Thursday: Obamacare problems, Obama problems

Politics

Obamacare: I guess we did need to pass the bill to find out what’s in it

The Democrats’ “historic achievement,” shocking as it seems, TURNS OUT TO BE AN EXPENSIVE, JOBS-CRIPPLING MONSTROSITY THAT IS FILLED WITH UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES. Employers are likely to dump employees into highly subsidized exchanges. It’s not going to bend the cost curve. And today, the Associated Press reports:

PRESIDENT BARACK OBAMA’S HEALTH CARE LAW WOULD LET SEVERAL MILLION MIDDLE-CLASS PEOPLE GET NEARLY FREE INSURANCE MEANT FOR THE POOR, a twist government number crunchers say they discovered only after the complex bill was signed.

The change would affect early retirees: A married couple could have an annual income of about $64,000 and still get Medicaid, said officials who make long-range cost estimates for the Health and Human Services department.

UP TO 3 MILLION PEOPLE COULD QUALIFY FOR MEDICAID IN 2014 AS A RESULT OF THE ANOMALY. That’s because, in a major change from today, most of their Social Security benefits would no longer be counted as income for determining eligibility.

Minority Leader Mitch McConnell’s communications director e-mailed me in response to this report, “Nearly every week we find a new reason to say ‘repeal and replace.’ ”…

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/right-turn/post/how-did-obamacare-get-so-screwed-up/2011/03/29/AGtI3heH_blog.html

Yet another mistake in a ill-advised bill.

Incumbents in trouble in 2012?

CALIFORNIA SEN. DIANNE FEINSTEIN'S POPULARITY HAS PLUNGED BY DOUBLE DIGITS FROM HER PREVIOUS RE-ELECTION RATINGS, according to a new Field Poll survey, demonstrating the toll that the anemic economy is taking on incumbent Democrats, including President Obama, heading into next year's elections.

Campaigning for a fourth full term, FEINSTEIN ENJOYS A FOUR-POINT EDGE, 43 TO 39 PERCENT, among registered California voters asked if they would vote for her - even as a strong majority, 46 to 31 percent, approves of the job she is doing. Eighteen percent of voters have no opinion on whether they'd vote for her, leaving a wide opening among swing voters for a potential challenger.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2011/06/21/MNOB1K09BP.DTL#ixzz1Q0PawpVC

This is not good if you are among those who are incumbents and feel as if it is your god given right to be in office.



Reid: Huntsman over Romney in GOP field

Even though he won't be able to cast a vote, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) picked his favorite Mormon candidate in the GOP presidential field on Tuesday: Jon Huntsman.

Reid, a Mormon, was asked if the country is ready for a president of his faith because there are two in the Republican primary race. Huntsman, the former U.S. ambassador to China faces Mitt Romney, the former Massachusetts governor.

"CERTAINLY THEY'RE NOT READY FOR THE FORMER GOVERNOR OF MASSACHUSETTS. WHICH SAYS IN THAT RACE IF I HAD A CHOICE I WOULD FAVOR HUNTSMAN OVER ROMNEY," he told reporters at the Capitol.

http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/167649-reid-prefers-huntsman-over-romney-in-gop-field


Here’s another feather in Mitt Romney’s cap. If you are endorsed by Harry Reid, you might as well kiss your chances for the Republican nomination goodbye. Romney is obviously the tougher candidate.

Only 3 in 10 will definitely vote for Obama

Americans are growing increasingly more frustrated with President Barack Obama’s handling of the economy and ONLY 3 IN 10 SAY THEY ARE CERTAIN THEY WILL VOTE TO RE-ELECT HIM IN 2012, a new poll finds.

JUST 23 PERCENT OF THOSE SURVEYED FOR A BLOOMBERG NEWS POLL RELEASED WEDNESDAY SAY THEY ARE HOPEFUL ABOUT THE ECONOMY because they see signs of improvement, while 25 percent say they are fearful things are getting worse and 51 percent are cautious because nothing seems to be happening.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0611/57507.html#ixzz1Q0W4PDRL

Three in ten puts you pretty much just with just your base. Obama has lost the people who actually elected him in 2008. It’s the economy.

Superman and Jim Crow

Having experienced the psychological pain of Jim Crow laws first-hand, I won’t allow those who likely only read about Jim Crow in history books to trivialize it.

That’s why I’m outraged about a recent edition of TV One’s “Washington Watch” in which host ROLAND MARTIN AND REPRESENTATIVE DEBBIE WASSERMAN SCHULTZ (D-FL) COMPARED STATE-LEVEL VOTER IDENTIFICATION RULES TO JIM CROW.

To the contrary, requiring valid identification in exchange for something as sacred as a ballot is a pragmatic approach to governing.  IT’S AN INSULT TO THE INTELLIGENCE AND INTEGRITY OF THE AMERICAN PEOPLE, ESPECIALLY BLACK AMERICANS, TO PLAY THE RACE CARD WHERE RACE IS NOT AN ISSUE.

Martin mused: “We talk about [voting being] the fundamental right [of] Americans, but to put roadblocks up to… for… voting makes no sense to me.” WASSERMAN SHULTZ REPLIED, “NOW YOU HAVE THE REPUBLICANS, WHO WANT TO LITERALLY DRAG US BACK TO JIM CROW LAWS AND LITERALLY — AND VERY TRANSPARENTLY — BLOCKED ACCESS TO THE POLLS.”

We are required to have a state-issued driver’s license for many daily activities. Besides specifically verifying a person can operate a motor vehicle, it’s used for everything from access to buildings to birthday discounts.

http://dailycaller.com/2011/06/21/voter-id-is-no-jim-crow-i-would-know/#ixzz1Q0WuoPfJ

What I’m seeing here is a rerun of the old Superman TV episodes. In those episodes, the bad guys would shoot Superman until their gun was empty. They would then throw the gun at him, like the bullets didn’t hurt him, but the gun might??? This is the equivalent of throwing the gun at him.

More on Jim Crow

E.J. Dionne of the Washington Post, Baghdad Bob of the liberal left, dutifully trots out the latest propaganda line. HE CLAIMS THAT "AN ATTACK ON THE RIGHT TO VOTE IS UNDERWAY ACROSS THE COUNTRY," through, among other things, antifraud measures requiring voters to present identification before casting a ballot:

Besides Texas, states that enacted voter ID laws this year include Kansas, Wisconsin, South Carolina and Tennessee. Indiana and Georgia already had such requirements. . . .

In 2008, the U.S. Supreme Court, by 6 to 3, upheld Indiana's voter ID statute. So seeking judicial relief may be difficult. Nonetheless, THE JUSTICE DEPARTMENT SHOULD VIGOROUSLY CHALLENGE THESE LAWS, PARTICULARLY IN STATES COVERED BY THE VOTING RIGHTS ACT. And the court should be asked to review the issue again in light of new evidence that these laws have a real impact in restricting the rights of particular voter groups.

"THIS REQUIREMENT IS JUST A POLL TAX BY ANOTHER NAME," STATE SEN. WENDY DAVIS declared when Texas was debating its ID law early this year. In the bad old days, poll taxes, now outlawed by the 24th Amendment, were used to keep African Americans from voting. EVEN IF THE SUPREME COURT DIDN'T SEE THINGS HER WAY, DAVIS IS RIGHT. THIS IS THE CIVIL RIGHTS ISSUE OF OUR MOMENT.

In part because of a surge of voters who had not cast ballots before, the United States elected its first African American president in 2008. Are we now going to witness a subtle return of Jim Crow voting laws?

Here Dionne parrots an assertion by the unwieldy named Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz, chairman of the Democratic National Committee, who said earlier this month that Republicans "want to literally drag us all the way back to Jim Crow laws." (Literally? She's lucky there's no literacy test for members of Congress.) EVEN THE LEFT-LEANING SITE POLITIFACT.COM RATED THIS FALSE.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304070104576399433777333002.html?mod=djemBestOfTheWeb_h

Notice how Dionne sites many quotes, but not a fact to back up what he is saying. It’s an example how the left views facts. Quotes they agree with are the equivalent of fact to them.


Media and Politics

Is Newspaper Coverage of Economic Events Politically Biased?

Abstract:
Accusations of political bias in the media are often made by members of both political parties, yet there have been few systematic studies of such bias to date. This paper develops an econometric technique to test for political bias in news reports that controls for the underlying character of the news reported. OUR RESULTS SUGGEST THAT AMERICAN NEWSPAPERS TEND TO GIVE MORE POSITIVE NEWS COVERAGE TO THE SAME ECONOMIC NEWS WHEN DEMOCRATS ARE IN THE PRESIDENCY THAN FOR REPUBLICANS. When all types of news are pooled into a single analysis, our results are highly significant. However, the results vary greatly depending upon which economic numbers are being reported. WHEN GDP GROWTH IS REPORTED, REPUBLICANS RECEIVED BETWEEN 16 AND 24 PERCENTAGE POINT FEWER POSITIVE STORIES FOR THE SAME ECONOMIC NUMBERS THAN DEMOCRATS. For durable goods for all newspapers, Republicans received between 15 and 25 percentage points fewer positive news stories than Democrats. For unemployment, the difference was between zero and 21 percentage points. Retail sales showed no difference. AMONG THE ASSOCIATED PRESS AND THE TOP 10 PAPERS, THE WASHINGTON POST, CHICAGO TRIBUNE, ASSOCIATED PRESS, AND NEW YORK TIMES TEND TO BE THE LEAST LIKELY TO REPORT POSITIVE NEWS DURING REPUBLICAN ADMINISTRATIONS, while the Houston Chronicle slightly favors Republicans. Only one newspaper treated one Republican administration significantly more positively than the Clinton administration: the Los Angeles Times' headlines were most favorable to the Reagan administration, but it still favored Clinton over either Bush administration. We also find that the media coverage affects people's perceptions of the economy. Contrary to the typical impression that bad news sells, we find that good economic news generates more news coverage and that it is usually covered more prominently. We also present some evidence that media treats parties differently when they control both the presidency and the congress.

http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=588453

Newspapers are bias toward democrats? Now that’s a non-story.


Nets Ignore Emissions Decision, Politico Carries EPA's Water

The Supreme Court on Monday unequivocally rejected the notion that courts should force power companies to curtail greenhouse gas emissions, but NONE OF THE MAJOR BROADCAST NETWORKS COVERED THE UNANIMOUS DECISION ON THEIR EVENING NEWSCASTS OR MORNING SHOWS.

The New York Times teased the ruling on the front page of Tuesday's paper, directing readers to a thorough analysis of the 8-0 decision, but ABC's "Good Morning America" and "World News," CBS's "Early Show" and "Evening News," and NBC's "Today" and "Nightly News" all skipped a decision that prevents environmentalists from using the courts to impose greenhouse gas regulations on electric utilities.

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/alex-fitzsimmons/2011/06/21/nets-ignore-emissions-decision-politico-carries-epas-water

So the networks failed to note this?  Again what else is new?  Jon Stewarts opinion of Fox News looks more and more partisan and more and more stupid.


Media Recast THE Crisis Villains

SUBPRIME SCANDAL: With the housing market crashing again, the truth is finally dawning on some media elite that Washington played a bigger role in the mortgage mess than first told.
A NEW BOOK, "RECKLESS ENDANGERMENT," ZEROES IN ON THE CORRUPT PARTNERSHIP BETWEEN FANNIE MAE AND BELTWAY INSIDERS — who used the federally chartered firm as a giant slush fund to enrich themselves while pushing liberal housing scheme….

….Refreshingly, the lead villain in Gretchen Morgenson's book isn't Lloyd Blankfein or some other "fat cat" banker. It's ex-Fannie chairman Jim Johnson, one of many Clinton cronies who helped set the stage for the financial disaster back in the 1990s.

SHE BLAMES JOHNSON AND FANNIE FOR FANNING THE EASY CREDIT FLAMES BY UNDERWRITING HOME LOANS FOR LOW-INCOME MINORITIES. But this is still only half the story.

The Clinton White House and Democrat Congress were obsessed with closing the racial mortgage gap, and they enlisted Fannie and its brother, Freddie Mac, in their reckless social crusade.
FANNIE AND FREDDIE DIDN'T CO-OPT REGULATORS, AS THE BOOK ARGUES. IT WAS THE OTHER WAY AROUND. THEIR CHIEF REGULATOR — HUD — PRESSURED THEM TO TARGET CREDIT-POOR BLACKS AND HISPANICS WITH SUBPRIME LOANS. If they didn't meet HUD's increasing quotas, they were threatened with fines and stiffer oversight.

And Johnson's successor, FRANKLIN RAINES, DID FAR MORE DAMAGE AT FANNIE'S HELM. Unlike Johnson, RAINES PUSHED FOR ZERO DOWN PAYMENTS. He also begged mortgage bankers to originate more subprime loans so Fannie could buy them and fuel even more risky lending.

Under Raines, a Clinton appointee, FANNIE LOADED UP ON SUBPRIME SECURITIES WHILE GUTTING THE UNDERWRITING STANDARDS IT SET FOR THE ENTIRE MORTGAGE INDUSTRY. It was under his leadership — 1999-2005 — that the bubble of making loans to people who would have a tough time paying them off got supersized.

"We have to push products and opportunities to people who have lesser credit quality," Raines exhorted mortgage bankers gathered in San Francisco in 2004.

As Clinton's old budget director, as well as an African-American, Raines agreed with his goal of putting more blacks in homes through subprime mortgages. Home ownership was "unevenly distributed in society," Raines complained, and he was fully on board government efforts to redistribute housing credit through private lenders.

http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnalysis/Article.aspx?id=576075&utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+EditorialRss+%28Editorial+RSS%29

Fannie and Freddie appear to be the Typhoid Mary’s of the Economic crisis. This viewpoint is vigorously denied by the left (it spoils their blaming the Republicans, deregulation, and the Wall Street fat cats) but facts are facts. HUD, Fannie and Freddie, and Barney Frank and Chris Dodd are prime suspects in what is going on in America today. All the others are people who took advantage of the policies these groups foisted on the American Financial System.


Congress

Issa Lays Down the Law to DOJ: "We Are Investigating You"

The following video is from the House Oversight Committee hearing last week about Operation Fast and Furious and is worth watching.

The hearing opened up a slew of questions about Operation Fast and Furious and Issa is just getting started in his gathering of information about the lethal project, however, Assistant Attorney General Ronald Weich couldn't answer one simply question: Who in Washington authorized Operation Fast and Furious?

In his opening statement, Weich said that the Justice Department had complied and cooperated with the Oversight Committee, adding the DOJ had provided information requested through subpoenas from Issa in his investigation. As you will see, Issa strongly disagreed, making it clear there has been no cooperation from the Obama Justice Department in this case.

http://townhall.com/tipsheet/katiepavlich/2011/06/20/issa_lays_down_the_law_to_doj_we_are_investigating_you

This is something the democrats didn’t have to worry about when they controlled the congress. Expect to see a lot more of this and a slew of Democrat scandals and unseemly actions.

Mean while Rand Paul strikes a chord for basic common sense

Kentucky Republican Senator Rand Paul told the Transportation Security Administration today that IT SHOULD END WHAT HE CALLED THE “UNIVERSALITY OF INSULT” OF RANDOM PAT-DOWNS OF PASSENGERS.

In a meeting of the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, Paul grilled TSA Administrator John Pistole over the recent pat-down of a six-year-old Kentucky girl, a video of which went viral over the Internet.

“IT MAKES ME THINK YOU’RE CLUELESS, IF YOU THINK SHE’S GOING TO ATTACK OUR COUNTRY AND YOU’RE NOT DOING YOUR RESEARCH ON THE PEOPLE WHO WANT TO ATTACK OUR COUNTRY,” Paul said. “It absolutely must involve a risk assessment of those who are traveling. And the fact that she’s being patted down and I don’t feel comfortable really with your response that we are no longer doing random pat-downs. I think you ought to get rid of the random pat-downs. The American public is unhappy with them, they’re unhappy with the invasiveness of them. The Internet is full of jokes about the invasiveness of the pat-down searches and we ought to just consider, is this what we’re willing to do.”

http://dailycaller.com/2011/06/22/video-sen-rand-paul-tells-tsa-to-end-random-pat-downs/#ixzz1Q1zxtlJd

Random pat downs are worthless for making us safer. We have limited resources at airports and we should be behaviorally profiling individuals and using these resources on people who are the most likely ones to be terrorists. This is just common sense, but the problem we have with Homeland Security is that common sense is not very common.

SCOTUS

Olson and Elwood on Wal-Mart v. Dukes

Walter Olson comments on the implications of Wal-Mart v. Dukes in the Philadelphia Inquirer. Here’s his conclusion:

This week’s decision will make it harder, though not impossible, to apply class actions to employment-discrimination cases in which cash damages are the main point. (As the court noted, though, class treatment is still more liberally available for injunctive relief, such as in a suit asking that a company be ordered to change a discriminatory personnel policy.)

That does not mean, as one veteran Supreme Court reporter wrote this week, that future aggrieved employees will all have to “file their own lawsuits,” or that large companies can operate with impunity. The court did not rule out lawsuits on behalf of groups of employees affected by the actions of some identifiable corporate policy, for example, or by particular managers or supervisors or offices. And even suits by individual employees against big companies regularly demand, and sometimes get, million-dollar damages.

The message of this ruling is simple: Employees have to prove that they have been legally wronged, not just cash in because somebody else was.

http://volokh.com/2011/06/22/olson-and-elwood-on-wal-mart-v-dukes/

Volokh is always interesting. You can read this and be sure to read the comments if you want to understand more about what this means. What the Court said was that with 8000+ stores worldwide, the actions of a few managers, contrary to written policy of the company is not grounds for a class action by every women in every location in the company.

10 cases of Liberal Hypocrisy

Hypocrisy: Carbon Footprint the Size of…Some Really Big Thing—Al Gore
Hypocrisy: No Guns For You, But My Guy Packs Heat—Rosie O’Donnell
Hypocrisy: War Investments, Non-Union Labor, Calling for the End of the American Dream While Living It -- Michael Moore
Hypocrisy: Getting Married After Condemning Marriage As Pointless –Gloria Steinem
Hypocrisy: Accepting Union Awards But Not Using Union Labor—Nancy Pelosi
Hypocrisy: Coastline Protection Lawsuit—Barbara Streisand
Hypocrisy: Opposing Wind Power While Proposing Alternative Fuels Elsewhere—Ted Kennedy
Hypocrisy: Counseling on Adultery While Committing Adultery—Jesse Jackson
Hypocrisy: Protesting Animal Testing While Benefiting from Animal Testing—Mary Beth Sweetland
Hypocrisy: Using Non-Union Labor to Strike for Higher Union Wages—US Labor Unions

http://listverse.com/2009/05/02/10-cases-of-liberal-hypocrisy/

Some of these are really hypocrisy while others are simply being human (look at Gloria Steinem, and Mary Beth Sweetland.

Here’s an 11th

Things got a little testy this weekend when a Republican online conference and conservative online publisher Andrew Breitbart showed up in Minneapolis at the same time as Netroots Nation, a gathering of liberal operatives, bloggers and activists.

So in an effort to prevent similar blogger battles next year WHEN NETROOTS HEADS TO PROVIDENCE, R.I., NEXT JUNE, EVENT ORGANIZERS ARE TRYING TO BAN OTHER GATHERINGS FROM USING THE CITY’S CONVENTION CENTER AND TWO OF ITS HOTELS DURING NETROOTS WEEKEND. IT IS INSISTING ON A NONCOMPETE CLAUSE IN EVERY CONTRACT AT THE RHODE ISLAND CONVENTION CENTER AS WELL AS THE WESTIN PROVIDENCE AND PROVIDENCE BILTMORE HOTELS, Raven Brooks, Netroots executive director, told Washington Wire. A convention center official said he was not immediately aware of the arrangement.

The conservative conference, RIGHTONLINE, HAS FOLLOWED NETROOTS AROUND THE U.S. SINCE 2008, SEEKING TO ACT AS A COUNTER-EVENT. This year, a shouting match broke out when Mr. Breitbart tried to enter Netroots, camera crew in tow. Mr. Brooks alleged other cases of harassment at the Hilton Minneapolis, which was used by both events, and at downtown bars.
There are, of course, other hotels, in downtown Providence.

“The folks at RightOnline are free to hold differing political views,” Mr. Brooks said in an email. “THEY ARE NOT FREE TO HARASS OUR PEOPLE AND CREATE A POOR SOCIAL EXPERIENCE AT OUR HOTELS.”

http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2011/06/21/netroots-nation-tries-to-keep-its-distance-from-rightonline-at-2012-conference/

The last sentence is the money quote. Netroots is looking for an echo chamber experience. This is typical of the left and is one of the reasons their arguments are so pathetic. They don’t test their ideas with others with a different perspective.


Feminism redefined

Freshman Congresswoman Kristi Noem busted the liberal "republicans hate women" myth tonight on the House floor, stressing the importance of having people in Congress with real world experience, regardless of gender.

"I didn't run because I was a woman and I didn't expect people to vote for me because I was a woman."

http://townhall.com/tipsheet/katiepavlich/2011/06/21/kristi_noem_republicans_are_pro-woman

Feminism is being redefined and the liberals hate it. A color blind, gender blind society is much more what the Republicans represent rather than the quota embracing Democrats support.

Stupidity reigns on Current TV

Keith Olbermann is back and here is the stupidest thing he opined right at the beginning of his show:

“This is to be a newscast of contextualization and it is to be presented with a viewpoint that the weakest citizen of this country is more important than the strongest corporation.”

http://townhall.com/tipsheet/kevinglass/2011/06/21/keith_olbermann_returns,_nothing_changes

So basically passing a bill that would help the weakest citizen of this country but hurt the strongest corporation even if 10,000 people would lose their jobs as a result, it not simply a fair tradeoff to Mr. Olbermann, but it seems morally right. Olbermann is like a weed in an intellectual garden. He may be green, but he adds nothing of value to the rest of the garden.

Wednesday: Obama's reality

Politics
Obama wants credit

President Obama told supporters at a fundraiser in Miami Monday night that HE DESERVES CREDIT FOR CLEANING UP THE MESS HE INHERITED.

“My job over these first two years has frankly been to clean up a big mess,” Mr. Obama said at a $10,000-per-ticket event at a gated mansion in Miami Beach. “WE WERE ABLE TO MAKE SURE WE YANKED AN ECONOMY OUT OF WHAT COULD HAVE BEEN A SECOND GREAT DEPRESSION.”

The president spoke to guests on a tented lawn with a view of the Miami skyline at the $5.9 million home of former Samsonite CEO Steve Green, former ambassador to Singapore in the Clinton administration.

“WE STABILIZED THE FINANCIAL SYSTEM,” the president said. “WE MADE SURE THAT WE ENDED ONE WAR AND STARTED PUTTING ANOTHER WAR ON A PATH WHERE WE COULD START BRING MORE TROOPS HOME. WE RESTORED A SENSE AROUND THE WORLD OF WHAT AMERICAN VALUES AND IDEALS WERE ALL about. We had to address an auto industry that was on the verge of liquidation. We had to get the economy moving again and we had to get jobs created again.”

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2011/jun/13/obama-says-he-wants-credit-cleaning-big-mess/

Obama may appear delusional, but as neuroscientist Earl Miller explains, "The brain is very good at deluding itself."  This reminds me of a contractor who was going to do a job for you on your home in three weeks for $20,000.  Three months later everything is a mess and the bill in now $200,000 and he wants credit for what he's done so far. 

Michelle and the Kids Okay with Obama being a one term President

President Barack Obama says his wife and daughters aren't "invested" in him being president and would have been fine had he decided against running for re-election. But he says they believe in what he's doing for the country.

Asked about his family's reaction to his wanting another term, Obama said: "Michelle and the kids are wonderful in that if I said, `You know, guys, I want to do something different,' They'd be fine. THEY'RE NOT INVESTED IN DADDY BEING PRESIDENT OR MY HUSBAND BEING PRESIDENT."

http://washingtonexaminer.com/blogs/politics/2011/06/obama-my-family-would-be-fine-just-1-term#ixzz1PG9Qfchg

This is probably a good thing since there are a lot of wives and kids who will be bitterly disappointed if Obama is elected again. 

A glimpse of things to come?

A low-dollar fundraiser here Monday felt like a throwback to the 2008 campaign.

There was the same old soundtrack – including “City of Blinding Lights” by U2, the president’s 2008 anthem -- the enthusiastic organizers and the abundant appeals for supporters to rally behind President Obama.

THE ONE MISSING ELEMENT? OVERFLOWING CROWDS.

Granted, it was a fundraiser, not a free rally. But the empty seats were hard to miss.

THE TOP LEVEL OF THE 2,200-SEAT CONCERT HALL AT THE ADRIENNE ARSHT CENTER FOR PERFORMING ARTS WAS ENTIRELY EMPTY, AS WERE THE SEATS ALONG THE SIDE OF THE SECOND AND THIRD LEVELS.

"The expectation was 900," a Democratic official said, and more than 980 tickets were sold.

TICKETS FOR THE GEN 44 EVENT STARTED AT $44, THE OFFICIAL SAID.

"This is going to be a very tough fight," said Alonzo Mourning, the former Miami Heat player, who spoke ahead of the president. Once Obama took the stage, a protester interrupted him at one point, repeatedly yelling: "Keep your promise, stop AIDS now." But THE PROTESTER WAS QUICKLY DROWNED OUT BY THE AUDIENCE CHANTING, "OBAMA, OBAMA, OBAMA."

http://www.politico.com/politico44/perm/0611/empty_seats_108717af-a6fd-4c08-b970-fe9b3eb2e4c4.html

What struck me about this story was that when a heckler was there, the crowd chanted “Obama, Obama, Obama…” I’ve been to Tea Party Rallies and what you hear there is “USA, USA, USA…”

2008 Supporters haven’t fared well under Obama

Barack Obama benefited from strong support among a number of demographic groups during his 2008 presidential campaign. In an economic sense, AFTER TWO-AND-A-HALF YEARS OF HIS PRESIDENCY, THOSE SAME GROUPS WHICH SHOWED HIM THE GREATEST SUPPORT HAVE SUFFERED DISPROPORTIONATELY MORE THAN OTHERS IN THE UNITED STATES….

African Americans
….When Obama took office in January 2009, the nation's unemployment rate stood at 7.6%. For AFRICAN-AMERICANS, AS A GROUP, THE UNEMPLOYMENT RATE WAS 12.6%.

Fast forward two-and-a-half years and, according to the latest data released for May 2011, the nation's unemployment rate is 9.1%. THE PRESENT RATE OF UNEMPLOYMENT RATE FOR BLACKS IS 16.2%.

College/Young Professionals
… Exit poll data from 2008 show Obama enjoyed a 66% APPROVAL RATING FOR THE 18-29 YEAR-OLD demographic group.

Unfortunately for this group, economic opportunities have become more and more scarce during Obama's presidency. According to a recent report from the Economic Policy Institute, for calendar year 2010, THE UNEMPLOYMENT RATE FOR WORKERS 16-24 YEARS OF AGE AVERAGED 18.4% VERSES A RATE OF 9.6% FOR THE OVERALL POPULATION….

http://www.americanthinker.com/2011/06/hows_that_hope_and_change_working_out_for_obama_supporters.html

Will Obama be able to recreate the magic that swept him into office? Is the pope Muslim?

What does the Obama voter look like?

Looking at the latest polls from Gallup here is the group Obama is popular with (over 50% approval): an unmarried nonwhite Eastern liberal democrat under the age of 49 with a postgraduate degree who seldom or never goes to church.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/124922/Presidential-Approval-Center.aspx


Republican Debate

Overall, I was impressed. The talking heads keep chattering about a "weak" GOP field, but I didn't perceive weakness tonight. I saw a panel of strong, passionate communicators, and a number of credible alternatives to our current president and his disastrous policies. My quick, early take on each contender:

Bachmann - A STRONG PERFORMANCE. She came across as informed, polished, and personally invested in many of the issues that conservatives care about. I'm not sure why she chose to officially announce her candidacy during the first question, rather than her introductory comments, but that's a small quibble. Many conservatives will be very pleased that she is in, especially after tonight.

Cain - DELIVERED A FEW GOOD LINES, but was not nearly as strong as he was during his en fuego showing in South Carolina. His refusal to get into any specifics on foreign policy is troubling.

Gingrich - SEEMED UNFAZED BY HIS RECENT STAFFING, ER, ISSUES, and did a reasonably good job. Newt often comes across as professorial and long-winded, and lived up to those expectations again. He also gave another muddled, unconvincing answer on his infamous potshots at the Paul Ryan plan.

Paul - ADHERED TO HIS ISOLATIONIST, LIBERTARIAN POLICY PREFERENCES, and seemed less angry than he often does. Got the biggest laugh of the night when he was asked to name one economic policy President Obama has gotten right. His response: "That's a tough question!"

Pawlenty - Unlike his South Carolina triumph, T-PAW STUMBLED OUT OF THE GATE TONIGHT. He recovered with solid answers on national security and abortion, but not before he appeared weak and unwilling to really challenge Mitt Romney on the Massachusetts health program. If you're going to coin the term "Obamneycare" (which I think could be very effective), you need to own it. He didn't tonight.

Romney - TONIGHT'S WINNER, IN MY BOOK. He looked and sounded like he deserves the front-runner label. Poised and informed. He breezed through the Romneycare non-gauntlet virtually unscathed, which is a shame. If the rest of the pack wants to dislodge him from front-runner status, they're going to have to aggressively challenge him on this issue. The former Governor appeared to be in full command, and even had the awareness to sneak in the Bruins score (good news for the crowd), a savvy move in front of a New England audience.

Santorum - AN IMPROVEMENT OVER HIS RIGID, STILTED SOUTH CAROLINA SHOWING. He gave several good answers (separation of church and state, foreign policy come to mind), but I wouldn't call this a breakout performance -- which, as a perceived second-tier candidate, he's going to need…..

http://townhall.com/tipsheet/guybenson/2011/06/13/a_weak_field__not_tonight_a_post-debate_analysis

Just starting, but it appears to be a good start.

Bachman is in

REP. MICHELE BACHMANN (R-MINN.) ANNOUNCED DURING MONDAY EVENING'S PRESIDENTIAL DEBATE THAT SHE'D FILED PAPERWORK TO RUN FOR PRESIDENT.

"I filed today my paperwork to run for president of the United States … I wanted you to be the first to know," she said.

She added she would make a formal announcement at a later time
.
http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/166221-bachmann-files-to-run-for-president

Not really news, but it is official now.

Palin disappoints her Foes again

ANALYSIS OF THE FORMER ALASKA GOVERNOR'S 24,000+ PAGES OF EMAILS FROM 2006 TO 2008 SHOWS SHE WRITES AT AN EIGHTH GRADE LEVEL, ACCORDING TO AOL WEIRD NEWS.

That's better than many major CEOs.

In comparison, Abraham Lincoln's Gettysburg Address scored a grade level of 9.1 on the same scale, and Martin Luther King, Jr.'s seminal 'I Have a Dream' speech scored an 8.8 on the scale.

One of two experts who analysed Mrs Palin's emails, JOHN KATZMAN, TOLD AOL: 'I'M A CENTRIST DEMOCRAT, AND WOULD HAVE LOVED TO SUPPORT MY HUNCH THAT MS.S PALIN IS ILLITERATE.

'However, the emails say something else. Ms. Palin writes emails on her Blackberry at a grade level of 8.5.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2003144/Sarah-Palins-emails-written-8th-grade-level--better-CEOs.html#ixzz1PFRvtXbN

It appears she’s not only not illiterate, but actually smart.

Economics

Economics explained so even leftists can understand

Economics is too hard for liberals and many others. Who can tell from deficits and multipliers, after all? So it is time to dumb economics down, and make it simple enough for a baby to understand. "Economics for Babies." This could be a publishing sensation to equal the Dummies phenomenon. Here is how it works.

Drill, Baby, Drill. Our liberal friends are convinced, because their tame climate scientists have told them so, that conventional energy sources are either doomed, as in Peak Oil, or evil, as in coal and nuclear energy. IT'S A PITY THAT HORIZONTAL FRACTURING IS MAKING MONKEYS OUT OF THE PEAK OIL CHAPPIES. The only way to approach energy is to let the Rockefellers and the Fricks and the Texans and the Albertans and the North Dakotans go for it. If they make a mess -- and they will -- then we will make 'em clean it up.

Cut, Baby, Cut. Our liberal friends are convinced that, given sufficiently rigorous policy analysis and sufficiently inspired political leadership, they can design and build the bridge to the future with government programs. BUT THE TRUTH IS THAT GOVERNMENT SPENDING, ALL GOVERNMENT SPENDING, IS A WASTE, STARTING WITH THE PENTAGON AND DEFENSE SPENDING. …

Grow, Baby, Grow. Our liberal friends are convinced that government must invest in the infrastructure to build "public goods." That is the rationale behind President Obama's crazed push for fast trains, clean green energy, and the rest of the liberal crony capitalist agenda…. …POLITICIANS ARE EXPERTS IN WINNING ELECTIONS, AND BUSINESSMEN ARE EXPERTS IN GROWING THE ECONOMY. POLITICIANS SHOULD STICK TO POLITICS, AND LET BUSINESSMEN GET ON WITH BUSINESS. Come on liberals: we all know how to grow the economy. You do it will low tax rates on people and low taxes on jobs.

Debt, Baby, Debt. What is it about the national debt? Under Alexander Hamilton the US national debt ignited an economic boom. UNDER PRESIDENT OBAMA IT HAS SENT THE ECONOMY ON A RECOVERY TO NOWHERE.….

….Real economics is pretty simple. A baby could understand it. THE REASON IT'S GOTTEN SO COMPLICATED IS THAT POLITICIANS ARE ALWAYS TRYING TO GAME THE ECONOMY TO BUY VOTES. Spend, Baby, Spend!

http://www.americanthinker.com/2011/06/economics_for_babies.html

This one is worth reading.

Obamacare

Why ObamaCare Is Losing in the Courts

When we first articulated ObamaCare's fundamental constitutional flaws in these pages nearly two years ago, our objections were met with derision by the law's defenders. Those who have been following the unfolding litigation are no longer laughing.

Three U.S. Circuit Courts of Appeals are poised to render decisions on the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act in the coming months. Despite hundreds of briefing pages and numerous oral arguments, GOVERNMENT LAWYERS HAVE YET TO ADDRESS THE LAW'S MOST BASIC CONSTITUTIONAL INFIRMITY. Only a "general police power"—the right to enact laws alleged to be in the public interest without regard to interstate commerce or some other federal legislative authority—can support the law's centerpiece, the "individual mandate" that all Americans purchase health insurance. THE CONSTITUTION DENIES THAT POWER TO THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT, RESERVING IT TO THE STATES ALONE.

In enacting the individual mandate, Congress purported to rely on its power to regulate interstate commerce and, in the process, reach individuals who are already engaged in that commerce. BUT THE INDIVIDUAL MANDATE DOES NOT REGULATE COMMERCE, INTERSTATE OR OTHERWISE. IT SIMPLY DECREES THAT ALL AMERICANS, UNLESS SPECIALLY EXEMPTED, MUST HAVE A CONGRESSIONALLY PRESCRIBED LEVEL OF HEALTH-INSURANCE COVERAGE REGARDLESS OF ANY ECONOMIC ACTIVITY IN WHICH THEY MAY BE ENGAGED. Requiring individuals to act simply because they exist is the defining aspect of the general police power that Congress lack,

The GOVERNMENT'S LAWYERS, RECOGNIZING THIS FUNDAMENTAL CONSTITUTIONAL REALITY, HAVE TRIED TO REWRITE THE LAW SO THAT IT CAN WITHSTAND JUDICIAL SCRUTINY. They have claimed that THE INDIVIDUAL MANDATE IS A TAX, DESPITE COMMON SENSE, judicial precedent, and numerous statements to the contrary by the law's sponsors and President Obama. They have also argued that OBAMACARE DOES NOT ACTUALLY IMPOSE A MANDATE ON INACTIVE CITIZENS, BUT RATHER REGULATES HOW INDIVIDUALS WILL PAY FOR THEIR HEALTH CARE. As Solicitor General Neal Katyal recently put it, THE MANDATE IS "ABOUT FAILURE TO PAY, NOT FAILURE TO BUY." This is plainly wrong. The law requires that everyone have health insurance—without regard to whether or how they buy or pay for medical services…

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702303714704576383443814815916.html

Failure to pay???? Talk about digging deep.

Immigration

Immigration and the Welfare State

CONSERVATIVE AND LIBERTARIAN CRITICS OF IMMIGRATION LIKE TO CITE MILTON FRIEDMAN’S OBSERVATION THAT “[Y]OU CANNOT SIMULTANEOUSLY HAVE FREE IMMIGRATION AND A WELFARE STATE,” which co-blogger Ken Anderson recently endorsed. The fear is that, given relatively open borders, immigrants from poor countries will flock to wealthy ones and undermine their economies by consuming huge amounts of welfare benefits.

I am a great admirer of Friedman and his scholarship. But he was not an expert on immigration, and, as far as I can tell, he never systematically studied the evidence on the impact of immigration on political support for the welfare state. THAT EVIDENCE OVERWHELMINGLY SHOWS THAT ETHNIC HETEROGENEITY GREATLY REDUCES SUPPORT FOR WELFARE STATE SPENDING because voters are less willing to support welfare programs if they believe that a large percentage of the money is going to members of a different racial or ethnic group.

I cite some of the relevant studies in a recent article in the International Affairs Forum on Immigration (pg. 43). THE RESEARCH SHOWS THAT THIS EFFECT HOLDS TRUE EVEN IN A STRONGLY LEFT-WING COUNTRY LIKE SWEDEN. This book by political scientists Donald Kinder and Cindy Kam presents the evidence for the United States (and to, a lesser, extent several European countries). HISTORICALLY, THE GREATER ETHNIC DIVERSITY OF THE US IS ONE OF THE MAIN REASONS WHY WE HAVE A SMALLER WELFARE STATE THAN MOST EUROPEAN NATIONS; the evidence on that point is summarized in a well-known study by Edward Glaeser and Alberto Alesina. Because PEOPLE ARE MOST LIKELY TO SUPPORT WELFARE PROGRAMS WHEN THE MONEY GOES TO RECIPIENTS WHO ARE “LIKE US,” IMMIGRATION ACTUALLY UNDERMINES THE WELFARE STATE RATHER THAN REINFORCES IT. ….

http://volokh.com/2011/06/12/immigration-and-the-welfare-state/

An interesting look at a very perplexing problem.

Government Regulations

Drug shortages

Currently there are about 246 drugs that are in short supply, a record high. These shortages are not just a result of accident, error or unusual circumstance, the number of drugs in short supply has risen steadily since 2006. The shortages arise from a combination of systematic factors, among them the policies of the FDA. THE FDA HAS INADVERTENTLY CAUSED DRUGS LONG-USED IN THE UNITED STATES TO BE WITHDRAWN FROM THE MARKET AND ITS “GOOD MANUFACTURING PRACTICE” RULES HAVE GUMMED UP THE DRUG PRODUCTION PROCESS AND RAISED COSTS.

Here, for example, is an analysis from the summary report on drug shortages by the American Society of Health-System Pharmacists (ASHP), the American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA), the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO), and the Institute for Safe Medication Practices (ISMP).

“Several drug shortages (e.g., concentrated morphine sulfate solution, levothyroxine injection) HAVE BEEN PRECIPITATED BY ACTUAL OR ANTICIPATED ACTION BY THE FDA AS PART OF THE UNAPPROVED DRUGS INITIATIVE, which is designed to increase enforcement against drugs that lack FDA approval to be marketed in the United States. (These drugs are commonly called PRE-1938 DRUGS, REFERRING TO THEIR AVAILABILITY PRIOR TO PASSAGE OF THE FOOD, DRUG, AND COSMETIC ACT OF THAT YEAR.) Some participants noted that THE COST AND COMPLEXITY OF COMPLETING A NEW DRUG APPLICATION (NDA) FOR THOSE UNAPPROVED DRUGS IS A DISINCENTIVE FOR ENTERING OR MAINTAINING A MARKET PRESENCE. Other regulatory barriers include the time for FDA review of Abbreviated New Drug Applications (ANDA) and supplemental applications, which are required for changes to FDA-approved drug products (e.g., change in source for active pharmaceutical ingredients API, change in manufacturer). Manufacturers described this approval process as lengthy and unpredictable, which limits their ability to develop reliable production schedules.”

http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/269583/fda-and-drug-shortages-veronique-de-rugy

Hmmm, so we have drugs that are 73 years old or more and the FDA want to qualify them now? And it’s causing shortages. This is stupidity at its most bureaucratic.

Climate

Are we headed to a mini-Ice Age?

What may be the science story of the century is breaking this evening, as HEAVYWEIGHT US SOLAR PHYSICISTS ANNOUNCE THAT THE SUN APPEARS TO BE HEADED INTO A LENGTHY SPELL OF LOW ACTIVITY, which could mean that the Earth – far from facing a global warming problem – is actually headed into a mini Ice Age.

The announcement made on 14 June (18:00 UK time) comes from scientists at the US National Solar Observatory (NSO) and US Air Force Research Laboratory. Three different analyses of the Sun's recent behaviour ALL INDICATE THAT A PERIOD OF UNUSUALLY LOW SOLAR ACTIVITY MAY BE ABOUT TO BEGIN….

…"If we are right," summarises Hill, "this could be the last solar maximum we'll see for a few decades. That would affect everything from space exploration to Earth's climate."

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/06/14/ice_age/

The relationship of sunspots and climate has been well established for centuries. A lot of sunspots leads to warmer weather, better crops, and prosperity. A low number of sunspots lead to colder weather, shorter growing seasons, and less prosperity. Even the Farmer’s Almanac admits that sunspots are part of the formula they use to predict the weather since 1818 (with 80-85 percent accuracy).