobs” might actually cause massive unemployment in industries that are not in favor? Is it possible that some areas of the country may actually have significantly worse unemployment because of Obama’s plan to “grow jobs?”
Elkhart Indiana, Saaaalute!
Earlier this week, the three judge panel reviewing the Coleman/Franken contested case, issued a ruling that appears to have negative implications for Coleman, at least in this phase:
As a result, Harry Reid is looking again to seat Al Franken as Senator for Minnesota:
Upping the ante in his crusade to anoint Democrat Al Franken the next senator from Minnesota, Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., is blaming Senate Republican leader John Cornyn for the impasse that has left Minnesotans minus one senator for five months now.
Harry, via his spokesman, goes on to explain that his desire has nothing to do with him personally. You see, Harry is just looking out for us poor Minnesotans who are short a Senator:
Reid spokesman Jim Manley told Politico.com on Thursday: “It’s not fair to the people of Minnesota to be represented by only one senator, and it’s about time a senator from Texas stop telling the people of Minnesota what’s best for them. Enough is enough.”
Hey, Harry, I know you read our blog. I just want you to know as one Minnesotan who doesn’t think it really matters whether you have anywhere from 57 to 60 Democrat votes, I’m in no hurry to get a second Senator. The one we have now is horrible at her job, why would I want to double down on that? I’m sure with as quickly as you’re expanding the Federal Government payroll you could put the office space of our second Senator to some good use!
One week ago, the President of Brazil President Luiz Inacio Lula de Silva, blamed the world financial crisis on “whitey”:
“this was a crisis that was fostered and boosted by irrational behavior of people that are white, blue-eyed, that before the crisis looked like they knew everything about economics.”
He further removed any misunderstanding about the nature of his comments when he added:
“I’m not acquainted with any black banker,” Lula said. “The part of humanity that’s responsible should pay for the crisis.”
Today, President Obama praised President Lula:
“That’s my man, right here, love this guy. He’s the most popular politician on Earth. It’s because of his good looks,” Obama said.
I saw Obama greet the Queen of England, I didn’t hear him make a comment about how well she looked. Obama met Sarkozy and didn’t mention his looks. Obama met Brown last month and didn’t mention his looks.
Why would Obama mention Lula’s looks?
I’m left with two possibilities. With his comment, either Obama was saying:
Lula, you’re speaking truth to power, brother. The man is just trying to keep us down!
or he was saying:
You can tell by looking at me that I didn’t cause this problem. But, that guy I inherited this all from? He was sure enough a honky cracker!
The problem is that I’m not really fluent in victimese so I’m puzzled on the exact translation.
Audio of another Obama supporter incapable of living without the aid and assistance of the government. Sorry I can’t embed but you HAVE to listen to this!
During the campaign:
“Not any of your taxes!”
Today:
The cigarette excise tax that tobacco companies must pay the federal government rose Wednesday by 61.6 cents per pack, or $6.16 per carton. The tax now comes to about $10.10 per carton, or $1.01 per pack.
According to Gallup:
Looks like a pretty substantial tax increase, especially for those with the lowest incomes.
I’m beginning to wonder if when the Keynesians talk about the “multiplier effect,” they are referring to the number of times that people will need to spend the $12 per week that they got just to pay for the “No tax increases” that Obama promised.
I wonder if President Obama has considered nominating a Democrat who hasn’t been caught making “errors” on their tax returns?
President Obama’s nominee for secretary of Health and Human Services, Gov. Kathleen Sebelius, failed to pay $7,918 in taxes and interest, she writes in a letter sent today to Senators Max Baucus and Charles Grassley.
OK, to be fair, it does appear that her issues may have been a bit less straight forward than Geithner’s:
According to Sebelius, an accountant who was hired to review tax returns for 2005, 2006, and 2007 discovered a number of errors. “In July of 2006, my husband and I sold our home for an amount less than the outstanding balance on our mortgage,” Sebelius writes. “We continued paying off the loan, including interest we mistakenly believed continued to be deductible mortgage interest.”
In addition to this error, there were three charitable contributions for which they “could not locate our acknowledgement letter.” She adds she had “insufficient documentation” for some tax deductions for business expenses, though these adjustments did not affect the amount of tax owed because she paid the Alternative Minimum Tax.
In separate news, Sebelius testified today for her potential appointment to HHS Secretary. She claims that she will attack fraud in the medical industry:
“Having a few strike operations may be the most effective way to send the signal that there’s a new sheriff in town, and I intend to take this very, very seriously,” Kansas Gov. Kathleen Sebelius told the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee.
I don’t know about you but, anyone who “could not locate our acknowledgement letter,” for charitable deductions and has to back out business deductions because of “insufficient documentation,” sounds pretty close to having committed fraud. Perhaps we voters should consider
“Having a few strike operations may be the most effective way to send the signal that there’s a new sheriff in town, and we intend to take this very, very seriously!”
I’ve written several times about the idiocy of not modifying or eliminating the current interpretation of an accounting procedure known as Mark to Market.
In short, “mark to market” means that financial institutions need to recognize the market value of their investments as they change rather than waiting until they dispose of the asset and recognizing a gain or loss. The purpose for “mark to market” is to reflect the estimated “value” change of the asset, real time, rather than having shareholders or mutual fund holders get surprised (up or down) in one fell swoop.
In a “normal” world, mark to market is a good tool. However, for mark to market to work properly there needs to be a fairly active market for the asset being marked. If the market for the asset has few trades (thinly traded), it has the possibility of causing “fire sale” pricing for assets that have actual, recoverable value that is much higher. This latter situation is what is happening to various financial instruments that many of the banks and other financial institutions (Citicorp) hold. Today, there are many reports that assets like the mortgage backed securities have been written down to as low as 30% of their face value. This while the actual cash flow performance of those same assets are performing at a level that is close to 90% of face value.
Various government entities, including the FDIC, require that banks have capital of a certain ratio to the loans they have outstanding. Part of the capital that a bank has is the value of assets that they invest in. When the assets, like CDOs get written down in a dramatic fashion, the bank or financial institution’s capital is also reduced. This is part of the reason that financial institutions have been chasing after capital infusions during this meltdown. Part of the reason that the TARP plan exists is to infuse capital into financial institutions to replace the eroded capital from written down assets. You can see from the previous paragraph that because of mark to market, it is possible that TARP is having to infuse 50% + more capital than they need to for the capital they are providing to support the CDOs.
Finally, FINALLY, after having first written about this nearly a year ago, it looks like the FASB is going to address and likely modify mark to market. About dang time!
You may ask, “Shoebox, if this was so obvious, why did it take a whole year to address?” Good question! This is yet another example where government’s “good intentions” led to unintended consequences.
Mark to market as we know it, was created by the Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB) with FASB 157. FASB 157 was a direct result of the Enron scandal. Congress was so incensed by what happened at Enron that they basically told FASB and others that either they fixed the problem or Congress would. FASB 157 is the result.
The other result of Enron was that auditing firms became extremely conservative in interpreting FASB rules. All you have to know is that Arthur Andersen, then one of the largest auditing firms in the world, ceased to exist as a result of Enron and you can see why auditing firms quit “interpreting” and merely “implemented” anything that FASB promulgates.
Let me make one caveat to my advocacy for a change in mark to market. Many of complained that by eliminating M to M we will not have financial statements that fairly reflect the company’s status. In some respects that’s accurate. What I propose is going back to a mark to model for financial purposes but providing information in the financial statement notes that reflect the difference between mark to market and mark to model. This will give both sides of the argument the information they want/need and will allow knowledgable investors the information they need to make assessments.
The sad part of all of this is that FASB, the FDIC or Congress could have acted on this long ago. Had they done so, even if only doing so on the capital requirement calculations, some portion of the hullabaloo in the financial industry could have been avoided. Additionally, some of the financial bailouts could have been avoided or at least mitigated and maybe, just maybe, President Obama would not have had the door thrown wide open to waltz into any company he now chooses and dictate how they should do business.
I hope that FASB does act on Thursday. If they don’t, expect a nasty reaction from the stock market. If they do act, as I expect them to, this could provide a significant boost to the viability of several financial institutions. If that happens, we could see the end of the beginning of this financial downturn.
In defending his proposal for new, broader regulations that would allow the Treasury to step in and control any company that they deemed “too big to fail,” Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner said:
the markets have become “too unstable and fragile.” He said, “To address this will require comprehensive reform. Not modest repairs at the margin, but new rules of the game.”
Hmmmm, new rules….
Have you noticed how every time something happens that wasn’t anticipated by this administration, their response is to provide “new rules?”
Have you noticed how the phrase “new rules” does not mean more flexibility but always means more government control and involvement with the industry or company the “new rules” are promulgated on?
Have you noticed that “new rules” by the government never make the industry or company more competitive or run more efficiently?
Has anyone noticed that the industries that led us to this economic difficulty are among those that already have the highest number of rules to follow? Banking, Insurance, Mortgage, Securities; all industries that have government telling them more about how they must operate their businesses than nearly all other industries.
In defending his demand for the termination of GM’s CEO, President Barack Obama said he
has “no intention” of running General Motors.
hmmmm, not running the company……
Have you known anybody able to fire an employee of a company that was not running at least that part of the company?
Have you known anyone able to retroactively dress down individuals and companies for how they use the company’s assets who wasn’t “running the company?”
Have you known anyone able to determine acceptable compensation levels for employees that wasn’t “running the company?”
Have you known anyone able to make a determination to unilaterally terminate company contracts and accept the risk of that termination on behalf of the company, without being someone who runs the company?
Did you notice how just a couple of weeks ago, President Obama was too tired to meet with the Prime Minister of Britain but yesterday, he took on another full time job to run GM?
Bill O’Reilly was invited to speak at a fund raiser for the It Happened to Alexa organization. It Happened to Alexa is an organization that provides support to rape survivors. The organization’s founder, Alexa Branchini, is herself, the survivor of a brutal rape.
Following the announcement of O’Reilly’s speaking engagement, a blogger at Think Progress, a George Soros funded organization, attacked O’Reilly and his support for Alexa’s organization saying that he believed rape victims were “to blame” for these comments on his radio show:
O’REILLY: So anyway, these two girls come in from the suburbs and they get bombed, and their car is towed because they’re moronic girls and, you know, they don’t have a car. So they’re standing there in the middle of the night with no car. And then they separate because they’re drunk. They separate, which you never do. All right.
Now Moore, Jennifer Moore, 18, on her way to college. She was 5-foot-2, 105 pounds, wearing a miniskirt and a halter top with a bare midriff. Now, again, there you go. So every predator in the world is gonna pick that up at two in the morning. She’s walking by herself on the West Side Highway, and she gets picked up by a thug. All right. Now she’s out of her mind, drunk.
And the thug takes her over to New Jersey in the cab and kills her and rapes her and does all these terrible things to her. And the thug is so stupid, he uses her cell phone, and the cops trace it back to him and they — and they arrest him and charge him with murder. He had a prostitute girlfriend with him, and she’s charged as an accessory to murder. But Jennifer Moore is in the ground. She’s dead.
Before we go any further, let me be clear that I don’t believe rape victims ever “ask to be raped.” Rape is one of the cruelest crimes known and is committed by individuals who are cowards who have no other way ability to exert “power.” However, what O’Reilly is describing is not a woman “asking for rape” but rather an individual who made bad choices that put her in a position, not of “deserving”, “asking for” or even “inviting” rape but of creating a circumstance where the odds of an assault were greatly increased.
Think I’m trying to dance for O’Reilly? I’m not. I don’t see this tragic situation any differently than if Thing 1 and Thing 2 once old enough, decided to go to Mexico for spring break. After having too much to drink they decide to wander in town in search of a new drinking establishment. For whatever reason they separate and being inebriated, wander into seedy parts of town. Being young, caucasian, unable to speak Spanish and there during spring break, a time when folks are known to carry lots of cash, one of them is assaulted, robbed and tragically killed. Would I be angry, vengeful, hate filled at the person who did that? Absolutely! Would I also be screaming loudly in my mourning “how could you be so dumb?” You bet!
So anyway….
O’Reilly responded by sending Jesse Watters after the blog article to find out why she had a problem with O’Reilly helping Alexa’s foundation. You can see that exchange here.
Think Progress and the rest of the Soros funded left didn’t like O’Reilly showing Terkel how big time is played so they went after O’Reilly’s advertisers in an attempt to get them to drop the O’Reilly show.
Today, UPS announced that they were dropping their advertising on the O’Reilly show. According to this article and others, Think Progress is claiming that they caused UPS to drop their support. Maybe so.
In the original response to Think Progress, UPS said:
In response to our Stop Supporting The O’Reilly Harassment Machine campaign, UPS told us yesterday that it was investigating whether to continue supporting O’Reilly’s show. “We are sensitive to the type of television programming where our messages and presence are associated and continually review choices to affect future decisions,” spokeswoman Susan Rosenberg told us.
UPS subsequently sent this message:
Thank you for sending an e-mail expressing concern about UPS advertising during the Bill O’Reilly show on FOX News. We do consider such comments as we review ad placement decisions which involve a variety of news, entertainment and sports programming. At this time, we have no plans to continue advertising during this show. [emphasis in thinkprogress.org post]
Apparently UPS believes that O’Reilly is inappropriate for its advertising dollars. The ironic part is that there was a big UPS ad blinking across the Think Progress site tonight, as I was researching this post.
I don’t always like O’Reilly but in this case, I think he was right. Fedex will be getting my business from now on. The only thing I’ll be able to think about when I see another “Brown” commercial will be the similarity to the streaks I see in 10 year old boy’s underwear!
After getting a taunting from President Obama in his press conference:
“To a bunch of the critics out there, I’ve already said, show me your budget! I’m happy to have that debate.”
the Republican leadership responded with this document entitled “The Republican Road to Recovery.” Numerous bastions of the right, including Redstate.com, have linked to this document and thrown a reply taunt along the lines of, “Ha! You wanted a budget? Here it is. Let’s start the debate! Are you chicken Mr. President?”
What? You’re kidding me right? (Hey, those of you on the left who have accused me of inconsistency, pay attention)
How many times have we on the right, ridiculed, rightly so, President Obama or one of his minions (paging Mr. Geithner) for tossing out a list of platitudes and calling it a plan? Geithner got hammered for twice attempting that approach. Obama got hammered for taking that approach with his stimulus plan and his budget proposal. After pickling the left for taking the nonsubstantive approach, the Republican leadership decides that they would take the same approach and theirs should hailed as a plan worthy of debate?
Dear Republican leadership:
Shrinking government, simplifying taxes and disposing of stupidity like global warming taxes are the equivalent of motherhood and apple pie to conservatives. We’re with you. However, addressing higher fixed costs of government (non discretionary spending) with statements like:
Republicans seek to ensure that the federal budget cannot grow faster than families’ ability to pay the bill.
addressing health care challenges with:
Republicans seek to provide universal access to affordable health care and to address Medicare and Medicaid’s trillion dollar unfunded liabilities with common-sense reforms that ensure our children and grandchildren can secure benefits in the future.
and laying out an energy policy with:
Instead of taxing all energy users with a new energy tax that will cost up to $3,128 per household, Republicans want energy independence with increased exploration and the development of new renewable energy sources, such as wind and solar.
while providing scant if any detail about how you would actually accomplish your stated goal, does not pass muster to even be called “A plan.”
Worse, the Republican “plan” has hardly a number in it anywhere. There is no information showing what the Republican’s “plan” spending would be, no information showing what the revenue would be and no information showing how their plan would lower or eliminate the massive debt that the Obama plan has us headed toward!
Sadly, the bulk of this plan looks far too much like what we have come to expect from the current Republican leadership. If you read the document you will see that well over half of the document is used to complain about what the Democrats are doing. Actually, if you just count columns, I come up with something like 2/3rds of the document being anti something rather than for something. I certainly understand the need to frame the problem. However, people are looking for answers and solutions. Answers and soltuions do not have sentences that start with “The Democrat’s” or “The President’s.” To make it worse, the few scarce numbers that are provided in the document are mostly numbers pointing to the President’s plan.
This “plan” points out, in spades, the reason that the Republicans had trouble in the last election; they are not leading the parade, they are nothing but bystanders armed with rotten tomatoes, watching the parade go by.
If this is the best this group can come up with, well, I think it’s time to enroll in some French classes.
Senator Judd Gregg, says the US doesn’t have the economic where-with-all to even join the European Union:
“We won’t even be able to get into the EU if we wanted to,” Gregg said this morning on MSNBC, “because our government is so large and so huge.”
The European Union’s Stability and Growth Pact (SGP) adopted in 1997 requires a budget deficit to be less than three percent, and requires a national debt beneath 60 percent of Gross Domestic Product (GDP).
As Gregg further points out, we’re getting dressed down by the French:
“We’ve been lectured by France on the fact that we’re not fiscally responsible right now,” Gregg, the would-be commerce secretary, noted with incredulity.
We’ve also been lectured by the Russians and the Chinese about our excessive borrowing and spending.
With the size of the deficits and borrowing that President Obama is proposing, it’s obvious that we will no longer be an economic super power. The EU is saying we couldn’t even join a club that includes Western versions of Socialism. If we can’t join their club, where does it leave us? I hear Mugabe, Chavez, Castro and Kim Jong-ll are looking for members!
[No Runny Eggs is proudly powered by WordPress.]
