Jobs, deficits and taxes

Are the job numbers real?

DECEPTION IS A DANGEROUS THING. You never really know when a lie may turn on you.

Take, for instance, the Labor Department's annual springtime boost in the faux jobs market. While it's nice that the government thinks there is an employment boom coming, this won't be a good development if that boom turns out to be imaginary yet still causes the Federal Reserve to prematurely tighten credit conditions.

Let's start from the beginning.

EARLY THIS MONTH LABOR REPORTED THAT 216,000 NEW JOBS WERE CREATED IN MARCH. It was better than Wall Street expected.

BUT THE FIGURE INCLUDED 117,000 JOBS THAT THE DEPARTMENT THINKS, BUT CAN'T PROVE, WERE CREATED BY NEWLY FORMED COMPANIES THAT MIGHT NOT EVEN EXIST. In fact, the department is getting so optimistic about the labor market that it increased this imaginary job count from just 81,000 in March, 2010.

As I've been telling you for months, THE SPRING ALWAYS CAUSES THE LABOR DEPARTMENT TO GOOSE ITS JOB-CREATION NUMBERS. And maybe sometime in the future this process will be warranted. But DURING 2009 AND 2010 THESE SPRINGTIME ASSUMPTIONS -- WHICH ARE OFFICIALLY CALLED THE BIRTH/DEATH MODEL BY LABOR -- LED TO MAJOR ERRORS IN THE ANNUAL JOB COUNT.

http://www.nypost.com/p/news/business/faux_job_numbers_could_lead_to_real_3zKnIS84fd4XYOLbEK48GL#ixzz1JJc0qZ1S

These jobs numbers are going to come back and bite the Democrats. As actual new jobs are created, more people will come back into the job pool and you will see real progress being made even while the unemployment rate increases.



The Ryan Plan: A good plan

Ryan’s alternative to Medicare hardly seems as terrible as Paul Krugman makes out. Seniors would enter the health care world the rest of us live in, with co-payments, deductibles and managed care. EVENTUALLY, COST CONTROL WOULD REQUIRE SOME TOUGH DECISIONS ABOUT END-OF-LIFE CARE AND THE RATIONING OF HIGH-TECH TREATMENTS THAT HAVE LIMITED EFFICACY. But starting with a value of $15,000 per year, per senior—the amount government now spends on Medicare—RYAN’S VOUCHERS SHOULD PROVIDE EXCELLENT COVERAGE. His change would amount to a minor amendment to the social contract, not a fundamental revision of it.

Effectively constraining the growth of Medicare could make it possible for Democrats to do a lot else that’s important to them in the future. … Growing at more than 7 percent a year, MEDICARE IS PROJECTED TO EVENTUALLY CONSUME NEARLY ALL FEDERAL TAX REVENUES. It is crowding out everything else that Washington does or might want to do. Conversely, cutting Medicare’s growth rate to near the overall rate of the economy would do more than anything else to enable the kind of activist government liberals support—investment in kids, education, jobs, and infrastructure. …

http://www.slate.com/id/2290509

Rather than “death panels” this plan would allow the individual to decide when they didn’t think it was wise to continue heroic medicine. I expect to see Obama castigate this plan tomorrow night and try to scare seniors with his rhetoric.

Public Financing and Obama’s hypocrisy

In 2008, candidate Barack Obama didn't just ask for donations. His website asked donors to "declare their independence from a broken system by supporting the first presidential election truly funded by the people." At the time, NO ONE EXPECTED THAT BY "THE PEOPLE" HE MEANT A BUNCH OF MILLIONAIRES, BUT THIS IS THE CONCLUSION WE DRAW FROM OBAMA'S LATEST CAMPAIGN INITIATIVE. Politico reported last week that Obama, having raised three-quarters of a billion dollars in his 2008 race, IS NOW SEEKING OUT 400 ELITE CAMPAIGN CASH BUNDLERS TO RAISE $700,000 APIECE FOR HIS 2012 RE-ELECTION. If the plan succeeds, it will raise $280 million in seed money for his campaign, which will be plowed into raising more money on the Internet from old campaign lists. This guarantees that Obama will reject public funding in election 2012, just as he did in 2008.

OBAMA'S HYPOCRISY ON THIS ISSUE IS MANIFEST. He once declared he was "a big believer in public financing of campaigns," and even CHALLENGED HIS POTENTIAL REPUBLICAN OPPONENTS TO PLEDGE THEY WOULD ACCEPT FEDERAL MATCHING FUNDS AND THE SPENDING LIMITS THAT COME WITH THEM. He also promised to "aggressively pursue an agreement with the Republican nominee to preserve a publicly financed general election." BUT ONCE HE REALIZED HE COULD RAISE NEARLY A BILLION DOLLARS ON HIS OWN, THOSE PROMISES ALL WENT OUT THE WINDOW.

http://washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/editorials/2011/04/examiner-editorial-fix-public-campaign-financing-ending-it#ixzz1JJk2ZSED

This should have been a huge warning sign for the supports of BHO. President Obama is not a pragmatist or a realist. He is an opportunist. Well he says he missing anonymity and with the 2012 election coming up, we have an opportunity to give him back his anonymity.



President Obama's two minds on the deficit

When it comes to deficit reduction and entitlement reform, PRESIDENT BARACK OBAMA HAS BEEN A MASTER OF MIXED SIGNALS, his critics say.

As a candidate, OBAMA PROMISED TO DEAL WITH THE EXPLODING DEFICIT – so committed to tackling the underlying issue of entitlement reform that HE TOLD THE WASHINGTON POST HE’D MAKE THE “HARD DECISIONS… UNDER MY WATCH” shortly before his inauguration almost 27 months ago.

But as president, such high-minded goals have run headlong into a tanking economy and more mundane political imperatives, like positioning himself for his 2012 re-election campaign…..

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0411/52980.html#ixzz1JJlX0mYC


Yet another bit of hypocrisy.


A “People’s Budget” is proposed by Democrat Progressives

….The "People's Budget" is the liberals' answer to House Budget Committee chairman Paul Ryan's 2012 budget proposal, which is "leading us down a road to ruin," according to caucus co-chairmen Reps. Raul Grijalva and Keith Ellison. THE "PEOPLE'S BUDGET," GRIJALVA AND ELLISON CLAIM, WOULD ELIMINATE THE DEFICIT IN JUST 10 YEARS (RYAN'S PLAN WOULD TAKE MORE THAN 25 YEARS) WHILE EXPANDING, NOT CUTTING, MEDICARE, MEDICAID AND SOCIAL SECURITY. "This budget saves the American people from the recklessness of the Republican majority," Grijalva and Ellison write in a letter to Rep. Chris Van Hollen, senior Democrat on the House Budget Committee.

How can such fiscal miracles be accomplished? By tax increases that would make even some top Democrats gasp. Perhaps the most extraordinary is the caucus plan to raise the Social Security tax to cover nearly all of a taxpayer's income. Right now, the tax is imposed on the first $106,000 of earnings. For people who make more than that, the caucus would tax a full 90 percent of income -- no matter how high it goes. The caucus would raise the Social Security tax that employers pay as well.

The caucus would create THREE NEW INDIVIDUAL TAX BRACKETS FOR THE HIGHEST INCOMES, topping out at 47 percent. It would also raise the capital gains tax, the estate tax and corporate taxes. It would create something called a "financial crisis responsibility fee" and a "financial speculation tax." And of course it would repeal the Bush tax cuts.

As if anyone needed reminding, THE "PEOPLE'S BUDGET" IS PROOF THAT THE LIBERAL IDEA OF BUDGET BALANCING IS TAX, TAX, TAX. IF YOU'RE LOOKING FOR SPENDING CUTS, YOU'LL FIND JUST ONE REALLY BIG ONE: NATIONAL DEFENSE. The liberals would end "overseas contingency operations" -- the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan -- starting in 2013. They would save more money by "reducing strategic capabilities, conventional forces, procurement, and research & development programs." In other words, they would gut the United States' ability to defend itself, today and long into the future.

What would the liberals spend money on? The "People's Budget" is essentially a newer and bigger stimulus bill. Grijalva and Ellison pledge TO "INVEST $1.45 TRILLION IN JOB CREATION, EARLY CHILDHOOD, K-12 AND SPECIAL EDUCATION, QUALITY CHILD CARE, ENERGY AND BROADBAND INFRASTRUCTURE, HOUSING, AND RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT," along with billions more for stimuluslike road and other transportation programs…..

http://washingtonexaminer.com/politics/2011/04/liberals-plan-gut-defense-and-tax-tax-tax#ixzz1JJmxgRIR

This is a liberal nirvana and a conservative’s hell. Fortunately 42% of the population identify as conservative and only 20% identify themselves as liberals. It doesn’t stand a chance of being passed.



California in the Balance

We calibrate California’s decline by its myriad of paradoxes. THE NATION’S HIGHEST BUNDLE OF GAS, SALES, AND INCOME TAXES CANNOT CLOSE THE NATION’S LARGEST ANNUAL DEFICIT AT $25 BILLION. TEST SCORES ARE AT THE COUNTRY’S NEAR BOTTOM; TEACHERS’ SALARIES AT THE VERY TOP. Scores of the affluent are leaving each week; scores of the indigent are arriving. The nation’s most richly endowed state is also the most regulated; the most liberal of our residents are also the most ready to practice apartheid in their Bel Air or Palo Alto enclaves.

We now see highway patrolmen and city police, in the manner of South American law enforcement, out in force. Everywhere they are monitoring, watching, ticketing — no warnings, no margins of error — DESPERATE TO EARN TRAFFIC FINES THAT MIGHT FEED THE STATE THAT FEEDS THEM. I could go on. But you get the picture that we are living on the fumes of a rich state that our forefathers brilliantly exploited, and now there is not much energy left in the fading exhaust to keep us going.

I see CALIFORNIA IN TERMS NOW OF THE RAZOR’S EDGE WITH DISASTER NOT FAR IN EITHER DIRECTION. A postmodern affluent lifestyle hangs in the balance here without a margin of error....

http://pajamasmedia.com/victordavishanson/the-razors-edge/

California demonstrates the ills of liberalism. It is the state most like the EU’s PIGGS where people turn down tax increases but want to continue the benefits California has given them. In fact, that is the attitude the left is trying to instill in the rest of the country. Fortunately we aren’t there yet.



Ideological intransigence

IN THE END, PRESIDENT BARACK OBAMA WAS THE ONE WHO REFUSED TO BLINK ON PLANNED PARENTHOOD. Another way of saying it is this: THE PRESIDENT WAS WILLING TO SHUT DOWN THE ENTIRE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT RATHER THAN SEE PLANNED PARENTHOOD’S FEDERAL FUNDING CUT.

According to press accounts leaked by Democratic aides, House Speaker John Boehner argued for the funding cut late into the evening. THE PRESIDENT ANSWERED, “NOPE, ZERO.” He then said, “John, this is it.” Mr. Boehner accepted the budget deal without that cut.

A Republican aide confirmed more or less the same account to me. He said it was “chilling” to see how inflexible Mr. Obama was. You might call it ideological.

http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/264468/re-culture-life-win-thanks-house-kathryn-jean-lopez

You can only have a fight over an ideological position if both sides have an ideological position.



Now Elections don’t matter

From Nancy Pelosi’s speech at Tufts University

To my Republican friends: take back your party. So that it doesn’t matter so much who wins the election, because we have shared values about the education of our children, the growth of our economy, how we defend our country, our security and civil liberties, how we respect our seniors. Because there are so many things at risk right now -- perhaps in another question I'll go into them, if you want. BUT THE FACT IS THAT ELECTIONS SHOULDN'T MATTER AS MUCH AS THEY DO...But when it comes to a place where there doesn't seem to be shared values then that can be problematic for the country, as I think you can see right now.

http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/nancy-pelosi-elections-shouldnt-matter-much-they-do_557307.html

It appears elections only matter if you are a liberal and you win. All you have to do is to look at what is happening around the country. In Wisconsin you had all the Democrat Senators flee from the state to keep last November’s election from counting. And here we have the ex-SOTH proclaim that elections shouldn’t matter as much as they do. It also seems to me that Pelosi is calling for the congress to be more conservative and to not change the status quo.



Liberalism: Black America’s greatest enemy

…. In the 1950s when racism truly was a problem for blacks in America, MOST BLACK KIDS GREW UP IN TWO PARENT HOMES. TODAY, AFTER 60 YEARS OF LIBERAL DEMOCRAT ENTITLEMENT PROGRAMS, MOST BLACK KIDS ARE GROWING UP IN FATHERLESS HOMES. No matter how you slice it, something is seriously wrong in the black community. And it has nothing to do with white folks nor Republicans.



These fatherless black boys make babies and join gangs. Typical of liberal screwed up thinking, I HEARD A PHD ON TV SAY, "THERE IS NOTHING A FATHER CAN TEACH HIS SON WHICH THE CHILD CANNOT LEARN FROM HIS SINGLE MOTHER." I thought, "Good lord, this woman went to college to learn this crap!" Newsflash libs: males crave male bonding and leadership. Why do you think they join gangs? This is not rocket science!...

http://www.americanthinker.com/2011/04/liberalism_black_americas_grea.html


This was from a black journalist who sees the truth.



T Boone Pickens makes his case

…..Hence the allure of natural gas: Pickens claims the U.S. HAS NATURAL GAS RESERVES EQUIVALENT TO THREE TIMES THAT OF SAUDI ARABIA’S KNOWN 260 BILLION-BARREL OIL RESERVE when you use a Barrel of Oil Equivalent (BOE) comparison.

– Using BOE, NATURAL GAS, AT ITS CURRENT PRICE, WOULD BE ABOUT $1.50 PER GALLON CHEAPER THAN DIESEL FUEL.

– Using BOE, natural gas emits 30% less carbon

Boone Pickens wants to convert America’s 140,000-unit fleet of 18-wheel truckers to run on natural gas. Pickens says the cost of converting the next-generation fleet of 18-wheelers would be about $60,000 per vehicle – or roughly $9 billion for the entire 140,000 fleet. Where will that money come from?....

http://blogs.forbes.com/richkarlgaard/2011/04/11/what-i-learned-about-natural-gas-from-boone-pickens/

America is awash in fossil fuels and natural gas is one of the best. But it seems to environmentalists, nothing really works other than solar and wind power. Natural gas and nuclear are the real choices if you want to decrease the amount of carbon we are putting in the air.

Chronicles of Failed Doomsaying

Gregg Easterbrook, author of one of the better books on the environment over the last 20 years (1995's A Moment on the Earth: The Coming Age of Environmental Optimism) COINED WHAT HE CALLED "EASTERBROOK'S LAW OF DOOMSAYING"--"PREDICT DREADFUL EVENTS WHOSE ARRIVAL IMPENDS NO SOONER THAN 5 YEARS HENCE, NO LATER THAN 10. THAT TIME WINDOW IS NEAR ENOUGH TO CAUSE WORRY, FAR ENOUGH OFF THAT WHEN IT ACTUALLY ROLLS AROUND EVERYONE WILL HAVE FORGOTTEN WHAT YOU PREDICTED."

But in the age of Google, it is easier to go back and check on these serial blunders. So as Britain was paralyzed with huge snowstorm a few months ago a number of folks went back and dredged up the climate campaign's predictions that winter snowfalls in Britain would soon (as in, by now) be a thing of historical memory.

Yesterday, GAVIN ATKINS OF ASIAN CORRESPONDENT.COM NOTES THAT JUST A FEW YEARS AGO THE UN ENVIRONMENT PROGRAMME PREDICTED THERE WOULD BE 50 MILLION CLIMATE REFUGEES BY THE YEAR 2010. And so Atkins sensibly asks, um. . . WHERE ARE THEY? He noted we have census figures for THE AREAS IDENTIFIED AS MOST VULNERABLE, SUCH AS THE TUVALU ISLANDS, AND FINDS IN EVERY CASE THAT POPULATION IS STILL GROWING.

http://nlt.ashbrook.org/2011/04/chronicles-of-failed-doomsaying.php

Making predictions is tough work especially if it’s about the future.

The future is happening now

Why I’m a Chris Christie fan

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.

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.”

http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/259945/green-double-cross-begins-steven-f-hayward


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.