No Runny Eggs

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

Archive for posts by Shoebox.

December 18, 2009

And The Winner Is….

At the end of each sport’s season, the end of each school class, the end of the film season, the end of each pageant, awards are given for various achievements.  Some of the awards are for “the best….”  These awards are often based on objective criteria.  Other awards are for “most….”  These awards are typically more subjective i.e. most liked, most likely too etc.

As the year comes to an end it seems appropriate to offer the DC legislative awards. 

You are entering at the end of the awards show with only one award yet to be given; the award for the Senator most likely to feud.

Al Franken, the junior senator from Minnesota, had barely made it out of the swearing in ceremony when he had his first, publicized, anger management issue.  Not even a month after entering office, Franken was noted dressing down T. Boone Pickens at the end of a lunch.  According to reports, T. Boone stepped to Franken to introduce himself whereupon Franken started a tirad over the issue of Mr. Pickens’ financial support of the swift boat ads against John Kerry.  What makes this incident most ironic is that T. Boone Pickens is a big support of wind farms and other alternative energy which is a pet project of Franken’s.

Franken stayed mostly out of the limelight for the next several months.  Actually, he nearly didn’t make it as a nominee in this category except that he’s had a stellar December!

In the first couple of days of December, Franken had a senate floor exchangewith Senator Bob Corker.  The issue was over articles and stories that ran and claimed that Republicans had voted against an anti rape law that Franken championed.  Franken claimed he had nothing to do with the articles but also did nothing to stop them or correct the record.  When Corker and Lamar Alexandar wrote an op-ed explaining their side of the vote, Franken verbally attacked corker on the Senate floor.

Less than two weeks later, Franken was involved with his next Senate feud.  This time the recipient of his anger was Senator John Thune.  During the Placebocare debate, Thune showed a graph that represented how the taxes started immediately while any real benefit of the plan didn’t start for several years.  Franken became indignant over Thune’s representation and, in his best representation of the childish Stewart Smalley, refused to answer Thune’s question or yield time to Thune.

Not to rest on his laurels, Franken got one more performance in before votes were tabulated this evening.  Today, as he was offering comments during the Placebocare debate, Senator Joe Lieberman was cut off by Franken without being able to finish his remarks.  The Senate has a long standing practice that allows Senators to complete their comments by the granting of an extra minute or two by the person currently presiding over the senate.  Franken was that person today.  When Lieberman’s time was up, Franken abruptly cut him off and refuse to give Lieberman the nearly always automatic extra minute or two.

With all the enormous egos in the Senate, one would think that Franken’s brand of boorish behavior would be fairly commonplace.  In fact, Senate members are hard pressed to remember a senator who was as abrasive, rude and intentionally vindictive as Franken. 

It’s really no contest.  Al Franken is this year’s unanimous pick for senator most likely to pick a feud!

You just stay classy Al, so all us Minnesotans can continue to be embarrassed for you!

December 16, 2009

First Climategate, Now Placebocaregate?

by @ 10:01. Filed under Health Care Reform, Politics - National.

You’ve all heard about climategate.  A few emails get leaked and the entire basis for global warming comes to a scientific crash because the data had all been rigged to produce the results that those who controlled the data wanted.

I’ve been puzzled for some time as to how Placebocare could be anywhere near deficit neutral even after taking into account that revenues start well before benefits and CBO reported increases in insurance costs, particularly for younger people.  Previously, I had shared studies done by various health industry groups that showed dramatic increases in insurance costs under any of the iterations of Placebocare.  It always appeared to me that the CBO’s numbers weren’t reconciling with what the industry was saying, even at a macro level.  I had always thought the answer lied in me not being smart enough to see the differences in how things were analyzed.  However, with some new information I now believe that I couldn’t see why because the “why” wasn’t there.

Cato institute has uncovered what could do to Placebocare, what the leaked emails did to global warming.  Just read this post and see if you don’t agree:

What Bill Is This?

I actually saw my headline on a post over at Politico.  It struck a chord with me.  With all of the Christmas Carols that were being rewritten for Tiger Woods i.e. “I’m dreaming of a white mistress,” I hadn’t heard any that had been written for Placebocare.  I decided to rectify that oversight.

Without further ado, my contribution, perhaps the start, of Christmas Carols about Placebocare:

Sung to the tune of “What Child is This?”

What Bill Is This? 

What bill is this, that sits at rest
On Harry’s desk while debating?
Who Joe and Ben would love to pass
But can’t find the terms that ally them!

Chorus:
This, this is Obamacare,
Whom liberals ward and others scorn:
Haste, haste to pass it now,
What gets us a sixtieth Senator?

 
We tried a takeover, tried control
The peasant people are rioting
We tried to obfuscate, tried to hide
The impact on lives we were planning

Chorus:
This, this is Obamacare,
Whom liberals ward and others scorn:
Haste, haste to pass it now,
What gets us a sixtieth Senator?

 

Tried buying votes, with earmarks and threats
But nothing seems to corral them
When one steps in one more disagrees
I can’t find a plan that calms all of them

Chorus:
This, this is Obamacare,
Whom liberals ward and others scorn:
Haste, haste to pass it now,
What gets us a sixtieth Senator?

 

So bring me Snowe and Jim and Joe
A place in history taunts me
All’s up for grabs don’t let me down
A cloture vote’s near don’t torment me!

Chorus:
This, this is Obamacare,
Whom liberals ward and others scorn:
Haste, haste to pass it now,
What gets us a sixtieth Senator?

It was suggested that if I ever recorded this, it should be done with a choir of children and at the end they should add:

“mmm mmm mmm Barack Hussein Obama.”

Revisions/extensions (10:28 am 12/16/2009, steveegg) – For those of you who don’t know the tune, I’ll take a page from Doug from Upland and provide one for you. Just don’t ask me to try to sing it; your pets and ears would not survive.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G4WnzcrUci0[/youtube]

December 15, 2009

Fool Me Once….

I’ve recorded for you the, at best, hypocrisy or, at worst, out right lying of Christan Romer. 

Ms. Romer has been an economist for a number of years.  Ms. Romer was selected by President Obama to be chair of the Economic Council of Advisers.  In this later capacity, Ms. Romer was one of the co authors of that fondly remembered document that promised that if we spent a bunch of money on a stimulus package, the unemployment rate would not move above 8%.  If you need a reminder, re look at this document.

Ms. Romer is also the person who as I pointed out here, argued on behalf of the administration, that stimulus spending would have a greater effect on the economy than tax cuts.  Of course, as I pointed out in the same post, Ms. Romer’s own published research showed just the opposite was the truth!

Yesterday, Ms. Romer pontificated on the cost saving efficacy of Placebocare.  As reported at Politico.com, Ms. Romer held a conference call that claimed:

health insurance reform legislation will lower health care spending in both the public and private sectors, reduce premiums, increase wages and provide substantial benefits to the economy. From a CEA report out today: “Reform will slow the growth rate of public sector health care spending and reduce the federal budget deficit over the long run: CEA estimates that by 2019, total Federal spending on the Medicare and Medicaid programs will be lower than it would have been absent reform. … CEA estimates that reform is also likely to reduce private-sector health care cost growth by approximately 1 percentage point per year.”  (CEA = Council of Economic Advisers)

So, we have Ms. Romer and the Council of Economic Advisers, who were wrong about unemployment and wrong about the effectiveness of the stimulus, now telling us that they have the benefits of Placebocare all figured out.  Not only that but they tell us not to believe the CBO.  They tell us that not only will Placebocare reduce the deficit but it will actually substantially bend the curve on health care cost increases!

What?  You’re having trouble believing that?  Just trust them, they’re economists!

Fool me once, shame on you.  Fool me twice, shame on me!

Amen!

I can’t figure out how to make the video link work so, just go and watch. No additional comments are necessary!

Amen!

Revisions/extensions (10:53 am 12/15/2009, steveegg) – Let’s see if the semi-hidden embed code works…

December 12, 2009

Now, That’s An Apology

by @ 11:05. Filed under Miscellaneous.

I’ve remained silent (at least here) throughout the 3+ weeks of the Tiger Woods saga.  It’s not because it didn’t interest me, it did.  Not in the “did you hear he’s started the back nine” kind of way but, in the “gee, with the image that he has and the size of the scandal, will Tiger be “Tiger” after all this is done?”  It’s to that second point that I want to make my comments.

Tiger Woods announced today, that he will be leaving golf for an “indefinite” time.  His statement said that he wanted to work on repairing his marriage and

being a better husband, father, and person. 

I watch Tiger Woods play every chance I can.  I fully appreciate and marvel at the skill he has to consistently make the shots and play at the level he does.  One of the things that has fascinated me about Woods is his ability to mentally block all other things out of his thought or focus, except for the next shot.  While many golfers let a bad shot on an early hole destroy their round (hello Phil Mickelson), Tiger is able to set that bad shot aside so that it is only “that shot” and does not impact any of the remaining shots in the round.  He’s able to do the same thing with a bad lie.  How many times has Tiger hit “that amazing shot?”  Along with his skill, he hits them because of his ability to eliminate all other considerations (oh, maybe I should have used a longer iron) and focus on the successful delivery of the shot he has decided on.   If I had to describe Tiger’s unique mental ability I’d say he is able to “compartmentalize” his strokes.

I’ve had several conversations with male friends regarding Tiger.  In every conversation we eventually get to the point of discussing “What kind of a conscience do you have to serially cheat when you have a wife and two small children?”  I’ve heard numerous reasons that I’m sure most of you have heard; “he has no conscience,” “his marriage is a sham,” “his ego,” “he’s famous,” etc.  I’ve got a different theory; Tiger is able to compartmentalize.

We’re told that a person’s greatest strength is also their greatest weakness.  I believe this is especially true for Tiger.  While Tiger’s ability to compartmentalize his strokes gives him the gift of being the world’s greatest golfer, the same ability to compartmentalize is what I believe has done Tiger in in his personal life.  I believe that while all of the other factors people offer play a role in Tiger’s failing, it is his ability to separate his rational thinking about his wife from that of the other women he has been with.  His ability to compartmentalize is also how he is able to keep the guilt he feels (I have no doubt he has some) separated and controlled so that it doesn’t overtake him and keep him from cheating again.  It’s this point in my theory that brings me to a cross roads of deciding whether Tiger will ever be “Tiger” again.

For Tiger to succeed at his marriage, he will have to learn how to uncompartmentalize his relationships.  If he doesn’t, he will never develop the emotional tie with his wife that will cause him to give up philandering.  If he does that, does that also mean that he will lose the ability to compartmentalize other issues?  Will he still be able to separate himself mentally from a bad shot or maintain focus on a chosen shot and not allow other options to cloud his ability to execute his chosen shot?

While I don’t like this answer, I don’t think it will be possible for Tiger to save his marriage and maintain the skill level he has had in golf.  If he is successful with his marriage and returns to golf, I believe the golf world will refer to Tiger as “remember when?”  However, if he maintains his golf skill, I’m afraid that means he will not uncompartmentalize his personal life and that will mean the end of his marriage.  I hope I’m wrong, I hope Tiger can do both.  If not, I hope he chooses his marriage.

As I said earlier, Tiger announced that he will be leaving golf for an indeterminate time.  In his announcement, he gave an apology for his actions:

“I am deeply aware of the disappointment and hurt that my infidelity has caused to so many people, most of all my wife and children,” Woods said. “I want to say again to everyone that I am profoundly sorry and that I ask forgiveness. It may not be possible to repair the damage I’ve done, but I want to do my best to try.”

I’ve always believed Tiger to be a quality individual.  Obviously, the recent revelations shows my lack of ability to correctly judge people.  Tiger’s apology is the kind of apology that we should see more often.  Note that Tiger didn’t apologize “if you were offended.”  Note also that he calls it what it is, “infidelity.”  Finally, note that he doesn’t talk about his wife’s failings or the pressure of being on tour or any other nonsense.  Tiger takes responsibility and takes blame for HIS actions and no one’s else.  Tiger could teach a number of political figures how to write an apology.

Obviously writing an apology is easy.  The hard part is showing that you actually mean it and that it is not just words provided by a quality publicist.  The only way we will know whether Tiger actually feels remorse will be in watching his future actions.  If Tiger works to approach his marriage with the same forthrightness that he has in his apology, we may be referring to Mr. and Mrs. Tiger Woods for a long time to come.  I hope this time I’m right.

December 11, 2009

The Grass Is Always Greener….Or Not!

by @ 5:47. Filed under Obama worship, Politics - National.

Remember that big election a little over a year ago? 

Remember all the desire for “hope and change?” 

Remember all the chants of, “Yes we can, Yes we can?” 

Remember all the Bush Derangement Syndrome, how low Bush’s approval rating had gotten and how badly people wanted to get rid of Bush?

Yeah, not so much.

In addition to finding that Obama is barely eking out a net approval rating, 49% to 47% unfavorable, the latest Public Policy Polling poll finds another interesting bit of information:

Perhaps the greatest measure of Obama’s declining support is that just 50% of voters now say they prefer having him as President to George W. Bush, with 44% saying they’d rather have his predecessor.

 Can you hear the “oh, shit!” coming from the White House?

Let’s see, the fitting close line for those previous shouting “Yes we can!” should be:

“The grass is not always greener,”

“Be careful what you wish for”

Or,

“I told you so!”

Just One Question

by @ 5:07. Filed under Economy, Politics - National.

Since his inauguration, President Obama has explained away every negative facing him, economy, Iraq, Afghanistan, bank lending, unemployment, etc., etc., etc., as having “inherited it.”

From the AP yesterday:

The federal deficit for the first two months of the new budget year is piling up faster than last year’s record imbalance.

I only have one question:  When will Obama’s inheritance run out?

December 10, 2009

The Fallacy Of The Latest Non Public, Public Option

Expand Medicare!

That’s the latest non public, public option.  Even Politico.com recognizes that this new plan is really the “public option” with a new name:

To win over liberals disappointed at losing the public option, Democrats would allow older Americans starting at age 55 to buy into Medicare, the popular program for the aged. The Medicare expansion would be a significant victory for Democrats, who spent years pushing for it. The proposal would in effect create a public health insurance option for older Americans, since Medicare is government-funded and government-run.

On its Health Policy Blog, Mayo clinic posted in part:

Expanding this system to persons 55 to 64 years old would ultimately hurt patients by accelerating the financial ruin of hospitals and doctors across the country. A majority of Medicare providers currently suffer great financial loss under the program. Mayo Clinic alone lost $840 million last year under Medicare. As a result of these types of losses, a growing number of providers have begun to limit the number of Medicare patients in their practices.

Did you get that?  Did you pick up what what Mayo said?  Let’s pull out the key piece:

As a result of these types of losses, a growing number of providers have begun to limit the number of Medicare patients in their practices.

Time and again, the Democrats, including President Obama, have assured us that the implementation of Placebocare would not cause any form of rationing.  In fact they argue that more people will have access to health care with Placebocare than today.  How can you significantly increase participation in a bankrupt program and not get rationing?  You can’t!

Within the past month SK&A, a national health care information solution company released a study that looked a physician acceptance rates of Medicare and Medicaid. The study found that less than 83% of all physicians still accept Medicare or Medicare patients. Also found in the study is that large, hospital settings are more likely to accept Medicare than small group clinics, the North region of the US was most likely to have physicians that accepted Medicare (87%) while the West was the least likely (78%). Finally, the study found that high volume physicians (those who saw 31 or more patients per day), were more likely to accept medicare than those who saw 20 or fewer patients per day.

As recently as 2002, a study by the Medicare Advisory Council found that 90% of physicians accepted Medicare.  In less than 7 years 7% of physicians have exited the Medicare program.  I don’t know how the Democrats define rationing but I’d say that a shrinking supply of physicians or being limited to less than 15 minutes per visit because the economics dictate it, is a pretty good example of rationing.

December 9, 2009

I Know Your Are But What Am I?

by @ 16:47. Filed under Health Care Reform, Politics - National.

Yesterday, as White House press secretary Robert Gibbs was questioned about polls showing President Obama continuing to drop in popularity, Gibbs responded:

I’m sure a 6-year-old with a crayon could do something not unlike that. I don’t put a lot of stake in, never have, in the EKG that is the daily Gallup trend.

In his response and follow up comments, Gibbs seems to suggest not only that a six year old is unable to control their crayons but also that anyone who puts any stock in polls is deemed to have the mental ability of a six year old.

First, having lived through the stages of dexterity improvement as it relates to color crayon control, I can attest that many six year olds are extremely capable of “staying within the lines” and even coloring  a reasonably straight line, when asked.

Second, while I would agree with Mr. Gibbs that any one poll may not accurately reflect the mood of the polled, multiple polls will certainly show a direction and a significance of the concern level.  Let’s look at an example.

Support for Placebocare is claimed by Mr. Gibbs, to have public support.  To be sure, there was a time when the public did support Placebocare.  However, as time has gone on, and the public finds out how damaging Placebocare will be to the economy, the quality of health care and their pocketbooks, public support has dropped to levels that should require a mercy killing.

Just today, three new polls came out showing a low and deteriorating support level for Placebocare:

QUINNIPIAC: “Voters Disapprove 52 – 38 Percent Of The Health Care Reform Proposal Under Consideration In Congress, And They Disapprove 56 – 38 Percent Of President Obama’s Handling Of Health Care, down from 53 – 41 percent in a November 19 survey by the independent Quinnipiac University.” (“Obama Approval Falls To New Low, Quinnipiac University National Poll Finds,” Quinnipiac University, 12/9/09)

BLOOMBERG: “The poll finds significant opposition to using Medicarefor savings; 78 percent say they would oppose any cuts to the program.” (“Obama’s War Plan Gains Amid Doubts On Domestic Policy,” Bloomberg, 12/9/09)

PUBLIC POLICY POLLING: “Support For Obama On Health Care Has Hit Another New Low With Just 39% Of Voters Now Expressing Approval Of His Health Care Plans And 52% Opposed.” (“Obama’s December Standing,” Public Policy Polling, 12/9/09)

It is clear that there is no majority or even plurality of support for Placebocare.  In fact, when you start asking people about specific provisions as Bloomberg did, support becomes almost nearly non existent.

If believing that Placebocare does not have the American public’s support makes me a six year old, what does that make someone who believes it does have support, like Mr. Gibbs?

How Many Leaks Before The Dam Thing Breaks?

by @ 12:05. Filed under Obama worship, Politics - National.

There are questions in the world that when first heard, you would assume have a specific answer.  However, when you contemplate them a bit, you realize that there is probably no one specific answer but a range of answers that are dependent upon the variables of the specific situation.  Examples of this type of question would be:

– If a man talks in the woods, with no women around, will he still be wrong?

or

– How many licks does it take to get to the middle of a Tootsie Pop?

Here is another question to add to the list:

How many leaks can a dam tolerate before it bursts?

Quinnipiac has released its latest polling.  They’ve polled on a variety of issues including opinions on health care (majority still don’t want it especially if they have to pay for it) and opinions on the President’s handling of different issues.  The poll also gives its update on overall favorable/unfavorable perspectives on President Obama.

Overall, Quinnipiac has President Obama with a slightly favorable rating 46% to 44% unfavorable.  That’s the good news.  The bad news for him is in every other demographic break down within the poll.

  • Men disapprove 50%/42%
  • Whites disapprove 51%/38%
  • Independents disapprove 51%/37%
  • All age groups over 35 years disapprove by at least 5%
  • All income of $50K or greater disapprove
  • If you don’t have a college degree, you disapprove
  • The only religious affiliation that supports Obama is Jewish

Based on this, the only people who are reliable supporters of President Obama would be:

  • females
  • Who are “of color”
  • have family income of less than $50K
  • area Jewish
  • are college graduates
  • are under 35 yrs old
  • and of course, are liberal

Let’s see….there are about 227 million voting age people in the US.  34 million are women between the ages of 18 and 34.  Approximately 30% of the US population is non white so that would suggest 10 million women between 18 and 34 might be non white.  Finally, only 2.2% of the US population is Jewish.  That would suggest only 220,000 people are firmly in the camp for Obama?

OK, there are a few holes in my number logic but you get the point.  The fact is that there are few if any, categories of voters who are solidly behind Barack Obama.  In fact, every poll that comes out show yet another leak in the stalwart dam that voted Obama into office.

Dams are interesting things.  They have great strength and are able to hold back great forces.  Many of them actually have leaks that are not fatal.  However, every dam, even the largest, have a point at which some number of small leaks will finally cause its demise, no matter how well built.  Barack Obama’s dam has a bunch of leaks.  The outstanding question is; how many leaks before it’s fatal?

December 8, 2009

Tiger Humor

by @ 18:55. Filed under Miscellaneous.

Q. What’s the difference between a sailor and Tiger?

A. Tiger thinks “all the world’s ports” is too limiting

Pot Meet Kettle

by @ 12:06. Filed under Health Care Reform, Politics - National.

Yes, I know, it’s a pretty trite title.  That said, many of you would probably reply with “yes, but it fits most of your writing!”  OK, now that you’ve had your moment of sarcasm, can we get down to business?

The Senate Minority Leader, Mitch McConnell put out a press release denigrating the Democrat’s efforts to make a bad bill, worse.  As part of his statement, McConnell accused the Democrats of both a lack of principle and laziness by saying:

‘So what’s becoming abundantly clear is that the Majority will make any deal, agree to any terms, sign any dotted line that brings them closer to final passage of this terrible bill. They are, for lack of a better term, winging it on one of the most consequential pieces of domestic legislation in memory’

“Winging it” are they?  I don’t think so!  Whether it is Reid or someone else, the Democrats seem to know exactly what they are doing. 

The Senate started with a plan that was sure to split the Democrat caucus.  As Steve has on his poll, there were at least 3 issues capable of ensuring that Placebocare didn’t exit the Senate; abortion funding, public option and the cost.  We’ve already seen in the House version how the Democrats will “eliminate” abortion funding from the bill while retaining it via some smoke and mirrors.  We also know that for all the discussion of concern over cost, there is no Democrat that will stand in the way of a “historic” legislation due to a measly few trillion dollars.  That leaves the public option as the real divider.

Last night and this morning, we are hearing that the Democrats are finding a solution to the public option dilemma.  Articles like this one at Politico.com, are suggesting that a public option that is run privately but at the government’s direction, may be the solution that lets the Democrat spectrum be equally offended but provides a solution that is equally accepted.

I won’t go into the weak mindedness of this non public, public option other than to say; “Isn’t this just more of the same?”  Aren’t all plans today basically privately implemented but publicly mandated?

What I will say about the non public, public option is that not only might this get the Democrats to solidify, there are also signs that this kind of a solution may get the one Republican vote they need to close debate and move to a final vote.  In fact, the non public, public option is the brain child of Senator Olympia Snowe.  Yes, that’s right, the same Olympia Snowe who has a problem with a public option but has no problem with funding abortion services.  See how this is coming together?

It’s becoming clearer to me that rather than “winging it,” that while the outcome may be imperfect from their viewpoint, Democrats are close to finding a path that will allow them to attain their goal, control of the health care industry.  On the other hand, Mitch McConnell has yet to offer anything other than verbal tripe in the way of opposition.  Not once has McConnell demanded a unanimous consent on any amendment, nor has he required the reading of the bill.  Neither of these efforts would ultimately cause the bill’s failure if the Democrats are committed to unity for passage.  However, either or both of these efforts would delay the passage of any bill.  If there’s one hope for killing this bill it is kept in forcing the Democrat Senators to face their constituents another time before the vote.  If the polls are correct, a number of them will hear clearly, that they had better not vote for Placebocare, at least if they value their cushy jobs.

So, while Mitch McConnell accuses the Democrats of ethical flexiblity and “winging it” it would seem that at this point, he is the one operating without a plan and in fact, “winging it!”  Pot meet kettle!

December 7, 2009

It Might Only Be A Horse!

While continuing to avoid stories on Climategate, the AP is focused on creating “news” where none exists.

In an article on Sunday, the AP attempts to be the first to announce that Sarah Palin is running for the Republican nomination for President.  They conflate Palin’s book tour appearance in Iowa with a confirmation that she is running for the nomination.  They do this on one simple argument; because Iowa is the first State to have a caucus for the nominations and Sarah Paling is in Iowa, she must be running for President. 

The AP tries to bolster their assertion that Palin is running for President by getting a comment from a “Veteran Republican activist” to chime in.  Says Tim Albrecht:

politicians don’t just happen to stop in Iowa and Palin must know that her visit is seen as a signal she is considering a run.

Mr. Albrecht was previously National Director of Communications for the American Future Fund which does fine work on conservative issues.  However, Mr. Albrecht does live in Iowa.  Not that living in Iowa is bad, Mrs. Shoe and I lived there ourselves for a couple of years.  My point is that when living in a state, people have a way of thinking that that state is the center of the universe especially if it happens to have a claim to fame that is coincidental to the topic being discussed.  To conclude that Sarah Palin is running for President because she has a book tour stop in Iowa would be like Sarah Palin being at her book signing in Minnesota wearing a plaid, flannel shirt and when asked what I thought she was going to do next, I answer “she’s going ice fishing!”

Hey, AP, while the obvious eludes you, it’s apparent that jumping to conclusions doesn’t!  How about this line of reasoning:  Sarah Palin is trying to sell books.  To do this, she is on a book tour to meet, greet and sell her books.  Her publicist has chosen several states and sites that they believe Sarah’s appearance would have a large impact on awareness for the book.  While Palin will sell books in all states, there is no secret that her appeal is higher in red states or states who lean towards small government ideals.  Believe it or not, Iowa fits that description.

The AP could use a bit of sage advice that I heard years ago:  If you hear clip clop, clip clop behind you, it would be silly to assume that if you turn, you will see a zebra.  It’s much more likely that it will just be a horse!

December 3, 2009

So What’s The Difference, A Rounding Error?

I pointed out to you here that while the advertised cost of the first ten years of the House Placebocare bill was $829, the real cost, if fully implemented, was over $1.3 Trillion, 57% more than claimed.  The reason for this dramatic difference is that while the House plan has taxes and other revenue sources beginning almost immediately, the expenses, or implementation of the benefits, did start for nearly 4 years.

The Senate bill is no better than the House. It too begins to generate revenue long before it hits the full stride of expenses. As a result, the Senate bill claims it will cost around $1 Trillion. We all know that this number is false. What we don’t know is how big the real number is. Well, it appears that the Democrats might.

In comments today, Democrat Senator Max Baucus from Montana said:

“Just for a second — health care reform, whether you use a ten-year number or when you start in 2010 or start in 2014, wherever you start at, so it is still either $1 trillion or it’s $2.5 Trillion, depending on where you start…”

What?  “It’s either $1 Trillion or $2.5 Trillion, depending on where you start?” 

Senator Baucus is willing to concede that the Senate version of Placebocare could have a swing in cost of $1.5 Trillion, 150% of the advertised price, “depending on where you start.”  Baucus treats $1.5 Trillion dollars as if it’s some irrelevant amount.  He treats it as I would treat a dime in my checkbook balancing; as a rounding error!

If Senator Baucus is right and “It’s either $1 Trillion or $2.5 Trillion, depending on where you start,” might I suggest that we start really, really early?  I’d suggest we start where the price tag is still ZERO!

December 2, 2009

The Work You Have Will Fill The Time Alloted For It

I hate to say I told you so but, I told you so. 

Had you read my post from yesterday you would have had all the high points of President Obama’s Afghan speech, in advance and without having to watch his strained, poorly choreographed event.

So, what did we get?  We got some additional troops, he’s going to bang his shoe on the Afghan government’s table and he’s going to begin withdrawal in 18 months.  All like I said yesterday. 

I only have one question:  “What took him so long?”

President Obama mentally gyrated for 3 months so that he could get all the best advice, understand the situation clearly, look at options and make a plan.  After all that, he came up with a plan that I could have developed in 1/2 hour including two pee breaks?

Thing 1 and Thing 2 are in fifth grade.  This is the first year that they are regularly getting homework.  Mrs. Shoebox and I work with them to ensure that their first focus each day is to do their homework.  Even if things aren’t due until later in the week, we encourage them to finish as much of their homework as early in the week as possible.  The reason is simple, it’s easy for 11 year olds to forget about what they’re supposed to do and spend time on what they want to do.  The corollary to this for adults is the old saying about the amount of work you have will always fill the amount of time you have to do it.

It’s clear from his speech this evening, that the extra time that President Obama spent trying to decide what to do in Afghanistan wasn’t invested in a higher quality product.  It’s obvious that President Obama didn’t focus his effort at the beginning of his time and like Thing 1 and Thing 2, got caught slapping something together at the last minute.

One of the folks I follow on Twitter posted that he wasn’t going to be critical of President Obama, he wanted to wish him the best because he wanted us to win in Afghanistan.  My response was that I too want us to win in Afghanistan but somehow I don’t believe that that is President Obama’s objective.

December 1, 2009

Another Vote “Present”

by @ 5:40. Filed under Politics - National.

Tonight President Obama will interrupt yet another hour of television so that we may hear him share his brilliance on yet another topic.  This time the topic will be Afghanistan and what he has decided to do with the request for additional troops.  There’s no need for you to waste your time with his address.  I can tell you what he will say:

To the hard left –

“While McChrystal may have been my pick, he’s not the McChrystal I knew.  Turns out he’s an agent for the military industrial complex. 

McChrystal asked for 40,000 troops but I’m President!  I know better!  I’m only going to give him 34,000 troops!  That will show him that he works for me!

And another thing, I’ve told McChrystal not to be making any long term plans in Afghanistan.  I’m announcing tonight that while I’m sending another 34,000 troops, we will withdraw from Afghanistan by mid 2011.  Never mind that it will take nearly a year for the troops to actually get into theatre and they won’t really have any time to do anything, this is all about how I look politically.

Finally, we wouldn’t be in this mess if I hadn’t inherited a corrupt Afghan government from George Bush.  I will bang my teleprompter on the table and insist that the Afghan government straighten up and fly right and they’d better do it right away…..OR ELSE!”

To conservatives and other thinking Americans –

“I’m announcing that I’m sending an addition 34,000 troops to Afghanistan.  I’ve considered General McChrystal’s recommendation for a long time and believe that this is a number, rather than his, is a number that let’s me pretend to support our men and women in uniform while still throwing a bone to my homies.

Let me be clear that while I’m sending additional troops, I am not changing their engagement orders.  They will continue to be hamstrung with ridiculous limitations and second guessing.  If that doesn’t work, we’ll be sure to harass them with frivolous lawsuits and court martial to ensure that their desire for accomplishment is completely removed.  Can you say “semper fi?”

In reality, I’m making no decision at all.  In fact, I’m purposely pushing any real action off until after the mid term elections of next year.  If the Democrats manage to hold on I’ll be able to do to the military what I’ve done to the finance industry, auto industry and soon, the medical industry; I’ll neuter them to a point where they will become ineffective at accomplishing their core tasks.  If the Republicans win, better yet!  I can blame what will become an intractable mess on the meddling “attitude of no” that is the Republican party!”

There, go find something good to watch on a movie channel or your DVR.  There’s no reason to watch Obama announce another vote “present” on prime time TV!

November 30, 2009

Say What?

Newsmax is reporting the Mike Huckabee is leaning against being involved with the 2012 Presidential contest:

Former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee says he’s leaning slightly against running for president in 2012 but says it’s far too early to say what he will do.

I think this is nothing but publicity for Huckabee.  But, if true, I welcome the announcement. 

Huckabee is the kind of “conservative” who would give President George W. Bush a bad name.  The only things that I’m convinced that Huckabee is conservative on are abortion and gay marriage.  Everything else seems to be up for pragmatic adjustments.  However, what flavor of conservative Huckabee is or isn’t, is not why I write.

Huckabee has provided several reasons or markers, for why he won’t run, or might yet run, for President:

  • It depends upon on the 2010 elections turn out
  • Whether the party will unite behind him
  • The status of his weekly TV program.

He’s kidding, right?

Running for President, or any political office for that matter, is not something you do on a lark.  These are grueling, all encompassing endeavors, not only for the candidate but also for their family and friends.  Having seen first hand, the sacrifice required to participate in a simple intraparty election, I would never counsel anyone to run for an office that they weren’t personally convicted and committed that their ideas and leadership were best for their constituents and the office.  But, that doesn’t seem to even enter Huckabee’s mind.

Depending upon the 2010 election– If you think you’ve got the best ideas for the country, what difference could this make?  Is Huckabee saying that if the Republicans make gains in 2010 that his ideas become irrelevant?  If so, his ideas are already irrelevant.  Or, is he saying that if the Republicans don’t do well in 2010 that he “won’t play” because it’s too big a challenge? 

There is only one valid take Huckabee might have, that I could agree with his reasoning.   If Republicans make big gains in 2010, and the force behind that change is the tea party activists, Huckabee would not be the likely nominee as he wouldn’t get the support of most tea party activists.

Whether the party will unite behind him– ummmmm, isn’t this what the nomination process is all about?  Did John McCain really think the party was united behind him in 2008?  I suppose that it’s possible that his political ego convinced him that they were.  If so, it’s just one more reason why McCain never got united support. 

A leader will create unity where none exists.  They do this by casting a vision and helping others understand and see how that vision is the best for accomplishing the goal or task that confronts them.  If Huckabee is unable to create unity, not only will he not be the nominee, he shouldn’t be.  Again, looking back at 2008, McCain was beat as much by a competent opponent as by his own incompetency in regularly sticking his finger in the eye of core conservatives and keeping them from unifying with the party even if they wanted to.

Dependent upon his TV show – This is hilarious!  Is he suggesting that if his show is doing well he isn’t interested in being President?  Or, is he saying that if he bombs on TV, being President sounds like a good interim job while he finds another media gig?

Personally, I’ve never understood the appeal of Mike Huckabee.  I’ve always thought him to be a populist who didn’t have any real core convictions.  There have been many who’ve tried to convince me that Huckabee was a serious candidate.  The next time someone tries to do that, I’ll point them to this article and respond, “Say What?”

November 26, 2009

Counting My Blessings

by @ 5:15. Filed under Miscellaneous.

Dear Readers,

Mrs. Shoebox and I along with Thing1, Thing2 and Grandpa and Grandma Shoebox, are heading across the great Midwest to spend this holiday with the extended Shoebox family.

Along with the start of the annual increase of my caloric intake, I’ll be spending some time reflecting this weekend.

There are many things for me to be thankful for:

  1. I have a Savior who loves me and through His death has provided me reconciliation with my Heavenly Father.
  2. I have a wife who loves me as I am and in spite of my many shortcomings.
  3. I have two sons who are funny, bright, energetic and quickly headed to becoming young men
  4. While we face challenges, we still live in the greatest country on the planet.  I’m going to work hard in the next year to help keep it that way.

Finally, I’m thankful for you, our reader. 

As the airlines say “I know you have choices.”  I appreciate that you spend part of your time reading this site and are interested in the things we have to say.  I’m always appreciate of the comments, supportive or not so much, I read them all.  While I’ve met none of you, I’ve gained a number of friendships from my posting on this site.  I look forward to making even more friends in the next year.

Have a great holiday!  Enjoy your family and friends.  I know I will!

Shoebox

November 25, 2009

Maybe, Just Maybe….

by @ 19:07. Filed under Health Care Reform, Politics - National.

Poll after poll has shown that Placebocare is not supported by the majority of Americans.  One segment that inexplicably hadn’t moved to the anti Placebocare side has been the youth.  In fact, youth are one of the few segments that have consistently supported Placebocare.  In a Rasmussen poll this week, while overall support for Placebocare had dropped to 38%, the poll found that a majority of those under 30 continued to support Placebocare.

As I said earlier, the support amongst those under 30 is inexplicable.  Why?  Because those under 30 are the group most likely to feel the impact of Placebocare.

The under 30 group is the most likely not to carry insurance.  Under Placebocare, if you don’t have insurance you will be subject to fines, or in the House version, jail time.  Also, several studies have shown that for those who do have insurance, those under 30 will likely see significant increases in the cost of their insurance.  I referenced some of those studies here.

As long as Placebocare continues to have about a 40% support in the country, people like President Obama, Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi and other tone deaf politicians, will maintain an effort to enact Placebocare under the guise of “demand.”  With all other age groups decidedly against Placebocare, if the under 30 group breaks its support, overall support will drop below 30% and that would likely be a death blow for Placebocare. 

That begs the question, “How to we move the folks under 30?”  Dick Morris and the League of American Voters may have found the answer.

Morris and the League have developed a commercial specifically targeted at the youth.  The commercial was played in the States of several key Democrat Senators just prior to the Senate vote of last weekend.  The results?  Prior to the commercial, the under 30 crowd in these states supported Placebocare 58% to 30% against.  After the commercial ran, the same age groups in the same states shifted to a 25% and 65% against Placebocare.

Hokey smoke Rocky! That’s a HUGE change. A change like that nationally would stop Placebocare in its tracks. So, what was the silver bullet in the message that got this dramatic change? Watch:

Turns out that those under 30 don’t like being taxed or penalized anymore than those over 30. Is it possible that those under 30 are just as economically rational as other age groups once they have the truth about how Placebocare will impact them? YUP!

Now that the Senate bill will enter debate it will be harder and harder for the Democrats to hide behind the “that’s not in the bill” argument using the “it’s not written yet” guise.  Both the House and Senate plans are in written form and both have horrendous implications for the young people of our country.  The longer the debate goes on, the more time to make sure that people have the information about what really is in the bill.  Time is not the Democrat’s best friend when it comes to Placebocare.

November 22, 2009

Live From New York!

by @ 19:26. Filed under Obama worship, Politics - National.

It’s been years since I’ve watched SNL on a regular basis.  Part of it is it’s on late at night.  But, most of it is due to the fact that their politics and mind haven’t aligned for years.  As a result, I don’t find much of their stuff as funny as they think it is…..Until now!

I’m reconsidering staying up late on Saturday nights!

November 21, 2009

Old Dogs…

by @ 11:05. Filed under Global "Warming", Politics - National.

No, I’m not referring to the new movie out starring Robin Williams, Seth Green and John Travolta!

Of the many reasons that I was opposed to John McCain’s nomination last year, one that stood out towards the top, was McCain’s position on Global Warming.  You may remember that McCain was one of the authors of the Lieberman McCain Climate Stewardship Act, more commonly known as the McCain/Leiberman bill.  The bill assumed that carbon dioxide was the cause for global warming.  It further assumed that by limiting or capping the amount of carbon dioxide released, the earth would cease its warming trend.  The method for “capping” the gas was to provide a series of disincentives for creating the gas through a mechanism known as cap and trade.  Fortunately, the bill was unable to pass the Senate in 2003 and subsequent attempts to pass similar legislation have also failed in the Senate.

Earlier this year the House passed its version of Cap and Trade legislation.  Thus far, the Senate has not offered a bill for debate that would marry with the House bill and allow Cap and Trade to move forward. 

While Cap and Trade is generally not supported by Republicans because they know the global warming science is junk and that Cap and Trade is just one more way for government to regulate significant portions of our liberty, there are a few Republicans who have sided with the alarmists.  Lindsey Graham has always looked to support Can and Trade and until recently, so did John McCain.

Huh?  Until recently you say?  Yup!

Politico is reporting that John McCain has done an about face on Cap and Trade:

McCain has emerged as a vocal opponent of the climate bill — a major reversal for the self-proclaimed maverick who once made defying his party on global warming a signature issue of his career.

Further:

McCain refers to the bill as “cap and tax,” calls the climate legislation that passed the House in June “a 1,400-page monstrosity” and dismisses a cap-and-trade proposal included in the White House budget as “a government slush fund.”

The Politico article goes on to attempt to figure out why McCain has changed.  Most of the article is focused on McCain’s staff changes, arguing that the new staff doesn’t have the history or passion for the global warming issue.  They get quotes from a professor, lobbyists, former aides and even Graham himself that express their confusion over McCain’s change in position. 

Maybe, just maybe, I was wrong about McCain.  Maybe, John McCain can be the Right’s most notable example of an old dog learning new tricks….maybe.

Most of the piece on the suggestive picture that McCain’s change is the oddity not that other folks who still buy into a theory who’s only truth is that by its perpetuation, Al Gore increases his income, are the oddity. However, in the near middle of the piece, as an almost throw away paragraph, The Politico hits on this:

Arizona politics could be another factor. Republicans hope to use the cap-and-trade bill to attack Democrats on economic issues by saying it will raise electricity costs for businesses and spike electric bills. Those attacks could resonate in Arizona, which has one of the highest unemployment rates in the country.

In a poll released by Rasmussen this week, McCain is leading J.D. Hayworth by only 2%, within the margin of error, in an Arizona Republican primary for McCain’s Senate seat.  In an earlier poll, Rasmussen found that 61% of Arizona Republican voters believe that McCain had lost touch with the Republican party.

Learning new tricks?  Probably.  However, I don’t believe for a minute that the “new trick” is a core change in belief of global warming.  

In last year’s Presidential election, McCain saw what happens when the Republican base abandons you.  What was a problem in a Presidential election would be political death to McCain in an Arizona primary.  With the rise of the teaparty movement and the subsequent desire for candidates who are more conservative, McCain has a problem.  In a state where illegal immigration is a significant issue and you supported amnesty, where the independence of the wild west still lives and you supported McCain/Feingold to limit free speech, McCain has a problem.  He can’t undo McCain/Feingold and no legislation is pending to “correct” his position on amnesty.  John McCain has thrown Cap and Trade under the bus in an effort to establish some conservative bona fides and keep the the torches and pitchforks at bay.

Old dog and new tricks?  Nope.  Just the same old dog using the same old political tricks in an attempt to keep his cushy job!

November 20, 2009

Can You Blame Them?

by @ 5:15. Filed under Obama worship, Politics - National.

There were several articles this week about recent polls that show Independents are abandoning Obama as they are sensing the impending sinking of the USS Democrat.  One such article is this one from the Politico.

Amongst the stats that have the Democrats concerned are insights like this:

A Gallup Poll released last week offered a disturbing glimpse about the state of play: just 14 percent of independents approve of the job Congress is doing, the lowest figure all year. In just the past few days alone, surveys have shown Democratic incumbents trailing Republicans among independent voters by double-digit margins in competitive statewide contests in places as varied as Connecticut, Ohio and Iowa.

Yikes!

In another article, Obama is called “radioactive!”

Many watchers of House politics are tempted to downplay the potential for real races in these districts after taking one look at immediate past election history. How could Republicans possibly threaten the likes of Skelton or Spratt, both of whom won more than 62 percent of the vote in 2008? Or Gordon, Tanner, or Boucher, all of whom were unopposed last year? But that was before they were saddled with a sitting Democratic president who is beyond radioactive in their districts. History is history.

Independents leaving so fast that it is causing normally safe Democrat districts to be in play?  Why?  What has caused the Independents, the folks how a year ago overwhelmingly voted for “hope and change” to do an about face?

Rasmussen released an interesting poll today.  The poll shows that unemployment amongst Democrats and Independents are unemployed at a rate much higher than that of Republicans:

Data from Rasmussen Reports national telephone surveys shows that 15.0% of Democrats in the workforce are currently unemployed and looking for a job. Among adults not affiliated with either major party, that number is 15.6% while just 9.9% of Republicans are in the same situation.

If that wasn’t bad enough, the rate of decline for Independents, has been much higher this year than for Democrats or Republicans:

Among those not affiliated with either major party, unemployment has grown by more than two percentage points from 13.3% in February to 15.6% now.

Hmmmm, I guess if I were an independent who voted for Obama’s “change” and the only change I see is an increase in unemployment for people like myself, that is higher than that of the folks around me, I might be a bit hacked off as well.

Keep up the good work Mr. President.  We’ll see whose Party is “The big tent party” in 2010!

 

November 19, 2009

Caption Of The Day Contest

Here’s the photo from Drudge:

Health Care Overhaul

Post up your best caption for the picture.

Here’s mine:

Reid needs support for his lower back pain after carrying the 2074 page Senate health care bill into the chamber.

Update:  OK, how about “NO!  When doing the Senate two step, you put one hand on my shoulder, the other on my waist!”

November 18, 2009

What, Me Worry?

President Obama is now the Alfred E. Neuman of US Politics

AP: Obama, Holder predict conviction in 9/11 case

Ummmm…wasn’t this the same administration who said unemployment wouldn’t go over 8%?

I wonder if this will be another opportunity for Vice President Biden to tell us, after the fact, that the situation was “worse than expected?”

[No Runny Eggs is proudly powered by WordPress.]