As Mr. Chrisie recounted it: “You can imagine how that was received by 7,500 firefighters. As I walked into the room and was introduced. I WAS BOOED LUSTILY. I MADE MY WAY UP TO THE STAGE, THEY BOOED SOME MORE. . . . SO I SAID, ‘COME ON, YOU CAN DO BETTER THAN THAT,’ AND THEY DID!”
HE CRUMPLED UP HIS PREPARED REMARKS AND THREW THEM ON THE FLOOR. He told them, “Here’s the deal: I understand you’re angry, and I understand you’re frustrated, and I understand you feel deceived and betrayed.” And, he said, they were right: “FOR 20 YEARS, GOVERNORS HAVE COME INTO THIS ROOM AND LIED TO YOU, PROMISED YOU BENEFITS THAT THEY HAD NO WAY OF PAYING FOR, making promises they knew they couldn’t keep, and just hoping that they wouldn’t be the man or women left holding the bag. I understand why you feel angry and betrayed and deceived by those people. Here’s what I don’t understand. WHY ARE YOU BOOING THE FIRST GUY WHO CAME IN HERE AND TOLD YOU THE TRUTH?”
He told them there was no political advantage in being truthful: “The way we used to think about politics and, unfortunately, the way I FEAR THEY’RE THINKING ABOUT POLITICS STILL IN WASHINGTON” INVOLVES “THE OLD PLAYBOOK [WHICH] SAYS, “LIE, DECEIVE, OBFUSCATE AND MAKE IT TO THE NEXT ELECTION.” He’d seen a study that said New Jersey’s pensions may go bankrupt by 2020. A friend told him not to worry, he won’t be governor then. “That’s the way politics has been practiced in our country for too long. . . . So I said to those firefighters, ‘YOU MAY HATE ME NOW, BUT 15 YEARS FROM NOW, WHEN YOU HAVE A PENSION TO COLLECT BECAUSE OF WHAT I DID, YOU’LL BE LOOKING FOR MY ADDRESS ON THE INTERNET SO YOU CAN SEND ME A THANK-YOU NOTE.’“
http://peggynoonan.com/
Big, bold and honest is the way you describe Chris Christie and may I add Presidential.
Poll: Most Americans Don’t support Public employee unions
CLARUS' NATIONWIDE STUDY FOUND THAT 64 PERCENT OF AMERICAN PEOPLE THINK STATE WORKERS SHOULD NOT BE ABLE TO JOIN LABOR UNIONS.
Another 29 percent believe that d government employees should be represented by unions that bargain for higher pay, benefits and pensions.
The survey also uncovered a deep divide along party lines-- Republicans and independents strongly oppose unionization for government employee. Indeed, ONLY 10 PERCENT OF REPUBLICANS AND 23 PERCENT OF INDEPENDENTS SUPPORT The right of public employees to be represented by unions.
Contrarily, 49 PERCENT OF DEMOCRATS THINK THEY SHOULD BE ABLE TO UNIONIZE
http://uk.ibtimes.com/articles/114185/20110218/unions.htm
This is not good for the democrats as they rally behind the unions.
WHO GOVERNS WISCONSIN?
THE FIGHT FOR AMERICA'S FUTURE NOW CENTRES UPON WISCONSIN. On one side are Governor Scott Walker, the Wisconsin Republican majorities in the legislature, and the majority of Wisconsinites who voted them into office. On the other side are the public sector unions for whom governance is, at bottom, a racket – and their Democratic allies.
This fight began when Governor Walker decided to deal with Wisconsin's state budget deficit, projected at $3.6bn over the coming two years, BY ADDRESSING ROOT CAUSES: NOT THROUGH TAX HIKES OR STATE WORKER LAYOFFS, BUT BY TACKLING THE EXCESSIVE POWERS AND BENEFITS OF THE PUBLIC SECTOR UNIONS. With this done, sensible budgeting and prioritisation is possible – not with an eye toward union demands, but to the actual needs of Wisconsinites.
THE STRIKING THING ABOUT THE GOVERNOR'S PROPOSALS IS THEIR MILDNESS. Indeed, private sector workers – that is, the overwhelming majority of Wisconsinites and Americans both – would be fortunate to have such terms. WISCONSIN PUBLIC SECTOR UNION MEMBERS ARE TO BE ASKED TO CONTRIBUTE 5.8% OF THEIR SALARIES TO PENSIONS, AND 12% TO THEIR HEALTHCARE PREMIUMS. They furthermore will retain collective bargaining rights only on matters of salary, but lose them for benefits and perks. These would be regarded as fairly ordinary terms of employment engagement for most Americans.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2011/feb/18/us-unions-wisconsin
What is amazing is that the Democrats are so quick to want to raise taxes on people earning more money, unless they support the Democratic Party. Here we have a privileged groups of primarily Democrats who the state is asking to “pay their fair share” and the answer seems to be a resounding, “Hell no.”
Even Joe Klein comes out against the Wisconsin Protesters
...An election was held in Wisconsin last November. The Republicans won. IN A DEMOCRACY, THERE ARE CONSEQUENCES TO ELECTIONS AND NO ONE, NOT EVEN THE PUBLIC EMPLOYEES UNIONS, ARE EXEMPT from that. There are no guarantees that labor contracts, including contracts governing the most basic rights of unions, can't be renegotiated, or terminated for that matter. We hold elections to decide those basic parameters. And IT SEEMS TO ME THAT GOVERNOR SCOTT WALKER'S BASIC REQUESTS ARE MODEST ONES--asking public employees to contribute more to their pension and health care plans, though still far less than most private sector employees do. He is also trying to limit the unions' abilities to negotiate work rules--and this is crucial when it comes to the more efficient operation of government in a difficult time. When I covered local government in New York 30 years ago, the school janitors (then paid a robust $60,000 plus per year) had negotiated the "right" to mop the cafeteria floors only once a week....
http://swampland.blogs.time.com/2011/02/18/wisconsin-the-hemlock-revolution/#ixzz1EP9aFYED
This is a losing issue if you are a democrat and Joe Klein comes out against your position.
Makes you wonder
A reader asks a good question about news coverage of events in Wisconsin:
BTW...IN NO MSM COVERAGE I HAVE SEEN IS THERE ANY NOTE THAT THE CROWD IS "PREDOMINANTLY WHITE".... WHY IS THAT?
Heh. We all remember how liberal news coverage of tea party rallies rarely failed to note that they were "predominantly white." Somehow, that is no longer a salient fact when the same outlets cover illegal sick-outs by Wisconsin teachers. Why would that be?
http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2011/02/028403.php
Actually from the pictures I’ve seen the correct term would be “overwhelmingly white.” I guess they must be racists.
New Press Secretary but old lies
White House press secretary JAY CARNEY SAYS THE RECOVERY ACT ADDED SEVERAL MILLION JOBS AND LOWERED THE UNEMPLOYMENT RATE. ACCORDING TO CARNEY, THE "GOALS" OF THE STIMULUS PACKAGE "HAVE BEEN MET."
A reporter asked Carney why unemployment is at 9% and not 7%, the percentage projected if the stimulus worked. Carney dismissed the question. "WE'VE SAID REPEATEDLY THAT WE DON'T WANT TO RELITIGATE THE BATTLES OF THE PAST," Carney told the reporter.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2011/02/17/whs_jay_carney_stimulus_goals_have_been_met.html
I guess $854 billion doesn’t buy as much as it once did.
Stripping Most Institutional Media of Constitutional Protection?
SEVERAL WASHINGTON STATE LEGISLATORS HAVE PROPOSED A RESOLUTION THAT WOULD “URGE[] CONGRESS TO PROPOSE AN AMENDMENT TO THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION for the states’ consideration which provides THAT CORPORATIONS ARE NOT PERSONS UNDER THE LAWS OF THE UNITED STATES or any of its jurisdictional subdivisions.” It’s pretty clear from context that they mean corporations aren’t supposed to have constitutional rights, and that they are asking for the amendment because THEY WANT TO OVERTURN CITIZENS UNITED..
But of course the proposed amendment, to the extent it STRIPS BUSINESS CORPORATIONS OF FIRST AMENDMENT RIGHTS, WOULD ALSO STRIP MEDIA CORPORATIONS OF FIRST AMENDMENT RIGHTS. It would also strip nonprofit corporations — such as the ACLU, NRA, etc. — of First Amendment rights. And it would let government take corporate property without just compensation, and more.
Now I don’t know whether the state legislators actually want this to happen, and actually want THE GOVERNMENT TO HAVE THE POWER TO, SAY, CENSOR THE NEW YORK TIMES (or the Seattle Times). But that’s precisely what they are asking for
http://volokh.com/2011/02/18/stripping-most-institutional-media-of-constitutional-protection/
I’m sure that isn’t what the people who proposed this wanted. However, that is what they are in essence proposing. Sometimes I don't think liberals are very bright.
Dr. Berwick and Mr. Hide
In Robert Louis Stevenson's famous novella about the duality of human nature, a minor character describes Mr. Hyde thus: "THERE IS SOMETHING WRONG WITH HIS APPEARANCE; SOMETHING DISPLEASING, SOMETHING DOWN-RIGHT DETESTABLE. I NEVER SAW A MAN I SO DISLIKED." It is difficult to avoid similar feelings of revulsion watching the C-SPAN video of Dr. Donald Berwick's alter ego testifying at the February 10 hearing of the House Ways and Means Committee. His disingenuous opening remarks, evasive answers, and transparent contempt for congressional oversight revealed Obama's recess-appointed administrator of the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid (CMS) as a grotesque changeling. GONE WERE THE BOLD STATEMENTS ABOUT RATIONING, BRITAIN'S SOCIALIZED MEDICAL SYSTEM, AND THE PERILS OF THE MARKET. The celebrated visionary, Dr. Donald Berwick, has been completely subsumed in the sly apparatchik, Mr. Hide.
The Dr. Berwick with whom we have become all too familiar was a vocal advocate of health care rationing. IN A 2009 INTERVIEW FOR BIOTECHNOLOGY HEALTHCARE, HE GUSHED WITH ENTHUSIASM FOR THE HEAVY-HANDED RATIONING REGIME OF GREAT BRITAIN'S NATIONAL INSTITUTE FOR HEALTH & CLINICAL EXCELLENCE (NICE) and advised his interlocutor that "THE DECISION IS NOT WHETHER OR NOT WE WILL RATION CARE; THE DECISION IS WHETHER WE WILL RATION WITH OUR EYES OPEN." When the good doctor's alter ego appeared before the Ways and Means Committee, however, he told a different story. Mr. Hide, it seems, has always been a vehement opponent of rationing. When asked by Tom Price, M.D. (R-GA) about the above-quoted remark and a variety of similar public statements, he stunned the committee with the following answer: "I ABHOR RATIONING…. MY ENTIRE LIFE HAS BEEN SPENT FIGHTING RATIONING
http://spectator.org/archives/2011/02/18/dr-berwick-and-mr-hide
It is no wonder Obama didn’t want him to go through the conformation process. He is either a fool or a liar.
Whatever happened to the romance between the environmental lobby and natural gas?
After years of basking in a green glow as the cleanest fossil fuel and a favorite short-term choice to replace cheap-but-dirty coal, GAS NOW FINDS ITSELF UNDER ATTACK FROM ENVIRONMENTALISTS, filmmakers and congressional Democrats — and even from some scientists who raise doubts about whether its total emissions are as climate-friendly as commonly believed.http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/259945/green-double-cross-begins-steven-f-hayward
Case in point: the Sierra Club, whose former executive director, Carl Pope, has spoken warmly in recent years about gas as an alternative to coal in power plants. NOW, THE GROUP IS CONSIDERING CALLING FOR NATURAL GAS TO BE PHASED OUT BY 2050 — about 20 years after it wants coal eliminated.
While the group said it hasn’t changed its mind about gas vs. coal, Deputy Executive Director Bruce Hamilton says he and other Sierra Club leaders are “trying to be clearer in our communication. ... WE WANT PEOPLE TO KNOW THAT NATURAL GAS IS NOT A CLEAN FUEL AND IT NEEDS TO BE CLEANED UP BEFORE IT CAN BE AN ACCEPTABLE FUEL.”
I recommend you read this article and go on to the comments. It is very entertaining. For instance the second one listed (when I looked at them was)
A friend of mine once told me of environmentalists:
"The environmentalist can't take yes for an answer".
The Role of Fannie and Freddie in the Economic crisis
How unwilling is President Obama to truly rein in the growth of government? Consider his refusal to do anything about Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.
Oh, Obama last week -- more than two years after the two mortgage giants were seized and placed into a federal conservatorship -- issued "recommendations" that would supposedly wind down the twins over a decade.
Mind you, FANNIE AND FREDDIE HAVE COST THE TAXPAYERS $160 BILLION IN DIRECT SUBSIDIES since they were taken over in August 2008. The country would be better off if they shut down today. ….
…THE HOUSING BUBBLE AND CRISIS NEVER WOULD HAVE OCCURRED ABSENT GOVERNMENT PRESSURE. Congress, acting through the Department of Housing and Urban Development, pushed Fannie and Freddie to buy trillions of dollars worth of subprime loans in order to make "housing more affordable." Meanwhile, regulators bullied banks to make loans to minority borrowers who couldn't afford to pay them back.
IN 1996, HUD SET AN EXPLICIT TARGET, COMMANDING THAT 42 PERCENT OF THE LOANS BOUGHT BY FANNIE AND FREDDIE BE TO PEOPLE WITH INCOMES BELOW THE AREA'S MEDIAN. THAT TARGET ROSE TO 50 PERCENT BEFORE CLINTON LEFT OFFICE -- AND WAS PUSHED EVEN HIGHER IN THE BUSH YEARS. ….
http://www.nypost.com/p/news/opinion/opedcolumnists/the_housing_menace_djbi0v0oAavvUVucvzuVcN#ixzz1EJjUB3Mk
The Democrats want to blame a lack of government oversight on the financial crisis, but as Ronald Reagan said in the 1980s “Government is not the solution. Government is the problem.”
From Pro-abortion to Pro Life
She is a former Planned Parenthood clinic director. She has a new book, with an important story.
….JOHNSON: THE DIFFERENCE IS THAT THE ABORTION INDUSTRY DESIRES TO HELP WOMEN IN THEIR TIME OF NEED AND CRISIS BY PROVIDING NOT ONLY REPRODUCTIVE HEALTH CARE, BUT ABORTION SERVICES IF A WOMAN IS NOT READY, or not in a position financially or emotionally, or not stable enough to bring a child into her life. THE PRO-LIFE MOVEMENT HAS THE SAME DESIRE TO HELP WOMEN IN THEIR TIME OF NEED AND CRISIS BUT LOOKS BEYOND THE IMMEDIATE NEEDS OF THE WOMAN AND CONSIDERS THE LIFE OF THE CHILD and the woman’s family as well. The abortion industry provides a “quick fix” and focuses more on the immediate effects of the crisis, while the pro-life movement focuses on the long-term effects of the woman’s choice and the reality of what is best for the woman, rather than providing an “out.”…
http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/260084/meet-abby-johnson-kathryn-jean-lopez
This is an interesting interview and seems to represent both sides of the debate well. I thought I would post it because it shows a respectful disagreement. It’s probably something we could use more of. I recommend reading it.
No comments:
Post a Comment