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

January 6, 2011

Must-See TV – The Heritage Foundation’s “The Debt Limit: Made Simple”

by @ 17:28. Filed under Politics - National.

My friends at The Heritage Foundation put together a short cartoon to help even the fiscally-illiterate understand the looming request to increase the debt limit by somewhere north of $1 trillion (or if you prefer percentages, 7.14%). They did forget to mention this latest increase won’t even last a whole year because the federal government is adding debt to the tune of roughly $1.5 trillion each year.

Of course, they’re a bit Pollyannish in the end for United Estates. We’re more likely to end up like Greece or France, where the “youths” and unions riot over even the smallest of changes made for the countries to survive another couple years.

January 5, 2011

Wednesday Hot Read – Michelle Malkin’s “Day One, 112th Congress: 10 Simple Rules for the GOP”

by @ 7:36. Filed under Politics - National.

Michelle Malkin has 10 rules for the House freshman class, and the returning Congresscritters. A couple of them might not quite apply to the freshly-seated Wisconsin Legislature, but most of them are just as appropriate to them (just a couple of those reposted here):

1. Manage expectations.

2. Serve the people, not the press.

6. Never forget: Government does not “create jobs.” Politicians don’t create jobs. You are there to stop government from killing jobs in the name of “reform,” the “children,” “emergencies,” global warming, hope, change, etc., etc., etc.

9. Show, don’t tell: Transparency. Accountability. Integrity. When you fail, you’ll be called out. The “R” after your name doesn’t give you immunity. Ever.

Read them and take them to heart.

Was That a Tingle I Just Felt?

by @ 7:05. Filed under Health Care Reform, Politics - National.

On Monday, Harry Reid and some of his bestest Senate comrades, sent a letter to new House Speaker John Boehner.  In it, they warned him against proceeding with any action that would attempt to repeal Placebocare.  Shortly thereafter, it was announced that the House will vote January 12th, on a bill to repeal Placebocare in its entirety.

An aside:

I have had strong reservations about Boehner.  What I have seen from him in the past has me concerned that he talks a tough game but that in the end, he works the “let’s all get along” deals that move this country on a continual path left.  That said, while I live in Kentucky now, call me from Missouri.  I’m willing to give Boehner the benefit of the doubt and see where his actions lead.  Along with “from Missouri”, I guess you could say I’ll be “doing the Reagan” as I trust but verify.

Yesterday, in response to Harry Reid’s letter to him, Boehner sent the following response:

Senators Reid, Durbin, Schumer, Murray and Stabenow:

Thank you for reminding us – and the American people – of the backroom deal that you struck behind closed doors with ‘Big Pharma,’ resulting in bigger profits for the drug companies, and higher prescription drug costs for 33 million seniors enrolled in Medicare Part D, at a cost to the taxpayers of $42.6 billion.

The House is going to pass legislation to repeal that now. You’re welcome.

– Speaker-Designate John Boehner’s Press Office

I’m not the type that has physical responses to events but, I could have sworn I just had a tingle run up my leg!

January 4, 2011

Budget Chop – Oil and Gas Management

by @ 20:10. Filed under Budget Chop, Energy, Politics - National.

I’ve already highlighted the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management for the need of a budget reduction.  My argument at the time was that if they didn’t want to issue any permits for drilling, there wasn’t need for more than one person to be able to answer the phone and say “NO!”

In one of the first acts of the new year, the Obama administration announced that they would now allow 13 companies to resume their deep water drilling in the Gulf of Mexico.  While this doesn’t mean that they will be issuing new permits, I take this as a sign that the Administration is concerned that my suggestions are sure to be implemented.

It’s becoming clearer and clearer that despite Obama’s rhetoric about job creation, there is no desire to create jobs in the oil and gas industry.  The Energy Information Administration now projects that offshore energy production will be nearly 20% below what they had predicted for the year.  That shortfall translates into thousands of lost jobs and the wages associated with them.  Not only does the Administration’s war on fossil fuels cause lost jobs, it also causes lost revenues.

According to this spreadsheet (I’ve verified them to the reported revenue) in FY 2008, the Federal Treasury received over $22 Billion in revenue from all oil and gas leasing activity.  in FY 2009, that number dropped to to under $9 Billion and in FY 2010 it was about $8 Billion. Now admittedly, there was approximately $10 Billion of “bonuses” received in 2008 which inflates that number a bit. However, even when adjusting for that, revenue to the treasury for oil and gas leasing has dropped by 33% in just two years.

Let’s recap:  No new leasing, more drilling area restrictions, lost jobs and wages….Oh, that’s not so bad…..

Former executive predicts gas to hit $5 by 2012

Number of the day – $14,025,215,218,708.52

by @ 0:34. Filed under Economy Held Hostage, Politics - National.

That number is the total amount of federal government debt outstanding as of 12/31/2010. Of that, $9,390,476,088,043.35 (plus about $10 million, or if you prefer, $0.00001 trillion in what is termed “guaranteed debt of government agencies” that is somehow not part of the public debt but is part of the “debt subject to limit”), and $4,585,749,068,174.55 in “intragovernmental debt” (that would be, for the most part, the various “Trust Funds”). To put it in a bit of text perspective, the Gross Domestic Product was $14.119 trillion in 2009, and if projections can be believed, will come in at just over $14.7 trillion in 2010. That makes the public debt just under 64% of GDP and total debt over 95% of GDP.

That dry text doesn’t, however, do it justice. I decided to go through 40 years’s worth (or, give or take a few shakes of a lamb’s tail, about the length of time I’ve been walking the Earth) of calendar-year-ending Monthly Statements of the Public Debt, grab the GDP for each of those years (estimated for 2010), and whip up a “little” frightening chart for you:


Click for the full-size chart

The short version of that chart:

  • Between 1970 and 1981, total debt remained right around the 37% of GDP, and publicly-held/guaranteed debt remained right around 27% of GDP.
  • Publicly-held debt plateaued right about 40% of GDP between 1986 and 1989, but because of changes to Social Security, the increasing intragovernmental debt, which crossed the 10% of GDP threshhold in 1988, caused total debt to continue to increase at an unchanged rate.
  • Sticking with intragovernmental debt briefly, it steadily increased to a high of nearly 32% of GDP in 2009 before multiple “trust funds” began running deficits, both primary (cash) and gross, helping to increase the publicly-held debt as said “trust funds” get monetized through borrowing while there is exactly $0.00 set aside or otherwise available for the purpose.
  • Back to the publicly-held debt, it again plateaued at 50% of GDP between 1992 and 1996, with total debt plateauing around 68% of GDP, before “unified budget surpluses” and a gangbusters economy allowed them to go down as a function of GDP.
  • By 2000, total debt dropped to about 57% of GDP, with publicly-held debt hitting its post-1981 low of 33% of GDP in 2001. While publicly-held debt remained about 37% of GDP through 2007, the increasing reliance on “trust fund” surpluses caused total debt to increase to about 66% of GDP in 2007.
  • The muzzle came off the debt monster in 2008, with publicly-held debt increasing to about 64% of GDP and total debt increasing to about 95% of GDP by the end of 2010.

Several of those in my bloated feed reader, like Dad29, Zip, Allahpundit Stephan Tawney, and ultimately NRO’s Corner crew, found yet another utterance from Barack Obama that has reached its expiration date – one from a 2006 debate in which he opposed raising the debt limit as Senator, an act which his economic advisor now calls “insanity”:

The fact that we are here today to debate raising America’s debt limit is a sign of leadership failure. It is a sign that the U.S. Government can’t pay its own bills. It is a sign that we now depend on ongoing financial assistance from foreign countries to finance our Government’s reckless fiscal policies. … Increasing America’s debt weakens us domestically and internationally. Leadership means that ‘the buck stops here. Instead, Washington is shifting the burden of bad choices today onto the backs of our children and grandchildren. America has a debt problem and a failure of leadership. Americans deserve better.

The publicly-held debt was 37.3% of GDP at the end of 2005 and 36.6% of GDP at the end of 2006, while total debt was 64.6% of GDP at the end of 2006 and 64.4% of GDP at the end of 2006.

Revisions/extensions (7:02 am 1/4/2011) – The Emperor links, and provides a further link to Aaron Worthing at Patterico’s Pontifications and the full Obama remarks that were walked back. The relevant extension:

Over the past 5 years, our federal debt has increased by $3.5 trillion to $8.6 trillion. That is “trillion” with a “T.” That is money that we have borrowed from the Social Security trust fund, borrowed from China and Japan, borrowed from American taxpayers. And over the next 5 years, between now and 2011, the President’s budget will increase the debt by almost another $3.5 trillion.

For those who can’t do the math, Obama was complaining about a potential $12.1 trillion total debt by the end of 2011. Well, we’re at just over $14 trillion before we got to the beginning of Calendar Year 2011 (or if you prefer, a quarter of the way through Fiscal Year 2011). The kicker – had Pelosi taken up Obama’s proposed budget, the total debt would be $15.1 trillion at the end of FY2011.

R&E part 2 (7:45 am 1/4/2011) – Dan Spencer points out just how much the debt has gone up under Nancy Pelosi’s now-expired Speakership – $44,662 for every man, woman and child who make up the 310,574,015 U.S. populace.

A minor point of order – the first 9 months of 2008 were largely budgeted by the prior Congress, while the last 3 were budgeted solely by Pelosi and Senate Democrat leader Harry Reid. That explains why the deficit, at least as a percentage of GDP, didn’t increase all that much in 2007.

I might redo the chart to reflect fiscal years instead of calendar ones, but it is a bear to get the numbers.

January 3, 2011

The Budget Chop – Federal Headcount

by @ 10:36. Filed under Budget Chop, Politics - National.

I have a riddle for you:

Q.  What do Russia and Cuba have that the United States doesn’t?

No, it’s not a massive federal deficit; they each have that.

No, it’s not a hard core leftist as the leader;they each have that.

Nope, it’s not a government that is more interested in itself than it’s citizens; they each have that.

The correct answer is: Federal employment that is being reduced.

After announcing earlier that they would be reducing the size of their federal government employment, Russian President Medvedev signed a decree  that will reduce the number of people employed by the Russian government by 20% over the next few years.

The civilian federal employment jumped over 10% from 2008 to 2010 and that is after subtracting the temporary census workers.  2011 is slated to grow that number by another 3.5%.  So federal employment has grown by double digit percentages will private employment has decreased by millions.

An area for the new GOP House to focus on for balancing the budget is the number of people employed by the federal government. 

Senator Orrin Hatch introduced a bill last year, that would have reduced federal employment to 2008 levels.  According to Hatch, this would be a reduction of 20% although I don’t think his math is quite right as he’s including the temporary census workers.  Not surprisingly, Senator Hatch’s bill went no where. 

Fewer federal employees would be good for at least three reasons:

1.  Fewer employees means fewer dollars spent today.

2.  Fewer employees should be coupled with privatizing more of the things that the federal government does but doesn’t need to do.

3.  Fewer employees means fewer dollars spent tomorrow in the way of pensions and other retirement benefits.

The next few weeks will be interesting to watch.  By the end of January, we should know whether the message of reducing spending, has been received by Congress.  I know the message hasn’t been received by President Obama but we’ll cross one bridge at a time.

January 2, 2011

Pardon The Interruption…

by @ 12:11. Filed under Politics - National.

I know you’re all enjoying the daily dole of the NRE awards.  Steve, I and others worked hard last week on those so that we could take a little time off over this weekend.  Of course, I could only use that excuse if I actually wrote on a regular basis…but that’s a separate issue.

I’m seeing a bunch of stuff flying around the internet about the RNC chair race.  The “stuff” mostly surrounds Reince Priebus and issues about his law firm and whether they make him a RINO and therefore unfit to serve as RNC chair.

Let me first provide full disclosure:

1.  I think Michael Steele has been the worst chair in some time.  I don’t believe he is a conservative by any definition.  I do suspect he is a closet racist or at the least, carries a huge chip on his shoulder regarding the color his skin happens to be.

2.  While I blog here at NRE, I’m not a Wisconsinite.  I’m from Minnesota Kentucky and am not a homer on this one.

3.  I don’t know, or have even heard of Reince Preibus prior to a couple of weeks ago.  I have no idea what he is about personally.  Heck, I don’t even know how to pronounce his name!

Two issues have been raised against Mr. Preibus, suggesting that these make him unfit for chair:

1.  That his law firm has taken the position that Placebocare is constitutional.

2.  That he personally, and his law firm generally, solicited clients to assist with securing various funding from the stimulus bill.

As to the first issue.  Let’s assume his firm has taken the position that Placebocare is constitutional.  Preibus’ firm has over 200 attorneys.  A firm of that size is not going to serve clients with a singular political ideology,  In fact, it would not be uncommon for that firm to have argued both sides of the same argument in different cases with different attorneys.

Some have argued that because Preibus is a “partner,” that he is involved with determining what cases are taken and must concur with the firm’s stance with regard to Placebocare being constitutional.  I cruised the firm’s website and noted that Preibus is NOT on the management committee.  While he certainly would have latitude in determining cases he was involved with, I can’t see anything on the surface that would suggest he is dictating the firm’s direction.

As I look at the firm’s website, I note that they do patent work for green technologies.  I assume that this would disqualify Preibus also because all green technologies are bad?  Oh, even worse, they have on their site that they have achieved “Green Master Status!”  Well, we know this is just code for being a lefty sympathizer!

Folks, I’ve worked for some companies that were pretty liberal in their ideologies (AT&T and domestic partner rights anyone?).  There was nothing about those engagements that made me a RINO.  Heck, there were a number of folks who moved further right in their beliefs as I worked along side them.  My point is that where a person works and what that company believes does not have to be a reflection of the individual’s belief.

The second issue is even more ludicrous.  Again, let’s assume that Preibus did solicit clients to secure stimulus funds?  So what? 

Mrs. Shoe and I tithe.  While we don’t believe the Bible dictates that we do so, we do believe it to be an appropriate way to recognize that what we have received is a gift from God.  Our tithing and our other charitable contributions, have nothing to do with the fact that we are able to deduct these contributions on our income taxes.  In fact, I prefer a flat tax where no deductions are granted. Would the people who suggest that Preibus shouldn’t solicit work for a legal government program call me a hypocrite for taking a charitable deduction on my taxes?

There is a difference between working within the law to find economic advantages for yourself or your company and advocating for the policy in the first place.  I have no problem with Preibus helping his clients get government money, no different than I have no problem with people taking every legal tax advantage they can; it’s the law.  I would have a problem if Preibus had been lobbying for the passage of the stimulus bill but I don’t see any evidence of that.

In short, I don’t know if Preibus is the right person or not for the RNC chair.  As I said, I don’t know anything about the man’s abilities or ideologies.  The problem is that most of the people making the above accusations about Preibus are in the same boat as I am regarding his abilities and true ideologies.  Unfortunately, that’s not slowing them down.  I wonder why? 

What I do know about Preibus is that he is the GOP chair in Wisconsin.  I also know that Wisconsin just evicted one of the furthest left Senators from the Senate.  Wisconsin also elected a Republican Governor and made substantial GOP strides in both of the State’s legislative bodies.  Of course, it is possible that like his law firm’s support of Placebocare, there is no correlation between Preibus’ involvement and the election results in WI.  If I were looking to vote, I’d want to get the facts on both of those issues. 

The case against Preibus seems to be built on second hand or circumstantial versus first hand knowledge.  Why do you suppose that is?  Is it possible that inuendo rather than truth, better fits the accuser’s agenda?

We now return you to your regularly scheduled NRE awards!

December 31, 2010

Was PlaceboCare designed by the POR team or Henry Ford?

by @ 9:19. Filed under Health Care Reform, Politics - National.

I’m actually beginning to think Henry Ford offered more options on the Model T than PlaceboCare does. George Scoville lists just some of the items that, as of tomorrow, will no longer be able to be purchased with Health Savings Account money without a prescription:

  • Acid controllers
  • Acne medicine
  • Aids for indigestion
  • Allergy and sinus medicine
  • Anti-diarrhea medicine
  • Baby rash ointment
  • Cold and flu medicine
  • Eye drops
  • Feminine anti-fungal or anti-itch products
  • Hemorrhoid treatment
  • Laxatives or stool softeners
  • Lice treatments
  • Motion sickness medicines
  • Nasal sprays or drops
  • Ointments for cuts, burns or rashes
  • Pain relievers, such as aspirin or ibuprofen

“Strangely” enough, birth control, reading glasses (of course, Congress can’t read, so it won’t help them) and contact lens solutions can still be bought over-the-counter with HSA money.

December 29, 2010

Best comment surrounding the Birther horse manure

by @ 22:34. Filed under Politics - National.

This gem from James Wigderson on the desire of incoming Hawaii governor and Obama family friend Neil Ambercrombie (D) to unseal Barack Obama’s birth certificate is priceless:

I think some people will just remain convinced that Obama isn’t a citizen even if the afterbirth can be produced with a chain of custody documenting the source, DNA tests, and video of the birth with a “Welcome to Hawaii” sign in the background. Oh yeah, and Don Ho playing the music on the video soundtrack.

The sad thing is, that isn’t just comedic gold.

Wednesday’s Hot Read – The Chilean Model

by @ 8:46. Filed under Social Security crater.

(H/T – Fausta)

The Investor’s Business Daily editorial board noted the phenominal success story that the privatized Chilean social security system has become:

(Then-labor minister Jose) Pinera’s proposal began with scrapping the payroll tax on the country’s social security system and inviting all workers to take the money they were contributing and move it into a private pension.

Workers would be free to choose the fund, how much to put in, and at what age they would retire, with a minimal safety net built into the design. Past contributions would be refunded to workers by government bond. And anyone who didn’t like the idea was free to remain with the system as it was. It was a huge success: 95% of Chile’s workers chose the private system.

Pinera told the public to expect a compounded 4% rate of return under the private plan. But as of 2010, the average annual rate of return was 9.23%, far higher than promised.

By contrast, the U.S. social security system, which today accounts for a quarter of the U.S. government budget, is slated to give retiring workers in the next decade a 1% to 2% rate of return. And those entering the system today will see a negative return.

In order to compare apples to apples, one has to compare the rate of return to inflation. The bad news is Chile’s inflation averaged 10.72% between 1981 and 2009, which means the 9.23% rate of return only covered 98.7% of inflation. The ugly news is that is still better than the SocSecurity rate of return compared to the likely rate of inflation over the next decade, in which the rate of return is expected to cover barely 98% of inflation.

Let’s move to the effect on government finances:

Chile’s implicit pension debt fell to just 6% of GNP — compared with 100% in the U.S., 300% in France and 450% in Italy, leaving Chile with no net debt.

Better still, the accumulated savings in the pension funds fueled Chile’s spectacular economic ascent, taking real incomes from about $4,000 per capita in the early 1980s to $15,000 today, and GDP to the 6% range most years for nearly 20 years.

That, folks, is the real payoff; a government and a people able to weather economic storms that is sinking the rest of the world. Even when one takes out the dysfunctional Disability Insurance, the cost of providing the benefits of the Old-Age and Survivors Insurance (including a transfer of funds to cover railroad retirees) outstripped the taxes paid by $2.14 billion on $577 billion of benefit payouts, and $6.06 billion on $580 billion in total program cost, in FY2010. That’s $6.06 billion that, because of the nature of the “Trust Funds”, the Treasury had to borrow, which gives the lie to the accounting trick that counts “interest earned” by said “Trust Funds” as income into Social Security.

With the level of publicly-held debt rapidly approaching 100% of GDP, and current trends showing that increasing at an exponential rate, how long can it be before everybody stops buying US Treasuries? The first time that happens, the value of those “Trust Funds” will be $0.00, and we’ll be up a swollen Shit Creek without a paddle.

December 27, 2010

They told me if…PlaceboCare Death Panel edition

by @ 13:52. Filed under Health Care Reform, Politics - National.

(H/T – Ed Morrissey)

Shortly after the mandatory every-5-year “Just die already” speech was stripped from PlaceboCare because of the backlash led by former Alaska governor Sarah Palin, the New York Times reports that, not only did the Obama administration slip it back in administratively via the same mechanism that forces every state to have drinking age of 21 and primary enforcement of mandatory seat belt laws (the dangling of money), but that instead of getting the speech every five years, you’ll get it annually.

Jimmie Bise has a lot more wrapup, while WISN-AM’s Mark Belling, filling in for Rush Limbaugh, has been hammering home the fact that, even though it is officially even more “voluntary” as said federal drinking age, it is as much a mandate. There is no distinction between offering extra money to force a decision and withholding money to force said decision.

Remember when Teh Won said that doctors took out tonsils for profit? They told me, if I voted for Palin, doctors would profit from telling me to die. AND THEY WERE RIGHT!

Update by Shoebox:

The Death Panels are only half of the story. In the past week, Sebelius and her pack of flying monkeys have also issued rules (all as part of Placebocare), that requires any insurance company who dares raise rates more than 10%, to face a health care inquisition.

Now, it’s clear that no one in the Obama abomination administration has any economic training.  If they did, they would recognize that there is a very bright light heading towards them from the opposite end of the tunnel and it’s not the end of the tunnel. 

Econ 101, whether macro or micro, will tell you that if you remove the ability for prices to reflect increasing costs, the result is a restriction on the amount of the service or good offered.  If you doubt this, simply look at any attempt to set prices and you will note that in time, the good or service for which the price is artificially set, either becomes so poor in quality (an attempt to reduce the costs) or has severe shortages in the amount offered so as not to any longer resemble the original product or service.  I wonder which, poor quality or less availability, the Obama administration is targeting under Placebocare?

So, to sum it all up, under Placebocare we have people “counseling” about how to end your life without any of the “expensive” treatments.  And, you have a limit on the amount of premium increases.  Sounds like those two go hand in hand don’t you think?

December 23, 2010

Budget Chop – Bureau of Ocean Energy Management

by @ 9:58. Filed under Budget Chop, Economy Held Hostage, Energy, Politics - National.

During his 2010 victory lap yesterday, President Obama laid out his priority for 2011:

Asked about the often-used car in the ditch analogy, Obama said that the “car [the economy in the analogy] is on level ground.” He spoke about a new direction for the government’s economic focus: “We now have to pivot and focus on jobs and growth,” and education, innovation, and R & D.

While Obama’s lips may be saying “yes, yes,” his double crossed fingers are saying, “no, no!”

Gulf oil drilling jobs continue to be decimated as Obama via the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, works to interfere with, delay or halt altogether, permits for drilling. Most people are aware that Obama has denied an expansion of drilling areas and has delayed permits for new deep water rigs. What folks aren’t aware of is that even in areas where drilling is allowed, even in shallow water, the Bureau has implemented a plan that some would interpret as down right hostile towards all drilling efforts.

While you might think the Bureau is taking time advancing permits to ensure that safety comes first, they’re not. They are doing mostly what bureaucracies do, create process for no end result benefit:

Yet regulators have tightened processes so much that permit applications are being returned six and seven times for more information, says Randall Stilley, Seahawk’s chief exec­utive. One operator con­fided its last rejection was because the application contained two font sizes, he said.

(emphasis mine)

I’m a big believer in pay for performance i.e. if you perform well, you get paid more. I think we should use this type of approach to government agencies. Going forward, I would propose that Congress cut the budget for the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management. After all, how many people should it take to just say “no” to every inquiry of permitting for an ocean drilling rig?

December 20, 2010

The Budget Chop

by @ 19:45. Filed under Budget Chop, Economy Held Hostage, Politics - National.

Reports are circulating that Republicans and someone on the Democrat side (who is in charge there anymore?) have agreed to a clean continuing resolution bill that will extend the current budget levels into sometime in the first quarter of 2011.  All in all, that’s probably good news.  I don’t trust the current set of Republicans to actually have a spine and argue with any Democrats over budget levels.  I certainly don’t have any hope that the current bunch could actually cut the budget.  I lay all of my hopes on the incoming freshman class.  I hope I’m not disappointed.

However, I don’t think it’s fair to toss these freshmen to the wolves.  

As part or our ongoing public service efforts to provide clear, conservative thinking, we here at NRE have decided to start providing crib notes for the freshmen class on where, what and how to cut the federal budget.  This post is the first in the series.

Janet Napolitano announced today that the Department of Homeland Security, along with it being ever vigilant in finding new ways to amuse terrorists and piss off non Muslim air travelers, is taking on a new task.  DHS is making contingency plans in the event that climate change impacts domestic security.  Under the banner of “evironmental justice,” Napolitano has DHS making plans of what to do if oceans rise, glaciers melt or some change in weather occurs. 

As if it wasn’t bad enough that Napolitano wasted DHS time on this nonsense, she also included other executive staff. White House Council on Environmental Quality Chair Nancy Sutley, EPA Administrator Lisa P. Jackson, Attorney General Eric Holder, Secretary of the Interior Ken Salazar, Secretary of Labor Hilda Solis, and Secretary of Health and Human Services Kathleen Sebelius were all included as speakers for the event.

Hey Freshmen, if Napolitano has enough people with enough time to worry about such things as “evironmental justice,” regardless of what the real focus is, she has too many people with too much time in her budget! DHS should be the first agency to experience significant budget cuts!

As I said, we’ll be pointing out budget chop items as we find them. My plan is to get a neato graphic that can be added to highlight the budget chop posts. I don’t have it yet. In the meantime, let’s see if this sets the mood:

December 16, 2010

Thursday Historical Read – Michelle Malkin’s “Boston Tea Party: 237th anniversary”

by @ 10:06. Tags:
Filed under History, Politics - National.

237 years ago today, a bunch of soon-to-be-ex-colonists protested the Tea Act by dumping a bunch of tea into Boston Harbor. Michelle Malkin takes a look back, and brings it into the present…

On December 16, 1773, the taxpayers of Boston had had enough.

The Boston Tea Party Ship & Museum website recounts the story:

On the cold evening of December 16, 1773, a large band of patriots, disguised as Mohawk Indians, burst from the South Meeting House with the spirit of freedom burning in their eyes. The patriots headed towards Griffin’s Wharf and the three ships. Quickly, quietly, and in an orderly manner, the Sons of Liberty boarded each of the tea ships. Once on board, the patriots went to work striking the chests with axes and hatchets. Thousands of spectators watched in silence. Only the sounds of ax blades splitting wood rang out from Boston Harbor. Once the crates were open, the patriots dumped the tea into the sea.

The bipartisan Party-In-Government, complete with Scott Brown (who wouldn’t be in the Senate if it weren’t for the Tea Party Movement), is doubling tripling down on stupid. Guess it’s time to increase the skeer on Congress, even as the foes of liberty increase their violence against us…

Make sure to commemorate the anniversary by picking up the phone and making yourselves heard in Washington as the tax-and-looters carry on.

Capitol switchboard: 202-224-3121. If you don’t, no one will.

DOWN GOES PALIN!

by @ 7:36. Filed under 2012 Presidential Contest.

Over the course of the past week, Erick Erickson has been running a tournament-style poll for who the RedState faithful want to see as the 2012 GOP Presidential nominee. Yesterday saw the final round end, and, believe it or not, Sarah Palin did not finish first. Allow me to recap the brackets before I tell you who knocked off Palin (which is why I bit.ly’ed the link; it would otherwise have told you who won the poll):

Round 1
– Herman Cain beat Donald Trump in The Businessmen matchup
– David Petraeus beat Jeb Bush in The Wild Cards matchup
– John Bolton beat John Thune in The Johns matchup
– Mike Pence beat Mike Huckabee in The Mikes matchup
– Tim Pawlenty beat Mitt Romney in The Northern Governors matchup
– Haley Barbour beat Rick Perry in The Southern Governors matchup
– Sarah Palin beat Mitch Daniels in The Other Governors matchup
– Rick Santorum beat Newt Gingrich in The Former Politicos matchup

Round 2
– Herman Cain beat David Petraeus in the Business v. Wild Card matchup
– Mike Pence beat John Bolton in the John v. Mike matchup
– Haley Barbour beat Tim Pawlenty in the North v. South matchup
– Sarah Palin beat Rick Santorum in the Other v. Former matchup

Semi-finals
– Herman Cain beat Mike Pence
– Sarah Palin beat Haley Barbour

And now, the final – Herman Cain knocked off Sarah Palin, 8,900-8,100. I am surprised, even though I have met Cain and was flat-out impressed by him, much like the rest of blog row at the 2010 Defending the American Dream Summit. There are that Cain’s entry into the race will happen on Friday; he already snagged Mark Block away from Americans for Prosperity’s Wisconsin chapter after Block turned it from a 300-member group in 2007 into a 90,000+-member group now.

December 14, 2010

Tuesday Hot Read – Pamela Gorman’s “The Dream Act- Unsafe for Children”

by @ 11:51. Filed under Immigration, Politics - National.

(H/T – Brian Fojtik)

Pamela Gorman found a rather disturbing loophole in the DREAM Bill (unless it becomes law, it’s not an Act, except in stupidity):

The bill has a section that specifically allows the offspring of illegal aliens to opt out of the military and education requirements for citizenship. And, if you actually read it, you would see that the opt out requires little more than a letter stating that fulfilling the requirements of the law would present a “hardship.” Because the bill offers no definition of what is means by “hardship,” it is virtually impossible for a court to later have clear direction in determining what constitutes a life situation that prevents the young person from properly meeting the requirements of the law. Additionally, it could be determined on a subjective case-by-case (read: politically motivated) basis by the government agency employee who receives the letter of excuse.

Yep; you read that right – pure, no-committment-required amnesty.

December 12, 2010

Drip, Drip, Drip

by @ 14:52. Filed under Politics - National, Taxes.

It’s been a week since President Obama announced that he had a “deal” with Republicans to get the current tax rates extended.  At that time, the “deal” included an extension of all current tax rates for an extension of unemployment insurance and an increase (yes, an increase as the current rate is ZERO) in estate (death) taxes.  For a reason yet mystifying, the “Republican Leadership,” and I can only assume that means Boehner and McConnell, agreed to this “deal.”  They agreed even though, in their first official action, it meant that they would clearly put a “we don’t care what you say,” sign out for all grass roots activists to see.

Since last week, Obama has been looking for ways to get Democrats to sign on to the extension bill.  While Joe “This is a big F%$&ing deal,” Biden told the Democrat caucus that there would be no room for change, the Democrat caucus has been doing just that.

The first drip was the inclusion of an extension of ethanol credits for two years.  Besides the fact that even Al Gore recognizes that ethanol is bogus green science, has anyone noticed how numerous food items are either increasing in cost or being reduced in size resulting in increased costs per ounce?  Yeah, look at the items increasing.  The majority can be traced back to corn either as an ingredient, a sweetener or a food source for the product.  Continuing to extend the ethanol credits is not only bad science, it is having the unintended consequence of pushing inflation into our food supply.

The second drip was the extension of credits for “green” cars, “green” transit, “green” diesel and “green” appliances.  Suffice to say that the only thing “green” about any of these items is the money that is being shoveled into black holes that don’t return a dime in benefit!

Additional provisions have been rumored to be considered as a way to improve Democrat’s chances of supporting the bill.  You can bet that none of them would move the bill to a more fiscally responsible bill.

One drip, two drips, heck, even three drips aren’t usually enough to cause any real damage.  However, if you’re already water logged, even one drip can do you in.  The Federal budget is clearly water logged.  Any drips, even the ones already “agreed” to, are too much.  The Republican leadership can still pull back and demand a straight up or down vote on extending the tax rates.  If they don’t, we’ll all be left wondering which drip it will be that will cause the US economy to do this:

December 11, 2010

Weekend Hot Read – Dave Thompson’s “We Had an Election . . . Remember?”

by @ 20:23. Filed under Politics - National.

Incoming Minnesota State Senator (and previous candidate for Minnesota GOP chair) Dave Thompson unloaded on Le Grande Compromise on his campaign blog today:

On November 2nd, the voters sent a clear message: stop the spending already. Less than six weeks after the election, the Congressional Republican leadership has gone right back to the old playbook. They are “compromising” and giving in on bad policies when they don’t need to do so.

Extending unemployment benefits is a terrible idea. Let’s see… we really want people to go to work… so I think we’ll continue to pay them not to work. Brilliant! And of course the unemployment benefit extension will add over $56 billion to the national debt. But never mind. Concern about the national debt was for last week’s news cycle.

We all understand the need for compromise. Otto von Bismarck said, “Politics is the art of the possible.” However, the American people are troubled when politicians make unnecessary concessions on important issues. Every reasonable analyst agrees that we should not raise taxes….

Democrats supposedly haven’t grasped the message sent last November. Seems to me the Republicans are equally unaware.

There is a reason why 63% of the voters in Minnesota’s 36th Senate District sent Thompson to St. Paul – he gets it.

Politics of Envy and Greed

by @ 14:45. Filed under Politics - National, Taxes.

There really is no editorial required on these.  Simply listen to the statements of one admitted socialist and one member of the Democratic Socialists of America.  It’s not hard to understand that their real complaint about “tax cuts” is that no one’s money is their own.  Their belief is that all money, regardless of how it was gained, is the government’s to use as it sees fit.

See Bernie Sanders Here.

Keith Ellison

To both of them I say, “Bring it on!” I don’t like this deal either. Let’s let the tax rates increase and see what the American people have to say about it…..shall we?

Big Jim Slade takes over for impotent pose…er, President

by @ 8:52. Filed under Politics - National.

(H/T – JammieWearingFool)

The New York Post’s Charles Hurt dug out the apt reference from “Kentucky Fried Movie” after Bill Clinton took over for Barack Obama at a press conference designed to salvage Le Grande Compromise (which, in typical Washington fashion, got larded up with all sorts of pork, including a 1-year extension of corn-a-hole subsidies – H/T Michelle Malkin, to try to get recalcitrant House Democrats on board). Because it’s the weekend, I don’t have to give you the standard NSFW warning on the clip of Big Jim taking over…

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xQ96dy93mP0[/youtube]

Oh wait, that wasn’t Big S(l)ick. HERE’S Big S(l)ick Willie taking over (courtesy Daily Caller):

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

For those of you who doubted Jay Weber when he said that Teh Won doesn’t really want to be President, watch and weep.

December 9, 2010

Munching Popcorn 12-9-10

by @ 19:25. Filed under Politics - National, Taxes.

Yesterday, Joe Biden tried to explain to the Democrat caucus why The Won caved on his tax promise.  He calmed their concerns by telling them there was no abiilty to change the deal.  There is no doubt that somewhere in his explanation Biden told the caucus that “This is a big f%$*ing deal!”

Today the Whitehouse released a video of Austan Goolsby doing a version of “Obama is smarter than you for dummies.”  Austan doesn’t have to worry about a call to join SNL anytime soon:

Following this fun, the Dems had a House Caucus meeting during which at least one member could be heard saying, “F&*^ the President.” Following that, reporters could hear “just say no” being chanted within the meeting room. At the end of the meeting, the caucus cast a voice vote to reject the tax compromise that President Obama caved on negotiated.

At the end of this, the bad news is we don’t know what is happening with tax rates yet.

The good news is that I’m getting much more “heart healthy” as I chow down on bucket after bucket of high fiber popcorn….non butter of course.

Today’s word – TriANGRYlation

by @ 15:19. Filed under Politics - National.

Mary Katharine Ham explains what it means…

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iCcV4cddqYI[/youtube]

By the way, the House Democrat caucus voted overwhelmingly against La Grande Compromise (just as predicted).

December 7, 2010

Orville Redenbacher Never Had It So Good

by @ 20:41. Filed under Politics - National.

It’s hard to know exactly how to respond to the “compromise” reached by Obama and the Republicans on extending the current tax rates.  On the one hand, it’s a lot of fun watching the lefties lose all hope and be willing to vote to change Obama.  In some ways, I fee sorry for them.  Their looks are probably similar to the looks many of us conservatives had as Bush talked about immigration amnesty or nominated Harriet Miers to the Supreme Court.  However, my pity doesn’t prevent me from wanting to get one of those big, refillable buckets of popcorn and watching the event.  Heck, I’ve even contemplated what conflagration grenade Boehner or McConnell could toss in so that we could watch a full meltdown!

On the other hand I think, “what a missed opportunity!”  Obama was in a no win situation.  He knew that if he didn’t get a deal done now, the new Congress would have enough votes and public support, to extend the rates, perhaps permanently.  In that case, he would have the choice of vetoing the bill and dealing with that public relations mess or signing it and putting a permanent “don’t mind me” stamp on his forehead.  For that reason, I am challenged by the Republicans agreement to extend the unemployment benefits.  It’s going to be a long two years if this is how Boehner and McConnell do political calculating.

I don’t know what the exact reason was; attempt to gain favor with Obama, concern about public relations or sheer miscalculation but the Republicans could have gotten their tax rate extension with nothing added to it.  In fact, if Obama had pressed the issue of the unemployment benefits and assuming that the Republicans weren’t willing to face the stand off for principle, they should have made a counter offer.  In exchange for the increased unemployment, Obama would immediately remove all drilling moratoriums he had put in place.  The Republicans explanation, after all of the sputtering, would be that the unemployment extension was unfunded.  Nancy Pelosi herself has been telling us for two years how we should work on a “pay-go” basis.  While the best situation would have been to cut spending in the budget so the benefits would be deficit neutral, the second best option would be to remove the moratoriums which would have multiple benefits.  First, it would actually do something to increase employment, as opposed to the nothing but talk that Obama does about the topic.  Second, if you haven’t noticed, oil and gas prices have been going up again.  Folks, we haven’t even seen the US with much more then a faint economic pulse.  If/when the economy becomes a last mile of a marathon, heart pounding rate, the demand for oil is going to push gas well past the $4 mark.  Oh, and more expensive energy means more expensive food and more expensive other things.

The Republicans could have gotten more, much more for their deal.  That said, I hear the microwave beeping.  I think my first bucket of popcorn is ready.  Who’s head would you bet will explode first?

Doing the Wave!

by @ 19:34. Filed under Health Care Reform, Politics - National.

Jamie Dupree is reporting that the waivers from provisions of Placebocare continue to roll up on shore.

The Obama Administration has quietly granted even more waivers to one provision of the new federal health reform law, doubling the number in just the last three weeks to a new total of 222.

Amongst the new grantees are Waffle House and Universal Orlando.

These new grantees bring a particularly poignant irony to the debate over the merits of Placebocare.

In the case of both Waffle House and Universal Orlando, the companies were providing “mini-med” insurance policies. These policies cover medical conditions similar to how other major medical plans provide coverage. They differ from traditional plans in that they have an annual maximum that is typically much lower than a traditional plan. By providing a lower maximum payout, insurance companies are able to mitigate risk they would have on these plans. If they have less risk, it costs them less to provide the coverage. If it costs them less, they are able to charge lower premiums.

If you remember, among the various reasons we were told that Placebocare was required was that there were many, many people who didn’t have insurance and that market forces were unable to provide for these people. In the case of both Waffle House and Universal Orlando (as well as other companies like McDonald’s) they were providing insurance options for people who traditionally have few insurance options; part time workers. However, Placebocare, in its attempt to force compliance on all, mandates that insurance policies can no longer have any annual or lifetime caps on coverage. The result is that without the exemption, companies like Waffle House and Universal Orlando would no longer be able to offer their current coverage which would mean that their employees would have no coverage at all.

Oh, those mean employers! I mean, who would want a policy that has a smaller annual cap? Who wouldn’t want a cadillac plan? Young, part time workers, that’s who. Think about it. Young people are typically the healthiest amongst us. They don’t tend to get major major illnesses which are what drive the high annual or lifetime caps. However, being young and especially if they are part time workers, even a single medical issue like a broken bone, could cause them severe financial challenges. In the competitive world of labor, Waffle House, Universal Orlando, McDonalds and others saw this need and in order to obtain and maintain quality talent, found a market based solution to solve the problem. A market based solution that would no longer exist without the waiver and will no longer exist after the year waiver is up!

Hey, wait. I thought we could keep our coverage if we liked it?

Wednesday Hot Read – Nathan Gonzales’ “Russ Couldn’t Re-Create ’92 Magic”

by @ 18:39. Filed under Politics - National, Politics - Wisconsin.

(H/T – Kevin Binversie, whose critique is also worth reading, and not just because he was on the Ron Johnson campaign)

Where do I begin with the teaser for Nathan Gonzales’ post-mortem on Roll Call? I’ll go with the section titled The Redefinition of Russ:

“We zoned in on those two things and had the ammunition from the last two years with Obama,” said Johnson’s media consultant, Curt Anderson, Wes Anderson’s brother, who worked at the National Republican Senatorial Committee in 1992 when Feingold defeated Kasten.

Curt Anderson said the Johnson team believed Feingold’s independence was based on some “inconsequential votes.”…

But in an election in which voters were most concerned about the economy, Republicans focused on Feingold’s votes for the $787 billion economic stimulus bill, health care reform and Obama’s budget.

Democrats admit that instead of rewriting history and distorting Feingold’s record, Republicans were able to focus on what they believe he is now. By the end of the race, Feingold’s greatest strength was sapped.

It also helped us (and didn’t help the Democrats) that, much like the Republicans 4 years earlier, they refused to believe they were in serious trouble. From Kevin:

Out in DC last week, I had more than a few conversations with friends and a few web journalists (Off-the-record in those cases) who covered the race on the road with the Feingold campaign. Many of them told me they were amazed at how Democrats in Wisconsin were unwilling to accept the bad environment in front of them [Slate’s Dave Weigel personally told me out-going State Senator Pat Kreitlow (D-Chippewa Falls) told him he was going to win his race. On Election night, Kreitlow lost to Terry Moulton 54% to 46%.].

Arrogance plus liberalism kills politically.

« Older Entries
Newer Entries »

[No Runny Eggs is proudly powered by WordPress.]