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.
If only we’d have known what John Edwards knew, we too would have been convinced that there are two Americas…..the one where its leadership at least attempts to maintain integrity and the one John Edwards lives in where only other people have integrity issues!
Edwards Admits Sexual Affair; Lied as Presidential Candidate
A couple of days ago, Politico.comreported that while Nancy Pelosi was not going to allow a vote on expanding drilling, she was giving dispensation to her followers to campaign on expanded drilling…of course knowing that it would never happen:
But what looks like intraparty tension on the surface is part of an intentional strategy in which Pelosi takes the heat on energy policy, while behind the scenes she’s encouraging vulnerable Democrats to express their independence if it helps them politically, according to Democratic aides on and off Capitol Hill.
So I’m wondering…how to ferret out the truly converted from the convieniently converted? Simple!
If a Representative Dummycrat claims they are converted on drilling ask them if they’ve signed on to the discharge petition.
A discharge petition allows legislation to bypass committees, in essence bypassing Nancy’s stonewalling, and move directly to a floor vote. A discharge petition only needs a simple majority of Representatives signing on to enact it.
The last time I looked, most if not all of the Republicans had signed on but few if any Democrats had. If all of the Republicans sign up we would only need 17 Democrats to sign on to get a vote on drilling. I’ll be generous and say there are a few ultra RINOS so maybe we need 25 Democrats. Seems like a whole lot more than that number have been chatting up their support of drilling while back home on their recess.
I like to call this “Russian Roulette, Pelosi style.” If a Democrat wants us to believe they now support drilling, they sign the discharge petition. They only get one try. If they don’t sign, there’s no truth in their statement.
How many do you think will “pull the trigger?”
Of all the cliches uttered by political types, the one that causes me to scream “NOOOOOOOOOOOO” immediately upon hearing it is the word “Comprehensive.”
Just like how the word “Progressive” has become code for
“I’m a leftist who hates America but I can’t get elected if I say that,”
the word “Comprehensive” has come to mean,
“legislation that will be portrayed as addressing something America needs but will really be a bamboozling of the American people because we elected officials are much smarter than you!”
You doubt me? Think back over the past couple of years of how “Comprehensive” has been used to sell some of the most misrepresented legislation….
Comprehensive Immigration Reform – this wasn’t immigration reform, this was amnesty. John McCain and Bill Clinton can argue over the definition of “amnesty” but we all know it was and as written, it had little to do with reform.
Comprehensive Mortgage Reform Package – This didn’t “reform” mortgages, it wrote them off and bailed them out!
And the latest: Comprehensive Energy Plan.
A Bipartisan (there’s another word that doesn’t mean what you think it does. Bipartisan now means a Dummycrat idea that includes a few rotting carrots to get a few Rinos to go along,) committee has proposed an energy package that they are labeling “comprehensive” with the suggestion that it has the solutions for our energy problems. you can read the press release here.
There are some good things in here:
And that’s where the comprehension ends.
Amongst the non comprehensible parts of the bill are:
But, perhaps the most offensive is taking a projected $260B of leasing revenues and use it for the Environment Restoration Reserve. “What the heck is that,” you ask?
The Environment Restoration Reserve offsets the cost of legislation enacted after the date of the enactment of the National Conservation, Environment and Energy Independence Act to conduct restoration activities to improve the overall health of the ecosystems primarily or entirely within our wildlife refuges, national parks, lakes, bays , rivers and streams with emphases on the Great Lakes, the Chesapeake, Delaware and San Francisco Bay/Sacramento San-Joaquin Bay Delta, the Florida Everglades, New York Harbor, Colorado River Basin and Intercoastal Waterways and adjoining inlets.
What the hell has any of that to do with energy production in America? Why wouldn’t that money go to the general fund to reduce the debt? Or maybe, if you wanted to maintain the new definition of “comprehensive” and lie to the American people, put the money into the Social Security trust fund? You remember that other issue that needs a “comprehensive” solution right?
The next time you hear someone in Washington, or your state capital, saying they have a “comprehensive” solution, grab your wallet, hold your spouse and family near and check your ammunition level. It’s a sure bet that any “comprehensive” solution is going to impact at least one of those three!
Huh, a company that is more successful when gas companies are successful doesn’t want to run ads that says we should use less gas….go figure!
“Once again, the oil companies and their friends are standing with Sen. McCain, the candidate for president who is proposing to offer them a $4 billion tax cut,” said Mark Bubriski, communications director for the Obama campaign in Florida. “It looks like Gas Station TV doesn’t want the American people to know about Sen. Obama’s plan to offer working families a $1,000 energy rebate that would be funded by a tax on oil company profits.
“The oil companies have taken sides in this race, and they are standing with John McCain, because they know he’s been in Washington for 26 years and can be counted on to pursue for another four years of the Bush energy policy that’s made them billions of dollars.”
The article goes on to debate whether the company and the campaign had earlier come to an agreement or not…it’s really moot.
If the company had agreed to run the ad, they were just plain stupid. Obama asking to run the ad, well that’s even stupider! Maybe they could get Pfizer to run an ad telling people that they are paying too much for drugs. Maybe the Obama campaign could get Wells Fargo to run ads saying that home mortgages are coercive contracts set up to drain you of all your wealth!
In the world of Barack, all change that tells you capitalism is evil, is good change. When someone objects to blindly apeing Barack’s call for change, well then they are “puppets”, unless the Obama campaign can find a way to paint them as a racist.
As Barack Obama flails to find an energy policy that stops his drop in the polls in middle America without completely alienating his Envirowhacko base, he’s offered a solution of providing a $1,000 per family energy credit/refund. He plans to fund this rebate by increasing the taxes on the major oil companies.
The US has approximately 111Million Households (maybe a few less but what’s a few million when you’re trying to save the planet?). $1,000 per household would be $111B of rebates.
The net income of the major oil companies was reported to be $51.5B in the most recently completed quarter. Their average tax rate is about 42%. That means they paid about $37B in taxes for the quarter. The most recent quarter was a 40% increase over the previous year’s earnings so that would mean that last year they earned a pretax income of about $63B and taxes of $27B
Let’s assume for the moment that the “Nasty” oil companies are able to maintain their most recent profit levels for the next year (oil prices have already declined so the assumption isn’t in line with reality but then, what’s reality when you’re taking on the “nasty” oil companies). That would mean that over the next year, the “nasty” oil companies would have net income of $206B and pay taxes of $149B.
Assuming Barack imposes a windfall profits tax to cover his $111B payout, the oil companies would now pay $260B in taxes and net $95B.
No doubt that $95B is a lot of money. Funny thing though, $95B is over 1/3 less than the annualized net income of $147B that the same oil companies made a year ago.
Huh? I thought Barack was after “windfall profits?” Even if Barack finds a way to cut his plan in half he would still need to take every single incremental penny that the oil companies had made this year versus last year to pay for his program. Is every penny of additional profit a windfall?
And that’s the problem with “Windfall” taxes….One man’s “windfall” is another man’s confiscation.
You know it has to be bad when the two major press agencies note your rapidly changing position:
From The Agency Who Will Not Be Quoted:
Well, I can’t quote them so let’s just say that they recognized that he now wants to tap the SPRO something he didn’t want to do just a couple of weeks back.
From Reuters:
Barack Obama proposed tapping the strategic oil reserves to help lower gas prices, a reversal of a stance he made just weeks ago.
Even the All Barack Company (ABC) noted his flip:
Last month Obama affirmed his original position to reporters, “I do not believe that we should use this strategic oil reserves at this point,”
If he really is the Messiah, shouldn’t he have seen this change coming?
Twice this weekend my sarcastic prognostications were confirmed by those who actually get paid for being political!
In my Saturday post, after chastising Obama for is drilling flip flop, I pointed out that his explanation left me skeptical of him actually implementing drilling even though he may vote for an initial bill. Tim Pawlenty, who I didn’t know read Norunnyeggs, picked up on this theme while at a campaign office opening in Iowa:
“He’s put so many contingencies around it that I wonder – in fact I question – whether he would do it at all,” Pawlenty said in an interview. “It may be a way for him to gain favor during the election, and tube it later because all the contingencies weren’t met.”
After making yet another gaffe (I’ve quit counting how many because it’s more than all my fingers and toes in any given week) in which he mischaracterized “Presidents” that are on currency, I posted a memo to David Plouffe, Obama’s campaign manager last Thursday and suggested:
If you are interested in having Obama elected, make sure that he no longer gets put into situations where he has to speak extemporaneously, especially when he has his dander up. Fill his pocket with a bunch of note cards that say "Um," "Ah," or "I mean". That seems to qualify as great insight and news worthy for the MSM"¦He need say no more!
Again, I didn’t know David Plouffe was a reader of Norunnyeggs. Saturday afternoon he takes my advice and puts out a press release saying that Barry won’t be able to come out and play unless the playtime is very structured, supervised and previously scripted play days:
“Due to the late date of the two parties’ nominating conventions, and the relatively short period between the end of the conventions and the first proposed debate, it is likely that the four commission debates will be the sole series of debates in the fall campaign.”
I guess you could file all of this under:
“Even a blind squirrel finds a nut occasionally,” or
“Even a broken clock is right twice each day.”
but com’ ‘on….twice in the same weekend? I’m beginning to think this political thing isn’t as difficult as some folks might want to make us think it is!
Every 10, 11 or 12 step program realizes that the first step in any of them is to admit you have a problem. Without that self realization, none of the remaining steps will be effective because you don’t believe there is any need for change. That basic and obvious premise is completely missed by the McClatchy folks.
McClatchy took a look at the McCain “Paris” ad and tried to evaluate whether the ad helped or hurt McCain or Obama. After viewing the ad, McClatchy reports that viewers had varying responses:
The emotions most felt by Republicans while watching the ad were “disturbing” (35 percent), “skepticism” (16 percent) and “sadness” (10 percent); Democrats reported “skepticism” (44 percent), “anger” (24 percent) and “disturbing” (14 percent); Independents reported “skepticism” (41 percent), “disturbing” (18 percent) and “anger” (18 percent).
McClatchy positions to minimize any negative impact on Obama’s numbers by saying:
The study, of 320 Americans, found that a majority of Republicans were “disturbed, skeptical” and “saddened” after viewing the ad and that 61 percent of Republicans had a negative view of the ad.
Of course, they also position the “beware of the boogieman” by suggesting that the ads could back fire on McCain:
How successful the ads will be at turning what are widely perceived as Obama’s strengths into weaknesses won’t be known for some time. Experts have warned they could backfire on McCain, making him seem bitter and petty and emphasizing differences between him and Obama.
After allowing the CEO of the Research company to conclude that McCain received no benefit fromt he ad:
“We are not sure whether the negative emotions expressed by viewers were related to their feelings about either candidate or about the way in which the message was delivered,” said Glenn Kessler, president and CEO of HCD Research. “However, we do know that the ad did not move voters and they expressed negative emotions after viewing the ad.”
McCatchy walked right past the results that shows hope from these ads:
Before viewing the ad, 75 percent of the Democrats said they would vote for Obama. After viewing the ad, that percentage was 72, while undecideds rose from 13 to 15 percent and those favoring other candidates rose from 3 to 4 percent.
The number who said they would vote for McCain, however, remained unchanged at 9 percent.
Similar results were recorded for Republicans and Independents. Republican support for Obama dropped from 8 to 6 percent, while McCain’s percentage remained unchanged at 74 percent. Undecideds rose from 16 to 18 percent, however.
Only among independents did the drop in Obama’s percentage, from 44 to 43 percent, accrue to McCain, whose support went from 33 to 34 percent.
(emphasis mine)
Any multistep program, no matter how many steps they have, really boil down to 3 steps:
The “Paris” and “Messiah” ads were never meant to address Steps 2 and 3, those will be handled by other ads. The “Paris” and “Messiah” ads were solely focused on Step 1 and based on the results of this study, they did exactly what they were intended to do: sow a seed of doubt into the minds of people who believed the Messiah’s shtick. In a race as close as this one is expected to be, you only need to remove small percentages to impact the end result.
As a side benefit, it never hurts to feed your base a bit of red meat now and again!
After looking foolish attempting to explain that the surge didn’t cause the increased security in Iraq, Barack Obama has learned that when you have no core beliefs and are forced to change a position to get elected, you need to make sure that you hedge your changes to keep maintain plausible deniability on the issue with your radical base.
After telling us numerous times that he was against any increased oil drilling, today, Barack waffled on the topic. When discussing a new proposal put together by a bipartisan group of Congressmen Barack said:
“‘If, in order to get that passed, we have to compromise in terms of a careful, well thought-out drilling strategy that was carefully circumscribed to avoid significant environmental damage – I don’t want to be so rigid that we can’t get something done,’ Obama said.”
Obviously Barack has seen that McCain’s closing in the national polls is as much about McCain’s position on energy as it is people’s concern about the Obama “risk” factor, hence his change.
“Don’t want to be rigid?” He’s giving cooked spaghetti a bad name he’s so “flexible” on his positions.
As I mentioned, Barack hedged his flexibility with:
“‘I think it’s important for the American people to understand we’re not going to drill our way out of this problem,’ he said. ‘It’s also important to recognize if you start drilling now you won’t see a drop of oil for ten years, which means its not going to have a significant impact on short-term prices. Every expert agrees on that.'”
I think Barack’s hedge let the Dem’s cat out of the bag.
Barack and the Dems know that they are behind the eight ball with energy. They will be forced to accept some form of an energy compromise, prior to the election, to mollify the strong public sentiment on the issue. However, just because they agree to the bill, doesn’t mean that they will take the next step and clear the decks so that stupid, inane, time wasting and meant to intentionally block, lawsuits, from the Dem’s leftest compatriots, are prevented. Of course not.
Barack, Harry and Nancy will do what they consider politically expedient for the election and then conspire with the Envirowhacko portion of their base to ensure that not “a drop of oil for ten years.”
I covered Obama’s Energy plan here. Inflate your tires and get a tune up, was Barack’s solutions. In my previous post I showed you that at best, the savings of Barack’s plan would be 6% or $.24 on a $4 gallon of gas. Of course with most of newer cars being largely unimpacted by traditional “tune-up” needs and that not all cars have underinflated cars, the 6% at top drops quickly to some number less than that…probably 1/2.
In an attempt to be generous, let’s assume that if we all ran out an implemented Barack’s “Energy Plan for America,” the average savings would be 4%. 4% of $4 gas is $.16/gallon. That’s Barack’s plan, saving $.16/gallon.
While I’m not for it because it doesn’t solve any long term needs, John McCain suggested removing the federal gas tax. Barack Obama dismissed that option in April by saying:
"We’re arguing over a gimmick that would save you half a tank of gas over the course of the entire summer so that everyone in Washington can pat themselves on the back and say they did something," said Obama.
Ummmmm, the Federal gas tax is $.184/gallon. Barack’s solution is $.16/gallon. According to Obama, McCain’s wasn’t worth considering because it “would save you half a tank of gas over the course of the entire summer.” If McCain’s was a gimmick, what does that make Barack’s solution?
Gimmick or Pander….you decide!
I couldn’t decide which way to go with this so….Here’s the story:
Test Finds Gas Additive Doesn’t Improve Mileage
My first thought was:
Well, there goes Barack’s energy plan!
But than I thought better this:
Psssst, someone leak this to Obama’s campaign before he adds it to his energy plan.
Got some others?
Obama and McCain have gone back and forth now over Obama’s remarks in which he accused McCain of fear mongering with:
Nobody thinks that Bush and McCain have a real answer to the challenges we face. So what they’re going to try to do is make you scared of me,” Obama said. “You know, `he’s not patriotic enough, he’s got a funny name,’ you know, `he doesn’t look like all those other presidents on the dollar bills.
McCain’s campaign responded by essentially calling Obama a race baiter:
played the race card, and he played it from the bottom of the deck,” McCain campaign manager Rick Davis said in a statement. He called Obama’s remarks “divisive, negative, shameful and wrong.
In an attempt to avoid the notion that he continues to introduce his race into the debate, an Obama spokesman, Robert Gibbs responded with:
What Barack Obama was talking about was that he didn’t get here after spending decades in Washington,” Gibbs said. “There is nothing more to this than the fact that he was describing that he was new to the political scene. He was referring to the fact that he didn’t come into the race with the history of others. It is not about race.”
So Barack is saying that the Presidents on currency were representative of people who had been in Washington for decades? Shall we check?
Washington – on the $1
Washington didn’t exist before Washington was President….nope, Barack, not this one.
Thomas Jefferson – on the $2
Jefferson was Secretary of State for 4 years and VP for for years before he became President…less than a decade…nope Barack, not this one.
Abraham Lincoln – on the $5
Lincoln was not in Washington prior to being President…nope, Barack, not this one.
Alexander Hamilton – on the $10
Never was President….nope, Barack, not this one.
Andrew Jackson – on the $20
Jackson was a US Representative for 1 year and a Senator for about 2 years before being elected President….nope Barack, not this one.
Ulysses S. Grant – on the $50
No elected office prior to President…not Barack, not this one.
Benjamin Franklin – on the $100
Never was President….nope, Barack, not this one.
Not one of the men, on currently traded paper currency, fits the description that Barack tried to use…NOT ONE, NOT CLOSE! So Barack, what was it you were actually trying to say? Are you that ignorant of facts that you will make statements that any 4th grader would know to be false, in a vain attempt to deflect your obvious and continual introduction of race baiting into your campaign?
Memo to David Plouffe:
If you are interested in having Obama elected, make sure that he no longer gets put into situations where he has to speak extemporaneously, especially when he has his dander up. Fill his pocket with a bunch of note cards that say “Um,” “Ah,” or “I mean”. That seems to qualify as great insight and news worthy for the MSM…He need say no more!
Update: (Thanks Headless, I need to do a better job of putting as much into proofreading as fisking!)
Barack Obama’s solution for our energy crisis….Inflate your tires!
Let’s see…
The average US car gets approximately 20 MPG.
A quick look has some articles saying properly inflated tires could increase your fuel economy by 3%.
Similar look says about the same for engine tune up.
So…we get 6% improvement by implementing Obama’s suggestion
We now get 21.2 MPG
Average annual passenger miles for a car are 12,500
12,500 miles / 20 MPG = 625 gallons @ $4/gallon = $2,500
12,500 miles / 21.2 MPG = 590 gallons @ $4/gallon = $2,358
12,500 miles / 20 MPG = 625 gallons @ $3/gallon = $1,875
I’ll take the lower fuel price, thank you!
How about another look:
Last report, there were about 251M vehicles on the road in the US
251M * 35 gallon/year savings = 8.785B gallons of gas.
There are about 42 gallons of gas/barrel of oil.
8.785B gallons / 42 = 209.2M Barrels/365 days = 573,000 barrels/day, even the extremely conservative estimate by the EIA says ANWR alone would produce 780,000 barrels/day. Other estimates run as high as 1.4M barrels/day.
I can’t wait for the McCain/Obama debates. Once Obama gets forced off generalities and platitudes and is required to talk specifics, he’s lost…that is when he isn’t filling air time with “Ah,” “Um,” or “I mean.”
The Washington Post thinks Barack Obama may have a problem with hubris.
In a meeting yesterday with House members Obama was reported to have said:
“This is the moment . . . that the world is waiting for,” adding: “I have become a symbol of the possibility of America returning to our best traditions.”
What wasn’t reported on were Barack’s comments following that:
Once more Barack addressed the crowd. he said, I am the Light of the world. He who follows Me will not be walking in the dark, but will have the Light which is Life.
Whereupon Republican skeptics told him, you are testifying on your own behalf; your testimony is not valid and is worthless.
Barack answered, Even if I do testify on my own behalf, my testimony is true and reliable and valid, for I know where I came from and where I am going; but you do not know where I come from or where I am going.
You [set yourself up to] judge according to the flesh (by what you see). [You condemn by external, human standards.] I do not [set myself up to] judge or condemn or sentence anyone.
Yet even if I do judge, my judgment is true [my decision is right]; for I am not alone [in making it], but [there are two of Us] I and the Angry Michelle, Who sent Me.
In your [own] Law it is written that the testimony (evidence) of two persons is reliable and valid.
I am One [of the two] bearing testimony concerning myself; and Angry Michelle, who sent Me, she also testifies about me.
Then they said to him, Where is this Angry Michelle of Yours? Barack answered, you know my Angry Michelle as little as you know me. If you knew me, you would know my Angry Michelle.
(Read John 8:12-19 if you don’t quite get it)
Obama left hubris behind long ago. I’m beginning to think he needs an intervention of some kind to reattach him to reality.
As the various stock indexes dropped 20% Reuters and other news agencies were reporting that the country was in fact in a recession.
This morning, as oil has dropped nearly 20%, Reuters runs this headline and opening paragraph:
As oil nears 20 percent “bear” market, bulls unfazed
SINGAPORE (Reuters) – As the rout in oil prices nears the 20 percent mark that for stocks would signal a bear market, many analysts offer a word of caution — don’t mistake a healthy correction for the end of a multi-year bull trend.
If I read this right, news that is generally bad for the economy is a recession, news that is good for the economy is a “healthy correction.”
Uh huh
In one of my business roles I was a marketing manager. Part of my responsibility was to develop compensation plans that motivated our sales force to sell the right quantity and mix of products. It was always a balancing act as I had to be accountable for marketing budgets i.e. I couldn’t just spend anything I wanted, but I still needed to find the right incentive points for our sales force.
I remember on more than one occasion, talking with a sales director about a compensation plan and being told that the sales reps wouldn’t be able to sell what we wanted them to. During the course of those discussions, the sales director would usually get around to telling me that if I paid the sales reps more they would perform better. My typical response was questioning whether the issue was one of motivation i.e. they won’t do it unless they get paid more or one of ability i.e. they “can’t “do it unless they got paid more. As you can imagine our sharp sales directors quickly saw that their attempt to increase payment had come back to either paint their abilities to manage their teams in a poor light.
I tell you this story because we have some of the same coming from some elected officials in Minnesota as a solution in how to ensure that bridge inspections are done properly. In the Star and Tribune’s article titled:
DFLers want more frequent bridge inspections
(hey, I didn’t make this a partisan issue, the paper did), Sen. Jim Carlson amongst others, has determined that one of the things that will make bridges safer is to pay the engineers more.
I’ve got to ask Sen. Carlson the same question I asked my sales director….will increasing their pay get the engineers to do better inspections? If so, maybe we have the wrong inspectors or the wrong folks managing the inspectors.
Sen. Carlson and company have some other suggestions.
First, they want to ensure that every bridge in the state is inspected each year. Let me clarify that I’m all for safety. However, no matter how many times you inspect a bridge, stuff happens. In fact, based on what we know today, the 35W bridge collapse wasn’t due to an issue of not being inspected but what was being done with the information from at least some of the inspections along the way.
The NTSB has national standards for bridge inspections. Those standards call for inspections every two years with some being inspected annually and some going as long as four years. The inspection frequency is determined based on utilization, length, age and other factors of the bridge. Doesn’t that seem to make some sense? Think about it, a new bridge that is small and has minor traffic, does it really make sense to inspect those as frequently as a bridge that the 35W bridge that has high traffic, and is known to have problems?
Perhaps the most important paradigm shifting suggestion coming from Sen. Carlson and his supporters is to:
formally include safety in the department’s statutory mission
Wow, that should certainly improve inspections! I wonder what they thought the inspections were about before; to make sure no one had stolen a bridge?
Today you get a double dose!
First this article from the WSJ:
Gas Conservation Threatens Road Funding
As the Left continues to cheer the return to the 18th century where carbon fuels don’t exist for transportation, they find a problem. When fuel gets expensive, people buy less of it. When people buy less fuel they pay less taxes for fuel. Less taxes paid means less taxes for the govt. to spend! Right now the Highway trust fund will take in about $3B less than it plans to spend. Oops!
If the national problem isn’t enough, the average state tax is about 150% of the Federal tax. That would suggest the States will be finding themselves short about $4.5B.
Any bets on the number of state fuel tax increases that will be imposed in the next year?
For our second “be careful what you wish for,” we go to the Rochester Postbulletin for a lament over the lack of B-99 biodiesel.
A year ago B-99 (99% biofuel diesel) was available at a couple of area stations for a price comparable to oil based diesel. B-99 is made from soybeans. Unfortunately, as the price of corn skyrocketed due to the increased demand required for ethanol, more farmers moved from soybeans to corn. The result is that along with corn, soybean prices have soared. B-99, if available at all, is now significantly more expensive that good, old fashioned, oil based diesel. Even the Greenies in the article say they won’t pay more than $.10 a gallon extra to be green.
I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again, our economy is based on inexpensive energy! That’s not rocket science, that’s common sense if you pick your head up and look outside of the Washington or any State Capital’s beltway. Rapidly and dramatically increased energy prices have implications that the Greens and too many in Washington either don’t want to understand or are intentionally allowing to continue.
I know many on the right are still not comfortable with McCain but remember this. As you go to the polls in just over 3 months, be careful who you vote for. Your vote also could have unintended consequences.
Days after the 35W bridge collapse in Minneapolis, Mayor R.T. Rybak announced that he needed to delay release of his budget proposal because the impacts of the collapse were unknown and expected to strain the city:
"At a time when investing in public safety and transportation infrastructure are as important as ever, we need to know more about all the pressures on our fiscal outlook," Mayor Rybak added. "The I-35W Bridge collapse has affected our City in ways we are just beginning to understand."
Four months later as his budget was approved by the council, Mayor Rybak lamented that the $1.4B budget didn’t have room in it to keep up with deteriorating infrastructure:
"We are nowhere near where we need to be in terms of investment in basic city infrastructure," Rybak said. "Our city, our state and our nation have not invested as we must in roads, bridges and transit – and our lack of investment has serious consequences."
Mayor Rybak recommended City Bridge Repair and Rehabilitation be more than doubled in 2008 and increased over five years from $950,000 to $1,450,000.
A few months later, Rybak congratulated the Minnesota Legislature for overriding Gov. Pawlenty’s veto of the largest tax increase in Minnesota history:
Choosing leadership over partisanship, today the Legislature stood strong for a transportation solution that will help strengthen our economy and grow needed jobs in our state.
Facing economic uncertainty and 1 million more people expected to move to our region over the next two decades, the Legislature put years of political divide aside and instead chose to stand up for a fair and balanced solution to our transportation neglect.
Poor Mayor Rybak, can’t find $500,000 in a $1.4B budget to do needed road and bridge repairs. he couldn’t find $500K for that but he could find it for this:
Designs for a series of 10 drinking fountains to be installed in Minneapolis to honor the city’s connection to water were unveiled Tuesday.
Yup, 10 designer drinking fountains at $50K each! But wait! Before you heckle Mayor Rybak over his spending prioities you need to understand that these aren’t any old fountains, they are “Art!”
Arts advocates say the project — half from property taxes, half from water charges — is a continuation of the city’s ongoing public arts program, which has brought the city projects ranging from an oversized bunny sculpture at E. Minnehaha Parkway and Portland Av. S. to artist-designed manhole covers.
Yeah, that’s what I want, an oversized bunny sculpture and artist designed manhole covers! That will certainly move Minneapolis right to the top of the “Greatest Cities in the World” list!
Mayor Rybak, in his wisdom, understands the importance of these fountains:
The good news is people are talking about water in Minneapolis again,” Rybak said before the unveiling, a reference to the criticism he’s taken for the cost of the fountains.
I’m sure for Minneapolis tax payers, “Talking about water” is every bit as important as talking about $4 gas, 8% increases in city tax levies and 28% increase in gas taxes.
It’s good to know that Mayor Rybak understands the prioriities of Minneapolis tax payers!
Ever since the original inkling that the St. Paul Ford plant might be closed, various elected officials have been meeting with Ford in an attempt to change their mind. Financial incentives (read that: tax reductions) had been discussed with Ford in an attempt to change their mind about closing the plant but none had appeared to provide enough incentive to keep the plant open.
On Thursday of last week, the city of St. Paul and the State of Minnesota received some very welcome news. The St. Paul Ford plant which had originally been scheduled to close in 2008 got a reprieve until 2011. The St. Paul Ford plant makes the Ranger truck for Ford and while sales had been down, the increased price of gas had created a resurgence in demand for the vehicle.
In the article that covered the closing reprieve, even one of the most notorious Minnesota tax and spenders (read that DFL/Democrat) is wanting to be on the “financial incentive” band wagon:
“This decision gives us a little breathing room to address the long-term viability of the plant,” said Rep. Frank Hornstein, DFL-Minneapolis, chairman of the Minnesota House Transportation and Transit Policy Subcommittee.
“We must act decisively on a package of incentives that enables Ford to produce the kind of fuel-efficient vehicles in St. Paul that will keep the plant thriving now and in the future,” Hornstein said. “We have been in conversations with Ford and we are confident that we can work together toward both short- and long-term solutions to keep jobs in St. Paul.”
So far, Ford has only indicated an interest in short-term incentives, Hornstein said. “They would like to see something similar to what exists in Kentucky and Michigan, which is kind of a payroll tax deferral,” he explained.
So here’s my question:
Rep. Hornstein has concluded that lowering taxes for Ford might cause them to keep jobs in Minnesota. What part of that and being the Coauthor of the bill that provided for the largest tax increase in the State of Minnesota’s history make sense?
Wait, there’s more….From his website under “Priorities” Rep. Hornstein gives us these:
BUDGET
2008 Budget Debate
- Promote more progressive income tax policies and roll-back tax breaks for the most wealthy.
- Close corporate tax loopholes.
Rep. Hornstein is a Democrat so we all know that by definition he wouldn’t do anything to take jobs away, right?
Rep. Hornstein coauthored and was committee chair for the largest tax hike in Minnesota history.
Rep. Hornstein believes income taxes should be higher, dramatically so for higher incomes.
Rep. Hornstein believes “corporate tax loopholes” should be closed.
Obviously Rep. Hornstein doesn’t think any of the above negatively impacts jobs but yet….
Rep. Hornstein believes Ford Motor Company should receive tax incentives (lower their taxes) as a way to keep those jobs here.
Rep. Hornstein’s positions leave me with one of two conclusions. Either
Rep. Hornstein is logically unsound to the point that he is unable to see the severe inconsistencies in very simple positions.
Or.
Because the Ford Plant is in Rep. Hornstein’s district he is willing to bypass his principles to pander to his constituents.
Neither of the above options should make constituents of Rep. Hornstein supportive of his reelection.
Rep. Hornstein is not the only Democrat with this problem. Every one of them run to providing “incentives” the minute they hear that jobs are leaving. I’m beginning to think that Democrats have some kind of a debilitating genetic mutation that allows them to choose government greed over an expanding job base. If only they would recognize that the high taxes that they are all in favor of, are removing jobs from Minnesota each and every day.
Dear Senator McCain,
I just reviewed the latest Quinnipiac poll information. You should be very happy with the latest results. In June, this poll showed you 17 points behind Obama in Minnesota. The latest poll shows you trailing by 2 points and within the margin of error.
Frankly, I could never figure out the 17 point deficit from the June poll. I know we have a pretty odd electorate here but I couldn’t rationalize that kind of a deficit when we have an extremely motivated “right of center” group as a result of over reaching by the State’s Democrats during the last legislative session.
While you’ve closed the gap on the overall vote, there was one issue in the poll that stuck out like a Vikings fan at a Packer game.
Before I address the issue, let me say that I’ll admit up front that I’ve never run for the office of President of the United States. Heck, I’ve never even managed a political campaign. I have however been pretty successful in my business career and a big portion of that required me to negotiate numerous contracts. The contracts I negotiated were of a nature that I could only get them agreed to if I could convince the other parties to agree with my view of the future and the possibilities that could exist if my strategy was successful. My point is that while I haven’t managed a campaign, I do have experience in molding people’s views and expectations and getting them to buy into a strategic view.
So here’s the issue: When asked:
Regardless of whom you support, which candidate for President – Barack Obama or John McCain – has the best program for helping solve the energy crisis and making America less dependent on foreign oil?
The response in each of the 4 states polled was Barack Obama (OK, you tied in Colorado).
Senator McCain, what the heck? How can the candidate of No drilling, No nuclear, We get more than our fair share and need to cut back and we’re going to rely on “Alternate energy resources” that are nothing more than wishful thinking, have convinced more people than you that he has an “energy policy”, let alone an “energy policy” that would solve anything or make us less dependent of foreign oil? Interestingly enough, Quinnipiac gives us that answer too.
When asked:
Regarding the upcoming presidential election, would you rather the new president – Focus more on development of new sources of oil, natural gas, or nuclear power which some say could be a risk to the environment or Focus more on wind, solar, and biofuels, which some say could take longer to produce significant amounts of energy?
A significant majority of Democrats and Independents go for wind, solar and biofuels.
When asked:
Regarding the upcoming presidential election, would you rather the new president – Focus more on development of new sources of oil and natural gas or Focus more on conserving energy?
A majority of Democrats and Independents say the focus should be on conserving energy.
Unfortunately, a majority of the American people have bought into the guilt ridden, save the world solution for energy indepence that says we burn our food and put on more clothes when it’s cold. We’ve seen the impact of the first in our rising food costs and we saw the impact on the US and world economy when we tried the latter with Jimmah Carter….neither is a solution!
One last thing from the poll. When asked:
Which is more important to you when you decide how to vote for President – A candidate’s position on energy policy or A candidate’s position on the war in Iraq?
The response was that energy is more important than Iraq as the issue that will decide this year’s election.
Senator McCain, you have done yeoman’s work on Iraq. Your vision and perseverance, along with the amazing capabilities of US troops, have accomplished what many would have thought impossible; Iraq is not the leading issue of the 2008 election. Further, except for the few holdouts who want to see the US with a black eye, Americans see you as the candidate responsible for this success and who will continue to keep us safe. With Iraq improving and no longer the issue at the forefront, the implications of high gas prices and refusal to increase energy capacity with known, obtainable resources needs to become your focus.
It’s clear from the poll that the American people do not understand the difference between Mr. Obama and your positions on energy. May I be so bold as to suggest the following points for you to educate the American people on:
The only way for Americans to believe that Obama’s energy policies are the right ones are for them to also believe that their family should have a significantly lower standard of living than they currently have.
I understand this final concept isn’t one that everyone will pick up on quickly, it will take some clear consistent talk to get the message across. In the end, the effort will be worth it. As we learned with our current President, having lofty goals without the ability to effectively communicate them leaves an electorate confused and distrustful. However, as we saw with “The Great Communicator,” the American people will go through walls if they see and understand the goal and the path to get it accomplished.
In an interview with Kerrang! radio, former Apollo astronaut and one of the few earthlings to have walked on the moon, Dr. Edgar Mitchell, said that aliens had visited earth and that soon, the details of these visits would be known.
And he says extra-terrestrials have visited Earth on several occasions – but the alien contact has been repeatedly covered up by governments for six decades.
Dr Mitchell, 77, said during a radio interview that sources at the space agency who had had contact with aliens described the beings as ‘little people who look strange to us.’
Later in the interview, Dr. Mitchell made an ominous observation about our ability as a race to defend ourselves:
Chillingly, he claimed our technology is “not nearly as sophisticated” as theirs and “had they been hostile”, he warned “we would be been gone by now”.
Upon hearing Dr. Mitchell’s description that the aliens had “the traditional image of a small frame, large eyes and head,” Barack Obama said “I mean think about it, they’re tiny beings. They don’t pose a serious threat to Earth!” Which he quickly followed by saying, “Even so, upon their arrival, I will meet with them without preconditions.”
Following his stop in Iraq, Barack Obama was interviewed about what he now believes his plan for troop withdrawal in Iraq should be.
If you want to see Barack in full living color (given what I see has happened on this site while I was away, I feel it necessary to point out that my use of the term “color” is not some subterranean racism that I harbor and therefore has nothing to do with Barack’s skin color but rather with seeing the full context of his comments, facial reactions, gestures, intonations etc….glad I got that covered!) give his explanation, you can do so here: http://www.breitbart.tv/?p=137053 . The essence of Barack’s comments were captured by his web site a few days ago:
A Responsible, Phased Withdrawal
Barack Obama believes we must be as careful getting out of Iraq as we were careless getting in. Immediately upon taking office, Obamawill give his Secretary of Defense and military commanders a new mission in Iraq: ending the war. The removal of our troops will be responsible and phased, directed by military commanders on the ground and done in consultation with the Iraqi government. Military experts believe we can safely redeploy combat brigades from Iraq at a pace of 1 to 2 brigades a month that would remove them in 16 months. That would be the summer of 2010 – more than 7 years after the war began.Under the Obamaplan, a residual force will remain in Iraq and in the region to conduct targeted counter-terrorism missions against al Qaeda in Iraq and to protect American diplomatic and civilian personnel. He will not build permanent bases in Iraq, but will continue efforts to train and support the Iraqi security forces as long as Iraqi leaders move toward political reconciliation and away from sectarianism.
Some writers have been calling Barack’s recent update to his web site and his corresponding interview comments a flip flop. It’s not.
Take a look at this quote from Barack back in January of 2007; comments he made while the “surge” was being discussed:
The Obama plan, called the Iraq War De-escalation Act of 2007, would begin a troop withdrawal no later than May 1, 2007, but it includes several caveats that could forestall a clean break:
It would leave a limited number of troops in place to conduct counterterrorism activities and train Iraqi forces. And the withdrawal could be temporarily suspended if the Iraqi government meets a series of benchmarks laid out by the Bush administration. That list includes a reduction in sectarian violence; the equitable distribution of oil revenue; government reforms; and democratic, Iraqi-driven reconstruction and economic development efforts. Obama’s proposal also would reverse Bush’s troop-increase plan.
Notice that both in 2007 and today, Obama wanted a complete draw down of all combat troops. He also had provisions for leaving some special forces troops. At the tactical level, Obama hasn’t flip flopped. Obama’s plan as outlined on his web site this week looks very similar to the one he laid out in January of last year. But that is also his problem.
In January of 2007 the Surge was being debated. Had Obama had his way, the Surge would have never happened . Had Obama had his way and US troops been pulled out, LAST YEAR, we would likely be sitting here today not only with an Iran that was moving towards nuclear armament but also an Iran that would be establishing agency within Iraq. Obama may be right on the tactics…after the fact, but he was wrong on the strategy!
Here’s the thing. Many folks following the Presidential race, have gotten into debating whether Barack has flipped, flopped or contorted his position in some other fashion. I’ll admit, I personally find some of that to be an entertaining past time. However, the issue with Obama, yesterday, today and tomorrow is that he is wrong on the Strategy.
It’s fun amongst we conservatives to play “Whack an Obama” (again I feel the need to inject that the word “whack” is not generated by a subterranean racism looking to harm Obama, rather it is a reference to the carnival game often seen at Chuck E Cheese) for flipflopping. We just need to realize that if we’re attempting to address or persuade the audience who find him appealing, but are open to thinking about it, they find that kind of activity to be on the level of name calling. Have fun with the flip flops but make sure that at the core of the issue is the repetitive errancy that Obama has on every strategic position he has taken.
So rapper Nas has collected over 600,000 signatures on a petition saying that FOX news is racist and not fair to Obama.
Nas’ evidence of Fox’s racism is Bill O’Reilly defending negative comments about Michelle Obama by saying “I don’t want to go on a lynching party against Michelle Obama unless there is evidence.” Also put into evidence was O’Reilly referring to Michelle Obama as “Barack’s baby mama.”
Um, 0 for 2 NAS.
In the first instance, any thinking and hearing person knows that O’Reilly’s words were in defense of Michelle Obama. I’m not even sure that his words were an unfortunate choice, as the phrase “lynching party” was not one that only applied to African Americans…does anyone remember how cattle rustlers were dealt with?
In the second, Michelle Obama was the one that got this issue started. The following clip is from Michelle’s infamous introduction of Barack.
O’Reilly and Michelle Malkin merely picking up on a turn of phrase that Michelle used. If it was racist for O’Reilly, why wasn’t it for Michelle Obama?
Finally, Yup, it took me all of 30 seconds to grab the first “song” I could find and grab Nas’ lyrics. If you want to read disrespect to women, which is what Nas seemed to be all hopped up about, just look below the fold…I refuse to show these without a warning that they are offensive!
(more…)
As the Dems continue to bet on a losing hand, they’ve posited all kinds of reasons why we shouldn’t open ANWR. The one that is focused on the heart strings and gets repeated with both great ignorance and emotion is: “You can’t drill in ANWR! The Caribou will be disrupted and not be able to migrate, mate, make little Caribous etc.”
As I’ve said before, I’d be happy to sell Alaska back to the Russians for the same price we bought it for. I’ll guarantee that the Russians would put a drill through the head of a sleeping baby Caribou to get the oil out.
I was initially suprised that some found my plan “insensitive.” However, when I thought about it more, I see their point. It would be like selling a used car that you knew had a bad head gasket. Why would we want to saddle the Russians with our Envirowhackos? We should be willing to deal with our own problem.
So what about these Caribou? The MSM would have you believe that they will be at big risk should we disrupt them in ANWR. When we show them pictures of Caribou hanging around the Prudhoe Bay facilities and pipeline, they tell us that they gather there because we have disrupted their migration patterns.
Nuts!
Take a look at what the Alaska Department of Natural Resources says about Caribous and oil drilling.
Alaska Department of Natural Resouces says about Caribous and oil drilling:
Population dynamics: There are approximately 950,000 wild caribou in Alaska (including some herds that are shared by Alaska and Canada’s Yukon Territory). Caribou are somewhat cyclic in number, but the timing of declines and increases, and the size to which herds grow is not very predictable. Although overhunting caused some herds to remain low in the past, today, varying weather patterns (climate), overpopulation, predation by wolves and grizzly bears, and disease outbreaks determine whether most herds increase or decrease.
In the 1970s people were concerned about the effect of the trans-Alaska oil pipeline, expanding oil development, and increased disturbance from use of aircraft and snowmobiles on caribou. Although there was some displacement of caribou calving in the Prudhoe Bay oilfield, in general, caribou have not been adversely affected by human activities in Alaska. Pipelines and most other developments are built to allow for caribou movements, and caribou have shown us that they can adapt to the presence of people and machines. As human activities expand in Alaska, the great challenge for caribou management is for man to consider the needs of our caribou herds and ensure that they remain a visible, healthy part of our landscape.
In fact, the myths you hear about the Caribou were based on hypothetical hysteria before any development had been done (sound familiar?) or, as the Heartland Institute shows in this paper, on incomplete studies:
In 1995, Congress considered opening ANWR to oil exploration, but the initiative failed. That same year, an important census was taken of the caribou herd that uses the existing oil fields. Caribou numbers were found to have declined from 23,000 in 1992 to about 18,000 in 1995.
Most notably, the numbers of caribou in the western part of the range (with the oil fields) fell from 14,842 in 1992 to 6,327 in 1995, while numbers in the eastern part of the range (without oil fields) increased from 8,602 to 11,766 during the period.
The results of the census were heralded in a front-page headline in the Anchorage Daily News, “Oil field caribou decline.” The story focused on speculation that something about the oil fields had caused the decline.
…..
The herd was counted again in 1997, and the caribou numbers were found to have increased from the 1995 levels, to over 19,000 caribou. The number of caribou in the western range (with the oil fields) increased to 10,669 between 1995 and 1997, while the numbers in the eastern range (without oil fields) fell to 9,061 caribou.The year 2000 caribou census showed the herd population had increased to 27,128 animals. The number of caribou in both the western (oil field) and eastern (no oil field) ranges increased (to 14,295 in the western range and 12,833 in the eastern range). This provides strong evidence that the oil fields did not cause the decline in caribou numbers between 1992 and 1995.
Incredibly, these dramatic reversals of the negative results of 1995’s census were not reported to the public.
“But Wait,” the Whackos say. “We’re not talking about any ‘ol Caribou this time! We’re talking about the Porcupine Caribous and they are MUCH different!”
Um, no, they aren’t really.
The Porcupine Caribou wander vast areas and move their calving grounds from year to year just like their cousins by Purdhoe Bay. Yes, the proposed drilling area is in part of their known calving area, but so was Purdhoe Bay’s drilling area in a calving area. While Purdhoe Bay was more centrally located in a calving area (this is part of what you’ve heard referred to as the “caribou migration issue”) and much larger, the ANWR drilling area is proposed on the very Western side of a large, annually changing, calving area. Just like their cousins to the West, unless the Porcupine Caribou have become intransigent Democrats, they will adjust and be no worse for the wear…again, just like their cousins.
Perhaps Nancy and Harry could learn something from the Porcupine Caribou. When the Caribou’s circumstances change, they adapt to survive while the Dems refuse to acknowledge reality. Could it be that the Caribous are actually a higher evolved specie than that of a Democrat leader?
I don’t know if I’ve mentioned this before but Mrs. Shoe and I are proud parents of twin Shoelets. Thing 1 and Thing 2 (the Shoelets) turned 10 this weekend and we had a great time celebrating including a viewing of Hellboy II by the Shoelets and myself (they just don’t make movies like that anymore!) The reason I tell you this, is that working with twins hones your parenting skills early on.
Mrs. Shoe and I quickly learned that we needed to address issues with the Shoelets straight on. If we let issues slide, they knew how to push the rules. If there was a complex issue, something like why one of their school mates had 2 moms, we needed to discuss it with them giving them enough information to make sense of it with where they were at mentally, without dragging all of the adult jargon and issues along with it. This method of not avoiding issues, but not over complicating and over explaining them is referred to by us as “talking to two year olds.”
As I posted earlier, President Bush has removed the Executive Order barring off shore drilling. As expected, Harry Reid came out to snivel about Bush’s action. Harry’s action plan seems to include three points
Releasing oil from the SPOR has become the new line in the sand for the Dems. They seem unable to understand why this is a bad idea and why rather than reducing prices, drawing down the reserve could actually increase prices.
And this is where I start talking to the two year olds.
Nancy, Harry –
What are you going to do between 2 months and 10 years? If you really believe that opening SPOR will bring down prices, what do you do when it runs out?
The problem kids, is that you have offered no solutions that increase oil production, zip, nil, nada. If you deplete the SPOR without increasing production, you may get a momentary drop but once you run the SPOR down, prices will go back up and that may be the goods news. With the SPOR depleted, prices will likely move even higher than they were before because that “threat” is off the table.
[No Runny Eggs is proudly powered by WordPress.]
