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 – National' Category

October 4, 2009

Ed Morrissey talks taxes at Defending the American Dream Summit

by @ 21:29. Filed under Defending the American Dream, Politics - National, Taxes.

Because of various technical issues, I was pretty much limited to covering the 2009 Defending the American Dream Summit on Twitter. However, I did get some not-quite-great-quality video of Ed Morrissey talking about the tax system and especially the ill-named HAPPY Act, which would create a tax deduction for pet expenses. He explains why both halves of the bipartisan Party-In-Government likes the current tax code.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jtRkBcN0ebg[/youtube]

I wish I had more, but those tech issues completely threw me off my game. However, Kyle Maichle picked up the slack.

Revisions/extensions (5:19 pm 10/5/2009) – Changed the link to the Hot Air post Ed put up. Thanks again, Ed.

October 2, 2009

I Wish Our Washington Republicans Were This Disciplined!

by @ 5:42. Filed under Politics - National.

Because, based on this information, they aren’t.  I’ll bet even this dog knows it’s a bad idea to lift his leg and pee on the people who feed him!

October 1, 2009

While the Cat’s Away….

by @ 10:15. Filed under Health Care Reform, Politics - National.

Apparently, it has finally sunk into President Obama’s head that doing his Max Headroom impression on behalf of health care reform has not been a winning strategy.  To regain his Presidential gravitas he, Michelle and Oprah have taken on the self sacrificing task of going to Copenhagen to lobby for the lining of Valerie Jarrett’s pockets to bring the Olympics to Chicago.

Meanwhile, back at the ranch….

The manuevering continues in the attempt to have the Federal Government become the sole arbiter of health care in the U.S. 

I’ve linked before to the Senate Doctors show.  Senators Coburn and Barasso, the only two Senators who actually are doctors and not just playing one in the Senate, have had a regular video correspondence about the health care debate.  The Senators address issues, answer questions and even slap down the occassional Huffpo correspondent. 

In what could be described as “imitation is the sincerest form of flattery,” the Obama administration is ramping up their own health care video initiative.  The problem is that while they can imitate the use of a tool, they have no practicing doctors who can provide credibility to what will be another reguritation of left talking points (You remember….illegals won’t get health care, abortion won’t be covered, no death panels). 

Why get the cheap imitation when you have the original available?

The Senate Doctors will be on again at 5 PM Eastern.  You can watch the show live, below. 

The health care debate is far from over folks.  Stay informed, stay up to date on the issues and stay on target, stay on target!

Free video chat by Ustream

Consider It a Twofer

by @ 5:42. Filed under Economy, International relations, Politics - National.

According to Baron’s, there are several countries that are selling debt denominated in dollars.  If your own currency isn’t the dollar, why would you sell debt that was?  It seems the short answer to that question is:  the dollar sucks, or at least that’s what these countries think.

After falling off a cliff during last years financial challenges, the dollar crawled back up to respectability by March of this year.  From March on, the dollar has become the world currency version of the 98 pound weakling getting sand kicked in its face by every other major currency.  You can see this pictorially in the following graph of the dollar against the Yen:

Dollar-Yen-Chart-short-term

There are many things that influence a currencies value.  Debt, security and GDP all play into the value.  Unfortunately, many of those issues are moving towards the negative for the dollar, thus its decline.  That said, the dollar has one thing going for it.  As bad as things are in the US, there are many other countries that are in even worse situations.  Look across Europe and you’ll generally find financial situations that make the US look great.  Look to South America, the Middle East and much of Asia and you’ll find issues with security and stability.  For that reason and others there are a number of analysts that are ready to call a bottom to the dollar’s slide.  In fact, some are suggesting that we’ll see a rebound begin in the dollar.

One of the countries who have pulled the “debt for dollar” program is Venezuela. Venezuela is betting that their currency continues to do well against the dollar. So far the bet is working. The Venezuelan Bolivar is up 25% against the dollar in a little over a month.

I’m hoping the dollar analysts are right.  A stronger dollar buys us some time to get people elected that can solve our budget issues before China decides to throw in their chips.  A stronger dollar also wreaks havoc on Hugo Chavez’s piggy bank by making him have to pay more of his Bolivars to repay his bonds.  A plus for the US and a minus for Hugo Chavez, what’s not to like.  Consider it a twofer!

September 30, 2009

From DC hot read – House Budget Committee Republicans’ “Bigger Government”

by @ 19:13. Filed under Politics - National.

I almost had the Emergency Blogging System do this post because the news is that dire. The House Budget Republicans compared and contrasted the growth of the federal payrolls to the shrinkage of the private-sector payrolls. I’ll give you the meat of the piece (the emphasis is in the original):

While private-sector employment has continued declining, government has expanded. Federal jobs have increased by 43,000 since the start of the year, 25,000 of which followed enactment of the ARRA. But this figure vastly understates the government’s employment growth, because it includes the workforce reduction at the Postal Service. If the USPS is excluded, Federal employment has increased by more than 65,000.

By next year, Federal employment will have risen by 15.6 percent since 2006, the period of Democratic control of Congress – an increase of about 286,000 full-time equivalents [FTEs], according to administration figures (see Table 1 and Table 2 in the appendix of this document). The growth of non-defense agencies has been larger, at 20.5 percent. Even if the Defense and Commerce Departments are excluded – the latter to account for the large force of temporary hires for next year’s census – Federal civilian employment will have expanded by nearly 12 percent since 2006. The vast majority of this growth – 102,800 positions – will occur in 2009 and 2010; and this does not include the additional Federal employees who will be needed as a result of cap-and-trade legislation, the planned government takeover of health care, financial regulation, and other components of the President’s agenda.

In other words, while the economy has been shrinking, the government has expanded in absolute terms. Since the beginning of the recession, the economy has lost 7 million jobs, while the Federal Government has added 75,000 jobs.

A bonus item from the “Change in Civilian Federal Employment” table on the last page – the only agencies (other than the USPS) that will see a decrease in employment rolls in 2009-2010 will be the Department of Agriculture (800 FTEs, or 0.8% of the workforce) and the Small Business Administration (also 800 FTEs, but 20% of the workforce). Somehow I don’t think that’s a coincidence given Obama’s hostility toward farmers and small business owners.

September 29, 2009

Unpatriotic AND Selfish!

by @ 5:37. Filed under Economy, Global "Warming", Politics - National, Taxes.

It’s been just over a year since Joe Biden called 95% of Americans unpatriotic:

“We want to take money and put it back in the pocket of middle-class people. It’s time to be patriotic … time to jump in, time to be part of the deal, time to help get America out of the rut.”

Apparently, Biden wasn’t the loan wolf that I thought at the time.

In a recent poll, Rasmussen found that 29% of Americans believe that you are selfish if you put the economy ahead of global warming.  Fortunately, there are a whole lot more people, 49% who disagree with this assessment.  Additionally, 65% believe jobs are more important than global warming.  It’s good to know we still have a plurality, if not a majority of sanity yet in this country.

In case you missed it, the $1,761 annually per family that cap and trade will cost us will mostly go back to the government.  While President Obama isn’t able to determine what is or isn’t a tax, I can.  If you pay the government, you can call it what you want but it boils down to a tax.

Don’t like increased taxes?  Want more jobs and a better economy?  Not only are you unpatriotic you’re also selfish!

September 26, 2009

I Inherited It!

by @ 19:39. Filed under Obama worship, Politics - National.

Um, maybe not:

59% Say Americans Angrier Now Than Under Bush

And lest you think it’s just the conservatives getting all lathered:

69% of GOP voters say the level of anger is higher now, a view shared by 53% of Democrats and 56% of voters not affiliated with either party.

Nope, it’s a majority of each political persuasion.

Let’s look back at Barack Obama’s Denver acceptance speech.  After calling out differences on gun rights, gay rights and illegal immigration, Barack Obama said:

But this, too, is part of America’s promise, the promise of a democracy where we can find the strength and grace to bridge divides and unite in common effort.

I know there are those who dismiss such beliefs as happy talk. They claim that our insistence on something larger, something firmer, and more honest in our public life is just a Trojan horse for higher taxes and the abandonment of traditional values.  And that’s to be expected, because if you don’t have any fresh ideas, then you use stale tactics to scare voters.

If you don’t have a record to run on, then you paint your opponent as someone people should run from. You make a big election about small things.

And you know what? It’s worked before, because it feeds into the cynicism we all have about government. When Washington doesn’t work, all its promises seem empty. If your hopes have been dashed again and again, then it’s best to stop hoping and settle for what you already know.

We’ve been told time and again how Barack Obama is the smartest President ever.  While I doubt he has any idea what a can of Spam costs, or even how to cook it, his speech did show him prescient.  Washington doesn’t and doesn’t want to work and people’s hopes are dashed.  This is what has people angry and it is this that has the nation divided.

I doubt Obama sees division within the country as a statement of any kind on his leadership or to be more precise, his complete lack of leadership.  Rather, like the deficits that he has increased exponentially, Obama, having been told that the nation is more divided now than ever would utter his answer that provides absolution from all accountability of his own actions:  “I inherited it from the previous administration.”

Unintended Consequences

by @ 9:39. Filed under Health, Health Care Reform, Politics - National.

Yes, this could be on just about any government program; Cash for Clunkers that has dried up the car market or the stimulus package that has stimulated no hiring but that for the government (or maybe that wasn’t “unintended?”)  No, this time it’s about the Swine Flu.

Item number 1:
Seasonal flu shot may increase H1N1 risk

Seems their finding a more than statistical anomaly, of people getting the swine flu after getting their regular flu shot.  The working theory is that because these shots expose you to a tamed down version of the bacteria or virus that it actually stimulates the body to create an entry point for another disease.

While I’m sure that this kind of stuff happens all the time without serious ramifications, the WHO’s and Federal Government’s continual gong banging about the impending annihilation of species: homo sapien  due to the swine flu, will make this a very complicated issue if it is proven out.

On a side note,  the information and study is coming out of the Canadian health system.  The supporters of Obamacare continually tell us how much better Canadian health care is so there’s no reason to question the veracity of this information.

Item #2:

Swine-flu false alarms crowd area ERs

Houston’s ERs are being over run by people who believe they have swine flu and need immediate treatment.  It seems that the continual gong banging by the WHO and Federal Government has a fair number of people over reacting.  Even mild flu symptoms have people piling into the ER demanding treatment. 

What’s the solution to over crowding from the medical folks?  Same as it has been from time in memoriam:  Take two aspirin and call me in the morning:

Instead, consider “telephone triage,” said Dr. Herminia Palacio, Harris County’s public health authority.

She said patients and parents should ask: “Am I somebody who needs to come in to be seen or am I somebody who can really stay at home and manage myself?”

That seems like a good common sense answer. 

Isn’t ER overuse and crowding one of the things that Obamacare is supposed to solve for us?  I wonder why the triage approach wouldn’t work for the clogging of the emergency rooms by folks who have all kinds of other issues.  If you come to the ER and you don’t warrant that kind of treatment, the ER sends you down the road to an urgent care or in some cases, even tells you to take two aspirin and call back in the morning!

I remember hearing President Obama tell us how unscrupulous doctors increased their fees by doing unnecessary procedures.  He wants to punish them and drive them from medical practice.  Under Obamacare, I wonder what the penalty would be for a government that hypes and over hypes issue after issue which results in a crisis where none really exists?  That’s exactly what’s happening in the case of the swine flu.

September 24, 2009

Some Of These Things Are Not Like The Others

by @ 14:20. Filed under Economy, Politics - Minnesota, Politics - National, Politics - Wisconsin, Taxes.

Take a look at this image that shows how business friendly the tax status is of each state.

tax climate

Hey, Minnesota and Wisconsin, do you see which end of the spectrum you’re on?

Hey, Minnesota, how are those two neighbors to the west, the one’s who have no unemployment problem doing?

Hey, Minnesota, how do the state budget problems of those two neighbors to the west compare to yours? (hint, they do have any problems)

Hey, Minnesota and Wisconsin, want to be more depressed?  Read more at the Taxprof!

Revisions/extensions (3:20 pm 9/24/2009, steveegg) – Allow me to ask a few questions for the Wisconsin half of the readership:

Hey Wisconsin, you see that state to the east and the state to the south? That’s right; Michigan and Illinois are more open to business than Wisconsin.

Hey Wisconsin, how do the budget woes of that state to your west compare to yours (note to Shoebox, that’s one thing in Minnesota that isn’t as bad as it is in Wisconsin)?

Hey Wisconsin, how does it feel to be highlighted as one of the states that got it wrong in Tax Foundation’s report (see page 26)?

Hey Wisconsin and Minnesota, how is the individual-income AMT working out? Related to that, hey Minnesota, how is the corporate-income AMT working out?

Hey Wisconsin and Minnesota, what are you going to do about the politicians who admit that their confiscatory tax policies are driving jobs away (see page 7 of the report), yet make them more confiscatory?

Revisions/extensions (3:39 pm 9/24/2009, shoebox) One more….Hey, Minnesota, Wisconsin and any other state or Federal Government that thinks you can tax the “rich” with impunity without repercussion, read this!

The Social Security crater continues

by @ 13:34. Filed under Politics - National, Social Security crater.

I was originally going to append this to my post from the other day, but there are too many new items to cover.

First, Tom Blumer over at both NewsBusters and BizzyBlog has some disturbing news on the immediate taxation front. He looked up the payroll/self-employment tax numbers for the current quarter (2009 Q3/FY2009 Q4), compared them to the same quarter last year, and found that they were off 2.0% for July and 2.9% for August. Specifically for Social Security, the payroll/self-employment receipt numbers were off 1.7% for July and 2.4% for August.

Worse, the September numbers look like they’ll be another massive disappointment, with withheld income/payroll/self-employment tax receipts off over 17% through the third Monday of the month (9/21/2009 and 9/22/2008) and self-employment tax receipts off over 40% though the same period, or a net drop of almost 25%. Since not all income is taxed, the percent that the Social Security receipts would drop are necessarily a bit less. I’ll return to that momentarily.

Related to that, Tom noted that I could still be too optimistic in giving Social Security three years of 4.59% growth. I decided to re-run the numbers, capping the growthn at 4.02% (what the CBO calls for in FY2015), which reduces the rates in 2012, 2013 and 2014. That yields a minimum yearly primary deficit of $6 billion in FY2012, with FY2013 having a $10 billion primary deficit and FY2019 having a $101 billion deficit. I specifically avoided attempting to model what not having the “interest” that would be required to keep Social Security whole to plow back into the special bonds and certificates would do to the overall “trust fund” picture, but it is safe to say that complete exhaustion would be quite a bit earlier than 2037.

Second, the August 2009 “trust fund” numbers are finally in from Social Security, and the primary deficit is $5.833 billion, the worst since at least 1987. That puts the rolling 12-month primary surplus at $26.859 billion.

Since the September 2008 primary surplus of $3.126 billion drops off the rolling 12-month total, if there is a net zero primary surplus/deficit for September, that would put the FY2009 primary surplus at $23.733 billion. If there were a primary deficit between $5.234 and $6.233 billion, the CBO estimate of a FY2009 primary surplus of $18 billion (rounded to the nearest billion) would be correct. It would merely take a drop in Social Security payroll/self-employment taxes of about 7.4% to get there.

September 22, 2009

Hot Air exclusive – CBO says Social Security to run in the red 2010 and 2011

by @ 10:11. Filed under Politics - National, Social Security crater.

Ed Morrissey obtained the summer 2009 Congressional Budget Office report on the health of the Social Security “Trust Fund”, and the news isn’t good. The same CBO that, last year under now-Obama budget director Peter Orszag, claimed that the combined OASDI trust fund would not begin to run a primary deficit (what Ed calls a cash deficit and what I’ve called an ex-interest deficit) until 2019, is now saying, at least to Congressmen, that it will run a primary deficit in 2010 and 2011, briefly run a cash surplus between 2012 and 2015, and return to what is presumably a permanent primary deficit in 2016.

I guess that is what the ranking member on the House Committee on Financial Services, Rep. Spencer Bachus (R-AL) was refering to when he told his hometown paper that Social Security would go into the red before 2012 if things didn’t improve dramatically. The 2010 primary deficit is also something predicted in the 80%-confidence curve of the stochastic model.

I do have a problem with the CBO’s numbers starting with 2012, when they claim that the OASDI primary surplus would begin its last run in the black. They assumed a 6.19% growth in revenues derived from the payroll tax in 2012, and a 5.69% growth in revenues in 2013. I decided to re-run the numbers using the still-high 4.59% growth in revenues called for in 2014 for those two years, and low-and-behold, the primary deficit never quite turns around:

On a related note, the Office of the Chief Actuary does not have the August 2009 “trust fund” performance available yet. However, the 12-month primary surplus between August 2008 (when the “trust fund” began running monthly primary deficits) and July 2009 is only $32.5 billion, with 8 of the 12 months having a primary deficit.

Revisions/extensions (10:27 am 9/22/2009) – Corrected a typo due to a misread of the chart. The CBO predicts permanent red ink for Social Security beginning in 2016, not 2017.

R&E part 2 (10:49 am 9/22/2009) – A couple of housekeeping items:

First, thanks for the link, Ed. Without you getting the numbers out of the CBO, I wouldn’t have been able to run with them.

Second the cumulative 10-year primary deficits of $152 billion (if CBO’s numbers are right)-$264 billion (if my numbers are right) will need to be added to the overall 10-year deficit of $9 billion and overall projected debt of $22 billion as they are currently unfunded liabilities.

R&E part 3 (6:02 pm 9/22/2009) – In case you missed the trackbacks on Hot Air, some more good reading can be found at both Ace of Spades HQ and Daily Pundit. Bill Quick notes that the bipartisan Party-In-Government will not let SocSecurity fail spectacularily, though I note that the numbers simply aren’t there for a 1983-style fix, and that final failure isn’t slated for another 25 or so years. The Morons are, as always, our informative and entertaining selves.

R&E part 4 (10:45 am 9/24/2009) – The conversation continues above, with some new numbers from both Tom Blumer and the Social Security Administration.

Well, Duh!

by @ 5:50. Filed under Economy, Politics - National.

It was probably, in the end, a complete waste of taxpayer money.

Oh, just read the article and think of how many different activities that phrase could fully summarize.

h/t Instapundit

September 21, 2009

Who’s The Racist Now?

by @ 5:12. Filed under Obama worship, Politics - National.

Saturday, I informed you about the new definition of racism.  No longer does racism have to do with someone’s race.  No, according to the Left, racism now is based on any disagreement with liberals, Democrats or elites.  This new definition would make all of us that don’t fall into the group of liberals, Democrats or elites, racist at all times regardless of what our views on race really are.  In contrast, this new definition would make it definitionally impossible to be racist if you were within the group of liberals, Democrats or elites can be racist.  Or does it?

New York Governor David Paterson has had an “unusual” term.  After assuming office as a result of the resignation of Eliot Spitzer’s prostitution revelations,on his second day in office, both Paterson and his wife acknowledged having extramarital affairs, one with a state employee.  In his inaugural speech, Paterson called the New York legislature

the least deliberative and most dysfunctional in the nation.

After Hillary Clinton resigned her Senate position to become Secretary of State, Paterson was a character in Caroline Kennedy’s vaudeville like attempts to be appointed as her replacement.  In the final scene, after abruptly declaring she was not interested in the role, Paterson claimed he had “never intended” to pick her.

New York’s financial situation is perhaps the most vexing issue Paterson is facing.  Like many states, New York is facing a budget shortfall.  Being a large state, New York’s short fall has been, well, large.  Paterson’s budget called for tax increases on nearly everything one could imagine taxing.  By one account, the tax increases proposed by Paterson would increase the taxes on the average New York family by nearly $4,000 each year.

As a result of his policy and personal handling of issues, Paterson is polling a 60% disapproval rating.  Polls have also showed Paterson trailing possible Republican contender, Rudy Giuliani by 15 points.

Facing a possible rout by Republicans in an important, reliably liberal state, Democrats are now pressuring Paterson to back off of his bid for reelection (or election if you’re a purist) to Governor.  Some Democrats are even suggesting that Paterson ought to resign to allow someone else a chance to get a running start at the role.  In this article covered by NewsMax, even President Obama is now encouraging Paterson to drop out of the Governor’s race.  To date, Paterson has not obliged any of the requests.

While I’m sure there are many Republicans who are unhappy with Paterson as Governor, it’s not they who are making news asking him not to run; it’s Democrats.  That must mean that there are Democrats who are unhappy with a Democrat.  Further, that must mean that there are Democrats who are unhappy with another Democrat who happens to be black.  Finally, there is a Democrat President, who happens to be black, who is unhappy with Paterson, a Democrat who happens to be black.

If a Democrat, who happens to be black, is unhappy with the abilities of another Democrat, who happens to be black, and asks the second Democrat, who happens to be black, not to run for office, we now know the reason for the dissatisfaction is due to racism.  I’m left with just one question, who’s the racist; the Democrat who happens to be black or the Democrat who happens to be black?

September 19, 2009

Jumping The Racism Shark

by @ 13:52. Filed under Idiotorial of the Day, Obama worship, Politics - National.

Here’s a joke that is going around the internet:

A Republican, a Democrat and a person of color were walking down the street.  The Democrat looked at the Republican and said “You’re a racist!”

Ha, ha, ha, ha!

OK, I haven’t really heard that joke yet.  It does however, describe the Left’s view of Republicans and people of color.  It now seems that regardless of the situation, the Left believes that all interactions that Republicans have with people of color are tinged with racism. 

The race situation has become so contorted that no matter what Republicans do, they lose on the issue.  When Republicans fight for school vouchers, a program that has been shown to benefit students of color often more than caucasion students, Republicans are claimed to be racist for fear of tearing apart highly segregated inner city schools.  When Republicans appoint or hire people of color into leadership positions i.e. Condoleezza Rice, Colin Powell, Michael Steele, the candidates are charged with some form of Uncle Tomism and Republican’s are charged with tokenism.

As the debate on Obama’s agenda has escalated, there has been an equal escalation in the claims of racism against those who oppose Obama.  The racism claims were initially isolated.  In the last week however, hardly any discussion of Obama’s policies or those opposing them is had without overt or subtle claims of racism against President Obama.  Most notably this past week was Maxine Water’s demand to know what the tea party participants are thinking and Nancy Pelosi’stearful concern of returning to the 70’s where, incidentally, the culprit was a whacko leftist not a Republican.

Those who know the Left and their unimaginative, repetitive tactics, are not surprised that they have invoked racism nor that it slips off their tongues as easily as raising taxes does as a solution to all budget problems.  However, even I am left with my jaw hanging after reading the latest view of the Right’s supposed racism.

After stating that his gut and Maureen Dowd’s are the same (What happens if one of them doesn’t like Thai food?) New Republic writer, John McWorter identifies a new source of our disgust with Obama’s agenda:

And yet, even if Dowd and I are correct that Wilson’s outburst was motivated by dislike for blacks, I’m not entirely sure that I, or anyone else, should care. Consider a hypothetical: Wilson, we can presume, would have been pleased as punch if the new black president were a Republican and were up at the podium singing the praises of small government and sending immigrants back to where they came from. This thought experiment does not exonerate Wilson of the charge of racism; what it does mean is that we are talking about a racism more complicated than the bigotries of old, a racism intertwined with other brands of animus (against liberals, against Democrats, against elites) to an extent we can only speculate about.

According to Mr. McWorter, racism is no longer an issue of intolerance of another race.  Rather, racism, in Mr. McWorter’s view, is now the disagreement or intolerance of philosophies held by liberal, Democrats or even self proclaimed elites!

Beyond surprising Noah Webster, McWorter’s new definition of racism is going to come as a surprise to a whole bunch of other folks.  Certainly,  Abraham Lincoln would be surprised to learn that his opposition to the Left’s support of slavery, was racist.  I suspect Lyndon Johnson and Martin Luther King would be surprised that they were also racists as they opposed policies that had been implemented and institutionalized by Democrats for generations.

According to Mr. McWorter You, I and anyone else who opposes any solitary policy or legislative sentence proffered by a Democrat, are racist.  No longer is there any concern for how ill thought or destructive to America a policy is, from now on, all policies from the Left are right.  Unless of course you are a racist.

“Jump the shark” is a colloquialism used to denote the point where traditional or commonly understood approaches veer off into absurdity or out-of-the-ordinary characterizations. I suggest that “Jump the shark” no longer adequately defines the extreme to which this phenomena can mutate. From now on “Jump the shark” shall be referred to as “disagreement is racism.” Compared to “disagreement is racism,” “Jump the shark” seems almost normal.

September 18, 2009

Counting Czars

by @ 10:05. Filed under Politics - National.

Here’s the DNC’s idea of a convincing ad:

Interestingly, the issue of “who has hired the most czars” has become a bit of a political football as of late.

Lou Dobbs reports that the DNC is inaccurate and that Bush only had 10 Czars

While the Washington Post says about Bush’s Czar count:

By one count, Bush had 36 czar positions filled by 46 people during his eight years as president.

But, as Senator Lamar Alexander lays out in this interview, the issue isn’t really the number of “special advisers” or czars.  The issue is that Obama is unprecedented in his use of unconfirmed, unvetted by Congress, czars!

So who’s right?  Well, at a certain level, who cares!

If the DNC’s point is that it’s OK for Barack Obama to have a bunch of czars because Bush had a bunch of czars, their ears are more tinned than Jack Haley!  The Left has no love for Bush, period and the Right has no love for Bush’s expansion of  government and providing the jumping off point for Obama’s rush to socialism.

President Obama has taken no responsibility for any of the negative things his administration has been involved with.  I looks lik the DNC, in a clumsy fashion, is following in the logic of Obama’s recurring excuse when confronted with bad news:

Hey, don’t blame me, I inheirited this mess!

September 17, 2009

Confused? You’re Not The Only One

by @ 11:45. Filed under Health Care Reform, Politics - National.

With the addition of the Baucus bill it’s getting hard to keep track of what proposals are included in which of the various health care proposals. Bottom line is that they all have a mandate for having health insurance and they all have a public option although it is hidden under different names (coop) depending upon the bill you are looking at.

If you are feeling confused by what is being discussed under the various scenarios, you can surely have empathy for the senility creeping into Harry Reid’s head. At the news conference yesterday, Harry was one of the few immediately greeting the Baucus bill:

“This is a good bill. This is a balanced bill,” he told reporters at a Capitol Hill news conference. Earlier, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., said, “Everyone should understand it’s just the beginning, but it’s a good beginning.”

But…..somewhere in his walk down the office halls he seemed to forget his earlier support:

“While this draft bill is a good starting point, it needs improvement before it will work for Nevada,” Reid said in a statement. “During this time of economic crisis, our state cannot afford to shoulder the second highest increase in Medicaid funding.”

Harry appears to believe that he can have his cake and eat it too.  He believes he can say one thing as leader of the Senate and something very different as the Senator from Nevada.

I wonder if Harry has ever heard Al Gore discuss the laters invention of the internet?

Where’s Hope Now?

by @ 5:41. Filed under Health Care Reform, Obama worship, Politics - National.

A week ago President Obama grabbed his final quiver of arrows and started firing the final efforts to save health care reform.  His first effort was a speech to a joint session of Congress.

After a month of highly attended and vocal town halls where it became apparent that many Americans knew more about Congress’ plans than the members of Congress did, it was anticipated that President Obama’s speech would reset the health care discussion.  It was hoped that President Obama might have the wisdom to publicly discard parts that had drawn clear public enmity, such as the public option and offer policies that could be supported on both sides of the aisle like opening insurance sales across state lines.  The President did neither.  Rather, the President dug his heels in for support of a public option, called those who opposed the legislation liars and proceeded to refrain several assertions that had been proven not to be true.

Expectations were high that President Obama’s speech would stop the slide of public support and regain support for his health care reform initiative.  At first, it appeared that he accomplished his goal. 

Hovering around its lowest level of public support just prior to Obama’s speech, in the week following the speech, Rasmussen recorded steady rebounds of support for Obama’s health care reform.  Along with it, Obama’s personal approval level which had been hovering around all time lows, also rebounded.  Ah, once again there was hope for change for Obama worshippers.  Unfortunately, the hope was short lived.

Yesterday showed the first crack in the Obama magic.  Rasmussen reported that the rebound in public support for health care reform had stopped and had slid back a bit.  Today, support for the health plan dropped below the levels that were seen immediately before Obama’s speech.  Coincidentally, Obama’s approval level is also dropping.

Compounding Obama’s attempt to save health reform is a tangent but highly relevant story; the investigative reporting showing ACORN in need of a visit from the RICO agents. 

As the townhalls were filling with anti big government folks in the first half of August, Obama called on ACORN to help balance the attendance.  While their tactics were suspect, there is no doubt that they balanced at least the volume if not the substance, of the meetings.  With the revelations of the past week, government contacts are showing ACORN more undersides of buses than a repairman in a Greyhound garage.  After having bragged about his strong connections with ACORN, President Obama will need to keep a wide berth of this group until the heat dies down, which I don’t expect to happen anytime soon.  Thus, for the time being, there will be far less public displays of affection for Obamacare.

With the House bill apparently unable to find a combination of Democrats that can get it passed, some Senate Democrats are trying to cobble a plan that could pass out of the Senate and give the House some cover.  One of those attempts was unveiled today by Max Baucus.  I’ll let others give you the detail of the plan.  Suffice it to say that it is missing the mark on all counts.  In fact, where it took several weeks for opposition to gather on the House bill, the Baucus bill hadn’t even had it’s first news conference before opposition formed:

AFSCME President McEntee: “Finance Committee Health Care Bill is Deeply Flawed” (Press Release, September 16, 2009)

Teamsters Oppose Baucus Plan to Tax Health Insurance Companies (Press Release, September 16, 2009)

AFL-CIO: Baucus bill ‘absolutely fails’ (The Hill, September 16, 2009)

HCAN calls bill a “failure” (Politico)

Unfortunately, for President Obama, the opposition this time was coming from within his own ranks.  Add to this reports that there are enough people unhappy for a variety of reasons, that there may not be enough votes to even pass Baucus’ bill out of his own committee and it leaves just one question; whatever happened to hope and change?

September 16, 2009

Uh-oh – 45% of physicians plan to depart early if ObamaCare passes

by @ 9:16. Filed under Health Care Reform, Politics - National.

(H/T – Michelle Malkin)

Investor’s Business Daily reports that, in its latest IBD/TIPP poll, 45% of doctors surveyed said that they would consider leaving their practice or retiring early if a Democratic version of health care reform were passed. They also found that 65% oppose the plans the Democrats have out there, and 71% (or 72% whether one believes the graphic or the text) don’t believe that 47 million could be added to the insurance rolls under government control with higher-quality care for less money.

Let’s focus on those who would leave early. Early last year, The Monster took a look at what happens to the supply-demand curves when government interferes with prices. The same principle exists when supply is artificially-tampered with.

First, let’s restate what happens when the supply of a service and the demand of same are in harmony. The price and quantity are at an equilibrium, as shown by this graph from Monster:

Note where the supply curve (S) and demand curve (D) meet. That is the point of equilibrium, with a specific price (P) and quantity (Q).

Now, let’s take a look at what happens when the quantity is artificially-capped below the equilibrium point:

Because the supply does not meet the demand, there is a shortage. The red line connecting the supply curve and the demand curve represents said shortage, with a corresponding increase in price once the two meet.

Of course, that assumes that prices will be allowed to rise to meet the demand. What happens when both the quantity and the price are artficially-capped? Let’s take a look:

The blue line represents an unmet shortage. If you prefer to use a single word for that, “rationing” would be a good choice.

Revisions/extensions (9:58 am 9/16/2009) – Shoebox pointed out last month that even if no physicians departed early, we would be 13% short on the required number of physicians the day that ObamaCare goes into effect. Talk about your uh-oh moments.

Unraveling?

by @ 9:11. Filed under Obama worship, Politics - National.

Headlines from this morning’s Drudge Report:

U.S. RIFT WITH EUROPE OVER CLIMATE DEAL…

ObamaCare: Dem Senator Warns of ‘Big, Big Tax’ on Middle Class…

White House collects Web users’ data ‘without notice’…

Obama Admin: Cap And Trade Could Cost Families $1,761 A Year…

CLINTON CONCERN ABOUT NEW WEAPONS TO VENEZUELA; ARMS RACE…

Amongst other items, Obama ran promising that the bottom 95% of income earners would not see $.01 of tax increases. He also claimed that other countries would once again listen to and respect us. Funny none of that seems to be happening. Finally, Obama claimed that he would heal the country’s “racial divide” and be the first “post racial” president. Jimmy Carter doesn’t think so (video at the link)

I live in the south

Is Carter’s statement of credibility for being able to discern when people are opposed to someone’s race as opposed to someone’s destructive national policies.

According to Rasmussen, President Obama was elected gaining nearly 53% of the popular vote.  On the day he was inaugurated, President Obama enjoyed a favorability rating of 65% and a net positive rating of 28%.  This morning, President Obama’s favorabilty rating is just 49% and he has a net unfavorable rating of 6%.  Obviously a change of this magnitude begs the question:  What has changed?  Does Jimmy Carter and the other Democrats who echo the “racism” charge believe that nobody noticed the color of President Obama’s skin on January 21st?  Does Carter and others, believe that Obama’s skin color has changed in the past eight months?

In this case, resorting to a charge of “racism” shows that the Democrats are short on ammo.  They are firing their final, desperate rounds in an attempt to prevent or forestall an over run of their positions by a populace backlash.

In the specific case of Jimmy Carter, it’s interesting that he relies on his southern heritage for his credentials.  It seems to me that rather than his heritage, Carter need no more reason than “it takes one to know one” for his charge of racism.

I think the words of the famous philosopher Mr. T sums up Carter’s take perfectly,

I pity the fool!

September 15, 2009

George W. Bush – “There is no (conservative) movement.” Me – “We’re back!”

by @ 18:20. Filed under Politics - National.

(H/Ts – Ed Morrissey and DrewM.)

Byron York retells the following episode from former Bush speechwriter Matt Ladimer’s new book, Speechless: Tales of a White House Survivor in today’s Washington Examiner:

Bush was preparing to give a speech to the annual meeting of the Conservative Political Action Conference, or CPAC. The conference is the event of the year for conservative activists; Republican politicians are required to appear and offer their praise of the conservative movement.

Latimer got the assignment to write Bush’s speech. Draft in hand, he and a few other writers met with the president in the Oval Office. Bush was decidedly unenthusiastic.

“What is this movement you keep talking about in the speech?” the president asked Latimer.

Latimer explained that he meant the conservative movement — the movement that gave rise to groups like CPAC.

Bush seemed perplexed. Latimer elaborated a bit more. Then Bush leaned forward, with a point to make.

“Let me tell you something,” the president said. “I whupped Gary Bauer’s ass in 2000. So take out all this movement stuff. There is no movement.”…

Now it was Latimer who looked perplexed. Bush tried to explain.

“Look, I know this probably sounds arrogant to say,” the president said, “but I redefined the Republican Party.”

What a seriously-ungrateful fucktard. Without that movement, specifically Free Republic, Al Gore would have successfully stole Florida and thus the Presidency in 2000, and that’s the thanks we get. News flash to Bush – you and the GOP may have co-opted the conservative movement between 2000 and 2006, but as the Year of the Tea Party is proving, we’re back, and we’re mad.

As for the redefinition of the Republican Party, Bush redefined it all right. The only differences of note between the Republicans and the Democrats became the willingness to fight wars and to whom the largesse of the Treasury would be kicked back, which has given rise to the bipartisan Party-In-Government.

Of course, we should have seen the lack of conservatism out of Bush coming a mile away…

  • The first seeds of doubt, mentioned by Ed, came from the compromising nature of Bush’s run as governor of Texas, and specifically his campaign-era “I’m a uniter, not a divider” line.
  • Also from that campaign, and noted by Drew, we got the disaster that is known as “compassionate conservatism”. Folks, you may not want to hear it, but it is not the job of government to guarantee equality or equity of outcome.
  • The 2001 tax cuts were weighted too far toward creating the 50% leech/50% taxpayer ratio that will destroy the country. At least the 2003 version was weighted more toward activities that actually grow the economy.
  • While, at least thus far, the prescription-drug benefit portion of Medicare has come in under budget, its creation was extra-Constitutional.
  • Speaking of extra-Constitutional acts, Bush signed the McCain-Feingold Campaign Finance Reform Liberal Protection Act.
  • On education, Bush made the same mistake Richard Nixon did with health care – he let Ted Kennedy write the bill, and predictably it expanded the role of and spending by the federal government far beyond the bounds of the Constitution.
  • Speaking of spending, it is not a coincidence that, prior to Barack Obama’s assumption of the office, the deficits under Bush were the highest ever.
  • While Byron mentions that conservatives are pleased with Justice Samuel Alito, his SCOTUS nomination came only after we revolted against Harriet Miers (some of which is in the earliest of the archives of this place).
  • Finally, there’s the subject of bailouts, for which Michelle Malkin deemed the final betrayal a perfect political epitaph – “I’ve abandoned free-market principles to save the free-market system.” Er, no; all it did, especially the loans to GM and Chrysler which became the means to create Government Motors and UAW Motors, was sow the seeds to destroy the free-market system.

The question is, can the conservatives keep up the momentum built since February for another 15 months? Ed Driscoll takes on that question in the current edition of Silicon Graffiti.

Revisions/extensions (10:20 am 9/16/2009) – Related coverage (H/T – Dad29) – Tom Macquire found that Bush didn’t know what TARP was supposed to do either. Brilliance; sheer unadulterated brilliance!

Don’t Look Now…

by @ 5:36. Filed under Health Care Reform, Politics - National.

In case you missed it, there was a rather large social gathering in Washington D.C. over the weekend.  If you read about it in the New York Times, there were merely “thousands” of people at the event. If you read about it at an objective source there was something north of 1 million people on and around the mall.

Regardless of the actual number that appeared on the mall, David Axelrod, a senior advisor to President Obama had this to say about the mall denizens:

I don’t think it’s indicative of the nation’s mood,” Axelrod said on CBS’ “Face the Nation.” “You know, I don’t think we ought to be distracted by that. My message to them is, they’re wrong.”

David, Robert Gibbs had some advice for you last week and you really should heed it!

Mr. Axelrod, you’re wrong!  In a poll released today from Zogby, it turns out that the majority of America agrees with the Tea Party participants at least on the major issues:

Asked if they agree or disagree that the federal government should require all Americans to purchase health insurance or face a fine — a provision favored by Democrats — 70.2 percent said they disagree, and only 18.5 percent agree. The rest are not sure.

Mr. Axelrod, you’re wrong again:

A resounding 75 percent of respondents said that taxes should not be raised to fund a government-run health insurance program for Americans who do not have health insurance.

Oh, and Mr. Axelrod, you’re wrong again:

The pollsters stated: “President Obama is promoting a new government agency called the ‘Independent Medicare Advisory Council,’ and some people believe this agency should use its powers to deny payment for procedures it deems unnecessary or futile.”

Critics say such power would interfere with the doctor-patient relationship, the pollsters noted, and many consider it a form of healthcare rationing. Nearly 59 percent said they oppose the creation of the council, and just 30.6 percent support it.

May I say, Mr. Axelrod, You’re wrong again:

Some Republicans have called for provisions allowing Americans to purchase health insurance from providers outside their state as an alternative to Obama’s proposed government-supported “public option” insurance plan. Respondents said they favor such provisions by an overwhelming margin, 82.8 percent to 6.9 percent.

And one last time, Mr. Axlerod, you are wrong!

Also, 78.5 percent of those polled believe tort reform is needed to lower the cost of medical malpractice insurance, an issue that Obama has not seriously addressed. And 77.3 percent oppose plans to tax employer-provided healthcare benefits.

Would people like to see some reform, I believe the answer is yes.  however, do people want the reform that the Democrats are offering?  The answer to that is a resounding no!

Stay on target, stay on target!

Hey Dems, What’s Your Problem?

by @ 5:09. Filed under Health Care Reform, Politics - National.

According to House Republicans the Democrats don’t have the votes to pass health care reform out of the House.  You see, the problem is that they lose at least 44 votes if there is a public option included and 57 if it’s not included.  Huh, last I looked there were 256 Democrats in the House.  What happened to the other 155?  Can they not make up their mind?

For you Minnesota readers, I noted that Betty McCollum and Tim Walz are not on either list.

For the rest of you, I noted that the Democrat leadership including Nancy Pelosi, James Clyburn and Steny Hoyer are not on either list.

Is this really so hard?  Either you believe that the government is best capable of running health care or you don’t.  There is no “kind of.”  There is no fractional amount.  You’re either in or not.  It’s pretty simple. 

Folks, if your representative is not on one of these lists, you ought to be asking why they are equivocating.  If they are on the “we must have a public option” list, they can no longer hide as a “blue dog” and should be called out.

The lines are drawn.  Obama risks losing all credibility if he doesn’t get this billed passed out of the House.

Stay on target, Stay on target!

September 12, 2009

Well Decide, Which Way Do You Want It?

by @ 5:15. Filed under Health Care Reform, MMSD - The Crap People, Politics - National, Press.

The Coast Guard ran a training exercise today.  It was routine in every way except that President Obama was involved in a 9/11 memorial in the same general area as the exercise.  Oh, and nobody told CNN that it was a training exercise.

Based on what they had heard on scanners that overheard the Coast Guard communications, CNN began reporting that the Coast Guard was pursuing a boat on the Potomac and that shots had been fired.  Needless to say, the reporting caused a bit of a stir.

Commenting on the incident, Press Secretary Robert Gibbs chided CNN:

“My only caution would be that before we report things like this, checking would be good,” Gibbs said.

Sage advice from Mr. Gibbs, to be certain.  I wonder when Mr. Gibbs would have liked CNN to have begun “checking” before “reporting?”

Should CNN have done some “checking” before they “reported” that John McCain’s endorsement by John Haggee was the equivalent of Barack Obama sitting in Jeremiah Wright’s church and listening to his sermons for 20 years?

Should CNN have done some “checking” before they “reported” this puff piece on the self proclaimed communist, Van Jones?

Or, perhaps, just maybe, CNN should have done some “checking” before they “reported” that following President Obama’s most recent infomercial for health reform, 67% liked Obamacare based on significantly oversampling democrats?

It’s not very often I agree with Robert Gibbs.  In fact, I’m not sure I ever have before.  On this issue, I wholeheartedly agree with Mr. Gibbs.  I would like to see CNN doing some real checking and some real reporting.  I suspect though, that if they did that, Mr. Gibbs would not be happy at having lost a compliant media lapdog.  That leaves a quandary for Mr. Gibbs; which way do you want it?

September 10, 2009

Thursday Hot Read Part 2 – Karl Rove’s “Obama’s Big Political Gamble”

by @ 11:00. Filed under Health Care Reform, Politics - National.

It is good to have one of the best political operators in the business back up my impression that President Obama’s actions this week are nothing more than a series of pep talks to his far-left base. Karl Rove writes in today’s Wall Street Journal:

Millions of Americans watched President Barack Obama’s speech last night to a joint session of Congress. Much of it was familiar, having been delivered in at least 111 speeches, town halls, radio addresses and other appearances on health care. But his most revealing remarks on the topic came on Monday, at a Labor Day union picnic in Cincinnati.

There Mr. Obama accused critics of his health reforms of spreading “lies” and said opponents want “to do nothing.” These false charges do not reveal a spirit of bipartisanship nor do they create a foundation for dialogue. It is more like what you’d say if you are planning to jam through a bill without compromise. Which is exactly what Mr. Obama is about to attempt.

Rove goes on to point out that the last time we tried to go down this road to socialized medicine, the Democrats lost the majority in both Houses of Congress because they tried to go down this road.

Thursday Hot Read – Ed Morrissey’s “Declaration of Dependence”

by @ 10:22. Filed under Health Care Reform, Politics - National.

Ed Morrissey’s latest column for American Issues Project deals with the “moderate” health-care “reform” that Sen. Max Baucus (D-MT) has. Let’s pick up at the second departure of the governed-government relationship:

The second departure is more subtle and insidious. Baucus has proposed that the federal government supply subsidies to needy individuals and families for the purchase of the now-mandated insurance. However, the definition of needy defies both math and common sense. The Baucus plan proposes those subsidies be available to households at up to 300% of the poverty level of income – or about $66,000 per year income.

If that sounds like a pretty good annual household income, you’d be right. In fact, the 2007 median household income in the US was $50,233. Roughly half of all households in America are above this income level, and half below it. It is a solidly middle-class income by definition.

How many people make $66,000 per year or less, and therefore would be eligible for federal health-insurance subsidies? According to the Census Bureau’s 2007 survey, 72.1 million of the nation’s 116.8 million households earned $65,000 or less. The Baucus plan would make 61.7% of American households dependent on government assistance, far more than half and well on the way to two-thirds.

Ed goes on to note that ObamaCare Heavy (aka H.R. 3200) would put close to 3/4ths of the population on the dole. What was that quote about the republic surviving only until half the people figure out they can rob the other half dry through the power of government?

« Older Entries
Newer Entries »

[No Runny Eggs is proudly powered by WordPress.]