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 the 'Politics' Category

June 16, 2009

How Many to Make a Trend?

by @ 5:15. Filed under Economy, Health, Politics - National.

I’ve shared before about a General Manager that I worked for in wireless.  He used to tell us “Two does not make a trend.”  It was his way of telling us that we shouldn’t get too giddy about a couple of success, that we needed a string of successes before we could claim a winning idea.  I never heard exactly how many did make a trend.  However, I’m pretty sure that President Obama is noticing a trend.

Monday as President Obama shared his ideas for solving the high costs of health care with the AMA, he was booed.  He was booed because his plan didn’t contain the obvious need to include malpractice reform in his plan.

A couple of weeks back, Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner was laughed at by Chinese University students as he told them:  he stood for a strong dollar,” but that China should let its currency appreciate relative to the dollar, which, of course, would mean a weaker dollar.  He simultaneously told China that their investments in US Treasury bonds were safe.

And early last year Obama was booed by the NAACP as he tried to warm to the crowd with stunning rhetoric like:

“I eat fried chicken, why sometimes I go to bed with a bucket of KFC, so I can eat it while I fall asleep, and again when I wake up in the morning.”

My point in this is not that Obama or his administration, gets booed or laughed at.   Rather, my point is that for all of the accolades about his speaking ability and intelligence, President Obama, whether with friendly, neutral or unfriendly audiences, continues to misread his audience. 

President Obama and his administration believes that just because they say it, it must be so.  They believe that audiences somehow leave their God given brains at home and pant like Pavlovian dogs at whatever Obama or his spokesperson says. 

Doubt me?

Obama is out pushing his medical insurance programs.  He claims that by implementing the new plan he will reduce costs.  Unfortunately for Obama, the CBO came out today and blasted his assumptions saying Obama’s plan will add an additional $1 Trillion to the deficit (remember, this is the deficit that Obama continues to claim he “inherited” and that he would cut in half) and that it will only cover an additional 16 to 17 million people.

Folks, if the net cost over 9 years to cover an average of 16.5 million people is $1 Trillion, that averages to over $6,700 per year, per person.  For the average family of four, that is almost $27,000 per year.   As a self employed individual I buy my family’s insurance so believe me I know how expensive health insurance is.  However, $6,700 per year for your average individual isn’t just covering the basics, that’s enough to cover with a gold plated plan.  It appears that once again, with government involved, costs don’t come down, they go up.

I think I hear the national health plan boo birds warming up in the wings!

June 15, 2009

I’m Back and Itchin’ For a Fight!

I’m back!  I’ll tell you more about why I’ve been gone (if you care) at the end of the post.  First, on to the lie of the day:

Over the weekend Joe Biden started building the case of excuses for the Obama administrations inept handling of the economy.  In an interview Sunday Biden said:“everyone guessed wrong.”

Ummmm, excuse me Vice President Biden but not “everyone” guessed wrong. In fact, the very economists who you claim “guessed wrong” knew that what Obama advocated for would have a dismally ineffective impact on the economic situation.

At the risk of saying “I told you so” loudly enough so as to be heard over the cacophonous echoing that is the noise of an empty political head like Joe Biden, let me say “I told you so” and Christina Romer, one of the very economists that Biden refers to, told you so!

Please reread this post where I provide the link to Romer’s own research that showed that “stimulus” at best gets a 1X multiplier while tax cuts provide a 3X multiplier.  Also, please reread this post where I link to Romer’s own research that showed that stimulus packages don’t work because the government applies them to the wrong things and does so too late to have any effect.

Well, now that I think about it maybe I have to agree with Joe that everyone did “guess” wrong!  But isn’t that just the problem?  Regardless of the issue the Obama administration doesn’t want to be constrained by facts.  The Obama administration is more focused on what they want the world or the particular situation to be rather than the reality of it.  The result is that they continue to bumble and stumble their way around “guessing” at what they can do rather than using knowledge, facts and the information their very own people have, to deal with the issues they confront. 

Perhaps the greatest irony of this whole issue is that Obama claimed his administration would be one that really focused on the facts and not emotion as he stated in his inauguration speech:  “We will restore science to its rightful place.”   Stay tuned for a lot more problematic “guessing” as Obama tries to solve the health care “crisis” and the global warming “crisis.”

__________________________________________________________________________________________

Where have I been?  Well, if you must know (we must, we must (my homage to “Blazing Saddles”)), I have been working on an intraparty campaign in MN.  I worked for the Dave Thompson campaign as he ran for the State Party Chair of the Minnesota Republican Party.

Dave was a fantastic candidate who really connected with the grassroots of Minnesota.  He forced the entrenched machine candidate to commit to an open and inclusive party process, something the machine candidate has personally fought for years.

In the end, we didn’t prevail.  However, Dave’s message, charisma and candor reinvigorated a large number of folks who had nearly given up on the MNGOP.  We’ll now wait and see whether the new chair keeps to his campaign commitments and embraces all activists who believe in liberty and conservatism.  If not, we’ll see if he reverts to his previous exclusionary approach which will cause the MNGOP to fracture and allow a blue state that should be red to be permanently dyed blue.  Stay tuned, the state convention is in September, we’ll know then!

The very few who will not see a tax increase in WisTAXsin

by @ 9:08. Filed under Politics - Wisconsin, Taxes.

If you meet ALL of the following conditions, you might not see a tax increase courtesy the Daughter-of-Necrobudget:

  • You must make less than $300,000 per year in reported income
  • None of your earnings can be from capital gains
  • You must not drive
  • You must not smoke (unless you shop at an Indian reservation tobacco store)
  • You must not drink
  • You must not get sick enough to enter a hospital or urgent care center
  • You must not purchase over-the-counter drugs
  • You must not buy downloaded software, songs or videos
  • You must not shop in Milwaukee County, Calumet County, Winnebago County, Outagamie County, Eau Claire County, Chippewa County, or the urbanized portion of Dane County
  • You must not shop at a business or buy from a business that has operations both within and outside of Wisconsin
  • You must not own a business
  • You must not rent a vehicle in Milwaukee County, Racine County or Kenosha County
  • You must not own any real estate
  • You must not own a phone

If you can claim all of the above, you just might not see a tax increase. There might be some dope dealers and users that meet all this, but the rest of us will be seeing a tax increase.

Revisions/extensions (4:54 pm 6/15/2009) – Fred decided to add to the list some over at the MacIver Institute. In addition to those who rent real estate…

  • You must not operate a power boat.
  • You must not operate any small engines requiring gas for operation.

I’m sure there’s more restrictions on who doesn’t get their taxes raised.

June 14, 2009

Weekend hot read – Michael Totten on Iran

by @ 18:19. Filed under International relations, Politics.

All I have to say is, read Michael Totten now. He’s been on top of the Iran blow-up since before they actually blew up. Today, he sees a bit of what happened in 1979 happening now…

The great Polish journalist Ryszard Kapuscinski witnessed and wrote about dozens of revolutions in the course of his life. He has, perhaps, seen more revolutions than anyone in the history of the world. He knew, while he lived, revolutions better than anyone.

In his book Shah of Shahs, about the Iranian revolution in 1979, he describes the beginning of the end for the Shah Reza Pahlavi….

(Lengthy excerpt of the book describing a 1979 encounter between a policeman and a protester removed; the policeman backed off after failing to convince the protester to go home)

Now take a look at this video uploaded from the city of Isfahan. A ferocious-looking unit of armed riot police officers is shown running away in terror from civilian demonstrators.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WRUTh76486I[/youtube]

Believe me, there’s a lot more there than I can bring over here.

Related to that, Jon Ham wonders where the Obama administration and CNN are. Good question.

June 12, 2009

RTA madness expanded, explained – and revised

by @ 16:55. Filed under Choo-choos, Politics - Wisconsin, Taxes.

Revisions/extensions (4:55 pm 6/12/2009) – I’ve moved this post (originally published 4:28 pm 6/11/2009) to the top. The summary from the Legislative Fiscal Bureau is in (pages 38-42), and things get worse. I’ll clear up the original post a bit, and explain below.

WisPolitics’ Budget Blog reports that a rather sweeping amendment to the various Regional “Transit” Authorities contained in the Daughter-of-Necrobudget has been made by Assembly Democrats:

  • The Fox River Valley RTA in the governor’s budget has been restored, including the 0.5% sales tax.
  • The Chippewa River Valley also gets an RTA, with an unknown funding source a 0.5% sales tax.
  • In a reversal of the usual car-taxes-to-transit subsidy, Dane County, and only Dane County, will get to use its 0.5% RTA sales tax to repair roads.
  • At the insistence of the Federal Transit Administration, the KRM taxing authority’s responsibility is expanded to include Racine’s and Kenosha’s bus systems, paid for by a $1 car-rental tax in the cities of Racine and Kenosha (which makes the total KRM RTA car-rental tax initially $17 in Racine and Kenosha; it is unknown whether, like the larger car-rental tax, this will be auto-indexed for inflation) an additional $2 car-rental tax in Milwaukee, Racine, and Kenosha Counties, raising the total tax to $18 per car-rental transaction. Of note, the bus systems only get the tax money if the cities raise funding of their transit systems (i.e. raise local taxes) by that amount.
  • The new sales tax the Milwaukee County Board gets to levy for their Regional Transit Taxing Authority drops from 1.00% to 0.65%, but instead of also funding parks, cultural, and emergency medical services programs, 23% of the new tax (or 0.15% on the bottom line) will go to “offsetting police and fire costs in communities in Milwaukee County”. If you believe that will go anyplace other than the City of Milwaukee, I’ve got a bridge to sell you.

So, why all the changes, and why now? Apparently, despite being close to $2,000,000,000,000 in the red for the 2010 budget, the federal government has enough money to reward those who grow government and raise taxes by creating RTAs by September.

Yes, that’s right. Much like the demand by the Assembly Democrats to the cities of Racine and Kenosha to raise local taxes so that they get a pittance of an amount from a state-imposed tax increase, the federal government is demanding local tax increases and increased amounts and levels of government to get a pittance of an amount from the already-overtapped federal Treasury.

Begin expanded explanation. Regarding the Southeastern Regional Transit Authority (the rebadged KRM Authority):

  • The car-rental tax is increased from $16 per transaction to $18 per transaction, indexed for inflation.
  • The city of Racine’s bus system would get $1 of that, and the city of Kenosha’s bus system would get $1 of that, only if each city “generates new funds to match the vehicle rental tax revenues”.
  • No other community in either Racine County or Kenosha County gets a stop on the choo-choo unless they provide a “sustainable funding mechanism” of an unspecified amount to contribute to their county seat’s existing bus system.
  • Instead of empowering the Milwaukee County and Racine County executives to make appointments, it depowers the Kenosha County Executive and gives the Kenosha County board chair that seat’s appointment power.
  • The SERTA will become the sole clearinghouse of grants made to the FTA by all three counties.
  • Pedro Colon gets a KRM stop at Lincoln Ave. and Bay St. to go along with his previously-porked-in National Ave. stop.

Regarding the Milwaukee Transit Taxing Authority:

  • Delete the “Regional” from the name.
  • The 0.15% sales tax imposed for “police and fire protection” will be split based on the number of officers and firefighters (i.e. almost all the money’s going to the city).
  • Specify that the MTA would be a tax-exempt entity.
  • No word on whether the 15% requirement to the city of Milwaukee to run the mini-choo-choo is still in.

Regarding the Chippewa Valley Transit Authority:

  • Eau Claire County would be first, pending both county board and voter approval.
  • Any municipality that has any presence in Eau Claire County would automatically be part of this.
  • If it is established, Chippewa County could join the same way (county board and voter approval), with the decision to either join or leave binding on all municipalities in Chippewa County.
  • Membership, with 4-year terms, would be set by each member county, with no more than 17 total and including three members appointed by each county member’s county executive and approved by the county board (one of which would be an initial 2-year term, then 4-year terms after that), a member appointed by the mayor of each member county’s largest city and approved by that city’s common council (an initial 2-year term, then 4-year terms after that) and a member appointed by the governor.
  • The funding source would be a 0.5% sales tax.

Once again, the screwing gets deeper. Maybe I should hire Moron Pundit to put together a way-NSFW graphic.

Revisions/extensions (9:12 am 6/14/2009) – I have to thank Lance Burri for the Rule 2 boost.

A junker of an idea

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

The Detroit News reports that the House and Senate leadership have agreed on a $1 billion plan to get older cars off the roads, to be stuffed inside the $106 billion war supplemental (off-topic, I thought there wasn’t going to be “war supplementals” in the ObamiNation). The major details are the same as the version that passed the House on Tuesday:

  • Those who trade in a vehicle made after 1983 that has a combined (new) EPA mileage rating of less than 18 mpg can get $3,500 in a government voucher if the new passenger car has a combined EPA mileage rating of at least 22 mpg and is at least 4 mpg greater than the previous vehicle’s combined (new) EPA mileage rating, or the new light truck has a combined EPA mileage rating of at least 18 mpg and is at least 2 mpg greater than the previous vehicle’s combined (new) EPA mileage rating.
  • That amount increases to $4,500 if the new passenger car’s combined EPA mileage rating is at least 10 mpg greater than the previous vehicle’s combined (new) EPA mileage rating or if the new light trick’s combined EPA mileage rating is at least 5 mpg greater than the previous vehicle’s combined (new) EPA mileage rating.
  • Since the old car will be crushed or shredded, that voucher will take the place of any trade-in value.

Exit question part 1 – how long before this becomes mandatory, with the only eligible cars made by either UAW Motors or Government Motors? Exit question part 2 – will this be any more successful than the “gun buyback” programs?

Revisions/extensions (9:08 am 6/14/2009) – I somehow missed the requirement that the old vehicle can’t have higher than a combined 18 mpg.

June 10, 2009

Wednesday Hot Read – Christian Schneider’s “Willy Wonka Explains the Wisconsin State Budget”

by @ 13:18. Filed under Politics - Wisconsin.

Christian Schneider reaches into the Dennis York bag of blogging to explain the Daughter-of-Necrobudget:

Yesterday, the Legislative Fiscal Bureau released their summary of the state budget as rushed through by the Joint Finance Committee last week. It’s a long and complicated document, so we here at WPRI have enlisted some help in explaining many of the big themes included the budget.

As it happens, most of what legislative Democrats passed can be explained by eccentric chocolatier Willy Wonka, star of the 1971 children’s classic “Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory.” Here are some famous quotes from the movie, and how they shed light on the budget currently before the Legislature. Cuddle up with your favorite little Oompa Loompa and read along:

Anyone who can work “Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory” quotes into a very serious look at what the Assembly will be working on instead of the majority making a pilgrimage to The Won is a genius.

The final budget plunge to begin tomorrow

by @ 13:06. Filed under Politics - Wisconsin.

Rep. Leah Vukmir (R-Wauwatosa) Tweeted the news that the Assembly will be in session at 10 am tomorrow to take up the 1,903-page Daughter-of-Necrobudget as well as a scheme to shift $261 million in Porkulus money around to allow the current budget to close $70 million in the black (via WisPolitics). Originally, they were supposed to take it up today, but that was postponed after the rank-and-file Democrats started to balk at what their leaders in the Joint Finance Committee put together.

Speculation had been that, since they didn’t have enough votes to ram the Daughter-of-Necrobudget through today, they wouldn’t take it up until next week so they could join the pilgrimage to President Obama in Green Bay tomorrow (via the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel). The fact that they’re passing up the first post-inauguration visit is not good news.

Conference call with Sen. Lamar Alexander re. govt. car cos.

by @ 12:10. Tags:
Filed under Business, Politics - National.

Thanks to Sean Hackbarth, I was part of a conference call with Sen. Lamar Alexander (R-TN), discussing his plan to distribute the Treasury-held common stock in Chrysler and GM directly to the taxpayers within a year and his new Car Czar award. Since I managed to have my digital voice recorder working, I was actually able to grab a few notes from that. Of course, partly because of my natural quietness, and partially because of a heavy-hitter lineup on the call so experienced that even Fausta didn’t get to ask questions, all I can offer is a writeup.

  • The Auto Stock for Every Taxpayer Act (S. 1198, no text available yet from THOMAS) would require the Treasury to distribute all of the common stock to the 120 million or so Americans who pay individual income taxes within a year of GM leaving bankruptcy (side note; Chrysler has now closed its “sale” to Fiat/UAW/US and Canadian governments and will henceforth be called UAW Motors on this blog).
  • Sen. Alexander describes it as the fastest way to get the stock out of the hands of government, and brought up the example of the Green Bay Packers and its community-owned structure (Sean’s influence at work).
  • The most-important thing is to stop the political meddling that results from government ownership, citing the White House-ordered firing of Rick Wagoner as CEO of GM, “suggestions” on where the HQ of GM ought to be, Rep. Barney Frank (D-MA) pressuring GM to keep a Massachusetts distribution center open, clamors from Congress on what models to make (do I hear Iowahawk’s Pelosi GTxi SS/RT Sport Edition?), the pay czar to “fix” the price of labor.
  • The rationale to the taxpayers is, “You paid for it, you should own it”.
  • As part of that, the Car Czar award, first given to Rep. Frank on Monday, will become a regular feature.

Of course, it wouldn’t be a conference call without questions. As I said, we had some heavy hitters.

  • Noel Sheppard of Newsbusters started up with a two-parter: How will the inevitable calls from the Democrats to include non-taxpayers be addressed, and will the stock distribution will be based on population or percentage of taxes paid? Sen. Alexander hasn’t heard much from the Dems yet, but the principle is that we should give the shares back to those who actually paid for them. As for the distribution percentage, he acknowledges that a percentage-based would be better, but the population-based split would “give the little guy a break” and be “simpler and cleaner”.

    Side note – the Treasury would have roughly 310,000,000 common shares in “new GM”, and an unspecified number of shares equaling 8% of the membership stake (all non-voting) in UAW Motors, so a population-based split would be “simpler and cleaner”.

  • Jennifer Rubin of Commentary Magazine and Pajamas Media wondered if the Chrysler and GM bankruptcies have changed the rule of law regarding private property owners. Sen. Alexander said that we’ve damaged the rule of law and the rights of private property owners. He pointed out that, in the future, private entities will be slower to lend money to enterprises and rely on contracts to pay the money back, and asserted that our system won’t “function very well” in that scenario.
  • Travis Griffith at CarGurus.com asked about stock dumping by those that would get the distribution. Sen. Alexander notes that stock distributions happen all the time. The alternative would be for the Treasury to slowly divest over 5-7 years, and he expects the government to run both right into the ground before they can fully divest themselves.

    Side notes – I’d expect each invidiual 3-share stake in GM to be worth somewhere around $30 at the close (based on the $1 billion in VEBA funding the UAW is giving up for 17.5% of the common shares) and each individual membership stake in UAW Motors to be worth somewhere between $4 and $7 as of a couple hours ago (depending on which valuation method one uses). At the same time, the UAW will be looking to dump significant chunks of its holdings, which will depress the estimated values and limit the dumping.

  • Stephanie Davis from RFC Radio wondered whether the political meddling would be extended to Ford. Sen. Alexander hopes not, and the faster the stock gets out of the Treasury, the less likely it is that Ford will be meddled with. He read off a long list of enterprises government has been meddling in over the last 9 months.
  • Noel Sheppard asked about Sen. Alexander’s thoughts on the European rejection of their leftist leaders. Sen. Alexander pointed out he has been around a while, and he’s seen things change quickly. Europe has been at points in the past a leading political indicator of trends in the US, especially in right turns. Takeaway quote; “(T)he more the Obama administration practices politics of Washington takeover, the more wary Americans are going to be of one-party control in Washington, which is what we have today.”
  • Somebody from RedState (interference on my DVR prevented me from catching his name) asked about the politicization of the Chrysler dealership closings (which took effect at the close of business yesterday). Sen. Alexander noted that the mere odor of politicization is reason enough to end the “incestuous relationship” of the government owning the car companies.
  • Travis Griffith asked how often we can expect a Car Czar award. Sen. Alexander expects a couple a week because we’re in a target-rich environment. As part of previous answer, he mentioned that he might have to give one to himself for urging that the Spring Hill, Tennessee GM plant stay open.
  • Missed who asked this one, but someone asked whether Sen. Alexander had any confidence that the government control of GM will be transparent. He’s hopeful that the demand for transparency will make GM the most-public private company in America, and that the pressure will get the Obama administration to get the government out of GM.

Sean said he would get a recording out to those of us who participated later, so I won’t inflict you with my very-low-quality version.

Revisions/extensions (12:49 pm 6/10/2009) – Ask, and ye shall receive. Sean came through with audio.

I haven’t completed my thoughts on the bill, but it definitely sounds intriguing. One item I haven’t seen addressed yet – the preferred shares that the Treasury will be holding.

June 9, 2009

Picture of the day – arse*-kicking edition

by @ 12:30. Filed under Politics.

It’s been far too long since I linked to S. Weasel. That’s one of the dangers of having too many blogs to read. In any case, she had a front-row seat for the arse*-kicking the British voters delivered Gordon Brown and the Labour Party yesterday, and took made this picture (unfortunately, she didn’t pack alexthechick’s stompy boots)…

To encourage you to read the whole thing, I’ve disabled comments on this post.

* Yes, I know we Yanks say “ass”, but since it was a British Royal kicking, I’ll make an exception to the proper spelling of vulgarities. If you can’t deal with that, I’ve got two words for you, and the first is “fuck”.

Tuesday Hot Read – Lou Pritchett’s “You Scare Me”

by @ 12:13. Filed under Politics - National.

(H/T – Charlie Sykes)

Lou Pritchett is a former vice president at Procter & Gamble. According to Snopes, which confirmed Lou’s authorship of the following letter, he originally submitted this to the New York Times, which refused to acknowledge receipt of the letter and refused to publish it. Unlike my usual Hot Reads, I will republish the letter in its entirety:

AN OPEN LETTER TO PRESIDENT OBAMA

Dear President Obama:

You are the thirteenth President under whom I have lived and unlike any of the others, you truly scare me.

You scare me because after months of exposure, I know nothing about you.

You scare me because I do not know how you paid for your expensive Ivy League education and your upscale lifestyle and housing with no visible signs of support.

You scare me because you did not spend the formative years of youth growing up in America and culturally you are not an American.

You scare me because you have never run a company or met a payroll.

You scare me because you have never had military experience, thus don’t understand it at its core..

You scare me because you lack humility and ‘class’, always blaming others.

You scare me because for over half your life you have aligned yourself with radical extremists who hate America and you refuse to publicly denounce these radicals who wish to see America fail.

You scare me because you are a cheerleader for the ‘blame America’ crowd and deliver this message abroad.

You scare me because you want to change America to a European style country where the government sector dominates instead of the private sector.

You scare me because you want to replace our health care system with a government controlled one.

You scare me because you prefer ‘wind mills’ to responsibly capitalizing on our own vast oil, coal and shale reserves.

You scare me because you want to kill the American capitalist goose that lays the golden egg which provides the highest standard of living in the world.

You scare me because you have begun to use ‘extortion’ tactics against certain banks and corporations.

You scare me because your own political party shrinks from challenging you on your wild and irresponsible spending proposals.

You scare me because you will not openly listen to or even consider opposing points of view from intelligent people.

You scare me because you falsely believe that you are both omnipotent and omniscient.

You scare me because the media gives you a free pass on everything you do.

You scare me because you demonize and want to silence the Limbaughs, Hannitys, O’Relllys and Becks who offer opposing, conservative points of view.

You scare me because you prefer controlling over governing.

Finally, you scare me because if you serve a second term I will probably not feel safe in writing a similar letter in 8 years.

Lou Pritchett

Since one of the liberal apologists over at Charlie’s site failed Reading Comprehension 101, I’ll list the 13 Presidents that Lou has lived under:

  • Barack Obama
  • George W. Bush
  • Bill Clinton
  • George H.W. Bush
  • Ronald Reagan
  • Jimmy Carter
  • Gerald Ford
  • Richard Nixon
  • Lyndon Johnson
  • John Kennedy
  • Dwight Eisenhower
  • Harry Truman
  • Franklin Roosevelt

While Lou has but childhood first-hand memories of FDR, he has also lived as an adult under some very liberal Presidents.

Do also note that those with recent experience with what Obama wants to do and is doing have rejected the kindred spirits to Obama in EU parliamentary elections. Can you say, “The warning bells are ringing!”?

June 8, 2009

Oh so close

by @ 15:26. Filed under Politics - National.

A couple months ago, Shoebox had a poll up on when Rasmussen’s Presidential Approval Index (the percentage of those who strongly approve less the percentage of those who strongly disapprove in Rasmussen’s 3-day-rolling-average daily Presidential tracking poll) would go negative. On June 5, which reflects June 2, June 3, and June 4, it was zero, with 34% strongly approving and 34% strongly disapproving. Meanwhile, the overall approval was 54%, tied for second-lowest (right behind the June 6 results) and overall disapproval was 46%, tied for second-highest (again, right behind the June 6 results).

Monday Hot Read – Charlie Sykes’ “So What Are They Thinking?”

by @ 7:13. Filed under Politics - Wisconsin.

Charlie Sykes asks what Doyle and the Democratic Legislature are thinking with the Daughter-of-Necrobudget (© Kevin Binversie) that came out of the Joint Finance Committee on mostly party-line 12-4 votes:

Here’s the most interesting political question of the year: why do Jim Doyle and the Democrats think they can get away with this budget?

The package rolling toward final approval is a grotesque fiscal, economic and political monster that not even a mother could love. Besides a few notable payoffs to favored special interests like the trial lawyers and the teachers union, it is a collection of uglies: massive tax and fee increases during a recession; slashes in law enforcement while releasing hundreds of felons from prison; gutting welfare reform; and tens of millions of dollars of pork, all cooked up behind closed doors and voted on in the middle of the night….

There is, in short, no lip stick glossy enough for this pig. So what could Doyle be thinking here?

Charlie, after listing a few of the horrid things in the Daughter-of-Necrobudget that I didn’t include in the excerpt, has a few possible answers to the question. The simple answer is, because they can.

One of the longer answers that Charlie didn’t have time to mention is the “overload” theory. Even if the Democrats get ousted in 2010 (or sooner; there are recall efforts being organized against both Doyle and Sen. Jim Sullivan of Wauwatosa), they figure that, with so much garbage being tossed up, there’s no way the Republicans will be able to mop everything up and restore the pre-bloated size of government.

June 3, 2009

VIDEO: Harry Reid’s support of Sotomayor not based on a single opinion she wrote

by @ 21:25. Filed under Politics.

Our Senate “leadership” in action:

Transcript:

“I understand that during her career, she’s written hundreds and hundreds of opinions. I haven’t read a single one of them, and if I’m fortunate before we end this, I won’t have to read one of them. ”

Now, why does he support her nomination again? Sounds like he’s just skipped the “advice” part and gone straight to “consent.”

Nevada voters, are you paying attention?

Related reading: Sotomayor’s Supporters May Spin Her Out Of A Job

Cross-posted from the Sister Toldjah blog.

Politics as high-school physics?

by @ 13:36. Filed under Business, Economy, Politics.

The First Law of Thermodynamics states:

Energy can neither be created nor destroyed. It can only change forms. In any process, the total energy of the universe remains the same.

Timothy Carney at the Washington Examiner has found its corollary in politics, reporting today that General Motors, the formerly private company now owned by the federal government, will use bailout money provided by the federal government to lobby … the federal government:

General Motors will continue its multimillion-dollar lobbying operation in Washington, even after the federal government takes ownership of it. The automaker may even maintain its high-dollar lobbying contracts with some of the wealthiest and most influential K Street firms.

“We believe we have an obligation to remain engaged at the federal and state levels,” General Motors stated in an e-mail after President Barack Obama announced his plan for the federal takeover of the carmaker, “and to have our voice heard in the policymaking process.”

As a result, some of the jobs that the White House will save with this unprecedented nationalization could be on K Street in downtown D.C., rather than in Detroit.

In other words, part of the taxpayer money (and the dosh borrowed from the Chinese…) is being laundered through “Government Motors” to pay for lobbyists who will buy dinners for and contribute to the campaigns of the members who voted to create the bailout program in the first place. It’s a closed system, the total energy (money) of which remains the same. The money just changes forms, that’s all.

Head spinning yet?

As Ed points out at Hot Air, there’s nothing wrong with lobbying per se; it’s protected under the 1st amendment right to petition Congress. However, this is more than a bit unseemly: for a company whose only hope of survival was to be taken over by the government at taxpayer expense to then use that same money to lobby its new owners for more money is more than ridiculous. It would have been better to have let GM just go broke and then divvy the bailout money among the workers.

But such is the way of things in Obama’s Corporatist States of America. Sigh

(Cross-posted at Public Secrets)

June 2, 2009

Quote of the day: Obama on Bubba

by @ 22:15. Filed under Politics.

From an upcoming book on Obama’s campaign for President by former Newsweek reporter Richard Wolffe:

His wife is now Obama’s secretary of state, but Obama had some tough words for the actions of former President Bill Clinton during the campaign.

“We had to figure out how to deal with a former president who was just lying, engaging in bald-faced lies,” Obama explained to Wolffe.

And now we have to figure out how to – without being accused of racism – deal with a current President who is engaging in bald-faced lies himself.

Here’s a detailed excerpt from the book on the internal debate on whether or not to pick Hillary Clinton for Sec. of State.

Read more quotes from the book here. More excerpts can be found here.

Cross-posted from the Sister Toldjah blog.

Sign of the times?

by @ 13:09. Tags: , ,
Filed under Politics.

liberal fascism

The paperback edition of Jonah Goldberg’s excellent Liberal Fascism won’t be released until tomorrow, but it’s already number 34 on Amazon’s best-seller list. Maybe people are catching on….

Meanwhile, National Review Online has published a Q&A with Goldberg to coincide with the paperback’s release. The new version contains an afterword about President Obama, and here’s what Goldberg said in response to a question about it:

If you look at how most liberals think about economics, they want big corporations and big government working in tandem with labor, universities (think industrial policy), and progressive organizations to come up with “inclusive” policies set at the national or international level. That’s not necessarily socialism — it’s corporatism. When you listen to how Obama is making economic policy with “everyone at the table,” he’s describing corporatism, the economic philosophy of fascism. Government is the senior partner, but all of the other institutions are on board — so long as they agree with the government’s agenda. The people left out of this coordinated effort — the Nazis called it the Gleichschaltung — are the small businessmen, the entrepreneurs, the ideological, social, or economic mavericks who don’t want to play along. When you listen to Obama demonize Chrysler’s bondholders simply because they want their contracts enforced and the rule of law sustained, you get a sense of what I’m talking about.

Read the whole interview and then buy the book; 2010 is closer than you think.

(Cross-posted at Public Secrets)

May 29, 2009

Pre-vacation auto upates

by @ 23:32. Tags:
Filed under Business, Politics - National.

Yes, there are a couple items, but not the big one that was expected today.

  • The UAW ratified the revised deal that will make it take modest concessions and a $10 billion reduction of a scheduled $20 billion cash payment into the VEBA retiree health-care fund it will run in exchange for 17.5% of the common stock in the new Government Motors, $585 million per year in dividends from prefered stock worth $6.5 billion, and a $2.5 billion promissory note with scheduled payments of $1.38 billion in 2013, 2015 and 2017. What is really telling are some quotes from UAW chief Ron Gettelfinger:

    “I’m regretful that we had to do anything, and I think it’s a disgrace that we had to do anything,” he added.

    Gettelfinger declined to comment on criticism from other GM creditors that the restructuring will favor the union. “This is negotiations. You go in and you do the best job that you can,” he said.

    I would comment, but I don’t want to leave a profanity-laced tirade for my guest-bloggers.

  • Speaking of the UAW, they’re getting a GM plant previously scheduled to close retooled and taken off the axe list so GM can build subcompacts here. Early reports were that they would be the next generation of the Geo Metr…er, overseas-only Chevrolet Matiz (renamed the Spark, with an 84-hp 1.2L engine replacing the 64-hp 1.0L engine), but others suggest the next-generation Chevrolet Aveo would also be part of the mix. If you think that, between the Aveo and the Metr…er, Spark, they’ll hit 160,000 sales per year, you’ve never driven either an Aveo or a Geo Metro. While I missed out on the Aveo, I did drive a Geo Metro once. To Chicago. With my younger sister and her boyfriend-at-the-time (it was his piece of crap). Talk about a frightening experience. I will never, EVER do that again.
  • The bankruptcy judge is taking his sweet-natured time to approve the $2 billion sale of Chrysler to Fiat (with all proceeds going to senior secured creditors, who would get 29 cents on the dollar), with the US and Canadian governments seizing 75% of the new company and awarding a 55% stake to the UAW. That will be delayed until Monday, which will leave 15 days for the expected challenges to be resolved before Fiat walks away from that deal.

I won’t be here to find out whether that mythical percentage of bondholders fall for the bait-and-switch, or the actual terms of the 363 “sale” of GM to the government. I left instructions to the rest of the gang to try to keep up with that.

Right Wing News’ Rightosphere Temperature Check – May 2009 edition

by @ 18:01. Filed under Politics - National.

Once again, John Hawkins ran a blogger poll on the state of the blogosphere. I don’t know whether Shoebox either got an invite or was able to participate, but several friends of the blog, including Sister Toldjah, who will be filling in while I’m out catching walleyes, and Josh Schroeder were among the participants.

I will make you head over there for the results, but I’ll explain my votes:

  1. Do you think the GOP will gain or lose seats in the House in 2010? Gain. The post-election anti-Democrat tide is more-noticeable on a local level than it is on a statewide level, and the NRCC, by its absence in the moderate-v-conservative fight, is better positioned to take advantage than the NRSC.
  2. Do you think the GOP will gain or lose seats in the Senate in 2010? Lose. NRSC head John Cornyn still doesn’t get it, and despite the fact that at least nominally both parties have the same number of seats to defend, the Republicans have more open seats to defend.
  3. Colin Powell said the following, “Americans do want to pay taxes for services. Americans are looking for more government in their life, not less.” Do you agree? No. Over 8,000 who showed up in Madison on 4/15 (the largest non-anti-Vietnam War protest in the history of the Capitol), close to 3,000 who shoed up in Appleton, and hundreds of thousands nationwide who rallied against ever-higher taxes and ever-larger government in the middle of the week tend to send that message.
  4. Whose views do you think are more representative of your personal opinion: David Frum, Meghan McCain, John McCain, & Colin Powell or Rush Limbaugh, Mark Levin, Tom Coburn, & Newt Gingrich? The Rush/Mark/Tom/Newt gang. Do I really need to pull out all the thousands of posts for you, or do I trust you to go through the archives yourself?
  5. Do you support the NRSC’s decision to endorse Charlie Crist in Florida’s Republican primary? No. If there had been a “Oh HELL NO!” option, I would have taken it.
  6. Do you think Barack Obama was born in Hawaii or elsewhere? Hawaii. That doesn’t change the fact that he’s pretty much a Communist.
  7. Do you think that Sonia Sotomayor will be confirmed? Yes. Even if the Pubbie Senators had the votes, they don’t have the balls to do what the ‘Rats did to Robert Bork and Miguel Estrada.

Point/Counterpoint – John Cornyn v. me on the Florida NRSC endorsement

by @ 17:27. Filed under Politics - National.

Sen. John Cornyn (R-TX), head of the National Republican Senate Committee, accepted an invitation from RedState to explain why the NRSC decided to endorse Florida governor Charlie Crist over Florida Rep. Marco Rubio, who was Speaker of the House between 2006 and 2008, literally 15 minutes after Crist decided to enter the race. Without further delay, it’s time for the Point/Counterpoint:

Two and a half years ago, the Republican Party suffered a major blow in the 2006 midterm elections as the Democrats regained control of Congress and began laying the groundwork to take back the White House in 2008.

As a Party, we were stunned. Having failed to anticipate shifting national dynamics and the growing appetite for change in America, we lost critical voting constituencies including independents, Hispanics, and young voters nationwide. And with Barack Obama’s overwhelming victory in 2008, the Democrats acquired an even broader and stronger majority in Congress, leaving Republicans with very little power in Washington to fight against wasteful spending as our nation spiraled into an economic crisis.

You forgot “governmental conservatives” and “fiscal conservatives” in that, Senator. Those voters that were left, when faced with two parties that advocated ever-growing government, decided to go with the party with institutional experience in growing government over the Johnny-Come-Lately Party.

Specifically regarding Hispanics, how did the push for amnesty work out? Not so good.

Many rightfully wondered where our Party would turn to regain the ground we lost.

At the national level, I’m still wondering.

With an almost filibuster-proof majority in the Senate, and Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid at the helm in Washington, the Democrats have already successfully used their majority to grow our nation’s debt to more than $11 trillion in just four months. They’ve promised to wage a battle on card check, healthcare, and energy. And they may attempt to ram through the President’s new Supreme Court nominee before Republicans are given adequate time to review her record. After Senator Specter’s party switch earlier this month, the Democrats effectively control everything in Washington, leaving us with little power to push back on their liberal agenda.

There were no less than 17 times the Republicans could have stopped elements of this. Except on a couple minor points, they failed because “Republicans” like Arlen Specter (before he returned to his true party), Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins voted with Harry Reid and company.

If he becomes a Senator, Crist, with his less-than-conservative fiscal and governmental record, will be one of those allowing more of those failures to stop the Democrats in the next Congress. Specifically, he touted the stimulus package that kicked in close to $1 trillion of that $11 trillion deficit, and said that he would have voted for it if he had been Senator.

While this political environment appears dire and presents short-term setbacks for Republicans, I believe that it also provides us with a real opportunity for 2010. Next November could be a turning point for the future of our Party – but only if we unite and take advantage of this critical opportunity. That means holding the Democrats accountable for their records, providing real solutions, reaching out to new constituencies, and fielding candidates who can win in states where Republicans have traditionally failed to wage competitive races.

To get to 51 “Republican” Senators, they would not only need to hold onto all 18 seats they currently have (including 5-6 retirements), but get 11 of the 18 Democratic seats up for election. Specifically with regard to Florida, the “failed to wage competitive races” canard is not germaine because the seat is currently held by a “Republican”, and conservatives have won statewide races in Florida in the recent past.

Some believe that we should be a monolithic Party; I disagree. While we all might wish for a Party comprised only of people who agree with us 100 percent of the time, this is a pipedream. Each Party is fundamentally a coalition of individuals rallying around core principles with some variations along the way. My job as Chairman of the National Republican Senatorial Committee is to recruit candidates who have the best chance of winning and holding seats – and to do so in as many states as possible. Earlier this month, two Republicans candidates emerged for the open Senate seat being vacated by Mel Martinez in the Sunshine State: Marco Rubio, the young and talented Hispanic former Speaker of the state House, and Charlie Crist, the state’s popular Governor.

Judging by the actions of the NRSC over the last 5 years, the Party that is being built has many of the same core principles as the Democrats, if in a slightly-lower degree. Indeed, I’ve called it the bipartisan Party-In-Government, where the growth of government under “Republican” rule is used as an excuse by the Democrats to exponentially grow government.

That sure looks like an attempt to create a monolithic party.

There is no doubt both of these candidates have a bright future in the Republican Party. But with his record of leadership and astronomical approval ratings, including strong numbers among Republicans, Democrats and Independents, Charlie Crist represents the best chance for Republicans to hold this seat in Florida. That is why I endorsed Governor Crist for the U.S. Senate. That is also why Governor Crist was endorsed by Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell, outgoing Florida U.S. Senator Mel Martinez, U.S. Senator John McCain, and other leaders within the Republican Party.

Actually, it’s because Crist meshes well with the current “Democrat-Lite” attitude prevalent among the Senate Republicans.

The NRSC’s endorsement is not a reflection on Marco Rubio; it is a realistic assessment of both the 2010 Florida Senate race and the national map. With the Democrats standing on the precipice of a filibuster-proof majority, we cannot afford to lose this seat in 2010. Endorsing Charlie Crist will save the NRSC precious resources that can be used to fight in other states. It will also ensure that the strongest Republican candidate maintains control of this seat, and build our numbers with the resulting opportunity to shape policy.

As both my co-blogger Shoebox and I have said before, the Democrats got a filibuster-proof majority the moment the first countings of ballots back in November were over. Specifically with respect to this election, I assert that Crist will join the Democrats on filibuster-busting missions more often than the retiring Mel Martinez has.

While Rubio is certainly an up-and-comer in Florida, a recent Mason Dixon poll showed that he only has a 44 percent name ID among Republicans, which will ultimately force him to spend a lot more money introducing himself to Floridians. Govenor Crist, in contrast, has a 100 percent name ID among Republicans, according to the same poll. In a general election match-up with Democrat Congressman Kendrick Meek, Charlie Crist wins handily 55 percent to 24 percent.

Could someone tell me how far back Barack Obama was at this point in 2007? I seem to recall similar numbers.

We have a chance to field competitive candidates in Connecticut, Illinois, Nevada, California, Arkansas, and Colorado in 2010. But in order to succeed, we need candidates who fit their states. Winning back the majority requires not only that we hold the Democrats accountable, but also that we embrace the vast number of issues upon which Republicans agree. Failing to do so will hand the Democrats yet another victory in 2010, and deny the American people a check on Democrat-controlled government.

California in play? Surely you can’t be serious.

Seriously, again, this is not exactly germaine to Florida. Both moderates and conservatives have won statewide elections in Florida. This is just an excuse to recast the Republican Party in a Democrat-Lite mold.

If we succeed in electing Republican Senators in 2010, issues like relocating Gitmo detainees to the United States, socializing healthcare, and eliminating workers’ secret ballots may never reach the floor of the United States Senate. But we have to work together to make that a reality. The tides are turning, and Republicans have an opportunity in 2010. However, we cannot win if we are focused on tearing each other down.

Again, I point out that Crist is more likely than Martinez has (not) been to join the Democrats on several of those issues. Thus, the argument sort of rings hollow.

As for the teardown argument, by picking this fight, you and the NRSC are engaged in tearing those that want actual differences between the Republicans and the Democrats out of the Republican Party.

We have a chance in 2010 to unite around our common goal to rebuild the Republican Party and fight against the Democrats’ agenda. I hope that all Republicans will join me in that fight.

Question – if Rubio does beat Crist in the primary, will the NRSC step into Florida, or will it abandon it like it abandoned Wisconsin in 2004 when Tim Michels upset Russ Darrow in the primary here?

If you prefer, I could quote Ed Morrissey’s exit question – “If Crist has such soaring support, then he doesn’t need the NRSC to throw around its weight in the primary on his behalf. Why not let Florida decide who should represent them in the general election, and have the NRSC do its job at that point?”

May 28, 2009

New bondholder plan from Government Motors

by @ 18:06. Tags:
Filed under Business, Politics - National.

Fox Business reports that, in the wake of the failed bonds-for-stock swap attempted by GM, they and their Treasury masters have made a second offer that cannot be refused. If and only if a sufficient number of bondholders agree to not oppose a federal/UAW takeover of GM in bankruptcy court by 5 pm Eastern Saturday, the Treasury will reward them and the current stockholders with an initial 10% stake in Government Motors and an pair of warrants to ultimately increase that stake to 25%. The US Treasury will begin with a 72.5% stake, and the UAW with a 17.5% stake, so those of you still holding GM stock will likely be wiped out entirely.

Fox Business also reports that currently, 20% of the bondholders have swallowed the pill whole. Quoting a group of bondholders that apparently are at least part of that 20%: “Since the initial offer was made on April 27th, circumstances have materially changed that make today’s offer more attractive.” Could that be related to the utter thrashing that Chrysler’s secured creditors have taken?

Summarizing from the SEC filing:

  • The transfer of assets from General Motors (“Old GM”) to Government Motors (“New GM”), which will not include the $27.2 billion in bonds or most of the unsecured claims, will happen under Section 363 of the bankrupcy code.
  • All but $8 billion of whatever funding the US Treasury, and possibly the Ontario and Canadian governments, has or will pour into both Old GM overall (including the $20 billion in TARP bailouts) and New GM in relation to the bankruptcy proceeding will never be paid back.
  • Related to that, it is anticipated that Debtor-In-Possession financing provide by the Treasury will be in excess of $50 billion.
  • In addition to the $8 billion in debt the New GM will owe to the federal government, they will owe the UAW’s VEBA $2.5 billion and “other debtors” (presumably the secured creditors) $6.5 billion.
  • In addition to the 72.5% common-stock stake that the Treasury will have, they will also receive $2.5 billion in perpetual prefered stock with a 9% dividend per annum (or $225 million per year). If the Canadians participate in the DIP financing, they will get a portion of this.
  • In addition to the 17.5% initial common-stock stake that the UAW’s VEBA will have, they will also receive $6.5 billion in perpetual prefered stock with a 9% dividend per annum (or $585 million per year). They will also receive a warrant to purchase an additional 2.5% (as of 12/31/2009) any time before 12/31/2015 at a cost of $1.875 billion.
  • If and only if a sufficient number of bondholders, unspecified in the filing, agree to not oppose this, “Old GM” will get a 10% common-stock stake in “New GM”. If that number is not reached, the Treasury will reduce or eliminate that stake, presumably with the percentages of Treasury and UAW ownership in New GM increasing accordingly to 80.6% Treasury and 19.4% UAW in the event of a outright elimination.
  • Again if and only if an unspecified number of bondholders agree to not oppose this, they will recieve a pair of warrants: one to purchase an additional 7.5% stake of New GM any time in the next 7 years for $1.125 billion and one to purchase an additional 7.5% stake any time in the next 10 years for $2.25 billion. Again, if that number is not reached, the Treasury will reduce or eliminate this program.

Revisions/extensions (6:31 pm 5/28/2009) – I might be missing something here, but there is nothing in the SEC Form 8-K linked to above that says that the bondholders themselves will get anything. The 10% initial stake in “New GM” and the pair of 7.5%-stake warrants in same go to the owners of “Old GM”.

Previously:
GM shuts down the bondholder buyout plan
As the wheels turn, automaker edition

Minnesota GOP leadership debate – tonight

by @ 17:03. Filed under Politics - Minnesota.

(H/T – Chief)

Sorry about the late notice, but the Minnesota Senate District 45 Republicans are hosting a debate between the candidates for Republican Party State Chair and Deputy State Chair tonight at 7 pm at Robbinsdale Armstrong High School (10635 36th Avenue N) in Plymouth. The quick details via Freedom Dogs:

– State Party Chair candidates Tony Sutton, Carrie Ruud and Dave Thompson will be debating during the Party Chair portion of the debate.
– State Deputy Chair candidates Dorothy Fleming (incumbent), Michael Brodkorb, and Robert Swinehart will be debating during the Deputy Chair portion of the debate.
Ed Morrissey and Annette Meeks, founder of Freedom Foundation of Minnesota, will be moderating the event.

The public is invited to both the mixer at 6:30 and the debate at 7. There is a cost of $5.

Matt Abe of North Star Liberty will be live-blogging the debate.

If it moves, tax it, e-commerce edition

by @ 7:32. Filed under Business, Politics - National, Taxes.

(H/T – Allahpundit)

Brett Joshpe wrote on The American Spectator site how sales on the internet are about to become a lot more expensive. Let’s go through the Cliff’s Notes timeline:

– In 1992, the Supreme Court ruled in Quill v. North Dakota that a retailer must have a “physical presence” in a state in order for that state to require the retailer to collect and remit that state’s sales tax. Do note that does not prohibit states from demanding their pound (in the case of Wisconsin, 5%-5.85%) of flesh from the purchaser; indeed, most states do demand their cut.

– Because of mass disobedience of that mandate, last year, New York required any online retailer who so much has an affiliate advertiser in that state to collect and remit the New York sales tax. In plain English, if a site like overstock.com advertised on, say the New York Times’ site or A Blog for All, it would be forced to collect New York sales tax on purchases made by New York residents.

– In response to that, overstock.com terminated its affiliate relationships with close to 3,400 entities.

– Meanwhile, the tax-and-spend-and-tax-and-spend-and (you get the idea) folks are trying to shove through Congress, under the guise of “streamlined” sales tax, a requirement to make all online retailers collect all state/local sales taxes.

Back in the dawn of e-commerce, I was involved in a small e-commerce project. Even if somehow a standard list of items subject to a sales tax were created (a pipe dream because the T&S&T&S&T&Sers in places like Madison and Albany will always want to tax more items than those in other state capitals), the myriad of different rates, both at the state and local level, which tend to not remain constant, would be a nightmare to keep up with.

Twitter history contest from Rep. Issa

by @ 6:37. Filed under Economy, Politics - National.

Rep. Darrell Issa (R-CA) is running a “Twitter history” contest. The rules are simple – channel Alexander Hamilton and comment on what the Geithner Cabal is doing to the economy, using Hamilton’s own words (Issa suggests the Federalist Papers and Hamilton’s national bank plan of 1791 for starters). The contest does close at 5 pm Eastern.

Since I don’t want to appear to be better than I am, you’re going to have to reply directly to @DarrellIssa on Twitter instead of leaving your quotes here.

Get Ready!

by @ 5:13. Filed under Economy, Politics - National.

Bonds: Treasury prices fell, with the yield on the benchmark 10-year bond rising to 3.71% – it’s highest since mid-November. It stood at 3.51% late Tuesday. Treasury prices and yields move in opposite directions.

Revisions/extensions (6:49 am 5/28/2009, steveegg) – I presume Shoebox ran out of time to explain why a high yield/low price on Treasuries is not exactly a good thing, so you’re left with the economic understudy to do the explaining. The CNNMoney blurb actually does a fair job of at least touching on that:

– The appetite for short-term (specifically in this case, 5-year) notes represents a lessening demand for longer-term notes (which explains the nearly-failed auction of 30-year notes the other week).

– Mortgage rates are tied to the 10-year yield, and rising interest rates could stifle any “recovery” in the housing market.

– The record amounts of debt coming to market could overwhelm it. Indeed, the Federal Reserve already is soaking up a lot of Treasury securities because there just isn’t enough money out there to buy it all.

[No Runny Eggs is proudly powered by WordPress.]