From the WA Times. This is what happens when a policy wonk doesn't get the cooperation he thinks he deserves.
"Obama administration officials say in all seriousness that the economy is better than it seems, if only people were smart enough to get it.
The same condescending attitude pervades portrayals of the midterm election as a "revolt of the masses," as if peasants wielding torches and copies of the Constitution were marching on the ivory towers of Washington."
...
"If there's one thing that progressives can never admit to themselves, it's their own unpopularity. So they seek solace in rationalization. This week, Vice President Joe Biden asserted that it was "just too hard to explain" the administration's many accomplishments, presumably because he thinks the American people are too unsophisticated to understand."
...
"It's not so much that the masses are revolting as that we are seeing the return of the traditional citizen legislator, the nonprofessional politician who comes to Washington for a brief round of public service before resuming a private life. It is the model of Cincinnatus and George Washington, of the Minutemen and Davy Crockett. The diverse group of new candidates standing in this election more accurately mirrors the American people than the doddering representatives of the ancien regime.
The coming election is not a contest between an all-knowing ruling class victimized by bad marketing and an ignorant mass of angry, misinformed troglodytes. It is a referendum on a vision of government and society in which the state seeks unlimited power to make decisions at the expense of the liberty of the people. It is a moment of decision on a failed experiment in governance. If the Obama administration's accomplishments are too complex to explain to the voters, if the beneficial effects of their policies are not self-evident, it may be time for them to question whether they have accomplished anything worthwhile at all."
According to Cass Sunsteen, there's a little bit of Homer Simpson in all of us--I just wonder if he knows that includes HIM.
Thursday, October 14, 2010
Sunday, September 26, 2010
Of Punching Hippies and Jumping Ship
From the NY Times opinion page.
"Summers, who, according to insiders, was the dominant voice in the administration’s economic policies, announced on Tuesday that he’s returning in January to Harvard (a place that, for him, may not be any less stressful than the White House); Axelrod, the man at the nexus of the Obama campaign in 2008, will leave Washington to start planning the president’s re-election campaign of 2012; and Emanuel, the hard-driving chief of staff, is playing it coy but is widely expected to depart and run for mayor of Chicago following the surprise announcement that Richard M. Daley will not seek another term."
...
"Apparently yes men and women, unwilling to challenge Obama’s basic assumptions or deliver inconvenient truths, are in high demand,” adds Jennifer Rubin at Commentary. “This peek at the White House’s circle-the-wagons mentality suggests that Obama is not one to reassess, clean house, and chart a new course after the midterms. It might take him out of his comfort zone. That’s bad news for the country, but music to the ears of the 2012 GOP presidential contenders."
...
"“The announced departure of Lawrence Summers as the president’s top economic adviser is welcome news … I expected the president to have kind words for a man who deserved none if he were to be fired. But Obama’s effusive praise on Tuesday went well beyond the requirements of professional pink-slip courtesy and suggests that he is still in denial over the role of key Democrats like Summers in getting us into this mess … Obama had absolutely nothing to do with the causes of the financial meltdown, but he wasted two precious years being misled by Summers and Geithner as to how to respond to it.”
Why did the guy who promised to change the whole system bring in the guys who are most wedded to the system?” asked Cenk Uygur at Huffington Post. “Why is Barack Obama obsessed with appeasing the establishment? Was he being completely disingenuous when he ran on change? How could he possibly have thought that Larry Summers or the corporate executive who might replace him would bring us real change?"
...
"When it comes to the biggest open mouth in the White House, Rahm Emanuel’s, the press is in a bit of a tizzy. “White House aides are preparing for the possibility that Rahm Emanuel may step down as chief of staff as soon as early October,” reported Time’s Michael Scherer. Not so, says Fox News: “The White House Monday dismissed as ‘ludicrous’ a report that Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel plans to leave his post after becoming frustrated with the Obama administration.” The Times’s Jeff Zeleny has a timetable: “So when will those boxes be packed? The best guess from many inside the West Wing is two weeks — or less.” Well, that doesn’t give progressive bloggers much time to think of fond farewells, does it?"
I think Obama is finding out the same thing Clinton did: to get anything done, you're going to have to learn to compromise and move to the right a little.
"Summers, who, according to insiders, was the dominant voice in the administration’s economic policies, announced on Tuesday that he’s returning in January to Harvard (a place that, for him, may not be any less stressful than the White House); Axelrod, the man at the nexus of the Obama campaign in 2008, will leave Washington to start planning the president’s re-election campaign of 2012; and Emanuel, the hard-driving chief of staff, is playing it coy but is widely expected to depart and run for mayor of Chicago following the surprise announcement that Richard M. Daley will not seek another term."
...
"Apparently yes men and women, unwilling to challenge Obama’s basic assumptions or deliver inconvenient truths, are in high demand,” adds Jennifer Rubin at Commentary. “This peek at the White House’s circle-the-wagons mentality suggests that Obama is not one to reassess, clean house, and chart a new course after the midterms. It might take him out of his comfort zone. That’s bad news for the country, but music to the ears of the 2012 GOP presidential contenders."
...
"“The announced departure of Lawrence Summers as the president’s top economic adviser is welcome news … I expected the president to have kind words for a man who deserved none if he were to be fired. But Obama’s effusive praise on Tuesday went well beyond the requirements of professional pink-slip courtesy and suggests that he is still in denial over the role of key Democrats like Summers in getting us into this mess … Obama had absolutely nothing to do with the causes of the financial meltdown, but he wasted two precious years being misled by Summers and Geithner as to how to respond to it.”
Why did the guy who promised to change the whole system bring in the guys who are most wedded to the system?” asked Cenk Uygur at Huffington Post. “Why is Barack Obama obsessed with appeasing the establishment? Was he being completely disingenuous when he ran on change? How could he possibly have thought that Larry Summers or the corporate executive who might replace him would bring us real change?"
...
"When it comes to the biggest open mouth in the White House, Rahm Emanuel’s, the press is in a bit of a tizzy. “White House aides are preparing for the possibility that Rahm Emanuel may step down as chief of staff as soon as early October,” reported Time’s Michael Scherer. Not so, says Fox News: “The White House Monday dismissed as ‘ludicrous’ a report that Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel plans to leave his post after becoming frustrated with the Obama administration.” The Times’s Jeff Zeleny has a timetable: “So when will those boxes be packed? The best guess from many inside the West Wing is two weeks — or less.” Well, that doesn’t give progressive bloggers much time to think of fond farewells, does it?"
I think Obama is finding out the same thing Clinton did: to get anything done, you're going to have to learn to compromise and move to the right a little.
Thursday, September 23, 2010
Two More Rats to Leave Sinking Ship
From CBS News.
"...David Axelrod, the president's closest advisor, will move to Chicago next spring.
Axelrod is expected to reassume his role as campaign manager in Mr. Obama's 2012 reelection bid. A potential, if not likely, replacement for Axelrod is current White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs.
The dominoes don't stop there. Rahm Emanuel, the president's Chief of Staff, may leave the White House as soon as next month."
It looks like Obama will be down to his B-team for the next 2 years.
"...David Axelrod, the president's closest advisor, will move to Chicago next spring.
Axelrod is expected to reassume his role as campaign manager in Mr. Obama's 2012 reelection bid. A potential, if not likely, replacement for Axelrod is current White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs.
The dominoes don't stop there. Rahm Emanuel, the president's Chief of Staff, may leave the White House as soon as next month."
It looks like Obama will be down to his B-team for the next 2 years.
Wednesday, September 22, 2010
Obama's Top Economic Advisor Leaving
From the Washington Post. One more rat leaving a sinking ship. The damage has been done, so there's no need for ANY of the economic team to hang around.
"President Obama's top economic adviser, Lawrence H. Summers, will step down as director of the National Economic Council after the November elections and return to a teaching post at Harvard University, the White House announced Tuesday.
The departure of Summers, 55, will complete the turnover of three of Obama's four top economic advisers as the administration struggles with the political fallout of a stubbornly weak economy."
"President Obama's top economic adviser, Lawrence H. Summers, will step down as director of the National Economic Council after the November elections and return to a teaching post at Harvard University, the White House announced Tuesday.
The departure of Summers, 55, will complete the turnover of three of Obama's four top economic advisers as the administration struggles with the political fallout of a stubbornly weak economy."
Tuesday, September 14, 2010
President Boo-Hoo
From Fox News.
"Finally, we know what President Obama’s initials stand for! He’s the Boo –HooO president! OK, that’s a little cheesy, but seriously, have we ever had a whinier leader of the free world? Most recently, and quite ungrammatically (it was not scripted into the First Teleprompter), he whined that his opponents “talk about me like a dog”. This doesn’t even make much sense, but is consistent with the woe-is-me tone of this president, who has complained about attacks from the right and the left, and couched nearly every major address with an extreme whine about taking over the White House during tough times. Just for the record, he did want the presidency, right?"
...
"Most recently he has hit the stump, slipping into campaign mode with the ease of someone putting on worn slippers. He has visited cities hard-hit by the recession, and promised to turn around the economy. With the excitement of a life-long celibate discovering sex, he is focused on job creation – just in time for the elections. He’s all for infrastructure investment and lower taxes on the middle class and developing clean industries. But he is not – repeat NOT –in favor of helping out the “special interests.”
One wonders, who are those “special interests”? Obama never really identifies those blackguards, but he does give clues. In Ohio, Obama chastised those who, over the past decade, “cut regulations for special interests,” and in the same speech derides Representative John Boehner for wanting to “cut more rules for corporations”. It’s pretty clear that it is American corporations who are so undeserving of his assistance."
...
"The truth is that these are hard times. We are in a dreadful recession because public policy encouraged heavy lending to non-credit worthy borrowers in order to fulfill a wrong-headed goal of broadening home ownership. This stupidity was compounded by a reckless use of leverage by those on Wall Street who bundled and bought mortgage securities in ways that made them prone to failure. President Obama is right; there are villains aplenty in the narrative of the past few years, and victims galore. He is wrong, though, to channel his community organizer inner self and turn the country against the business community. Small or large, it is companies that will end our unemployment crisis – not the federal government."
"Finally, we know what President Obama’s initials stand for! He’s the Boo –HooO president! OK, that’s a little cheesy, but seriously, have we ever had a whinier leader of the free world? Most recently, and quite ungrammatically (it was not scripted into the First Teleprompter), he whined that his opponents “talk about me like a dog”. This doesn’t even make much sense, but is consistent with the woe-is-me tone of this president, who has complained about attacks from the right and the left, and couched nearly every major address with an extreme whine about taking over the White House during tough times. Just for the record, he did want the presidency, right?"
...
"Most recently he has hit the stump, slipping into campaign mode with the ease of someone putting on worn slippers. He has visited cities hard-hit by the recession, and promised to turn around the economy. With the excitement of a life-long celibate discovering sex, he is focused on job creation – just in time for the elections. He’s all for infrastructure investment and lower taxes on the middle class and developing clean industries. But he is not – repeat NOT –in favor of helping out the “special interests.”
One wonders, who are those “special interests”? Obama never really identifies those blackguards, but he does give clues. In Ohio, Obama chastised those who, over the past decade, “cut regulations for special interests,” and in the same speech derides Representative John Boehner for wanting to “cut more rules for corporations”. It’s pretty clear that it is American corporations who are so undeserving of his assistance."
...
"The truth is that these are hard times. We are in a dreadful recession because public policy encouraged heavy lending to non-credit worthy borrowers in order to fulfill a wrong-headed goal of broadening home ownership. This stupidity was compounded by a reckless use of leverage by those on Wall Street who bundled and bought mortgage securities in ways that made them prone to failure. President Obama is right; there are villains aplenty in the narrative of the past few years, and victims galore. He is wrong, though, to channel his community organizer inner self and turn the country against the business community. Small or large, it is companies that will end our unemployment crisis – not the federal government."
Friday, September 3, 2010
Wall St. to Obama: The Love Affair's Over
From Daily Finance.
"Corporate profits are booming again but President Obama's popularity is sinking fast. The list of financial and business titans claiming that Democratic policies are impeding the economic recovery and hurting US competitiveness, meanwhile, gets longer by the day.
Of course, much of the business sector has always harped about government interference. But now even high profile investors and executives who were once ardent supporters of President Obama are changing their tune. Investors should take note of the fast-defecting business community, since the upcoming Congressional elections could have a major impact on markets in the intermediate term."
...
"The growing discontent on Wall Street seems to echo that coming from business executives earlier in the summer. Once seen as an Obama ally and a key player in shaping things like energy policy, GE (GE) CEO Jeffrey Immelt lashed out at the President earlier this summer and accused the administration of creating a sour economic climate."
...
"Investors would be wise to put their partisan biases aside and observe the major shifts. It is telling that so much of the criticism seems to be coming from onetime supporters rather than ideologues who perpetually have an axe to grind."
"Corporate profits are booming again but President Obama's popularity is sinking fast. The list of financial and business titans claiming that Democratic policies are impeding the economic recovery and hurting US competitiveness, meanwhile, gets longer by the day.
Of course, much of the business sector has always harped about government interference. But now even high profile investors and executives who were once ardent supporters of President Obama are changing their tune. Investors should take note of the fast-defecting business community, since the upcoming Congressional elections could have a major impact on markets in the intermediate term."
...
"The growing discontent on Wall Street seems to echo that coming from business executives earlier in the summer. Once seen as an Obama ally and a key player in shaping things like energy policy, GE (GE) CEO Jeffrey Immelt lashed out at the President earlier this summer and accused the administration of creating a sour economic climate."
...
"Investors would be wise to put their partisan biases aside and observe the major shifts. It is telling that so much of the criticism seems to be coming from onetime supporters rather than ideologues who perpetually have an axe to grind."
Friday, August 27, 2010
Obama's Dream Car: Government Intervention on Four Wheels
From the Christian Science Monitor.
"If it requires government subsidies to get built, more subsidies to buy, and doesn't actually reduce pollution, what's the benefit of an electric car?"
Good question. One so-called "benefit" is that it would boost demand for a car that ordinarily people wouldn't (or couldn't) buy, feeding into the buy-me-a-cure crowd (his typical constituency) who have more dollars than sense. If everyone had one of these cars, it would theoretically allow us to get off foreign oil (as well as domestic) while lining the pockets of some well-placed portfolios (namely Al Gore's, Nancy Pelosi's, and most assuredly Obama's).
The car itself takes about 11-17 barrels of oil to produce. The batteries in these cars alone cost $3000 and up. We as yet have no infrastructure to plug these puppies in when we're parked. Some benefits!
"In one way it reminds us of the German predecessor: the Volkswagen. A car not produced according to market demand, but for dubious ideological targets. However, the new ‘Voltswagen’, on sale for $41,000, costs, when all subsidies are accounted for, about $81,000. Not only is it worlds apart from the original Volkswagen, but its creation signifies a distorted economy: taxpayers funding a vehicle which can only lead to loss and a shortage. In addition, comes the government subsidy of $7,500 for purchasers of the car, a nice addition for ‘upscale urban liberals’, some of Obama's strongest supporters."
...
"Government intervention stymies market forces. Furthermore, the creation of the ‘Voltswagen’ blatantly derives an ‘is’ from an ‘ought’: there should be electric cars, whether supply is economically feasible or demand is there."
"If it requires government subsidies to get built, more subsidies to buy, and doesn't actually reduce pollution, what's the benefit of an electric car?"
Good question. One so-called "benefit" is that it would boost demand for a car that ordinarily people wouldn't (or couldn't) buy, feeding into the buy-me-a-cure crowd (his typical constituency) who have more dollars than sense. If everyone had one of these cars, it would theoretically allow us to get off foreign oil (as well as domestic) while lining the pockets of some well-placed portfolios (namely Al Gore's, Nancy Pelosi's, and most assuredly Obama's).
The car itself takes about 11-17 barrels of oil to produce. The batteries in these cars alone cost $3000 and up. We as yet have no infrastructure to plug these puppies in when we're parked. Some benefits!
"In one way it reminds us of the German predecessor: the Volkswagen. A car not produced according to market demand, but for dubious ideological targets. However, the new ‘Voltswagen’, on sale for $41,000, costs, when all subsidies are accounted for, about $81,000. Not only is it worlds apart from the original Volkswagen, but its creation signifies a distorted economy: taxpayers funding a vehicle which can only lead to loss and a shortage. In addition, comes the government subsidy of $7,500 for purchasers of the car, a nice addition for ‘upscale urban liberals’, some of Obama's strongest supporters."
...
"Government intervention stymies market forces. Furthermore, the creation of the ‘Voltswagen’ blatantly derives an ‘is’ from an ‘ought’: there should be electric cars, whether supply is economically feasible or demand is there."
Friday, August 20, 2010
Obama's Energy Meltdown
From Politico.
"Despite the president’s endless number of appearances at new energy technology facilities, constant references to creating “green jobs,” countless hours being photographed behind the wheels of battery-powered and other “new age” vehicles and a somewhat shameless effort to argue that the Deepwater Horizon oil spill should be used to justify passage of his energy agenda, we are further from passing a comprehensive energy bill in the U.S. Senate today than at any time in the Obama presidency.
It is hard to remember an issue on which a president armed with the kind of congressional majority Obama enjoys, has been handed such a stunning defeat on what was considered a cornerstone issue of his domestic agenda. While various presidential observers opine about the president’s various leadership strengths and weaknesses, there seems to be a lack of appreciation of the significance of what this setback on energy really means."
...
"Ultimately, Senate Democrats proved themselves to be old school politicians, so when it came to a choice of self-preservation or pleasing their president, they picked themselves. That so many had swallowed their electoral concerns to pass Obamacare certainly contributed to these decisions on energy and cap and trade. However, the fact that the president was allowed to carry the ball on energy to the bitter end before his party repudiated him without providing a more graceful exit strategy, makes this one of the ugliest rejections a president has faced at the hands of his own party in recent memory."
Too many of us are non-believers when it comes to the concept of Utopia.
"Despite the president’s endless number of appearances at new energy technology facilities, constant references to creating “green jobs,” countless hours being photographed behind the wheels of battery-powered and other “new age” vehicles and a somewhat shameless effort to argue that the Deepwater Horizon oil spill should be used to justify passage of his energy agenda, we are further from passing a comprehensive energy bill in the U.S. Senate today than at any time in the Obama presidency.
It is hard to remember an issue on which a president armed with the kind of congressional majority Obama enjoys, has been handed such a stunning defeat on what was considered a cornerstone issue of his domestic agenda. While various presidential observers opine about the president’s various leadership strengths and weaknesses, there seems to be a lack of appreciation of the significance of what this setback on energy really means."
...
"Ultimately, Senate Democrats proved themselves to be old school politicians, so when it came to a choice of self-preservation or pleasing their president, they picked themselves. That so many had swallowed their electoral concerns to pass Obamacare certainly contributed to these decisions on energy and cap and trade. However, the fact that the president was allowed to carry the ball on energy to the bitter end before his party repudiated him without providing a more graceful exit strategy, makes this one of the ugliest rejections a president has faced at the hands of his own party in recent memory."
Too many of us are non-believers when it comes to the concept of Utopia.
Monday, August 16, 2010
The Stunning Decline of Barack Obama
From the UK Telegraph.
"The RealClearPolitics average of polls now has President Obama at over 50 per cent disapproval, a remarkably high figure for a president just 18 months into his first term. Strikingly, the latest USA Today/Gallup survey has the President on just 41 per cent approval, with 53 per cent disapproving."
...
"Growing disillusionment with the Obama administration’s handling of the economy as well as health care and immigration has gone hand in hand with mounting unhappiness with the President’s aloof and imperial style of leadership, and a growing perception that he is out of touch with ordinary Americans, especially at a time of significant economic pain. Barack Obama’s striking absence of natural leadership ability (and blatant lack of experience) has played a big part in undermining his credibility with the US public, with his lacklustre handling of the Gulf oil spill coming under particularly intense fire.
On the national security and foreign policy front, President Obama has not fared any better. His leadership on the war in Afghanistan has been confused and at times lacking in conviction, and seemingly dictated by domestic political priorities rather than military and strategic goals. His overall foreign policy has been an appalling mess, with his flawed strategy of engagement of hostile regimes spectacularly backfiring. And as for the War on Terror, his administration has not even acknowledged it is fighting one.
Can it get any worse for President Obama? Undoubtedly yes. Here are 10 key reasons why the Obama presidency is in serious trouble, and why its prospects are unlikely to improve between now and the November mid-terms."
1. The Obama presidency is out of touch with the American people
2. Most Americans don’t have confidence in the president’s leadership
3. Obama fails to inspire
4. The United States is drowning in debt
5. Obama’s Big Government message is falling flat
6. Obama’s support for socialized health care is a huge political mistake
7. Obama’s handling of the Gulf oil spill has been weak-kneed and indecisive
8. US foreign policy is an embarrassing mess under the Obama administration
9. President Obama is muddled and confused on national security
10. Obama doesn’t believe in American greatness
(see original article for details on each)
"There is a distinctly Titanic-like feel to the Obama presidency and it’s not hard to see why. The most left-wing president in modern American history has tried to force a highly interventionist, government-driven agenda that runs counter to the principles of free enterprise, individual freedom, and limited government that have made the United States the greatest power in the world, and the freest nation on earth."
...
"President Obama is increasingly out of step with the American people, by advancing policies that undermine the United States as a global power, while undercutting America’s deep-seated love for freedom."
"The RealClearPolitics average of polls now has President Obama at over 50 per cent disapproval, a remarkably high figure for a president just 18 months into his first term. Strikingly, the latest USA Today/Gallup survey has the President on just 41 per cent approval, with 53 per cent disapproving."
...
"Growing disillusionment with the Obama administration’s handling of the economy as well as health care and immigration has gone hand in hand with mounting unhappiness with the President’s aloof and imperial style of leadership, and a growing perception that he is out of touch with ordinary Americans, especially at a time of significant economic pain. Barack Obama’s striking absence of natural leadership ability (and blatant lack of experience) has played a big part in undermining his credibility with the US public, with his lacklustre handling of the Gulf oil spill coming under particularly intense fire.
On the national security and foreign policy front, President Obama has not fared any better. His leadership on the war in Afghanistan has been confused and at times lacking in conviction, and seemingly dictated by domestic political priorities rather than military and strategic goals. His overall foreign policy has been an appalling mess, with his flawed strategy of engagement of hostile regimes spectacularly backfiring. And as for the War on Terror, his administration has not even acknowledged it is fighting one.
Can it get any worse for President Obama? Undoubtedly yes. Here are 10 key reasons why the Obama presidency is in serious trouble, and why its prospects are unlikely to improve between now and the November mid-terms."
1. The Obama presidency is out of touch with the American people
2. Most Americans don’t have confidence in the president’s leadership
3. Obama fails to inspire
4. The United States is drowning in debt
5. Obama’s Big Government message is falling flat
6. Obama’s support for socialized health care is a huge political mistake
7. Obama’s handling of the Gulf oil spill has been weak-kneed and indecisive
8. US foreign policy is an embarrassing mess under the Obama administration
9. President Obama is muddled and confused on national security
10. Obama doesn’t believe in American greatness
(see original article for details on each)
"There is a distinctly Titanic-like feel to the Obama presidency and it’s not hard to see why. The most left-wing president in modern American history has tried to force a highly interventionist, government-driven agenda that runs counter to the principles of free enterprise, individual freedom, and limited government that have made the United States the greatest power in the world, and the freest nation on earth."
...
"President Obama is increasingly out of step with the American people, by advancing policies that undermine the United States as a global power, while undercutting America’s deep-seated love for freedom."
Saturday, August 14, 2010
The Obsolescence of Barack Obama
From the Wall St. Journal. The magic of 2008 can't be recreated, and good riddance to it.
"Mr. Obama could protest that his swift and sudden fall from grace is no fault of his. He had been a blank slate, and the devotees had projected onto him their hopes and dreams. His victory had not been the triumph of policies he had enunciated in great detail. He had never run anything in his entire life. He had a scant public record, but oddly this worked to his advantage. If he was going to begin the world anew, it was better that he knew little about the machinery of government."
...
"It was canonical to this administration and its functionaries that they were handed a broken nation, that it was theirs to repair, that it was theirs to tax and reshape to their preferences. Yet there was, in 1980, after another landmark election, a leader who had stepped forth in a time of "malaise" at home and weakness abroad: Ronald Reagan. His program was different from Mr. Obama's. His faith in the country was boundless. What he sought was to restore the nation's faith in itself, in its political and economic vitality.
Big as Reagan's mandate was, in two elections, the man was never bigger than his country. There was never narcissism or a bloated sense of personal destiny in him. He gloried in the country, and drew sustenance from its heroic deeds and its capacity for recovery. No political class rode with him to power anxious to lay its hands on the nation's treasure, eager to supplant the forces of the market with its own economic preferences."
...
"There is little evidence that the Obama presidency could yet find new vindication, another lease on life. Mr. Obama will mark time, but henceforth he will not define the national agenda. He will not be the repository of its hopes and sentiments. The ambition that his would be a "transformational" presidency—he rightly described Reagan's stewardship in these terms—is for naught.
There remains the fact of his biography, a man's journey. Personality is doubtless an obstacle to his recovery. The detachment of Mr. Obama need not be dwelled upon at great length, so obvious it is now even to the pundits who had a "tingling sensation" when they beheld him during his astonishing run for office. Nor does Mr. Obama have the suppleness of Bill Clinton, who rose out of the debris of his first two years in the presidency, dusted himself off, walked away from his spouse's radical attempt to remake the country's health-delivery system, and moved to the political center.
It is in the nature of charisma that it rises out of thin air, out of need and distress, and then dissipates when the magic fails. The country has had its fill with a scapegoating that knows no end from a president who had vowed to break with recriminations and partisanship. The magic of 2008 can't be recreated, and good riddance to it. Slowly, the nation has recovered its poise. There is a widespread sense of unstated embarrassment that a political majority, if only for a moment, fell for the promise of an untested redeemer—a belief alien to the temperament of this so practical and sober a nation."
He has nobody to blame except himself and the Fed.
"Mr. Obama could protest that his swift and sudden fall from grace is no fault of his. He had been a blank slate, and the devotees had projected onto him their hopes and dreams. His victory had not been the triumph of policies he had enunciated in great detail. He had never run anything in his entire life. He had a scant public record, but oddly this worked to his advantage. If he was going to begin the world anew, it was better that he knew little about the machinery of government."
...
"It was canonical to this administration and its functionaries that they were handed a broken nation, that it was theirs to repair, that it was theirs to tax and reshape to their preferences. Yet there was, in 1980, after another landmark election, a leader who had stepped forth in a time of "malaise" at home and weakness abroad: Ronald Reagan. His program was different from Mr. Obama's. His faith in the country was boundless. What he sought was to restore the nation's faith in itself, in its political and economic vitality.
Big as Reagan's mandate was, in two elections, the man was never bigger than his country. There was never narcissism or a bloated sense of personal destiny in him. He gloried in the country, and drew sustenance from its heroic deeds and its capacity for recovery. No political class rode with him to power anxious to lay its hands on the nation's treasure, eager to supplant the forces of the market with its own economic preferences."
...
"There is little evidence that the Obama presidency could yet find new vindication, another lease on life. Mr. Obama will mark time, but henceforth he will not define the national agenda. He will not be the repository of its hopes and sentiments. The ambition that his would be a "transformational" presidency—he rightly described Reagan's stewardship in these terms—is for naught.
There remains the fact of his biography, a man's journey. Personality is doubtless an obstacle to his recovery. The detachment of Mr. Obama need not be dwelled upon at great length, so obvious it is now even to the pundits who had a "tingling sensation" when they beheld him during his astonishing run for office. Nor does Mr. Obama have the suppleness of Bill Clinton, who rose out of the debris of his first two years in the presidency, dusted himself off, walked away from his spouse's radical attempt to remake the country's health-delivery system, and moved to the political center.
It is in the nature of charisma that it rises out of thin air, out of need and distress, and then dissipates when the magic fails. The country has had its fill with a scapegoating that knows no end from a president who had vowed to break with recriminations and partisanship. The magic of 2008 can't be recreated, and good riddance to it. Slowly, the nation has recovered its poise. There is a widespread sense of unstated embarrassment that a political majority, if only for a moment, fell for the promise of an untested redeemer—a belief alien to the temperament of this so practical and sober a nation."
He has nobody to blame except himself and the Fed.
Friday, August 6, 2010
Another Rat Leaves the Sinking Ship: Obama White House Economic Advisor Romer Resigns
From Bloomberg News. She wants to return to teaching in Berkeley--what makes her think there'll be a JOB for her?
"Romer, chair of the Council of Economic Advisers, is returning to a post at the University of California at Berkeley, the White House said yesterday. She is interested in heading the Federal Reserve’s regional bank in San Francisco, according to a person familiar with her plans who requested anonymity.
The resignation follows the July departure of Peter Orszag as director of the Office of Management and Budget in July. It creates another opening at a time when Obama is seeking to highlight the administration’s record on restarting growth ahead of November congressional elections."
...
“What Obama’s team has been doing so far has not worked and voters are going to be going to the polls very unhappy, even distressed, with the economic situation,” said L. Randall Wray, research director for the Center for Full Employment and Price Stability, a nonpartisan institute at the University of Missouri in Kansas City studies macroeconomic and monetary policy."
...
"The news came as a surprise to Gerard Roland, chair of the economics department at Berkeley.
“I thought it was a rumor,” Roland said in an interview. Because Romer has been on leave from the university, “she doesn’t have to clear it with anybody,” he said.
If selected for the San Francisco position, Romer would succeed Janet Yellen, who is awaiting confirmation by the U.S. Senate as the Fed’s next vice chairman."
...
"Should she become San Francisco Fed president, Romer would participate in the central bank’s policy discussions, and would vote on the interest-rate setting Federal Open Market Committee once every three years, taking her next turn in 2012."
"Romer, chair of the Council of Economic Advisers, is returning to a post at the University of California at Berkeley, the White House said yesterday. She is interested in heading the Federal Reserve’s regional bank in San Francisco, according to a person familiar with her plans who requested anonymity.
The resignation follows the July departure of Peter Orszag as director of the Office of Management and Budget in July. It creates another opening at a time when Obama is seeking to highlight the administration’s record on restarting growth ahead of November congressional elections."
...
“What Obama’s team has been doing so far has not worked and voters are going to be going to the polls very unhappy, even distressed, with the economic situation,” said L. Randall Wray, research director for the Center for Full Employment and Price Stability, a nonpartisan institute at the University of Missouri in Kansas City studies macroeconomic and monetary policy."
...
"The news came as a surprise to Gerard Roland, chair of the economics department at Berkeley.
“I thought it was a rumor,” Roland said in an interview. Because Romer has been on leave from the university, “she doesn’t have to clear it with anybody,” he said.
If selected for the San Francisco position, Romer would succeed Janet Yellen, who is awaiting confirmation by the U.S. Senate as the Fed’s next vice chairman."
...
"Should she become San Francisco Fed president, Romer would participate in the central bank’s policy discussions, and would vote on the interest-rate setting Federal Open Market Committee once every three years, taking her next turn in 2012."
Thursday, July 22, 2010
Obama's Economic Fish Stories
From the Wall St. Journal.
"A president's most valuable asset—with voters, Congress, allies and enemies—is credibility. So it is unfortunate when extreme exaggeration emanates from the White House."
...
"So, as I and others warned in 2008, the permanent government expansion and higher tax rate agenda is a classic example of what not to do during bad economic times. Worse yet, all the subsidies, bailouts, regulations and mandates are forcing noncommercial decisions on the economy, which now awaits literally thousands of new diktats as a result of things like ObamaCare and the financial reform bill. The uncertainty is impeding investment and hiring.
The president does not say that economists agree that the high future taxes to finance the stimulus will hurt the economy. (The University of Chicago's Harald Uhlig estimates $3.40 of lost output for every dollar of government spending.) Either the president is not being told of serious alternative viewpoints, or serious viewpoints are defined as only those that support his position. In either case, he is being ill-served by his staff.
Mr. Obama's economic statements are increasingly divorced not only from competing viewpoints but from those of his own economic advisers. It is surprising how many numerically challenged pronouncements come from this most scripted and political of White Houses. One slip is eventually forgiven, but when a pattern emerges, no one believes it is an accident."
...
"On his recent "Recovery Tour," Mr. Obama boasted, "The stimulus bill prevented the unemployment rate from "getting up to . . . 15%." But the president's own chief economic adviser, Christina Romer, has estimated that the stimulus bill reduced peak unemployment by one percentage point—i.e., since the unemployment rate peaked at 10.1%, it prevented the unemployment rate from rising to just over 11%. So Mr. Obama claims that the stimulus bill was several times more potent than his chief economic adviser estimates.
Perhaps the most serious disconnect concerns the impending expiration of the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts, which will raise the top two income tax rates and the rates on dividends and capital gains. If these growth inhibiting tax increases occur—about $75 billion in tax increases next year, $1.4 trillion over 10 years—there will be serious economic damage."
...
"The president badly needs to make more realistic pronouncements. No one expects him to say his policies have failed (although most have delivered far less than claimed at large cost). A little candor about the results of experimentation in uncharted waters would go a long way. But at the very least, his staff needs to avoid putting these exaggerations on the teleprompter. It undermines confidence and raises concerns about competence. It's doing nobody any good—not the economy and certainly not Mr. Obama."
"A president's most valuable asset—with voters, Congress, allies and enemies—is credibility. So it is unfortunate when extreme exaggeration emanates from the White House."
...
"So, as I and others warned in 2008, the permanent government expansion and higher tax rate agenda is a classic example of what not to do during bad economic times. Worse yet, all the subsidies, bailouts, regulations and mandates are forcing noncommercial decisions on the economy, which now awaits literally thousands of new diktats as a result of things like ObamaCare and the financial reform bill. The uncertainty is impeding investment and hiring.
The president does not say that economists agree that the high future taxes to finance the stimulus will hurt the economy. (The University of Chicago's Harald Uhlig estimates $3.40 of lost output for every dollar of government spending.) Either the president is not being told of serious alternative viewpoints, or serious viewpoints are defined as only those that support his position. In either case, he is being ill-served by his staff.
Mr. Obama's economic statements are increasingly divorced not only from competing viewpoints but from those of his own economic advisers. It is surprising how many numerically challenged pronouncements come from this most scripted and political of White Houses. One slip is eventually forgiven, but when a pattern emerges, no one believes it is an accident."
...
"On his recent "Recovery Tour," Mr. Obama boasted, "The stimulus bill prevented the unemployment rate from "getting up to . . . 15%." But the president's own chief economic adviser, Christina Romer, has estimated that the stimulus bill reduced peak unemployment by one percentage point—i.e., since the unemployment rate peaked at 10.1%, it prevented the unemployment rate from rising to just over 11%. So Mr. Obama claims that the stimulus bill was several times more potent than his chief economic adviser estimates.
Perhaps the most serious disconnect concerns the impending expiration of the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts, which will raise the top two income tax rates and the rates on dividends and capital gains. If these growth inhibiting tax increases occur—about $75 billion in tax increases next year, $1.4 trillion over 10 years—there will be serious economic damage."
...
"The president badly needs to make more realistic pronouncements. No one expects him to say his policies have failed (although most have delivered far less than claimed at large cost). A little candor about the results of experimentation in uncharted waters would go a long way. But at the very least, his staff needs to avoid putting these exaggerations on the teleprompter. It undermines confidence and raises concerns about competence. It's doing nobody any good—not the economy and certainly not Mr. Obama."
Thursday, July 15, 2010
Obama Destroying Jobs
From CNN Money.
"The two (the President and the Chamber of Commerce) are at odds over the best way to keep the recovery from slipping into a double-dip recession. The Chamber believes tax cuts are key to job creation. The Obama administration, however, has focused on stimulus and spending to create jobs."
...
"Donohue also said lawmakers were "spending at astronomical levels -- we're setting ourselves up to be the next Greece," a reference to the debt crisis plaguing the European nation."
"The two (the President and the Chamber of Commerce) are at odds over the best way to keep the recovery from slipping into a double-dip recession. The Chamber believes tax cuts are key to job creation. The Obama administration, however, has focused on stimulus and spending to create jobs."
...
"Donohue also said lawmakers were "spending at astronomical levels -- we're setting ourselves up to be the next Greece," a reference to the debt crisis plaguing the European nation."
Tuesday, July 13, 2010
Obama May Have Worn Out His Welcome on Capitol Hill
From the L.A. Times.
"The moment has been long in coming, but it may finally have arrived.
For the last year and a half, on issues including healthcare, financial regulation and climate change, Democrats in Congress have bent for President Obama. Liberals swallowed hard to accept compromises that fell short of their long-sought goals, and moderates cast tough votes that now threaten their reelection prospects as voters revolt against government overreach."
...
"In recent weeks, the president has expressed growing interest in the remaining items on his legislative agenda, including energy and immigration policy. Both are initiatives whose only hope at passage would require another legislative squeeze from the lawmakers who have already yielded to some of the president's toughest requests.
Yet compromise appears difficult as lawmakers approach the midterm election when they, not the president, must fight for their political lives in a tough electoral climate."
He sees the writing on the wall--he hoped for a 2012 re-election, but it ain't happening.
"The moment has been long in coming, but it may finally have arrived.
For the last year and a half, on issues including healthcare, financial regulation and climate change, Democrats in Congress have bent for President Obama. Liberals swallowed hard to accept compromises that fell short of their long-sought goals, and moderates cast tough votes that now threaten their reelection prospects as voters revolt against government overreach."
...
"In recent weeks, the president has expressed growing interest in the remaining items on his legislative agenda, including energy and immigration policy. Both are initiatives whose only hope at passage would require another legislative squeeze from the lawmakers who have already yielded to some of the president's toughest requests.
Yet compromise appears difficult as lawmakers approach the midterm election when they, not the president, must fight for their political lives in a tough electoral climate."
He sees the writing on the wall--he hoped for a 2012 re-election, but it ain't happening.
Wednesday, July 7, 2010
Obama Loses Support of Nation's Elite
From the Daily Beast. Rats leaving a sinking ship--how many of his staff have already left, or are planning to leave when midterm elections arrive? Even Gen McChrystal did what he did to escape Obama.
"Even the Aspen Ideas Festival, an annual gathering of the country's brightest lights, isn't Obama country anymore. Lloyd Grove on the president's waning support among the intelligentsia."
...
"In a way, the folks attending this cerebral conclave pairing the Aspen Institute think tank with the Atlantic Monthly magazine might even be seen as President Obama’s natural base.
Apparently not so much."
...
“If you’re asking if the United States is about to become a socialist state, I’d say it’s actually about to become a European state, with the expansiveness of the welfare system and the progressive tax system like what we’ve already experienced in Western Europe,” Harvard business and history professor Niall Ferguson declared during Monday’s kickoff session, offering a withering critique of Obama’s economic policies, which he claimed were encouraging laziness.
“The curse of longterm unemployment is that if you pay people to do nothing, they’ll find themselves doing nothing for very long periods of time,” Ferguson said. “Long-term unemployment is at an all-time high in the United States, and it is a direct consequence of a misconceived public policy.”
...
"Ferguson called for what he called “radical” measures. “I can’t emphasize strongly enough the need for radical fiscal reform to restore the incentives for work and remove the incentives for idleness.” He praised “really radical reform of the sort that, for example, Paul Ryan [the ranking Republican on the House Budget Committee] has outlined in his wonderful ‘Roadmap’ for radical, root-and-branch reform not only of the tax system but of the entitlement system” and “unleash entrepreneurial innovation.” Otherwise, Ferguson warned: “Do you want to be a kind of implicit part of the European Union? I’d advise you against it.”
...
"...Arianna Huffington said. “The president’s economic team kept talking about a ‘cyclical’ problem. Larry Summers said jobs were a lagging economic indicator. All these things are simply wrong. The president put all his trust in the wrong economic team—an economic team that didn’t understand what was happening.”
"Even the Aspen Ideas Festival, an annual gathering of the country's brightest lights, isn't Obama country anymore. Lloyd Grove on the president's waning support among the intelligentsia."
...
"In a way, the folks attending this cerebral conclave pairing the Aspen Institute think tank with the Atlantic Monthly magazine might even be seen as President Obama’s natural base.
Apparently not so much."
...
“If you’re asking if the United States is about to become a socialist state, I’d say it’s actually about to become a European state, with the expansiveness of the welfare system and the progressive tax system like what we’ve already experienced in Western Europe,” Harvard business and history professor Niall Ferguson declared during Monday’s kickoff session, offering a withering critique of Obama’s economic policies, which he claimed were encouraging laziness.
“The curse of longterm unemployment is that if you pay people to do nothing, they’ll find themselves doing nothing for very long periods of time,” Ferguson said. “Long-term unemployment is at an all-time high in the United States, and it is a direct consequence of a misconceived public policy.”
...
"Ferguson called for what he called “radical” measures. “I can’t emphasize strongly enough the need for radical fiscal reform to restore the incentives for work and remove the incentives for idleness.” He praised “really radical reform of the sort that, for example, Paul Ryan [the ranking Republican on the House Budget Committee] has outlined in his wonderful ‘Roadmap’ for radical, root-and-branch reform not only of the tax system but of the entitlement system” and “unleash entrepreneurial innovation.” Otherwise, Ferguson warned: “Do you want to be a kind of implicit part of the European Union? I’d advise you against it.”
...
"...Arianna Huffington said. “The president’s economic team kept talking about a ‘cyclical’ problem. Larry Summers said jobs were a lagging economic indicator. All these things are simply wrong. The president put all his trust in the wrong economic team—an economic team that didn’t understand what was happening.”
Wednesday, June 23, 2010
Gulf War Three
From the National Review Online.
"Barack Obama was supposed to be the best, the very best, and yet he is always, reliably, consistently mediocre. His speech on oil was no better or worse than his speech on race. Yet the Obammyboppers who once squealed with delight are weary of last year’s boy band. At the end of the big Oval Office address, Keith Olbermann, Chris Matthews, and the rest of the MSNBC gang jeered the president. For a bewildered Obama, it must have felt like his Ceausescu balcony moment. Had they caught up with him in the White House parking lot, they’d have put him up against the wall and clubbed him to a pulp with Matthews’s no longer tingling leg."
...
"To a fool, His Majesty’s new clothes appear absolutely invisible. But, to a wise man, the placing of buttons and pockets without indicating the relation of co-ordination is a fascinating exercise in parataxical couture."
...
"The Times’s Maureen Dowd deplored his “bloodless quality” and “emotional detachment.” This is the same Maureen Dowd who in 2009 hailed the new presidency with a column titled “Spock At The Bridge” — and she meant it as a compliment. Back then, this administration was supposed to be the new technocracy — cool, calm, and credentialed chaps who would sit down, use their mighty intellects to provide a rigorous, post-partisan, forensic analysis of the problem, and then break for their Vanity Fair photo shoot."
...
"Had Obama or his speechwriters chanced upon last week’s fishwrap, they might have noticed that I described the president as “the very model of a modern major generalist,” and they might have considered whether it might not be time to try something new."
...
"In the race speech, invited to address specific points about his pastor’s two-decade pattern of ugly anti-American rhetoric and his opportunist peddling of paranoid conspiracies to his gullible congregants about AIDS being invented by the U.S. government to wipe them out, Obama preferred to talk about race in general — you know, blacks, whites, that sort of thing; lot of it about. The media loved it. This time round, invited to address specific points about an unstoppable spill in the Gulf of Mexico, Obama retreated to more generalities — the environment, land, air, that sort of thing; lot of it about. “President Obama said he is going to use the Gulf disaster to push a new energy bill through Congress,” observed Jay Leno. “How about using the Gulf disaster to fix the Gulf disaster?”
...
"So the president has now declared war on the great BP spill — Gulf War 3! — and in this epic conflict the speechgiver-in-chief will surely be his own unmanned drone:
“I fired off a speech
But the British kept a-spillin’
Twice as many barrels as there was a month ago,
I fired off a speech
But the British kept a-spillin’
Up the Mississippi from the Gulf of Mexico . . .”
Chris Matthews and the other leg-tinglers invented an Obama that doesn’t exist. Unfortunately, they’re stuck with the one that does, and it will be interesting to see whether he’s capable of plugging the leak in his own support. If not, who knows what the tide might wash up?"
"Barack Obama was supposed to be the best, the very best, and yet he is always, reliably, consistently mediocre. His speech on oil was no better or worse than his speech on race. Yet the Obammyboppers who once squealed with delight are weary of last year’s boy band. At the end of the big Oval Office address, Keith Olbermann, Chris Matthews, and the rest of the MSNBC gang jeered the president. For a bewildered Obama, it must have felt like his Ceausescu balcony moment. Had they caught up with him in the White House parking lot, they’d have put him up against the wall and clubbed him to a pulp with Matthews’s no longer tingling leg."
...
"To a fool, His Majesty’s new clothes appear absolutely invisible. But, to a wise man, the placing of buttons and pockets without indicating the relation of co-ordination is a fascinating exercise in parataxical couture."
...
"The Times’s Maureen Dowd deplored his “bloodless quality” and “emotional detachment.” This is the same Maureen Dowd who in 2009 hailed the new presidency with a column titled “Spock At The Bridge” — and she meant it as a compliment. Back then, this administration was supposed to be the new technocracy — cool, calm, and credentialed chaps who would sit down, use their mighty intellects to provide a rigorous, post-partisan, forensic analysis of the problem, and then break for their Vanity Fair photo shoot."
...
"Had Obama or his speechwriters chanced upon last week’s fishwrap, they might have noticed that I described the president as “the very model of a modern major generalist,” and they might have considered whether it might not be time to try something new."
...
"In the race speech, invited to address specific points about his pastor’s two-decade pattern of ugly anti-American rhetoric and his opportunist peddling of paranoid conspiracies to his gullible congregants about AIDS being invented by the U.S. government to wipe them out, Obama preferred to talk about race in general — you know, blacks, whites, that sort of thing; lot of it about. The media loved it. This time round, invited to address specific points about an unstoppable spill in the Gulf of Mexico, Obama retreated to more generalities — the environment, land, air, that sort of thing; lot of it about. “President Obama said he is going to use the Gulf disaster to push a new energy bill through Congress,” observed Jay Leno. “How about using the Gulf disaster to fix the Gulf disaster?”
...
"So the president has now declared war on the great BP spill — Gulf War 3! — and in this epic conflict the speechgiver-in-chief will surely be his own unmanned drone:
“I fired off a speech
But the British kept a-spillin’
Twice as many barrels as there was a month ago,
I fired off a speech
But the British kept a-spillin’
Up the Mississippi from the Gulf of Mexico . . .”
Chris Matthews and the other leg-tinglers invented an Obama that doesn’t exist. Unfortunately, they’re stuck with the one that does, and it will be interesting to see whether he’s capable of plugging the leak in his own support. If not, who knows what the tide might wash up?"
Thursday, April 22, 2010
Obama Signs Comprehensive U.S.-Utopia Agreement
From Optoons. It's a cartoon--you have to go there to see it.
Tuesday, April 13, 2010
Victory Over Obama, Inflation, and Taxes to Come
From me.
The relevant bit: "Go ahead, Obama, try to tax me and inflate me into oblivion. You may get the money, but you can't tax the garden, or my labors in it! The pantry has already been taxed (at much lower rates), and you can't tax it again. Everything's paid for but the house, and soon, it too will be paid for, leaving only Hubby's income vulnerable to you. I'll just have to look for more shelters--that's the easy part. I cut MY spending to the lowest I care to go, and pretty much Obama-proofed myself, now how about YOU and GOVERNMENT doing the same?
Since you can't infringe on states' taxing authority, I'm already declaring victory in this brewing war you're bringing. Now you can see how even your own wife is circumventing your clever tax plans with her own garden, and spreading the wealth to future generations with her campaign of garden encouragement to curb kid obesity. She's also circumventing your plan to get healthy people into your health insurance game--they'll be too healthy for insurance, and will just pay the penalty!
Gardening helped to bring down Hitler and Stalin, and it will help to bring you down, too. Best of all, there's damned little you can do about it, short of dropping a bomb in my back yard, or sending black-trench coated goons over one night to dig everything up. But alas, I have property rights, and can sue!
I hope you can run a rototiller. That'll be what I'm asking for in damages--you PERSONALLY coming over every spring to rototill my garden...you know, the scene of the crime."
I'm thinking every April 15th would be a good day, unless it's raining.
The relevant bit: "Go ahead, Obama, try to tax me and inflate me into oblivion. You may get the money, but you can't tax the garden, or my labors in it! The pantry has already been taxed (at much lower rates), and you can't tax it again. Everything's paid for but the house, and soon, it too will be paid for, leaving only Hubby's income vulnerable to you. I'll just have to look for more shelters--that's the easy part. I cut MY spending to the lowest I care to go, and pretty much Obama-proofed myself, now how about YOU and GOVERNMENT doing the same?
Since you can't infringe on states' taxing authority, I'm already declaring victory in this brewing war you're bringing. Now you can see how even your own wife is circumventing your clever tax plans with her own garden, and spreading the wealth to future generations with her campaign of garden encouragement to curb kid obesity. She's also circumventing your plan to get healthy people into your health insurance game--they'll be too healthy for insurance, and will just pay the penalty!
Gardening helped to bring down Hitler and Stalin, and it will help to bring you down, too. Best of all, there's damned little you can do about it, short of dropping a bomb in my back yard, or sending black-trench coated goons over one night to dig everything up. But alas, I have property rights, and can sue!
I hope you can run a rototiller. That'll be what I'm asking for in damages--you PERSONALLY coming over every spring to rototill my garden...you know, the scene of the crime."
I'm thinking every April 15th would be a good day, unless it's raining.
Thursday, March 11, 2010
Overheard on Fox News last night...
Currently, the government definition of "poor" is what you own relative to what you make. Obama wants to change that to "what you own relative to what your neighbors own."
Pure-D socialism. Spread the electronic wealth.
I have to laugh, though--around here, I'm the "rich guy" because I'm surrounded by retirees. Does this mean Obama's going to even out their playing field by funding an extra car, high-speed internet, a computer, satellite TV, a pantry full of food, and a carport full of firewood just because I have them?
Does this man he's going to fund a flat-screen TV, DVR, Playstation/X-box, smart phone, I-pod, and Kindle for ME because people a block over have them (and I don't want them)?
Who IS this guy--Santa Claus with the taxpayer's money?
The current so-called "poor" don't need his help, either--they're the ones who kill themselves every Christmas at doorbuster sales (think WallyWorld). THEY have flat-screen TVs, DVRs, electronic game consoles, smart phones, and all the other crap that makes them poor relative to me.
Some hysterical humor: what if an ENTIRE NEIGHBORHOOD was living frugally? Then it would be a race to the bottom in terms of austerity just to see what "Santa" would bring them, then a race to see who could get rid of it the fastest. It just cracks me up that this guy doesn't get that some people just don't WANT.
Pure-D socialism. Spread the electronic wealth.
I have to laugh, though--around here, I'm the "rich guy" because I'm surrounded by retirees. Does this mean Obama's going to even out their playing field by funding an extra car, high-speed internet, a computer, satellite TV, a pantry full of food, and a carport full of firewood just because I have them?
Does this man he's going to fund a flat-screen TV, DVR, Playstation/X-box, smart phone, I-pod, and Kindle for ME because people a block over have them (and I don't want them)?
Who IS this guy--Santa Claus with the taxpayer's money?
The current so-called "poor" don't need his help, either--they're the ones who kill themselves every Christmas at doorbuster sales (think WallyWorld). THEY have flat-screen TVs, DVRs, electronic game consoles, smart phones, and all the other crap that makes them poor relative to me.
Some hysterical humor: what if an ENTIRE NEIGHBORHOOD was living frugally? Then it would be a race to the bottom in terms of austerity just to see what "Santa" would bring them, then a race to see who could get rid of it the fastest. It just cracks me up that this guy doesn't get that some people just don't WANT.
Friday, March 5, 2010
Obama's New Adversary
From CNN/Fortune.
"Obama noted that Ryan had "made a serious proposal" to rein in the deficit and then praised him for at least addressing entitlement spending. Following those apparently peaceful words, Democrats launched a withering assault over the next three days as budget director Peter Orszag, Democratic Congressional Campaign chairman Chris Van Hollen, and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi all pummeled Ryan for threatening the safety net for the elderly and providing tax breaks for the rich."
...
"What is the Ryan plan , and why is the Obama administration seemingly obsessed with it? Ryan calls his proposal, published in January, the Roadmap for America's Future. It's a remarkably comprehensive, daring manifesto that tackles every part of the budget on a presidential scale, from Social Security to tax policy to health-care reform.
The goal is to eliminate the deficit, and eventually all federal debt, without any crippling tax increases. Under Ryan's plan, for example, federal spending would reach just 24% of GDP in 2035 and then fall, vs. the CBO's projection of 34% and rising from there. Ryan would make the deficit disappear by mid-century."
"Obama noted that Ryan had "made a serious proposal" to rein in the deficit and then praised him for at least addressing entitlement spending. Following those apparently peaceful words, Democrats launched a withering assault over the next three days as budget director Peter Orszag, Democratic Congressional Campaign chairman Chris Van Hollen, and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi all pummeled Ryan for threatening the safety net for the elderly and providing tax breaks for the rich."
...
"What is the Ryan plan , and why is the Obama administration seemingly obsessed with it? Ryan calls his proposal, published in January, the Roadmap for America's Future. It's a remarkably comprehensive, daring manifesto that tackles every part of the budget on a presidential scale, from Social Security to tax policy to health-care reform.
The goal is to eliminate the deficit, and eventually all federal debt, without any crippling tax increases. Under Ryan's plan, for example, federal spending would reach just 24% of GDP in 2035 and then fall, vs. the CBO's projection of 34% and rising from there. Ryan would make the deficit disappear by mid-century."
Thursday, March 4, 2010
The President's Imaginary Health Plan
From National Review Online.
"The president launched a last-ditch effort to pass a government takeover of American health care yesterday. To hear him tell it, his plan would let every American keep the health insurance he has today if he wants to. And it would reduce premiums, cut taxes for the middle class, slow the pace of rising costs, reduce the federal budget deficit, and keep bureaucrats out of health-care decisions too."
Employers would opt to pay the fine instead of continuing health care coverage--the federal government is the largest payroll in this country, and guess who would be the first one to abdicate it's health care duties in favor of the fine? Every military person, every civil service worker (including the post office), every Washington politician, everyone currently on Medicaid, everyone currently using VA medical services, and every senior citizen at or over 65 would be dumped--what a way to shirk self-imposed responsibility!
They say they want government control of health care--they already HAD most of it.
"The president launched a last-ditch effort to pass a government takeover of American health care yesterday. To hear him tell it, his plan would let every American keep the health insurance he has today if he wants to. And it would reduce premiums, cut taxes for the middle class, slow the pace of rising costs, reduce the federal budget deficit, and keep bureaucrats out of health-care decisions too."
Employers would opt to pay the fine instead of continuing health care coverage--the federal government is the largest payroll in this country, and guess who would be the first one to abdicate it's health care duties in favor of the fine? Every military person, every civil service worker (including the post office), every Washington politician, everyone currently on Medicaid, everyone currently using VA medical services, and every senior citizen at or over 65 would be dumped--what a way to shirk self-imposed responsibility!
They say they want government control of health care--they already HAD most of it.
Tuesday, March 2, 2010
A Knife in Obama's Back?
From the L.A. Times.
"If reports are to be believed, Emanuel wanted Obama to be less ambitious ideologically but more aggressive politically. Emanuel likes winning, and so he thinks the president should pick battles he can win. Emanuel opposed the idea of shutting down Guantanamo Bay within a year. He argued that Obama should have gone for a smaller, more digestible healthcare bill that expanded coverage and attracted bipartisan support. He offered similar advice on a cap-and-trade bill. But on these and other issues, Obama opted to follow the lead of ideologically committed House liberals.
While so much of the hoopla over Milbank's column focuses on personalities -- Emanuel has earned many enemies -- I think it all masks a more profound ideological insecurity, indeed a political identity crisis."
Perhaps someone's been watching a little too much "24"?
"If reports are to be believed, Emanuel wanted Obama to be less ambitious ideologically but more aggressive politically. Emanuel likes winning, and so he thinks the president should pick battles he can win. Emanuel opposed the idea of shutting down Guantanamo Bay within a year. He argued that Obama should have gone for a smaller, more digestible healthcare bill that expanded coverage and attracted bipartisan support. He offered similar advice on a cap-and-trade bill. But on these and other issues, Obama opted to follow the lead of ideologically committed House liberals.
While so much of the hoopla over Milbank's column focuses on personalities -- Emanuel has earned many enemies -- I think it all masks a more profound ideological insecurity, indeed a political identity crisis."
Perhaps someone's been watching a little too much "24"?
Friday, February 19, 2010
Obama Orders Debt Panel and Names Chairmen
From CNN Money.
This "debt panel" is also known in TV pundit circles as the VAT tax panel--don't be surprised if they find for instilling the Fair Tax plan as a means to pay off this debt. Fair Tax is a fancy term for VAT tax.
"After trillions in new and proposed spending, Americans know our problem is not that we tax too little, but that Washington spends too much - that should be the focus of this commission..."
They go on to say that EVERYTHING'S on the table--prepare to see the Fair Tax plan come alive.
This "debt panel" is also known in TV pundit circles as the VAT tax panel--don't be surprised if they find for instilling the Fair Tax plan as a means to pay off this debt. Fair Tax is a fancy term for VAT tax.
"After trillions in new and proposed spending, Americans know our problem is not that we tax too little, but that Washington spends too much - that should be the focus of this commission..."
They go on to say that EVERYTHING'S on the table--prepare to see the Fair Tax plan come alive.
Saturday, February 13, 2010
Clueless in the Capitol Meets Small business Ire
From Bloomberg.com
"The president and Congress “pay lip service to the fact that small business generates half of private-sector GDP and employs 60 percent or more of private-sector workers,” Dunkelberg says. As far as Washington’s efforts to help this sector of the economy, “instead of stimulus, give consumers a tax cut,” he says."
...
"Small-business owners list “poor sales” as the numero uno problem. And the jobs tax credit for hiring new workers, proposed by President Obama and embraced by Congress, won’t do much to help. Employers aren’t about to pay a new worker $40,000 to earn a $5,000 credit unless that worker generates $35,000 of revenue, Dunkelberg explains. That’s Econ 101 (see “marginal revenue product” or “profit maximization”), a course most of our elected representatives seem to have missed.
The tax credit for hiring “has absolutely no impact on our decision-making,” says Phil Kenny, president of Trucks Unique, an Albuquerque, New Mexico, company that customizes pick-up trucks for commercial and individual purposes. “We have no tax liability to take a credit against.”
A tax credit “is not going to make me hire when we don’t have work,” says Jim Henderson, president of Dynamic Sales Co., a 44-year-old construction and industrial supply company in St. Louis with seven employees. “I plan to sell my way out of recession, not wait for Washington to help me out.”
I think Obama's starting to figure out that you can't take from the rich and give to the poor when there's no more rich.
"The president and Congress “pay lip service to the fact that small business generates half of private-sector GDP and employs 60 percent or more of private-sector workers,” Dunkelberg says. As far as Washington’s efforts to help this sector of the economy, “instead of stimulus, give consumers a tax cut,” he says."
...
"Small-business owners list “poor sales” as the numero uno problem. And the jobs tax credit for hiring new workers, proposed by President Obama and embraced by Congress, won’t do much to help. Employers aren’t about to pay a new worker $40,000 to earn a $5,000 credit unless that worker generates $35,000 of revenue, Dunkelberg explains. That’s Econ 101 (see “marginal revenue product” or “profit maximization”), a course most of our elected representatives seem to have missed.
The tax credit for hiring “has absolutely no impact on our decision-making,” says Phil Kenny, president of Trucks Unique, an Albuquerque, New Mexico, company that customizes pick-up trucks for commercial and individual purposes. “We have no tax liability to take a credit against.”
A tax credit “is not going to make me hire when we don’t have work,” says Jim Henderson, president of Dynamic Sales Co., a 44-year-old construction and industrial supply company in St. Louis with seven employees. “I plan to sell my way out of recession, not wait for Washington to help me out.”
I think Obama's starting to figure out that you can't take from the rich and give to the poor when there's no more rich.
Saturday, February 6, 2010
Unsustainable
From National Review Online.
"The palpable whiff given off by the White House inner circle is that they’re the last people on the planet still besotted by Barack Obama, and that they’re having such a cool time starring in their own reality-show remake of The West Wing they can only conceive of the public — and, indeed, the world — as crowd-scene extras in The Barack Obama Show: They expect you to cheer and wave flags when the floor-manager tells you to, but the notion that in return he should be able to persuade you of the merits of his policies seems entirely to have eluded them."
...
"National Review’s Jim Geraghty sums up Obama’s America thus: “Unsustainable is the new normal.” Indeed. The other day, Douglas Elmendorf, director of the Congressional Budget Office, described current deficits as “unsustainable.” So let’s make them even more so. The president tells us, with a straight face, that his grossly irresponsible profligate wastrel of a predecessor took the federal budget on an eight-year joyride, so the only way his sober, fiscally prudent successor can get things under control is to grab the throttle and crank it up to what Mel Brooks in Spaceballs (which seems the appropriate comparison) called “Ludicrous Speed.”
"The palpable whiff given off by the White House inner circle is that they’re the last people on the planet still besotted by Barack Obama, and that they’re having such a cool time starring in their own reality-show remake of The West Wing they can only conceive of the public — and, indeed, the world — as crowd-scene extras in The Barack Obama Show: They expect you to cheer and wave flags when the floor-manager tells you to, but the notion that in return he should be able to persuade you of the merits of his policies seems entirely to have eluded them."
...
"National Review’s Jim Geraghty sums up Obama’s America thus: “Unsustainable is the new normal.” Indeed. The other day, Douglas Elmendorf, director of the Congressional Budget Office, described current deficits as “unsustainable.” So let’s make them even more so. The president tells us, with a straight face, that his grossly irresponsible profligate wastrel of a predecessor took the federal budget on an eight-year joyride, so the only way his sober, fiscally prudent successor can get things under control is to grab the throttle and crank it up to what Mel Brooks in Spaceballs (which seems the appropriate comparison) called “Ludicrous Speed.”
Wednesday, January 27, 2010
Obama's Goal: Get Agenda Moving, Get People Believing
From Yahoo News re: the State of the Union address.
The state of WHICH union? AFL/CIO or SEIU?
"Facing a divided Congress and a dissatisfied nation, President Barack Obama will unveil a jobs-heavy agenda in his State of the Union address Wednesday, retooling his message more than his mission.
His goal: Get the economy, the confidence of voters and his own presidency on surer footing."
...
"Change is working against him.
"The president is going to explain why he thinks the American people are angry," Obama spokesman Robert Gibbs said Wednesday morning." (emphasis mine)
Let the public display of disconnect begin!
The state of WHICH union? AFL/CIO or SEIU?
"Facing a divided Congress and a dissatisfied nation, President Barack Obama will unveil a jobs-heavy agenda in his State of the Union address Wednesday, retooling his message more than his mission.
His goal: Get the economy, the confidence of voters and his own presidency on surer footing."
...
"Change is working against him.
"The president is going to explain why he thinks the American people are angry," Obama spokesman Robert Gibbs said Wednesday morning." (emphasis mine)
Let the public display of disconnect begin!
Tuesday, January 26, 2010
Here Comes the Depression: Obama Proposes to Freeze Non-Security Spending for Three Years
From CNN Money.
"The officials would not reveal the details of which domestic programs would be cut, as they prepare to face major pushback from liberals in the president's own party because popular education and health spending could be on the chopping block. The details will be officially unveiled February 1, when the president publicly releases his next budget blueprint for fiscal year 2011 -- which starts October 1 -- and beyond."
I'm already hearing of "food" security loopholes--meaning food stamp programs, and "housing" security--meaning rent subsidy programs, and "social" security programs, which are self-explanatory. Dems are attaching thew word "security" to pet programs they want to keep alive.
"The officials would not reveal the details of which domestic programs would be cut, as they prepare to face major pushback from liberals in the president's own party because popular education and health spending could be on the chopping block. The details will be officially unveiled February 1, when the president publicly releases his next budget blueprint for fiscal year 2011 -- which starts October 1 -- and beyond."
I'm already hearing of "food" security loopholes--meaning food stamp programs, and "housing" security--meaning rent subsidy programs, and "social" security programs, which are self-explanatory. Dems are attaching thew word "security" to pet programs they want to keep alive.
Monday, January 25, 2010
Obama To Announce Aid to Middle Class
From the Washington Post.
Here we go again--Stimulus Round #3, or Bailout #3 if you prefer. He's throwing money around to people with kids, parents living with them, students, or retirement savers.
"The proposals to be unveiled by Obama and Vice President Joe Biden at the White House, and which the president will push in his Wednesday night speech, include a doubling of the child care tax credit for families earning under $85,000; an increase in federal funding for child care programs of $1.6 billion; capping student loan payments to 10 percent of income above "a basic living allowance;" expanding tax credits to match retirement savings; and increasing aid for families taking care of elderly relatives. The plan would also require all employers to provide the option of a workplace-based retirement savings plan."
Here he goes back to the drawing board--this is the crap he proposed when he first took office. He's trying to figure out who can be bought, and for how much.
Here we go again--Stimulus Round #3, or Bailout #3 if you prefer. He's throwing money around to people with kids, parents living with them, students, or retirement savers.
"The proposals to be unveiled by Obama and Vice President Joe Biden at the White House, and which the president will push in his Wednesday night speech, include a doubling of the child care tax credit for families earning under $85,000; an increase in federal funding for child care programs of $1.6 billion; capping student loan payments to 10 percent of income above "a basic living allowance;" expanding tax credits to match retirement savings; and increasing aid for families taking care of elderly relatives. The plan would also require all employers to provide the option of a workplace-based retirement savings plan."
Here he goes back to the drawing board--this is the crap he proposed when he first took office. He's trying to figure out who can be bought, and for how much.
Saturday, January 23, 2010
Too Much of a Bad Thing
From the National Review Online.
"Who’s panting for Obama speech number 412? Exactly no one."
A humorous look at Obama's activities surrounding the Scott Brown barnstorming in Massachusetts. A must-read article.
"Who’s panting for Obama speech number 412? Exactly no one."
A humorous look at Obama's activities surrounding the Scott Brown barnstorming in Massachusetts. A must-read article.
Friday, January 22, 2010
Obama Declares War on Wall Street
From Financial Times. He wants money, so he's going to where the money is.
"Barack Obama set out broad new measures on financial regulation. The most significant of them is banning deposit-taking banks from proprietary trading that is “unrelated to serving customers”. This activity has generated politically incendiary profits for banks and bonuses for bankers.
The timing was political: the president spoke on the day that Goldman Sachs announced fourth-quarter earnings of $4.95bn. Those of a more populist nature than Mr Obama – both on the left and on the right – will say that he comes late to the game."
...
"Instead of using the control they enjoyed over the banks through the troubled asset relief programme in 2009, the authorities rushed to free banks from the restrictions associated with Tarp.
Mr Obama may now be ruing this lost opportunity. The public mood has swung against Wall Street – to which Mr Obama appears too close for comfort. Trillion-dollar bail-outs for people on million-dollar salaries have infuriated Americans living in fear of losing their jobs and their homes.
Mr Obama’s political team is running to catch up. In December he called bank executives to the White House to scold them and, last week, he announced a $90bn levy on the banks to claw back some of the costs of the bail-out. These actions were broadly justified. The new proposal, however, is a radical shift – and a mistake."
"Too big to fail" is failing...and guess what? Our own government's next--it's too big to fail, and will fail anyway--nobody's stepping up to bail US out!
"Barack Obama set out broad new measures on financial regulation. The most significant of them is banning deposit-taking banks from proprietary trading that is “unrelated to serving customers”. This activity has generated politically incendiary profits for banks and bonuses for bankers.
The timing was political: the president spoke on the day that Goldman Sachs announced fourth-quarter earnings of $4.95bn. Those of a more populist nature than Mr Obama – both on the left and on the right – will say that he comes late to the game."
...
"Instead of using the control they enjoyed over the banks through the troubled asset relief programme in 2009, the authorities rushed to free banks from the restrictions associated with Tarp.
Mr Obama may now be ruing this lost opportunity. The public mood has swung against Wall Street – to which Mr Obama appears too close for comfort. Trillion-dollar bail-outs for people on million-dollar salaries have infuriated Americans living in fear of losing their jobs and their homes.
Mr Obama’s political team is running to catch up. In December he called bank executives to the White House to scold them and, last week, he announced a $90bn levy on the banks to claw back some of the costs of the bail-out. These actions were broadly justified. The new proposal, however, is a radical shift – and a mistake."
"Too big to fail" is failing...and guess what? Our own government's next--it's too big to fail, and will fail anyway--nobody's stepping up to bail US out!
Wednesday, January 20, 2010
For Obama, Massachusetts Equals Agenda Threat
From Business Week.
"With Republican Scott Brown’s victory in a special election to fill the Senate seat that had been long held by the late Edward M. Kennedy, a Democrat, the president may have to scale back his second-year agenda, which includes overhauling immigration laws and financial regulations, analysts said.
Brown’s defeat of Democrat Martha Coakley is “a body blow to Obama and other Democrats,” said Larry Jacobs, director of the Hubert Humphrey Institute of Public Affairs at the University of Minnesota in Minneapolis. “It’s a resounding message of rejection, disappointment and the loss of hope."
"With Republican Scott Brown’s victory in a special election to fill the Senate seat that had been long held by the late Edward M. Kennedy, a Democrat, the president may have to scale back his second-year agenda, which includes overhauling immigration laws and financial regulations, analysts said.
Brown’s defeat of Democrat Martha Coakley is “a body blow to Obama and other Democrats,” said Larry Jacobs, director of the Hubert Humphrey Institute of Public Affairs at the University of Minnesota in Minneapolis. “It’s a resounding message of rejection, disappointment and the loss of hope."
Saturday, January 16, 2010
Obama's Agenda on a Precipice
From the National Review.
"If “the educated class” is for it — “health” “care” “reform,” cap-&-trade, Miranda rights for terrorists — Joe Six-Pack and his fellow knuckledragging morons are reflexively opposed to it.
This almost exactly inverts what really happened over this last year. “The educated class” turned out to be not that educated — if, by “educated,” you mean knowing stuff. They were dazzled by Obama: My former National Review colleague Christopher Buckley wrote cooing paeans to his “first-class intellect” and “temperament.” I used to joke that “temperament” was for the Obammysoxers of “the educated class” what hair was to Tiger Beat reporters."
"If “the educated class” is for it — “health” “care” “reform,” cap-&-trade, Miranda rights for terrorists — Joe Six-Pack and his fellow knuckledragging morons are reflexively opposed to it.
This almost exactly inverts what really happened over this last year. “The educated class” turned out to be not that educated — if, by “educated,” you mean knowing stuff. They were dazzled by Obama: My former National Review colleague Christopher Buckley wrote cooing paeans to his “first-class intellect” and “temperament.” I used to joke that “temperament” was for the Obammysoxers of “the educated class” what hair was to Tiger Beat reporters."
Thursday, January 14, 2010
Obama Seeking Tax on Biggest Banks
From Yahoo news.
"A senior administration official said the tax, which officials are calling a "financial crisis responsibility fee," would apply only to financial companies with assets of more than $50 billion. Those firms — estimated to amount to about 50 institutions — would have to pay the fee even though many did not accept any taxpayer assistance and most others already paid back their government infusions.
The official said banks could pay for the tax by tapping their generous executive bonus pools. The administration official described the plan in a conference call to reporters Wednesday evening on the condition of anonymity because it had not been officially announced."
"A senior administration official said the tax, which officials are calling a "financial crisis responsibility fee," would apply only to financial companies with assets of more than $50 billion. Those firms — estimated to amount to about 50 institutions — would have to pay the fee even though many did not accept any taxpayer assistance and most others already paid back their government infusions.
The official said banks could pay for the tax by tapping their generous executive bonus pools. The administration official described the plan in a conference call to reporters Wednesday evening on the condition of anonymity because it had not been officially announced."
Saturday, January 9, 2010
Obama's Buck-Stopping Can Only Go So Far
From Yahoo news.
"He says "the buck stops with me," but nearly a year into office, President Barack Obama is still blaming a lot of the nation's troubles — the economy, terrorism, health care — on George W. Bush."
...
"Obama needs to show that he gets results. And so he describes a year of overlooked achievement since his predecessor left town, addressing a range of problems: hate crimes, tobacco advertisements toward children, pay disparities for women, abuses by credit card companies and many more.
In other words, change from Bush.
Except for when Obama sounds just like Bush with tough words for the enemy."
"He says "the buck stops with me," but nearly a year into office, President Barack Obama is still blaming a lot of the nation's troubles — the economy, terrorism, health care — on George W. Bush."
...
"Obama needs to show that he gets results. And so he describes a year of overlooked achievement since his predecessor left town, addressing a range of problems: hate crimes, tobacco advertisements toward children, pay disparities for women, abuses by credit card companies and many more.
In other words, change from Bush.
Except for when Obama sounds just like Bush with tough words for the enemy."
Thursday, January 7, 2010
After Health Care, Obama Must Arm-Twist Senate on Climate Bill
From Yahoo Opinion.
"Mr. Obama’s persuasive style will be required to convince a dozen or so senators from coal-dependent states who are reluctant to tackle global warming. In two weeks, the Senate is expected to vote on a measure that would block the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) from imposing strict limits on carbon dioxide emissions."
...
"Obama now needs to justify a climate-change law mainly on economic grounds. Fear of global warming doesn’t seem to work in the Senate. Many top lawmakers believe that setting a cap on carbon emissions will damage the economy – especially if America’s competitors around the world don’t do the same. And they say there’s little chance of Senate passage in 2010 if unemployment stays high."
...
"The White House is also orchestrating a raft of regulatory rules in many agencies such as the Interior Department that would force companies to take carbon emissions into account. One major step would require “climate change impact statements” in any federal approval of projects. Another would push land-use policies that encourage urban density in housing – and thus less driving."
It isn't going to matter if all the manufacturing jobs are overseas now, is it? Pushing urban density in order to curb driving is akin to rebuilding Cabrini Green complexes throughout the country, because there won't be any jobs to DRIVE to!
...and no reason to own a car...
Tenement housing, here we come--by then, everybody will be on the dole and Obama won't have the means to support us all. Green will quickly become brown, then black as we morph into the "fundamental change" he promised on the campaign trail--turning this country into a giant welfare state.
This is just one more explosive charge meant to collapse the system. Health care was the first one. Immigration reform will be the next one.
"Mr. Obama’s persuasive style will be required to convince a dozen or so senators from coal-dependent states who are reluctant to tackle global warming. In two weeks, the Senate is expected to vote on a measure that would block the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) from imposing strict limits on carbon dioxide emissions."
...
"Obama now needs to justify a climate-change law mainly on economic grounds. Fear of global warming doesn’t seem to work in the Senate. Many top lawmakers believe that setting a cap on carbon emissions will damage the economy – especially if America’s competitors around the world don’t do the same. And they say there’s little chance of Senate passage in 2010 if unemployment stays high."
...
"The White House is also orchestrating a raft of regulatory rules in many agencies such as the Interior Department that would force companies to take carbon emissions into account. One major step would require “climate change impact statements” in any federal approval of projects. Another would push land-use policies that encourage urban density in housing – and thus less driving."
It isn't going to matter if all the manufacturing jobs are overseas now, is it? Pushing urban density in order to curb driving is akin to rebuilding Cabrini Green complexes throughout the country, because there won't be any jobs to DRIVE to!
...and no reason to own a car...
Tenement housing, here we come--by then, everybody will be on the dole and Obama won't have the means to support us all. Green will quickly become brown, then black as we morph into the "fundamental change" he promised on the campaign trail--turning this country into a giant welfare state.
This is just one more explosive charge meant to collapse the system. Health care was the first one. Immigration reform will be the next one.
Monday, January 4, 2010
New Year's Resolutions For Washington
From the Wall St. Journal.
"Ambitious Republicans should resolve to run next year. There will be a wave of voter support for GOP positions, but authenticity, passion and conviction matter. Voters can smell them, so bone up on the issues and say what you believe, not what someone tells you to say."
...
"As for me, I resolve to speak well of Mr. Obama more frequently, curry favor with liberals by being more critical of my fellow conservatives, and be guided by the words of Mark Twain, who said that the start of a New Year "is the accepted time to make your regular annual good resolutions. Next week you can begin paving hell with them as usual."
"Ambitious Republicans should resolve to run next year. There will be a wave of voter support for GOP positions, but authenticity, passion and conviction matter. Voters can smell them, so bone up on the issues and say what you believe, not what someone tells you to say."
...
"As for me, I resolve to speak well of Mr. Obama more frequently, curry favor with liberals by being more critical of my fellow conservatives, and be guided by the words of Mark Twain, who said that the start of a New Year "is the accepted time to make your regular annual good resolutions. Next week you can begin paving hell with them as usual."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
