More on Medicare

What’s New Today

Story # 1 is our signs of desperation is a story of cash in the bank.  #2 looks at Obama’s only weapon, the negative ad.  #3 tells of how the Republicans are looking to keep the Medicare issue alive.  #4 gives us a bit of history of President Obama mentioning that we should have a serious debate about Medicare.  #5 looks at the issue of normal or more specifically what’s normal.  #6 is about Voter Fraud.  #7 may be a chink in the MSM armor around Obama.  Finally #8 looks at good news about the environment. 

Today’s Thoughts

In a study of charitable giving among taxpayers making over $50,000 or more, red states give more money to charity than blue states, according to a new study on Monday. The eight states with residents who gave the highest share of their income to charity supported Sen. John McCain in 2008, while the seven states with the least generous residents went for President Barack Obama, the Chronicle of Philanthropy found in its new survey of tax data from the IRS for 2008.  Of course Democrats are more generous with your money.  

Obamacare has a 2.3% tax on medical devices starting in 2013.  It is design to help pay for the program but some doctors are concerned about the possibility of a cutback in research; in particular, the danger that companies will fail to develop joint replacements for children and tumor patients, a generally unprofitable niche.  Another feature we needed to pass the bill for so we could find out what’s in it.  

"There ain't no such thing as a free lunch." -- Robert Heinlein  This is despite what the Obama administration wants you to believe.  

It turns out Democrats spent $1.5 million in ads (Akin spent $850,000) design to get Scott Akin the Republican nomination against Claire McCaskill because they thought he would be the weakest candidate.    

Lie of the Day

Debbie Wasserman Schultz Twitter:  Rep. Akin's stunning comments highlight a Republican Party—led by Romney and Ryan—whose policies on women's health are dangerously wrong.

Once again Little Debbie pushes the envelope and using one stupid individual to try to tarnish the entire Republican Party.  For this she is our lie of the day winner.

1.  Signs of Desperation—Cash in the bank

Mitt Romney extended his cash edge over President Obama in July and entered the final three-plus months of the campaign with about 50 percent more in the bank than the incumbent president.

Romney led Obama in cash on hand at the end of July $185.9 million to $123.7 million, according to numbers released by the Romney campaign and filed with the FEC by Obama’s campaign.

While both campaigns previously announced the amount they raised in July and Romney’s campaign announced its cash on hand total two weeks ago, Obama’s team did not say how much it had in the bank. Reports filed Monday, though, show Obama’s campaign and the Democratic National Committee continued to spend more than they brought in in July and saw their cash on hand fall by about $20 million combined.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2012/08/20/romney-grows-cash-advantage-on-obama/?Post+generic=%3Ftid%3Dsm_twitter_washingtonpost

If Romney is doing a Rope-a-dope strategy, it’s almost time to see him come off the ropes and start going after Obama with a fury.  In addition to the $52.2 million advantage the Republicans have with the Party and the candidate, the top 7 Super PACs have over $161 million with the Republicans holding a $142 million to $20 million advantage (from Open Secrets).  The Democrats have a lot to be desperate about. 

2.  Obama’s only weapon:  The Negative Campaign

"You didn't build that" has become the defining line of campaign 2012, and it appears to have generated panic among the leaders of Team Obama.

Imagine the meetings in Obama/[?] Chicago campaign headquarters as the brain trust considers not only the accelerating momentum of Romney/Ryan, but also the emptying cupboard marked "Politics of Personal Destruction."

What does the exquisitely tuned mind of David Axelrod have left? Allegations of strip mining leading to deforestation? Charges of gun-running? Complicity in the making of "The Expendables 2"?

Townhall.com's Guy Benson spent last week cataloging the various wild charges that the president's underlings have thrown at Mitt Romney and the numerous and bipartisan denunciations of the various slimmings. That list, published today, will no doubt have to remain an open project as Chicago really has nothing else on which to run and plenty to run from.

More than a few Democrats down the ticket who are in increasing peril of another 2010 have to be asking themselves: Do Axelrod et al. really know what they are doing?

If you are a Democratic senator, that is a very good question. Yes, the president won a famous victory in 2008, but that was against an underfinanced and not particularly deft John McCain and Sarah Palin, amid a financial panic and with eight years of war as the context…

http://washingtonexaminer.com/the-negative-campaign-is-obamas-only-weapon/article/2505317#.UDNka6DfWSp

Obama claims he isn’t running a negative campaign.  Of course he is.

3.  Romney Campaign attempts to keep Medicare issue front and center

It's supposed to be the Democrats' signature issue, but Medicare has risen to the forefront of this year's presidential race — largely because Mitt Romney’s campaign has put it there.

On the Sunday political shows, surrogates for the GOP presidential hopeful amplified their attacks on President Obama's Medicare plans, saying the Democrats' reforms will gut the popular seniors program, leaving it up to Republicans to save it. 

That twist on the usual Washington refrain — Democrats for decades have accused Republicans of wanting to dismantle Medicare — combined with the aggressive nature of the GOP's messaging campaign all but ensure that the issue will remain in the headlines in the run up to election day.

In a sense, Republicans have taken a page from Obama's strategy of attacking the opponent's core strengths. Romney, a wealthy financial guru, has said his business success makes him best suited to fix the still-limping economy, but Obama's coordinated attacks on his tenure at Bain Capital have raised doubts about that argument. 

Republicans now are hoping to duplicate that trick with Medicare, charging full steam ahead with claims that Democrats are threatening seniors' health and Republicans are racing to the rescue... 

http://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/244293-romney-campaign-keeping-debate-over-medicare-on-center-stage

Ronald Reagan said “if you are playing defense, you’re losing.”  The Romney/Ryan team have put the Democrats on defense on a legitimate issue (as opposed to the democrats smear campaign).  This is a disaster for the Democrats. 

4.  Obama 2010:  I wish we could have a serious conversation about Medicare

This remarkable Video, culled from The One's appearance at the House Republican retreat in 2010, is quite illuminating.  The president calls Paul Ryan's initial reform package "serious" (it's since been updated to incorporate a bipartisan solution), he tells the truth about the drivers of our long term and unsustainable debt, and he acknowledges that Ryan's proposal "grandfathers in" those who are 55 or above (a fact that his campaign and surrogates now purposefully elide):  

In this thoughtful exchange with Ryan himself, the president calls the GOP plan "entirely legitimate."  He also asks, "at what point can we have a serious conversation?"  Contrast that Obama with today’s Obama:  

The Obama campaign released a new ad this morning warning voters that Romney and Ryan would “end Medicare as we know it.” The ad features Paul Krugman warning that Paul Ryan’s “voucher” plan would mean that “tens of millions of older Americans would not be able to afford essential care.” Obama traveling Press Secretary Jen Psaki, explained to voters this morning that Obama planned to feature Medicare attack points in a speech later today. “[H]e will lay out the choice between his plan and the Romney-Ryan plan to end Medicare as we know it, leaving new retirees with nothing but a voucher in place of the guaranteed benefits they rely on today,” she said. “This kind of plan forces people with Medicare to pay an extra $6400, all so Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan can give tax cuts to millionaires and billionaires.”

Obama is answering his own 'seriousness' question: Not now.  Obama's new ad neglects to mention that simple math "ends Medicare as we know it" within 12 years, and that he has no plan to avoid that outcome.  This is far and away the biggest point.  The spot also enlists Left-wing columnist Paul Krugman to muddy the waters on the bipartisan Romney-Ryan framework, insinuating that it would affect "tens of millions of older Americans."  It would, in fact, not affect anyone over the age of 54.  It also fails to mention that the Romney-Ryan proposal is means-tested, so sicker and poorer future seniors will get the most help.  It's telling that Obama must distort the GOP plan in order to attack it…

http://townhall.com/tipsheet/guybenson/2012/08/15/obama_in_2010_i_wish_we_could_have_a_serious_conversation_about_medicares_insolvency

At this point Democrats are flummoxed by what has happened to Medicare.  Stealing from it to pass Obamacare, the Democrats have given Romney two gifts.  First it points out a huge difference between Obamacare and Romneycare.  Second, it put the Democrats on the defensive regarding Medicare.  Back in 2009 when the Democrats were being pounded by the Tea Party, they made fun of the seniors who went to the rallies with signs “keep your hands off my Medicare” asking who did the seniors think provided Medicare.  Well, now they are reaping the rewards of ignoring those rallies.  2012 is looking more and more like 2010. 

5.  Is Normal the new Normal?

Paul Ryan was simply poetic, campaigning over the weekend with his mother, Betty Douglas, among the same senior citizens whom Democrats claim Ryan and his Medicare reform would purge unmercifully via cliff-dropping.  It was visual proof that at least some in the largely reliable senior voting block are not falling for the Obama Mediscare deception.  Oh, and Paul Ryan really, really likes his mom.  

But Ryan's charm and intelligence weren't what most struck me during his address.  What struck me was something far more fundamental -- something I haven't felt for so long that it struck me that I haven't felt this way in a very long time.  Normal.  And that normal was coming from a politician.  Can that be normal? 

For all my discontent with the Republican establishment -- my reasoned aversion to government in general -- the Romney campaign had me at Ryan.  Ryan's energy, youth, messaging, and smarts are our best hope for articulating economic truth and the limits of government to generations of dependents in a nation indebted, overtaxed, and over-ruled.  Dare I say Ryan might return us to some normal? 

Are we still allowed to evoke normal?  Not just any definition of normal, as progressives would have it, but the definition of normal.  The definition based in undeniable truth and virtue.  It might sound something like we hold these truths to be self-evident.  The common man appears to be demanding its return -- Navy SEALs, Chick-fil-A customers, taxpayers, Tea Partiers, Catholics, gun owners, the caterer at an Obama event donning a Romney campaign shirt, the "Crumb and Get It" Cookie Shop who refused Joe Biden's photo-op, and the vendor who refused an EBT card for the same indulgent desserts other customers must purchase with hard-earned cash.  The pitchforks are up.  The common man cometh.  He's seen "forward," and he wants normal back….

http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/08/paul_ryan_and_the_return_of_normal.html#ixzz24BA9iAfY

The left has tried to redefine normal.  It now includes illegal aliens being given green cards, gay marriage, Catholic institutions being required to provide birth control and abortifacient, and anyone not agreeing with them as being labeled a “hate group.”  This kind of bullying only works so long.  People will finally get to the point where they won’t take it anymore and will demand a return to normal.

6.  Voter Fraud a Real Issue

The 2012 elections will feature many close races, likely including the presidential contest. That makes concern about voter fraud and ballot integrity all the more meaningful, and a conference held here last weekend by the watchdog group True the Vote made clear just how high the stakes are.

“Unfortunately, the United States has a long history of voter fraud that has been documented by historians and journalists,” Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens wrote in 2008, upholding a strict Indiana voter-ID law designed to combat fraud. Justice Stevens, who personally encountered voter fraud while serving on various reform commissions in his native Chicago, spoke for a six-member majority.

 In a decision two years earlier clearing the way for an Arizona ID law, the Court had declared in a unanimous opinion that “confidence in the integrity of our electoral processes is essential to the functioning of our participatory democracy. Voter fraud drives honest citizens out of the democratic process and breeds distrust of our government. Voters who fear their legitimate votes will be outweighed by fraudulent ones will feel disenfranchised.”

Indeed, a brand-new Rasmussen Reports poll finds that 64 percent of Americans believe voter fraud is a serious problem, with whites registering 63 percent agreement and African-Americans 64 percent. A Fox News poll taken last month found that 70 percent of Americans support requiring voters to show “state or federally issued photo identification” to prove their identity and citizenship before casting a ballot. Majorities of all demographic groups agreed on the need for photo ID, including 58 percent of non-white voters, 52 percent of liberals, and 52 percent of Democrats…

http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/297461/reality-voter-fraud-john-fund

This issue comes up because everyone is saying this will be razor close election, the kind the invite voter fraud.  I don’t think it will be that close, but voter fraud is a very real problem.

7.  CBS Nora O’Donnell: Obama has to answer for the tone of his campaign

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7exZw484DHE&feature=youtu.be

8.  Carbon Emission drop to 20 year low

Carbon emissions in the U.S. have hit a 20-year low due to a supposedly environmentally unfriendly drilling technique that has created an abundance of cheap natural gas. The free market, it seems, does it better than the EPA.

Environmentalists find themselves between shale rock and a hard place after a little noticed technical report documented how the natural gas boom caused by the use of hydraulic fracturing, or fracking, has actually helped the environment in a major way while also creating jobs and economic growth.

In the report, the U.S. Energy Information Agency, a part of the Energy Department, said that energy-related U.S. CO2 emissions for the first four months of this year fell to about 1992 levels. EIA estimates that full-year emissions will be the lowest since at least 1995.

The untold story is that this has been achieved by the free market and private-sector technology, not government mandates…

http://news.investors.com/article/622858/201208201902/fracking-drops-carbon-emissions-to-new-low.htm

All this despite government, not because of it.

The Senate Goes Nuclear to Avoid Voting on Obama's Job Bill

Reid Triggers ‘Nuclear Option’ To Change Senate Rules so Democrats don’t have to vote on Obama’s Jobs Bill

In a shocking development Thursday evening, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) triggered A RARELY USED PROCEDURAL OPTION INFORMALLY CALLED THE “NUCLEAR OPTION” TO CHANGE THE SENATE RULES.

Reid and 50 members of his caucus voted to change Senate rules unilaterally to prevent Republicans from forcing votes on uncomfortable amendments after the chamber has voted to move to final passage of a bill.

Reid’s coup passed by a vote of 51-48, leaving Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) fuming.

The surprise move stunned Republicans, who did not expect Reid to bring heavy artillery to what had been a humdrum knife fight over amendments to China currency legislation.

The Democratic leader had become fed up with Republican demands for votes on motions to suspend the rules after the Senate had voted to limit debate earlier in the day.

MCCONNELL HAD THREATENED SUCH A MOTION TO FORCE A VOTE ON THE ORIGINAL VERSION OF PRESIDENT OBAMA’S JOBS PACKAGE, which many Democrats don’t like because it would limit tax deductions for families earning over $250,000. The jobs package would have been considered as an amendment.

MCCONNELL WANTED TO EMBARRASS THE PRESIDENT BY DEMONSTRATING HOW FEW DEMOCRATS ARE WILLING TO SUPPORT HIS JOBS PLAN AS FIRST DRAFTED. (Senate Democrats have since rewritten the jobs package to pay for its stimulus provisions with a 5.6 surtax on income over $1 million.)

http://thehill.com/homenews/senate/186133-reid-triggers-nuclear-option-to-change-senate-rules-and-prohibit-post-cloture-filibusters

The humorous part is that Obama wants to tag the Republicans with a failure to bring his bill to a vote when it is Reid who is willing to invoke the nuclear option to avoid it. 





The Democrat Conundrum

DEMOCRATS FACE AN IMPOSSIBLE POLITICAL SITUATION: SMILE, NOD, AND RE-NOMINATE OBAMA FOR A SECOND TERM IN 2012 OR BEGIN TO MANEUVER OBAMA INTO WALKING GRACEFULLY AWAY, IN HOPES, PERHAPS, OF FINDING A CHANCE TO RUN AGAIN IN THE FUTURE.

THE SIZE OF THE DEMOCRAT OBAMA COLLAPSE IS HARD TO EXAGGERATE. The twin defeats in New York and Nevada House races were slobberknockers in the political ring. Wisconsin had a series of elections -- State Supreme Court election and several State Senate recalls -- and Democrats lost in a strongly union state where even labor hacks could not turn out votes in low-turnout elections to match enraged Wisconsin voters.

Polls show the same nightmare for Democrats led by Obama. Rasmussen tracks presidential popularity, but the crucial number is in THE STRONGLY DISAPPROVE CATEGORY. THESE ARE VOTERS HIGHLY UNLIKELY TO CHANGE THEIR MINDS AND STRONGLY LIKELY TO SHOW UP ON ELECTION DAY. This number has been hovering for weeks around 45%, and once it hits 50%, then whoever opposes Obama in November will win. Gallup shows that Republican voters are much more excited.  about voting than Democrats, which simply reinforces the Rasmussen numbers…

http://www.americanthinker.com/2011/10/do_dems_dare_dump_barry.html

Obama is toast and he’s likely to drag a lot of Democrats to defeat alongside with him.  But the Democrats can’t afford alienate the black voters so they are stuck with him. 





 

Unemployment stays the same at 9.1%

THE NATION'S UNEMPLOYMENT RATE REMAINED STUCK AT 9.1 PERCENT IN SEPTEMBER despite an uptick in hiring, as the latest labor report fueled debate in Washington over how to jump-start an economy that President Obama acknowledges has weakened since the start of the year.

The Labor Department said Friday EMPLOYERS ADDED 130,000 JOBS IN SEPTEMBER. NEARLY HALF OF THOSE GAINS, THOUGH, WERE DUE TO THE REHIRING OF 45,000 VERIZON EMPLOYEES WHO HAD GONE ON STRIKE.

The hiring did little to draw down the number of unemployed in America, estimated at about 14 million. Since April, the jobless rate has hovered between 9 and 9.2 percent….

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/10/07/jobless-rate-stays-stuck-at-1-percent-despite-uptick-in-hiring/

This kind of job performance is going to lose a lot of Democrats their jobs. 

The Bush Tax Cuts

IN WHAT YEAR DID THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED STATES COLLECT THE MOST TAX REVENUE IN ITS HISTORY? Would you guess it occurred before, or after, the Bush tax cuts (final round effective in 2003)?

THE ANSWER IS 2007. The most revenue over collected in our history was $2,568 billion, and that happened in Fiscal Year 2007 - four years after Bush's final round of tax cuts.

Some of you might be thinking that that does not take inflation into account. OK, IN WHAT YEAR DID THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT COLLECT THE MOST TAX REVENUE IN HISTORY, AS MEASURED IN CONSTANT (INFLATION-ADJUSTED) 2005 DOLLARS?

The answer, again, is FY2007….

… To be clear, THE DROP IN FEDERAL REVENUE AFTER 2007 HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH THE BUSH "TAX CUTS" AND EVERYTHING TO DO WITH THE DESTRUCTION OF WEALTH THAT COINCIDENTALLY OCCURRED AFTER DEMOCRATS TOOK OVER BOTH HOUSES OF CONGRESS.

Not to mention, our deficit problem is mostly due to spending, not revenue. Compared to 2007, revenues in 2011 are down $394 B, but SPENDING IS UP $1,091 B. That's why the deficit in 2011 is more than ten times bigger than the one in 2007 ($1,645 B vs. $161 B)….

http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2011/10/the_bush_tax_cuts_threat_or_menace.html

Aren’t facts wonderful? 

What a difference an ideology makes

The Occupy Wall Street rally may not be growing, but press coverage of it is. Even some members of Congress, like Rep. Keith Ellison, D-Minn, are endorsing it. Last night on the O’Reilly factor, GRETCHEN CARLSON WARNED: “IT WOULD BE DANGEROUS FOR ANY POLITICIAN TO ALIGN THEMSELVES WITH THIS GROUP. IT’S DANGEROUS IF IT CONTINUES TO BECOME MORE VIOLENT.” Fortunately, House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi dismissed them as “astroturf.” Oh wait, no, that’s what she said of the Tea Parties. THESE WERE HER SENTIMENTS ABOUT THE OCCUPY WALL STREET FOLKS: “GOD BLESS THEM,” PELOSI SAID, “for their spontaneity. It’s independent . . . it’s young, it’s spontaneous and it’s focused. And it’s going to be effective.” She added: “The message of the protesters is a message for the establishment everyplace. No longer will the recklessness of some on Wall Street cause massive joblessness on Main Street.” Pelosi did not comment on — and was not asked about — the law-breaking that occurred during the protest over the weekend. http://blogs.investors.com/capitalhill/index.php/home/35-politicsinvesting/5347-astro-turf-on-occupy-wall-street-pelosi-tea-party Don’t call it hypocritical, rather call it political.  Once it’s their people protesting, protesting again becomes the highest form of patriotism.  Here are some interesting pictures from OWS.  http://michaelgraham.com/archives/best-ldquo-occupy-wall-street-rdquo-sign-ever-warning-not-safe-for-work-family/ Chris Matthews finally admits the truth. CHRIS MATTHEWS, HOST: Let me tell you the problem with Obama. If you bought a car this year, a Ford or a Chevy, WHATEVER YOU BOUGHT, AND IT WAS LOUSY. IT TURNED OUT TO BE A CLINKER, A CLUNKER. ARE YOU GOING TO BUY ONE NEXT YEAR? JENNIFER DONAHUE, HUFFINGTON POST: No.    MATTHEWS: Okay, that's the problem. Thank you, Jennifer Donahue, and thank you, Mark McKinnon. That is the problem, he's got to win the argument. “My heart next year, my model next year is going to be so good. Let me show it to you,” and convince us that WHAT HE'S TELLING US ABOUT THE NEXT FOUR YEARS IS SO COMPELLING, SO WINNING, THAT WE SAY, “OKAY, WE KNOW WE GOT A BAD MODEL THIS YEAR, BUT WE’RE GOING TO GET A GOOD ONE NEXT YEAR.” I’m just looking at it. He's got to really make this case to win this campaign. It's up to him to do it. He can do it, but what a challenge. http://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2011/10/06/matthews-compares-obama-clunker-would-you-buy-lousy-car-again-next-ye#ixzz1a7lYmhby

I have to disagree with one thing.  Obama can’t do it.  He’s lost too many people and he’s too arrogant to do what he would need to do. 



 Carbon Emissions

THE CARBON-DIOXIDE ISSUE IS NOT ABOUT THE UNITED STATES ANYMORE. Sure, the U.S. is the world's second-largest energy consumer. But OVER THE PAST DECADE, CARBON-DIOXIDE EMISSIONS IN THE U.S. FELL BY 1.7%. And according to the International Energy Agency, THE U.S. IS NOW CUTTING CARBON EMISSIONS FASTER THAN EUROPE, EVEN THOUGH THE EUROPEAN UNION HAS INSTITUTED AN ELABORATE CARBON-TRADING/PRICING SCHEME. Why? The U.S. is producing vast quantities of cheap natural gas from shale, which is displacing higher-carbon coal.

Meanwhile, China's emissions jumped by 123% over the past decade and now exceed those of the U.S. by more than two billion tons per year. Africa's carbon-dioxide emissions jumped by 30%, Asia's by 44%, and the Middle East's by a whopping 57%. PUT ANOTHER WAY, OVER THE PAST DECADE, U.S. CARBON DIOXIDE EMISSIONS—ABOUT 6.1 BILLION TONS PER YEAR—COULD HAVE GONE TO ZERO AND YET GLOBAL EMISSIONS STILL WOULD HAVE GONE UP.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970203388804576612620828387968.html

It’s time for the USA to take the shackles off our energy producers.  We have more natural deposits than any other country in the world and yet we continue to import much of our energy because the environmental lobby won’t let us develop it.  Want out of to increase employment while decreasing the trade deficit?  This isn’t rocket science.





Mark Steyn on the OWS movement

…. If you'll forgive a plug for my latest sellout to my corporate masters, IN MY NEW BOOK I QUOTE H.G. WELLS' VICTORIAN TIME-TRAVELER AFTER ENCOUNTERING FAR IN THE FUTURE THE SOFT, EFFETE ELOI: "These people were clothed in pleasant fabrics that must at times need renewal, and their sandals, though undecorated, were fairly complex specimens of metalwork. Somehow such things must be made." And yet he saw "no workshops" or sign of any industry at all. "They spent all their time in playing gently, in bathing in the river, in making love in a half-playful fashion, in eating fruit and sleeping. I COULD NOT SEE HOW THINGS WERE KEPT GOING." The Time-Traveler might have felt much the same upon landing in Liberty Square in the early 21st century, except for the bit about bathing: IT'S INCREASINGLY HARD IN AMERICA TO "SEE HOW THINGS ARE KEPT GOING," BUT IT'S PRETTY CLEAR THAT THE MEMBERS OF "OCCUPY WALL STREET" HAVE NO PLANS TO CONTRIBUTE TO KEEPING THINGS GOING. Like Michael Oher using his iPhone to announce his ignorance of Steve Jobs, in the autumn of the republic the beneficiaries of American innovation seem not only utterly disconnected from, but actively contemptuous of, the world that sustains their comforts.

WHY DID STEVE JOBS DO SO MUCH OF HIS INNOVATING IN COMPUTERS? Well, obviously, because that's what got his juices going. BUT IT'S ALSO THE CASE THAT, BECAUSE IT WAS A VIRTUALLY NONEXISTENT INDUSTRY UNTIL HE CAME ALONG, IT'S ABOUT THE ONE AREA OF AMERICAN LIFE THAT HASN'T BEEN REGULATED INTO SCLEROSIS BY THE STATIST BEHEMOTH. So Apple and other companies were free to be as corporate as they wanted, and we're the better off for it. The stunted, inarticulate spawn of America's educrat monopoly want a world of fewer corporations and lots more government. IF THEIR "DEMANDS" FOR A $20 MINIMUM WAGE AND A TRILLION DOLLARS OF SPENDING IN "ECOLOGICAL RESTORATION" AND ALL THE REST ARE EVER MET, THERE WILL BE A MASSIVE EXPANSION OF STATE MONOPOLY POWER. Would you like to get your iPhone from the DMV? That's your "American Autumn": an America that constrains the next Steve Jobs but bigs up Van Jones. Underneath the familiar props of radical chic that hasn't been either radical or chic in half a century, the zombie youth of the Big Sloth movement are a paradox too ludicrous even for the malign alumni of a desultory half-decade of Complacency Studies: they're anarchists for Big Government. Do it for the children, the Democrats like to say. THEY'RE THE CHILDREN WE DID IT FOR, AND, IF THIS IS THE BEST THEY CAN DO, THEY'RE DONE FOR.

http://www.ocregister.com/opinion/jobs-320936-steve-corporate.html

Love the end of this post, “If this is the best they can do, they’re done for.”  The democrats gushing over this movement is scary.  This is the equivalent of a small child throwing a temper tantrum because they want more whatever. 


Some good news—11 Brilliant Inventions for the Future



I was taken by the breadth of the inventions.  As we see Democrats demonize the wealthy we can look at a number of people who are looking to be wealthy and will make all of us richer in the process. 

http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/10-brilliant-innovators-for-popular-mechanics-breakthrough-awards-2011?click=pm_news#fbIndex1