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.

March 6, 2010

Sean Duffy endorsed by the 7th District Republican caucus

by @ 19:36. Filed under Politics - Wisconsin.

This came in today from the Sean Duffy campaign:

Wisconsin’s 7th Congressional District Republican Party today voted in overwhelming numbers to officially endorse Ashland County District Attorney Sean Duffy as their choice to defeat Chairman David Obey in November.

Of those who voted to endorse, Sean Duffy received 406 delegate votes, or 84 percent of the vote to Dan Mielke’s 78 delegate votes, or 16 percent of the vote.

“I’m humbled and extremely grateful to Republicans in the 7th District for their official endorsement. I’ve never seen the Party more unified or more energized. Our positive message of job creation and fiscal responsibility has clearly resonated,” said District Attorney Duffy. “Dave Obey’s big government spending spree has mortgaged our children’s future, slowed our economic recovery and driven American into record debt. The contrast between us is clear and simple – Obey puts his faith in government bureaucrats, and I put my faith in the American people.”

The Duffy for Congress Campaign has raised a record $400,000 – twice as much as any previous Obey challenger raised in an entire election cycle – while being highlighted by the Wall Street Journal and National Review Online, and named by the Washington Independent as the #3 conservative in America to watch in 2010.

Sean Duffy was first elected as Ashland County District Attorney in 2002 and has served in that role for seven years. As District Attorney, Duffy has aggressively compiled a 90 percent conviction rate. He is three-time World Champion Lumberjack athlete, ESPN Outdoor Games analyst, and former MTV Real World cast member.

Good luck Sean.

Weekend Hot Read – Tom Blumer’s “Should the ‘Smarties’ Really Be Put in Charge of Health Care?”

Tom Blumer’s latest column at Pajamas Media uses the history of Social Security, Medicare, and Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac to knock down the continuing myth that liberals are smarter than everybody else, as well as explode the idea that the federal government be awarded the remainder of the health care system. Since my acquired “specialty” is Social Security, I’ll give you the meat of that portion of the beatdown:

Yet the reported $7.677 trillion liability shows that it’s still nowhere near enough to meet future promises, primarily because:

  • FDR and his smarties didn’t build the improved life expectancy of future generations into the program. If they had, today’s normal retirement age would be somewhere between 70 and 75, instead of its current 66-67, depending on one’s year of birth.
  • The method of indexing chosen in the mid-1970s has caused benefits to go up faster than the real living standards of everyone else, and has subtly changed the program’s perceived purpose from preventing destitution to providing the means to ensure a lower middle-class lifestyle.
  • The smarties also didn’t anticipate lower birth rates that were already occurring, and which were then dampened even further almost 40 years later by legalized abortion. As a result, at the end of 2008 there were less than 2.6 employed workers for each Social Security beneficiary (143.3 million divided by 55.8 million).
  • Additionally, as shown in several previous columns (one is here), the so-called Social Security “trust fund” has been wantonly raided for the past 40 years and used to pay for the government’s everyday operations. The “trust fund” contains virtually nothing except $2-plus trillion in IOUs from the rest of the government, which is itself trillions of dollars in debt.

Because of all of this, even the astronomical taxes noted earlier have been less than benefits paid for most of the past year — and it’s going to get worse. The crisis that supposedly didn’t exist in 2005 is here. Thanks, smarties.

The bad news is that is the good news, and that was based mostly on the Trustees’ look at the long-term health of Social Security from last year. Medicare’s unfunded liabilities are much worse – $38.1 trillion (again, as of last year), while Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac, which aren’t even accounted for in the Treasury Department’s 2009 Financial Report, lost $100 billion last year and may end up costing the government between $1 trillion and $5 trillion in losses.

A bonus item from Tom’s tease back at BizzyBlog – that employed/beneficiary ratio dropped from 2.56 (rounded up to 2.6 in the column) at the end of 2008 to 2.39 at the end of January 2010, and is likely to worsen through the end of the year.

March 5, 2010

CBO estimate of the FY2011-FY2020 deficits – $9.761 trillion

by @ 22:59. Filed under Politics - National.

I guess we could call this part 2 to the prior post on the long-term situation of the government. The Congressional Budget Office scored Obama’s FY2011 budget, and the picture is not pretty. The summary of deficits:

  • FY2010 – $1,500 billion (which The Hill notes is $56 billion less than the White House Office of Management and Budget estimate due to the CBO estimating less spending – H/T Zip)
  • FY2011 – $1,341 billion (versus OMB’s $1,267 billion)
  • FY2012 – $915 billion (versus OMB’s $828 billion)
  • FY2013 – $747 billion (versus OMB’s $727 billion)
  • FY2014 – $724 billion (versus OMB’s $706 billion)
  • FY2015 – $793 billion (versus OMB’s $752 billion)
  • FY2016 – $894 billion (versus OMB’s $778 billion)
  • FY2017 – $940 billion (versus OMB’s $778 billion)
  • FY2018 – $1,001 billion (versus OMB’s $785 billion)
  • FY2019 – $1,152 billion (versus OMB’s $908 billion)
  • FY2020 – $1,253 billion (versus OMB’s $1,003 billion)

The total sum of the deficits as estimated by the CBO is $9,761 billion (or $9.761 trillion), versus the OMB’s $8,532 billion estimate. That is attributable to a higher estimate of tax revenue by the OMB; both the OMB and CBO estimate that there will be about $45 trillion in government spending over the next 10 years.

Further, I note that, while the bulk of the Bush tax cuts would be allowed to expire (something the Government Accountability Office does not assume in its “alternate” scenario touched on in the prior post), and discretionary spending is lower than in the baseline (due entirely to lowered spending in defense), the increased costs of PlaceboCare make the overall picture in FY2020 look quite a bit like the free-spending “alternate”, which assumes discretionary spending remains at the bloated 8.7% GDP. Indeed, the cost of “mandatory” spending and net interest would be roughly 94.7% of the entire tax take of the federal government, higher than said GAO “alternate” (approximately 93%) or the pre-budget “baseline” (81.7%).

GAO – Unfunded liabilities over the next 75 years – $41.1-$76.4 trillion

by @ 15:03. Filed under Politics - National.

Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI) and the Republicans on the House Budget Committee point to a pair of publications from the Treasury Department and the Government Accountability Office that both show that the amount of unfunded liabilities going completely off the charts. I’ll focus on the GAO report, mostly because it is less than a tenth the size of the Treasury Department one, but also because the GAO can’t render an opinion on the bulk of the Treasury Department one because of “widespread material internal control weaknesses”.

Before I really delve into the GAO’s January 2010 update on “The Federal Government’s Long-Term Fiscal Outlook”, I have to briefly explain the two major scenarios they use; the “Baseline Extended” and the “Alternate”. Both are based on the Congressional Budget Office’s January 2010 10-year baseline. The major difference on the revenue side is the Baseline Adjusted assumes that the expiring tax cuts (both Bush’s and Obama’s) expire on schedule and the Alternate Minimum Tax does not get indexed for inflation (the indexing currently must be done by Congress yearly), then continue to be at 20.2% of GDP (the 2020 level) after 2020, while the Alternate assumes that the tax cuts continue through 2020 and the AMT continues to be indexed through 2020, then adjust to the 40-year historical average of 18.1% of GDP. On the spending side, unlike the Baseline Extended, the Medicare “Doc Fix” (again, done by Congress yearly) continues to be done, the refundable portion of tax credits due to expire don’t through 2020, and discretionary spending goes up at the rate of economic growth (or a constant 8.7% of GDP, versus the Baseline Extended assumption of going up by the rate of inflation through 2020 then remaining at 6.7% of GDP).

Under the Baseline Extended scenario, which the GAO notes has revenues higher than historical average and discretionary spending below historical average, the unfunded liability over the next 75 years is $41.1 trillion. That compares very unfavorably to the fall 2009 estimate of $36.1 trillion in unfunded liability. Of note, the GAO says that either taxes would immediately need to go up 24.2% and remain that much higher than their projections throughout the next 75 years, which would leave taxes at 25.3% of GDP by 2020, or discretionary spending be immediately reduced by 20.0% and remain down at that level throughout the next 75 years, to close that gap.

However, we know that government will not allow spending to grow by only the rate of inflation; hence the Alternate scenario is operative. The GAO notes that both revenues and discretionary spending under that scenario are roughly the same as their historical averages. Under that scenario, the unfunded liability over the next 75 years is $76.4 trillion. That’s right – a $1 trillion deficit every year for the next 75 years. That is also a $14.3 trillion increase in unfunded liabilities since last fall, when it was $62.1 trillion.

Some items of note from Ryan and the House Republicans on the Budget Committee:

  • By 2020, roughly 93 cents of every dollar of Federal revenue will be spent on major
    entitlement programs and net interest costs.
  • By 2030, net interest payments on the Federal Government’s accumulating debt will
    exceed 8 percent of gross domestic product [GDP] – making them the largest single
    expenditure in the Federal budget.
  • To close the fiscal gap today, the government would have to immediately raise taxes by
    50.5 percent (note, that would raise the tax take beyond 2020 to 27.2% of GDP), or cut non-interest spending by 34.2 percent.
  • If no action is taken in the next 10 years, in 2020 the government would have to raise
    taxes by 60.7 percent (or to 29.1% of GDP), or cut noninterest spending by 40.2 percent

Figures 3 and 4 in the GAO report, which outline revenues and composition of spending under the Baseline Extended and Alternate scenarios respectively, are must-sees. Even under the Baseline Extended model, spending on interest, Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid will exceed total revenues by 2040. It’s worse under the Alternate scenario – the major entitlements and interest will exceed total revenues long before 2030, and Social Security alone plus interest will exceed total revenues in 2040.

For those of you who think that the problem is low revenues, I decided to mash the Baseline Extended revenue projection into the Alternate spending chart, which is the most-likely scenario given that the majority of “Republican” Senators refused to find $10 billion in a $3,600 billion budget to cut to pay for a month’s worth of additional unemployment benefits.

Jobs seasoning

by @ 11:26. Filed under Economy.

Tom Blumer took a look beyond the “seasonally-adjusted” job loss of 36,000 in February, and it just doesn’t add up:

The red-boxed 473,000 jobs added in February was a really poor result. It trailed the 2004-2008 average of 714,000 by about 240,000. January’s actual result was only 72,000 worse than the 2004-2008 average. That’s 168,000-job swing in the wrong direction.

Even though February 2010’s +473,000 is less than 2008’s +516,000, the seasonally adjusted job loss for February of -36,0000 — the one number the press and everyone else will singularly focus on — is less than 2008’s -50,000. Why? Because the 2009 disaster is mucking up the seasonal adjustment calculations, making the +473K look better than +516K, when it obviously isn’t.

As Tom asked, “If, according to you guys, we were in a recession in February 2008 (an assertion I have disagreed with since NBER made the call that it began in December 2007), when the economy added a lackluster (by traditional February standards) 516,000 jobs, what do you call it when February 2010 sees 43,000 fewer jobs added?”

Lest one says that it’s because there were fewer jobs in 2010 than in 2008, let’s first take a look at the actual number of jobs in January 2008 (135,840,000) versus the number of jobs in January 2010 (127,606,000), and see what the percentage increases between January and February in both years were. The rate of job-number change between 1/2008-2/2008 was +0.380%. The rate of job-number change between 1/2010-2/2010 was +0.371%.

Next, let’s compare that to the “seasonally-adjusted” job-number change for the same time frames. In January 2008, there were 137,941,000 “seasonally-adjusted” jobs, with a drop of 50,000 “seasonally-adjusted” jobs in February 2008, for a rate of job-number change between 1/2008-2/2008 of -0.0362%. In January 2010, there were 129,562,000 “seasonally-adjusted” jobs, with a drop of 36,000 “seasonally-adjusted” jobs in February 2010, for a rate of job-number change between 1/2010-2/2010 of -0.0278%.

In short, despite what the chattering class says, the jobs market is not even at the point where it was near the “start” of the recession, much less its average between 2004 and 2008. Indeed, there were fewer jobs in February 2010 than there were in any other February since at least 2000 (note; the BLS statistics I’m relying on only go back to 1/2000).

To be fair, I do have to note that the February low in the 2000’s happened in 2003, when there were 128,660,000 actual (non-adjusted) jobs, and that month’s 412,000 improvement from January 2003 was weaker. However, unlike 2003, the immediate-future tax and regulatory climate is much worse now.

Revisions/extensions (3:00 pm 3/5/2010) – Corrected part of the quoted post from Tom since he corrected it on BizzyBlog.

Friday Hot Read – Charles Krauthammer’s “Why the Health Care Bill is a Failure”

I don’t believe I can do a better job than Charles Krauthammer explaining the failure of PlaceboCare. I’ll “borrow” the part where Krauthammer explains why the sum is worse than the parts:

Allow me to demystify. Imagine a bill granting every American a free federally delivered ice cream every Sunday morning. Provision 2: steak on Monday, also home delivered. Provision 3: A dozen red roses every Tuesday. You get the idea. Would each individual provision be popular in the polls? Of course.

However (life is a vale of howevers) suppose these provisions were bundled into a bill that also spelled out how the goodies are to be paid for and managed — say, half a trillion dollars in new taxes, half a trillion in Medicare cuts (cuts not to keep Medicare solvent but to pay for the ice cream, steak and flowers), 118 new boards and commissions to administer the bounty-giving, and government regulation dictating, for example, how your steak was to be cooked. How do you think this would poll?

Perhaps something like 3-1 against, which is what the latest CNN poll shows is the citizenry’s feeling about the current Democratic health care bills.

However, I do disagree that the body blow was how to pay for it. The Senate had before it, at a point when they needed absolutely no Republican support and no need for what Michelle Malkin has aptly called “Wreconciliation”, a bill that did everything the Left has ever wanted out of PlaceboCare but one “minor” detail – full federal funding for and a mandate on private insurance to provide abortion-on-demand. In order to get that into PlaceboCare, they sacrificed the official public “option” (with no real change in the cost), shifted a big part of the payment of the costs from “the rich” to businesses deemed to be too generous with their health-care plans, and threw in so much bribery that the House initially blanched at taking it up.

Third Annual Wisconsin Defending the American Dream Summit – 3/12-3/13

by @ 6:59. Filed under Defending the American Dream.

If it’s March, it’s time for the Wisconsin Defending the American Dream Summit. The third edition will be held at the Chula Vista Resort, primarily the 90,000-square-foot Wisconsin Dells Center, on Friday, March 12, and Saturday, March 13. Tickets are $39.99, and are available at this link.

While most of the activities will happen on Saturday, there is an opening reception Friday night. The list of confirmed speakers is rather impressive:

Vicki McKenna – WISN Radio, WIBA Radio
Lord Christopher Monckton – Columnist, inventor, and Advisor to Margaret Thatcher
Honorable James Sensenbrenner – Wisconsin 8th District
Herman Cain – Author, Radio Talk Show Host
Steve Moore – Wall Street Journal
Grover Norquist – Americans for Tax Reform
John Fund – Wall Street Journal
Tim Phillips – President Americans for Prosperity
Mark Block – AFP Wisconsin State Director
J.B. Van Hollen – Wisconsin Attorney General
Joe Wurzelbacher – “Joe The Plumber”
Eric O’Keefe – CEO, Sam Adams Alliance
Linda Hansen – Wisconsin Prosperity Network
Tim Nerenz – The Oldenburg Group
Niger Innis – Congress of Racial Equality
Dr. David Gratzer – Author, The Cure
Debra Waller – Chairman & CEO, Jockey International
Phil Kerpen – Nat.l Policy Director, AFP
Paul Driessen – APR, Esq.
Pat Synder – WSAU Radio
Fred Kelly Grant – Author, Justice My Ass
Michael Reagan – National Talk Show Host and son of President Ronald Reagan

Be there.

Hope, change, return to military commissions

(H/T – Ed Morrissey)

The Washingotn Post is reporting that key advisers in the Obama administration are set to recommend that Attorney General Eric Holder be overridden and the trials of Khalid Sheik Mohammed and several others be conducted in the military tribunal system instead of civilian courts.

It remains to be seen whether the expiration of this particular promise to the Islamokazi-appeasing Left is due more to the incredible amount of bipartisan (original meaning) backlash it has caused or a cynical deal to unexpire the promise to close Club Gitmo.

American Jihadists

If you hear the word “jihad,” what comes to mind?  Outside of an immediate thought of “Islam,” how about one of this: 

A crusade or struggle characterized by the participants willingness to sacrifice their own lives for the benefit of said crusade or struggle.

It’s now apparent that the Democrat leadership of President Obama, Nancy Pelosi and Harry, dancing on another 36,000 job deaths, Reid, have decided to do anything and everything they can to pass Placebocare.  Which version or what is actually contained in Placebocare doesn’t even matter to them anymore.  They will enact any version or combination of the government takeover of health care that they can find enough votes or contrivance of procedures to get it passed. 

The vehicle that is getting the most focus for enacting Placebocare is via reconciliation.  For the life of me I can’t figure out how they use reconciliation as there isn’t a bill that both Houses are working on.  In my mind, the only way to get Placebocare passed, as things stand today, is to convince the House to pass the Senate bill just as it stands.

Whether the Democrats attempt reconciliation, pass the Senate bill or use some other mechanism, the implications on their November prospects are the same; Horrible!  Note the following quotes and polls:

“What the President is really asking House Democrats to do is hold hands, jump off a cliff and hope Harry Reid catches them,” Sen. Lamar Alexander (R-Tenn.), chairman of the Senate Republican Conference said.  “And, Harry Reid will have no incentive to catch them because by the time he gets to the reconciliation bill, the President will have already signed the health care bill into law.”

“It was another emphatic denunciation by [Democratic Rep. Stephanie] Herseth Sandlin of the reconciliation process, a controversial technique allowing Democratic leadership in the Senate to bypass an otherwise required 60-vote super majority. And it also was a clear rejection of the Senate version of health-care reform, approved when Democrats still had the 60 votes needed for a super majority.” (Kevin Woster, “Herseth Sandlin says no to Senate health bill, reconciliation,” Rapid City Journal, 03/04/10)

House Democrats have said they don’t trust the Senate to actto make changes to the Senate bill, which the House would likely have to pass before they’re able to take up a new bill to make changes to that original legislation.” (Michael O’Brien, “Stabenow: House and Dems hammering out final health bill details,” The Hill, 03/04/10)

 “… 48 percent saying lawmakers should work on an entirely new bill and a quarter saying Congress should stop all work on health care reform.” (Paul Steinhauser, “CNN Poll: Health care provisions popular but overall bills unpopular,” CNN, 02/24/10)

Even Howard Dean, no shrinking violet when it comes to larger government and bureaucratic controls, recognizes that budget gimmickry of Placebocare will cause the Democrats pain not only in 2010 but also in the 2012 election:

“The plan, as it comes from the Senate, hangs out every Democrat who’s running for office to dry — including the president, in 2012, because it makes him defend a plan that isn’t in effect essentially yet,” Dean said during an appearance on the liberal Bill Press Radio Show.

With the heated, negative perception of Placebocare, even amongst the Democrats themselves, a reasonable question would be, “Why, if the results are surely political death, would Obama, Pelosi and Reid push for the passage of Placebocare?”  The answer is very straight forward; the Democrat leadership is perfectly willing to commit political suicide for themselves and all those around them, if they are able to move their crusade forward.  Obama, Pelosi and Reid are American jihadists.

If you believe that my use of the term “jihadist” is nothing but hyperbole, you haven’t been paying attention.  Look at the words of Nancy Pelosi.  Numerous publications including the WSJ, have reported Pelosi telling members of her caucus that she is willing to lose seats if they can pass Placebocare.  More to the point, were the Democrats to lose the number of seats that they are now estimated to lose, Pelosi herself would certainly lose the Speaker position.

One of the confounding challenges of combating Islamic jihadists is that they don’t fear their own death.  In fact, Islamic jihadists are told that they will garner a great reward in the afterlife if they sacrifice their physical bodies.  In like manner, the Democrats are willing to sacrifice their political lives to ensure the securing a key victory in their crusade.  President Obama and Nancy Pelosi have been working hard to ensure the House jihadists that they too will receive great rewards should they lose their political life.

In the end, whether Placebocare succeeds or fails in the House will depend on one thing; will the House members choose the life they know or will they choose the rewards promised them in their political afterlife?

March 4, 2010

Thursday Hot Read – Andrew C. McCarthy’s “AWOL in the Bunning Battle”

by @ 16:29. Filed under Health Care Reform, Politics - National.

(H/T – Michelle Malkin)

Andrew McCarthy unloaded on the Senate “Republicans” who dumped all over Sen. Jim Bunning (R-KY) for daring to ask that, in a budget of $3,600 billion, that $10 billion in excessive spending (or 0.28%) be found to pay for a month’s extension of unemployment benefits that were already extended from 6 months to 15-17 months depending on the state:

In sum, Bunning’s battle gave Republicans a chance to make points about runaway deficit spending, the fraudulence of PAYGO posturing, the foolish redistribution of wealth to create expensive and unproductive government jobs, unemployment-benefit extensions that Democrats refuse to pay for and that actually increase unemployment, and the monstrous rationing that would be wrought by Obamacare. So, did Republicans rally behind Bunning? Not a chance.

Why? Why abandon this fight when the GOP has the facts on its side? Why no enthusiasm when a year of Obama’s forced march to crony socialism has the public more receptive than ever to the case for slashing government? Simple: Republicans are afraid of being demagogued — as Democrats and the media demagogued Bunning — as wanting to cut off funding (i.e., money we don’t have) for unemployment insurance and the usual laundry list of other Big Government baubles like COBRA coverage, satellite TV dishes, the “highway trust fund,” etc. Republicans also did not want their own sorry PAYGO history rehashed.

Here’s the sad truth: For all the shining they did at last week’s White House “summit” on health care, when it gets down to actually putting the brakes on the Big Gummint Express, most of today’s Republicans are AWOL. They’re great at the debate society. But making the fight on something concrete, really saying no when it means grinding redistribution to a halt, means taking the slings and arrows. No thanks, they say, let’s just make the whole thing go away on a voice vote, the sooner the better. Indeed, while Senator Bunning should be lauded for engaging this fight, it is telling that he took it on only after deciding not to seek reelection.

In a Corner post this past weekend called “Transformation,” I dissented from the heady palaver on the Right about how Democrats are headed for a November Waterloo. I think the Left has already factored in the inevitability of setbacks — perhaps heavy setbacks — in the next few election cycles. While our side swoons over the prospect, the statists coldly calculate that these losses are a price well worth paying in order to impose a transformative takeover of the economy.

It is a perfectly rational calculation for two reasons.

First, with a significantly bigger and more powerful government bureaucracy, there will be many avenues for leadership to reward Democrats who lose their seats after casting the unpopular votes necessary to enact the Left’s program. White House chief of staff Rahm Emanuel, who spent his post-Clinton wilderness months in a lucrative sinecure at Freddie Mac, knows well how this game works — and, under Obama’s command, the economy is becoming one big Freddie.

Second, and more important, Democrats know the electoral setbacks will only be temporary. They are banking on the assurance that Republicans merely want to win elections and have no intention of rolling back Obamacare, much less of dismantling Leviathan.

For my money (while I still have some), that’s an eminently sound bet. The Bunning battle, in which the GOP was nowhere to be found, is the proof. Bunning just wanted Congress to live within its gargantuan means. Yet, the Washington Post ridiculed him: “angry and alone, a one-man blockade against unemployment benefits, Medicare payments to doctors, satellite TV to rural Americans and paychecks to highway workers.” That’s outrageously unfair, but it is a day at the beach compared to the Armageddon that would be unleashed upon any attempt to undo Obama’s welfare state on steroids.

As it turns out, Republicans didn’t have the stomach for a fight over wealth transfers that plainly exacerbate the problem of unemployment. Why would anyone think they’d take on a far more demanding war, in which Democrats and the legacy media would relentlessly indict them for “denying health insurance to millions of Americans”?

Even if the GOP gets a majority for a couple of cycles, even if President Obama is defeated in his 2012 reelection bid, Obamacare will be forever. And once the public sees that the GOP won’t try to dismantle Obamacare, it will lose any enthusiasm for Republicans. Democrats will eventually return to power, and it will be power over a much bigger, much more intrusive government.

The historical strategy of the Left has been to create a new Leviathan growth of Socialist government every 30 years, stave off defeat of said Leviathan until it becomes so ingrained into the culture that even those that would have worked to kill it both before it its creation and during its infancy accept its place in the culture (which usually takes 15-20 years), then repeat the cycle.

March 3, 2010

Number of the day – $100,005

by @ 17:29. Filed under Education, Politics - Milwaukee.

The MacIver News Service reports on the average compensation at Milwaukee Public Schools:

2009-2010 school year (aka FY2010) – $56,500 in salary, $95,316 including benefits
2010-2011 school year – $56,500 in salary, $100,005 including benefits (or a 4.92% increase overall)

Meanwhile, according to the Census Bureau, the median per-capita income between 2006 and 2008 in the city was $19,092, with the median family income $42,950. I doubt the average resident in the private sector had $40,000 in benefits to boost their total compensation, or the equivalent of 12 weeks of vacation.

Californication of the House continues – Stark in for Rangel – UPDATE – Levin in for Stark

by @ 13:30. Filed under Politics - National.

Fox News is reporting that while Rep. Charlie Rangel (D-NY) takes a “leave of absence” from his House Ways and Means Committee chairmanship to rehab his image (actually, wait for the ethics clock to run out), Pete Stark (D-CA), who was “cleared” by the same “Ethics” Committee for essentially the same charges, will take over for him.

Fox notes that places Californians at the head of all three of the committees that will deal with PlaceboCare 4.1 (the aforementioned Stark “temporarily” heading Ways and Means, Henry Waxman running Energy and Commerce, and George Miller running Education and Labor), as well as a fourth major committee (Howard Berman running Foreign Affairs), and said “Ethics” Committee (Zoe Lofgren).

Guess it’s time to to dip into the video vault…

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

Revisions/extensions (7:37 pm 3/3/2010) – Roger L. Simon lists just some of the lowlights of Stark’s raving madness. As Simon says, “Do these Democrats have a death wish? Have they gone completely bonkers? Or did Nancy Pelosi’s plastic surgeon misfire and accidentally inject the Botox into her brain?”

R&E part 2 (2:35 pm 3/5/2010) – It’s now Rangel ally Sander Levin “in charge”. As Ed notes, it’s actually SanFranNan and Chris Van Hollen that run Ways and Means.

First partisan endorsement of 2010 – Dave Thompson for MN-36

by @ 11:47. Filed under Politics - Minnesota.

For those of you around the Twin Cities who don’t know who Dave Thompson is, I’ll point you to the bio page for his State Senate campaign. Dave won the Republican endorsement for District 36, where Sen. Pat Pariseau is retiring, last week. He is solid on the issues, from taxes to school choice.

I’m sure Shoebox can, and will, provide a better rundown than I can. Good luck Dave, and may we be calling you Sen. Thompson this time next year.

Sorry about the lack of posts (again)

by @ 11:22. Filed under The Blog.

I’ve been under the weather the last couple days, and Shoebox is doing a rather long commute. Guess we should’ve called in the clans, especially since Erick Erickson decided to make the latest Obama video one of his must-reads of yesterday over at RedState.

Let’s see if I can get back in the swing of things. After all, we have the Doomsday Device being readied for detonation to pass PlaceboCare version 4.1, news that the federal entitlement spending has exceeded the total individual tax take, an attempt to extend unemployment another 9 or so months on top of the 18 months it’s already been extended, a call for $7/gallon gas, and a host of other items in my feed reader.

March 2, 2010

A face tells a thousand words

(H/T – Kevin Fischer)

I’m actually surprised that CNN ran with this short montage of Teh Won’s facial expressions while Republicans were making their points at the PlaceboCare “summit” last week….

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Si1Xec3elDU[/youtube]

As Kevin said, “Sure Obama wanted to listen to Republicans….really he did!” And we have a “slightly-used” bridge to sell you.

March 1, 2010

Will he or won’t he?

(H/T – Kevin Binversie)

There’s a new twist in the All My Thompsons saga – Poltico is reporting that Tommy Thompson has told his Washington-based law firm and key clients that he might indeed challenge Russ Feingold for his Senate seat this year. His former campaign manager, Bill McCoshen, told Politico that Thompson’s moves toward running are “more thoughtful and more deliberate” than those taken at any point since he departed the governor’s mansion in 2001.

Meanwhile, an anonymous ally, who says that Thompson would have at least $200,000 in donations waiting for him once he jumped in, says that it is now 70-30 that he jumps in, noting that Thompson has been asking operational questions in recent weeks.

On the other hand, his wife, Sue Ann, recently told Madison Magazine that she’s discouraging Tommy from running. Also, Thomspon has a few black marks, including being on record as supporting the Senate version of PlaceboCare.

Side note from the story – Milwaukee County Democratic Party chair Sachin Chheda noted that support would hurt Thompson in any election.

Also, I note that $200,000 isn’t exactly going to cut it in the money race. Feingold had over $3.6 million in the bank at the end of last year, and Terrence Wall, the more-moneyed of the two announced Republican challengers, raised about $240,000 not including loans to himself in his first 7 weeks.

Still, there’s the Rasmussen polls over the last 2 months that gave Thompson a margin-of-error lead over Feingold (while Feingold maintained a double-margin-of-error lead over both Wall and Dave Westlake), and the name recognition that Thompson still enjoys in Wisconsin.

The consensus in Wisconsin, from Kevin to Mary at Freedom Eden to Brad V at Letters in Bottles is that Thompson needs to make a decision soon, sooner than during the late-May GOP convention that was floated in the Politico article. Beyond the time aspect, which Wall and Westlake desperately need to get known, there’s the money aspect. If those with deep pockets (or at least deeper pockets than my empty ones) don’t know whether Thompson will or will not jump in until late-May, the cash that could have gone into this race will likely end up elsewhere.

I suppose I should fire up the polls on this one. While I didn’t include an expiration date on the poll, I will close it before the GOP convention if Thompson still hasn’t announced one way or the other.

Will Tommy Thompson run for US Senate in 2010?

Up to 1 answer(s) was/were allowed

  • Yes, and he should. (640%, 32 Vote(s))
  • No, and he shouldn't. (320%, 16 Vote(s))
  • Yes, but he shouldn't. (120%, 6 Vote(s))
  • I have no clue what Tommy's doing. (100%, 5 Vote(s))
  • Tommy who? (100%, 5 Vote(s))
  • No, but he should. (80%, 4 Vote(s))

Total Voters: 68

Loading ... Loading ...

The Definition of Bipartisan

by @ 5:26. Filed under Miscellaneous.

Nancy Pelosi wants the Placebocare bill passed.  She wants it passed so badly that she has lost any ability to think rationally about anything other than passing the bill.  As an example of Nancy’s irrationality, listen to this quote from CNN’s “State of the Union” on Sunday:

“They’ve had plenty of opportunity to make their voices heard.” “Bipartisanship is a two-way street. A bill can be bipartisan without bipartisan votes. Republicans have left their imprint.”

Bipartisan huh?  You mean like the amendments to prevent Placebocare from paying for abortions that were shot down?  That bipartisan?

Or maybe Pelosi means the amendments to add tort reform that were shot down.  Maybe that’s the bipartisan she refers to?

Oh wait, I know.  I’ll bet Nancy is referring to the bipartisan nature in the way Congress agreed to have the Placebocare plans impact themselves just like any other American.  Maybe that’s Nancy’s view of the bipartisan impact there has been on the bill?

If Pelosi’s definition of “bipartisanship” is the one that should be used rather than Websters, we’ll need to rewrite a few sections of history.

From now on, it will be understood that Germany’s invasion of Poland during WWII was actually a bipartisan effort. From now on it will be understood that West Germany influenced the erection of the Berlin wall enough to make it a bipartisan effort. Of course, it will forever more go with out saying that the US and its allies were wrong for using military force in Kuwait as the Iraqi occupation was bipartisan.

Representative John Kline spoke at the Republican convention I attended on Saturday.  To paraphrase Kline, he said that there was only one good thing coming out of Congress and that was that Pelosi was not going to be Speaker after this term.  That’s the kind of bipartisanship I can get behind!

If Placebocare passes via the reconcilliation path, it will need to originate in the House.  There is a lot of speculation as to whether Pelosi can whip the required number of votes to pass Placebocare out of the House.  While whether she does or not is yet to be seen, two things are certain, there will be no Republican votes passing it out of the House and there will be Democrat votes voting against it.  I doubt this is what she had in mind but Ms. Pelosi, the only thing bipartisan about the vote on Placebocare will be in those who oppose it.  I hope the bipartisan vote prevails!

February 26, 2010

Last call for Midwest?

by @ 17:35. Filed under Business.

Arriving at the story only 4 weeks after Mark Belling, the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel is now reporting that Republic Airways, owners of both Midwest Airlines and Frontier Airlines, is planning on a “unified” brand for the two airlines sometime after Labor Day. I’ll miss the name, mostly because of what it used to stand for.

I still remember my first flight on what was Midwest Express at the time – a midday trip to Cleveland in 1994. The soft-brown 2×2 leather seats on the DC-9, the complimentary glass of champagne, and the very-fresh sandwich offered (since it was a short flight, the full meal wasn’t an option) were all very nice. I guess it was inevitable that the best care in the air would be no more, but I didn’t expect the flight attendant on the Kansas City-to-Milwaukee leg of my return trip from CPAC to say that it was a Frontier flight before correcting herself.

February 25, 2010

Open Thread Thursday – the PlaceboCare Dog-and-Pony Show Version

by @ 7:58. Filed under Open Thread Thursday.

With Teh Won doing his kabuki theater on PlaceboCare 4.0 (even heavier on the abortion and taxes than the Senate version), it’s time for some hopeful thinking on its future (presented by Alice in Chains)…

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7WXUk4DC_XE[/youtube]

I’m sure I’ll have some backhanded Tweets on that “summit”. That said, the thread is yours.

February 24, 2010

Obama’s “solution” for SocSecurity – break another campaign promise

by @ 21:55. Filed under Social Security crater.

(H/T – Dad29)

Last week during his Henderson town hall meeting, Barack Obama floated the idea of getting rid of the cap on the FICA/SECA taxes that go toward Social Security as a way to make it solvent for a bit longer. As Dad29 notes, that would be a significant increase in the marginal tax rate (for those of you in Rio Linda or West Palm Beach, that’s the amount of tax paid on the last dollar made) for those making more than $106,800, which is a lot less than the $250,000 Obama promised would not see a single tax increase, including very-specifically a payroll tax increase. Specifically, it’s a 6.2-point increase for those with an employer (with said employer being dinged that same 6.2 percent), and a 12.4-point increase for the self-employed. Assuming the Bush tax cuts are allowed to expire on schedule, that would make the effective self-employed (i.e. small-business) top federal tax bracket 54.9%, and the employee top federal tax bracket 47.25%.

Item number two, almost thrown away, is an admission that Social Security is now likely to exhaust its combined “Trust Funds” somewhere around 2030, a significant move up from last year’s projection of 2037 (with the OASI fund projected to be exhausted in 2039 as of last year and the DI fund exhausted by the end of this decade). That would match the “high-cost” case from last year’s Trustee Report.

As for Obama’s claim that eliminating the cap would make Social Security solvent long into the future, let’s take a quick look at that. Assuming that it has no effect on on the economy, removing the cap would increase the FICA/SECA tax take by roughly 21%. Some very-back-of-the-envelope number-crunching refreshes my memory of a semi-forgotten study that found that lifting the cap entirely would only delay the inevitable decline and collapse of Social Security by roughly 15 years. Ever-so-conveniently, that would move fund exhaustion barely beyond Obama’s life expectency.

February 23, 2010

Poll-a-copia, February WI Governor’s edition

by @ 17:32. Filed under Politics - Wisconsin.

The February Rasmussen look-in at the Wisconsin governor’s race holds good news for Scott Walker, and not-as-good news for Mark Neumann and Tom Barrett. The raw numbers:

  • Walker 49%, Barrett 40%, undecided 10%, other 1% (compared to 48% Walker/38% Barrett/12% undecided/1% other last month)
  • Neumann 44%, Barrett 42%, undecided 10%, other 4% (compared to 42% Neumann/38% Barrett/13% undecided/7% other last month)

The reason why I call it good news for Walker despite a narrowing of the lead by a percentage point is two-fold:

  • He is now, within the margin of rounding, only one percentage point of hitting a majority, with his margin over Barrett twice the margin of the 4.5-point error.
  • His Favorability Index (the very-favorable less the very-unfavorable, taken from Rasmussen’s Presidential Approval Index) went up from +14 (29% very favorable/15% very unfavorable) last month to +18 (32%/14%). Significantly, he is the only candidate whose very-unfavorable percentage dropped.

Neumann has a harder road given a more-significant narrowing of his lead over Barrett. However, not only does he still have said lead, his Favorability Index improved from -1 (10% very favorable/11% very unfavorable) last month to +4 (18%/14%).

Barrett shares that same +4 Favorability Index (22% very favorable/18% very unfavorable), an improvement from his +2 (19%/17%) last month. That is buoyed by an improvement in the views of both Gov. Jim Doyle (overall approval margin up from -26 to -20, Approval Index up from -31 to -24) and President Barack Obama (overall approval margin up from -8 to -5, Approval Index up from -20 to -11).

Talking to Four Year Olds – Dessert Edition

Regardless of the age, kids don’t understand the importance of healthy eating habits.  From early on, and yet today, Thing 1 and Thing 2 are “compartment” eaters.  The Things eat all of one item, say their vegetable, then the meat, then the starch.  If we sat their dessert on the table along with the rest of their meal, there is no doubt that they would eat that first.

The House Democrats had a plan to reform health care.  The Senate Democrats had a plan to reform health care.  While the plans varied on some details, we heard vociferous denials and objections from various Democrat leaders, including President Barack Obama, that there was no plan to “take over” health care.  They claimed time and again, that they just wanted to repair, fix or reduce the cost of it.

Today President Obama finally announced his plan for reforming health care.  Remember that neither the House or Senate plans were his and that every attempt to get him to explain the details of either of those plans was met with some variation of “he hasn’t released his plan.”

President Obama’s plan contains basically one item; price controls.  Pay no attention to anything else that he says about incorporating parts of the Senate, House or even Republican plans, they are moot.  With the simple act of controlling and dictating prices, President Obama will absorb national health care into the Federal government. 

By controlling the pricing structure, President Obama will force all of the other concessions that he wants:  Not including pre existing conditions; you won’t get that price increase.  Not reducing payments to physicians; you won’t get that price increase.  Using procedures that aren’t deemed acceptable; you won’t get that price increase.  Paying too much for people that have high cost health care; you won’t get the price increase etc. etc. etc.

When asked about the large loans provided to the auto manufacturers and the subsequent rules imposed on them by their Czar, President Obama claimed “I don’t want to run the auto companies.”  Saying that limiting premium increases is not controlling the insurance industry and in turn the medical industry, is just as disingenuous as his statement about the auto industry.

While we’ve taught our boys that they need to work the process, eat a good meal and they get dessert, President Obama has never learned this lesson.  Rather than eat a balanced meal, President Obama thinks his political life only exists to eat dessert.  I hope he has a good dental plan!

February 22, 2010

The FY2010 Social Security primary deficit now projected to be $34 billion

by @ 18:38. Filed under Social Security crater.

I could have also titled this Part 2 – I already reported that between February 2009 and January 2010 (or the first full 12 months of the Obama administration), Social Security posted a 12-month primary deficit in its combined OASDI “Trust Funds”. As part of a look into the numbers, I came across the Social Security appendix to the proposed FY2011 budget prepared by the White House Office of Budget and Management.

I draw your attention to the pair of tables titled “Status of Funds”, one found under the “Federal Old-Age and Survivors Insurance Trust Fund” section (pages 1214-1215 of the document) and the other found under the “Federal Disability Insurance Trust Fund” section (page 1216).

Last month, the Congressional Budget Office estimated the FY2010 Social Security primary deficit to be $28 billion, with the FY2011 primary deficit at $20 billion. The bad news is the OMB now predicts a primary deficit of $33.754 billion on total revenues of $793 billion, total outlays of $708.35 billion, and $118.404 billion of interest.

Given that the administration had planned on taking $21.028 billion from the “Trust Funds” to pay for the rest of government for FY2010, that represents a $54.782 billion unplanned addition to the deficit. At least they’re not counting on Social Security to run in the black for FY2011 – they project a $19.136 billion primary deficit in the combined funds, so the first $19 billion or so in deficits next year will be “accounted for”.

The ugly news is that the OASI “Trust Fund”, which has been running 12-month primary surpluses for all except one 12-month period (due to an unexplained crediting of payments to the DI fund in November 1994) since 1988, is expected to run a $2.934 billion deficit in FY2010 before (hopefully) recovering to a $12.152 billion primary surplus in FY2011. The DI fund began running 12-month primary deficits full-time in October 2005, and transitioned to an overall 12-month deficit in February 2009.

CPAC 2010 – Distant replay

by @ 8:53. Filed under CPAC.

First things first, I have to tip my hat to the host of CPAC, the American Conservative Union, and especially Lisa De Pasquale. They really outdid themselves with this year’s event, especially with sneaking former Vice President Dick Cheney in on Thursday.

I also have to tip my hat to Erick Erickson of RedState. That was simply the best Blog Row that I’ve been a part of – from access to the main hall (we had a balcony in the main hall plus the room behind it) to Internet access (always an issue at an event like this, but far less an issue this time).

If you’re looking for a comprehensive write-up, I must refer you to John Hawkins’ posts from Day 1, Day 2 and Day 3. I’m no good at lengthy write-ups, so my stream-of-consciousness thoughts from earlier in this category will pretty much have to suffice.

As Sen. Jim DeMint (R-SC) said, CPAC is a place to recharge the conservative soul. A big part of that is renewing acquaintances, of which I renewed many. Since I don’t have as good a memory as John, I’m sure I’ll miss a few (feel free to slap me upside the head if I forgot) – Sean Hackbarth, Kevin Binversie (for those who complain that the Wisconsin boys are first, talk to the hand), the aforementioned John Hawkins, Ed Morrissey, E.M. Zanotti, Dr. Melissa Clouthier (Chris, you’ve got competition in the mandatory hugs department), Katie Favazza, Jimmie Bise, Bruce Carroll Anita MonCrief, Robert Stacy McCain, Obi’s Sister, Fausta Wertz, Aaron Marks, Ali Akbar, Tabitha Hale, Mary Katharine Ham, Erik Telford, Kerry Pickett, Ericka Anderson from the House Republican Conference (Sean’s counterpart on the other end of the Capitol), Skye, and Doug Welch (who is Pinky unless he shouts it out first; then he’s the Brain). Also, as John noted, Michelle Malkin, who is now the Boss Emeritus with the sale of Hot Air to Salem, made a special appearance at BlogBash over at FreedomWorks, where Ed won the first of his two blog-related awards.

CPAC is not just about renewing acquaintances, it’s about making new ones. Just some of the people I finally got to meet were Nice Deb, Juliette Ochieng (BTW, I do recommend her book, Tale of the Tigers), Smitty (the other half of The Other McCain blogging team), Jenny Erikson, DaTechGuy, Sammy Benoit, Caleb Howe, Ben Howe, Breeanne Howe, Tommy Christopher (yes, I know, he’s left of center), Cheryl Prater, Dahlhalla, Sarah Peppel, Moe Lane (and again, if I forgot, hit me with something).

The overarching theme of CPAC this year was reducing the size and scope of government. Both the bulk of the speakers and the non-Presidential portion of the straw poll reflected that. The loudest applause lines were when the speakers spoke about slaying the leviathan (shameless plug for a friend, buy Slaying Leviathan: The Moral Case for Tax Reform).

I suppose I have to deal with that straw poll, specifically Ron Paul’s winning of the Presidential portion of it. One of the PaulNut groups brought in a massive amount of people for the purposes of stuffing the box (which closed early Friday afternoon) and hear Paul speak late Friday afternoon. That was reflected in the decidedly-negative reaction from the crowd when the results were announced.

Revisions/extensions (7:13 pm 2/23/2010) – I knew I’d forget somebody, and Moe is the vengeful type (well, not really, but you’ll have to read his wrap-up to get the joke).

February 21, 2010

Ron Paul wins CPAC Straw Poll?

by @ 13:38. Filed under Miscellaneous.

View Image

And where was Steve Egg when all this went down?

My guess is he arranged a group outing to a Liza concert that skewed the vote.

Go to fullsize image

[No Runny Eggs is proudly powered by WordPress.]