Thursday, April 30, 2009

Link Roundup

Here's another loaded link roundup to send you into your weekend.

In the soon-to-be-socialist USofA:
Obamessiah fawning and proclamations:
Dollars and cents:
More gun restrictions:
More on the stupid Scare Force One flyby photo op Obama ordered:
Have a happy Friday!

Money Vs. Wealth

Doctor Zero has a brilliant explanation of the difference between money and wealth at Hot Air's Greenroom, and why Obama's actions have destroyed wealth while creating money.  Read the whole thing:

One way to measure the "transformational" power of the Obama presidency is to consider the speed with which Democrats transformed from the steel-taloned deficit hawks of the Bush years, into a party very comfortable with trillion-dollar deficits, and a fifteen-trillion-plus projected national debt. Anyone old enough to remember the early Clinton years has seen this happen before, of course. As the shadow of the Obama deficits looms over the economy, we can expect to begin seeing the sort of breezy journalism we got in the Nineties, wondering exactly why deficits are so bad. The fact that liberals are willing to ask the question illustrates one of the fatal flaws in socialist economic policy: the confusion between money and wealth.

Money is easy to create. Obama has already stolen a trillion dollars of it from the future. All that was required was printing up a few more stacks of bills, and adding a few more zeroes to various federal balance sheets. Last night, like every other day of his presidency, Obama spoke about how much money he plans to "invest" in various government programs. Liberals in general, and the news media in particular, use the amount of money thrown at any given problem as the sole important method of measuring how much we "care" about it.

Wealth is a far more elusive, and important, part of the economy than money. Wealth is what people do with their money… and even more to the point, it's what people could do with their money. Free people in a free economy create wealth through their choices. You can run down to the grocery store and spend ten dollars buying steak to cook for dinner tonight, or you could go to a restaurant and spend two or three times that much, having the steak expertly prepared for you. Sixty bucks might seem like a lot to spend on dinner… but how much would it cost you to venture forth into the wilderness and hunt your own dinner down, or raise your own cattle and slaughter them? Suppose you make twenty dollars per hour at your job. That grocery-store steak is worth half an hour of your time, and the fine dinner at at five-star steak house cost three hours of your income. Compared to the time and effort it would take you to hunt or butcher your own meat, even assuming you knew how - and were lucky enough to have a successful hunt tonight - it's a bargain. You create wealth by giving your money to the grocer or restaurant for your dinner, and now they have money to invest or spend according to their needs and desires. Meanwhile, you also created wealth for your employer, because you were able to spend hours working at your day job, instead of fooling around in the brush with a bow and arrow, trying to bring down a deer.

Modern technology greatly amplifies wealth creation. You couldn't possibly build yourself a computer or automobile from raw materials, no matter how much time you invested. You can't perform surgery on yourself. The twenty dollars in your pocket represents vast wealth, because you can choose to spend it in so many different ways, and your employers chose to give it to you (after taxes, of course) because the hour you spent earning it was worth more than having a twenty-dollar bill sitting in their vaults. You can use that twenty dollars to buy things that the last Egyptian pharaoh could not have purchased with all the gold in his kingdom, or all the kingdoms of the world combined. The computer you're using to read these words is vastly more powerful and easy to use than it would have been a decade ago, because the pursuit of profits drove computer and software companies to compete and produce better products, and their competition created wealth. You're probably using high-speed Internet and a comfortable flat-screen monitor to read this, using a computer that can do a dozen other things at the same time, and if you wanted to share this essay with a friend, you could email a link in seconds.

The wealth built into that twenty dollar bill dissipates if you're not allowed to choose how you spend it. How wealthy are you if the grocer takes your twenty bucks and tells you that you have to eat fish instead of steak… and you're allergic to fish? How wealthy would you be if your employer paid you in company scrip, which could be spent only at the company store, on a limited selection of products the company sees fit to offer - at whatever price they decide to charge? Even though that scrip has value - you can buy stuff with it - it represents much less wealth, because you have fewer choices in how to spend it.

Socialism annihilates wealth. Government control of the economy destroys the value of the dollars circulating through its bloodstream. Every one of the trillion dollars Obama dumped on the American economy reduced the value of every dollar that was already here, because government stimulus bills create no wealth - they just force the economy to spend money in ways it didn't want to. Not a single hour of productive labor is created when a big pile of deficit dollars is sucked out of the free market and expelled from Washington. Socialism creates the illusion of prosperity by forcing money to be spent in politically favored areas, then shining the media spotlight on where the money was spent… and hoping nobody notices all the choices that weren't made, all the possibilities that were foreclosed, fading away in the darkness outside that spotlight. And deficit spending is ultimately the worst excess of socialism, because it destroys the wealth of the future, taking away their choices and options… draining the lifeblood from the America that could have been, in the arrogant knowledge that an aborted future does not have a voice to defend its interests, and the voters of today will never stumble across the corpses of murdered opportunities.

That is why deficit spending on Obama's scale is so awful: because it takes a trillion dollars from the future without asking its permission, burns away a vast amount of the wealth that money represented, replaces it with a debt that can only grow worse with every passing year, and tries to convince the American people the whole transaction was a bargain.

Another way I've heard it said is that your measure of wealth equals the amount of time you could get by if the money stopped coming in.  Let's put this into a simple context - which would you rather be:
- a person earning $1,000,000 a year with yearly living expenses of $1,100,000 a year
- a person earning $40,000 a year with yearly living expenses of $30,000 a year

The first person has far more money, but negative wealth.  On the other hand, the second person has little money coming in, but over time will become incredibly wealthy.  See the difference?

So, what Obama and the Democrats have done is cash in America's future wealth for their play money today.  And, common sense -- as well as every economic model ever conceived -- will tell you that the first person's lifestyle is unsustainable over the long haul, and will inevitably crash.  It's not a question of if, but when.  Applying that same common sense to government spending over the decades, we can easily understand that America will crash.  It's not a question of if, but when.  Given Obama's ridiculous spending binge over the past few months, the crash will be far harder than it would have otherwise, and it will likely be our children and grandchildren who will bear the greatest brunt of it because the wealth they would have generated has already been stolen.

That's why this rampant spending is so incredibly dangerous to the long-term prospects of the American economy.

But it's too late to stop it now.  Elections have consequences, and Obama was elected.  Now we get to deal with having him running the show.  It won't be pretty, and 'I told you so' will be vastly inadequate.  Let's just hope we learn fast and get some responsible grown-ups in Congress as soon as possible to cut it off before the whole country goes belly-up.

There's my two cents.

Cool: America Is Arming Itself!

Gateway Pundit:

More hope and change...
Americans bought enough guns in the first 3 months of the year to outfit the entire Chinese and Indian armies combined.

Earlier this year Barack Obama was awarded "Gun Salesman of the Year" by Outdoor Wire.

A poster showing Barack Obama is seen in the background as customers line up to look at firearms at a gun shop in Fort Worth, Texas, Thursday, Nov. 6, 2008. The Cheaper Than Dirt gun store recorded a record day of gun sales the day after the election of President-elect Barack Obama and is having trouble keeping up with the demand for assault riffles. (Flickr)

Ammoland reported, via Free Republic:

In just 3 months Americans bought enough guns to outfit the entire Chinese and Indian army's combined.

You also bought 1,529,635,000 rounds of ammunition in just the month of December 2008. Yeah that is right, that is Billion with a "B".

This is an evaluation of overall firearms and ammunition purchases based on low end numbers per Federal NIC instacheck data base Statistics. The numbers presented are only PART of the overall numbers of arms and ammunition that have been sold. The actual numbers are much higher.
The #1 gun salesman is apparently still hard at work!

I find it genuinely reassuring to know that American citizens have more weapons in hand than the Chinese and Indian armies combined.  Now, the real question is how we stack up against Obama's youth brigade...after all, they were supposed to be as well-funded and well-armed as the U.S. military, right?

There's my two cents.

Chrysler Goes Down

This is a study in socialist liberalism.  Excerpts from the Washington Post:

Chrysler, one of the three pillars of the American auto industry, will file for bankruptcy today after last-minute negotiations between the government and the automaker's creditors broke down last night, an Obama administration official said.

U.S. officials had offered Chrysler's secured lenders $2.25 billion in cash if they would agree to writedown the $6.9 billion in secured debt that the company owed. But a small group of hedge funds refused the 11th-hour deal, forcing an imminent bankruptcy.

What, those investors don't want to take a massive loss on their investment?  Go figure.  Oops, I meant to say 'how selfish of them':

An administration official this morning expressed disappointment, saying the holdouts had failed to "do the right thing," but that "their failure to act in either their own economic interest or the national interest does not diminish the accomplishments made by Chrysler, Fiat and its stakeholders, nor will it impede the new opportunity Chrysler now has to restructure and emerge stronger going forward."

That's right, we're all supposed to sacrifice for the greater good.  Except, in this case, the 'greater good' is actually the good of the nanny state government (who will own the company) and the unions (who will control the company).  What a great win for the other 90% of the country, huh?

The U.S. government's attempt to save the automaker amounts to another extraordinary intervention in the economy and a landmark event in the history of the American auto industry.

IT IS NOT THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE GOVERNMENT TO SAVE ANY PRIVATE COMPANY!!!

Under the administration's detailed plan for a "surgical bankruptcy," ownership of Chrysler would be dramatically reorganized, the leadership of Italian automaker Fiat would take over company management and the U.S. and Canadian governments would contribute more than $10 billion in additional funding.

Company and government officials had feared that a bankruptcy would stain the brand, shake customer confidence and erode sales, but the administration said it would seek to use the process to create a new Chrysler company. Its ownership would be divided, with the company's union retiree health fund receiving a 55 percent stake, Fiat would claim as much as a 35 percent share and the United States would take 8 percent. The Canadian government would receive two percent.

By the way, Fiat is floundering in its own right:

With Fiat amassing net debt of 6.6 billion euros ($8.6 billion) and its bonds cut to junk last month by Standard & Poor's, Marchionne may have to back away from his pledge and put up cash to reach a deal with Chrysler by the U.S.-government imposed deadline of April 30, analysts say.

Fiat, Italy's largest carmaker, reported its first quarterly loss since 2004 today even as it reiterated a target of earnings before interest, tax and some items of more than 1 billion euros this year.

Why does anyone think it's a good idea to let a failed Italian car company run a failed American car company?  But back to the WaPo article and Chrysler...

The automaker's current majority owner, the private-equity firm Cerberus Capital Management, would have its holdings wiped out.

Thus, the resistance.  Duh.

During the bankruptcy, the governments would provide about $4 billion in new funds, with 80 percent coming from the United States and 20 percent from Canada, which hosts a number of Chrysler operations. As the company emerged from its reorganization, the United States would provide roughly another $5 billion, with more coming from Canada, the sources said. The sources warned, however, that the figures were fluid.

So, of the 'Big 3' automakers, Obama would own two of them.  I predict major sales increases for Ford.  I've never really liked Fords before, but I'm thinking much more favorably of them now...

Particularly striking to some economists and historians is that the plan turns over ownership of a major U.S. industrial company to an employee-run trust, a deal that is "unprecedented on this scale," according to Harley Shaiken, a University of California at Berkeley professor and expert on unions.

The government plan also calls for ensuring that Chrysler maintains substantial U.S. manufacturing operations. It requires that at least 40 percent of company sales volumes remain manufactured domestically, or for the company's total production in this country to remain at least at 90 percent of its U.S. production last year.

"Anyway you cut it, the union is going to be a major presence at the company," Shaiken said.

Of course it is.  Just like with GM, the union is likely going to control operations from top to bottom (within Obama's authority, of course).

The article goes on about who gets what and for how much, but the bottom line is that Obama is taking over another private company and will likely give control of it to a combination of the unions and a failed foreign company.

How's that for hope-n-change?

The single biggest thing that we need to take from this is that this is precisely what the Right has been warning about all along: liberalism fails.  Remember the initial objections to bankruptcy?  The lawful debt holders would take it in the shorts, we can't possibly allow the stigma of a bankrupted company, a government bailout was the only hope, and so on.  Well, look where we are now...Obama intervened in private enterprise, threw billions of dollars in taxpayer money into a black hole, and the company is still going into bankruptcy.  And that's after wasting a whole bunch of our tax dollars.

Of course, if you understand that Obama's actual objective was to take over the company and re-make it, it's actually a smashing success.  So is GM.
  But is this really the way you want things to work in America?  I mean, seriously, this is normally third world tinpot dictator stuff.  Are we going to put up with it here?

There's my two cents.

2Cents Is Still A Certified Swine H1N1 Flu-Free Zone!

Just thought you'd want to know that, since this epidemic is ripping through the nation.  How are you feeling today?

A couple of stats for you:
- the number of confirmed American flu-related deaths each year: 36,000
- the number of confirmed America swine flu-related deaths so far: 0
- the number of confirmed swine flu-related deaths worldwide: 7

Get your panic on.

There's my two cents.

They'll Screw It Up

As a follow up to the last post about Specter and the Democrats, Legal Insurrection offers some analysis I think is worth examining:
It would be very easy to fall into a depression over Arlen Specter switching political parties, giving Democrats a likely filibuster-proof Senate majority. The result will be that Obama will be able to push through much of his agenda without meaningful debate.

Not that I will miss Specter personally. Specter has become a caricature of the self-interested politician who hides his need for fame behind lofty talk of principles. More than anything, I feel sorry for Specter at a personal level, because we are watching someone going through his last hurrah. And the fact that he sold out the principles he spoke about just weeks ago regarding preserving the two-party system, demonstrates how pathetic Specter has become in his quest for a legacy. Unfortunately for Specter, his legacy will not be what he thinks it will be.

It would be easy to be depressed, until you read this snippet from history, as reported by the Politico:
The last time either party had such a wide Senate margin was during the first two years of Jimmy Carter’s term in 1977-1978, when Democrats under then-Majority Leader Robert Byrd held 61 seats.
What history shows us is that a liberal, blame-America-first Democratic President, urged on by a liberal, blame-America-first Democratic Congress, is a prescription for political self-destruction. Leave Democrats to their own devices, and they will screw themselves politically, just when they are at the height of power.

We already see this phenomenon in action:

  • As to national security, Congressional Democrats are pushing for hearings and prosecutions of the authors of memos interpreting the federal anti-torture statute. These hearings will cause enormous damage to the country, reminiscent of the damage caused to intelligence agencies by the Church commission in the 1970s. We don't know when the risks to which we are exposed turn into an attack, but it will happen because, as the 9/11 commission noted, al-Qaeda is at war with us, regardless of whether we are at war with it.
  • As to foreign affairs, China, Venezuela and Iran will rise in power and influence as Democrats fulfill their dream of returning the United States to its isolationist roots. The result will be that hundreds of millions of people who yearn to live in free societies will have to defer that hope for another generation or two.
  • As to the national debt, in a year or two the nation will wake up to the fact that Democrats have mortgaged our future to the hilt, beyond what anyone could have comprehended a year ago. When the younger generations, currently smitten with the cool President, realize that they will pay this bill, there will be a backlash. And when they see mortgage rates and inflation put the good life out of their reach, the younger generation will embrace Reaganism as the cure for the Democratic disease.
  • As to human rights, in the quest for revenge against the Bush administration under the guise of obtaining justice for three high-level al-Qaeda operatives who were waterboarded, we will ensure that al-Qaeda lives on to spread true torture throughout the world. The human rights and Democratic interest groups who are silent when al-Qaeda uses teenagers or pregnant women to blow up other teenagers and pregnant women are relegating tens of thousands of people to al-Qaeda terror, without so much as a second thought. For that, we will not earn the friendship the Democrats desire, but an ignoble page in history, along with Neville Chamberlain.
  • As to government control of private industry, government control will see the final death of the American automobile industry. Those who fret that the federal government is converting its loans to voting equity on a preferential basis are missing the big picture. Government running the auto industry will be the end of the auto industry.
  • As to health care, Americans will realize that nationalized health care will be no more successful than in Canada or Britain. Americans who are upset by waiting a couple of hours in a doctor's office will go berserk over waiting weeks or months for surgical procedures. And that fury will be more pronounced than in Canada or Britain, because we will have no traditional American health care system to fall back on.
  • As to freedom of speech, the continued and obsessive use of the race card by Democrats and Hollywood elites will cause a simmering resentment which will boil over into retribution in the voting booth. The use of false accusations of racism as a political weapon to silence debate is the least understood, and by far the most corrosive, result of the 2008 election cycle.
So I'm not depressed about the long-term future of the country, although the next few years will be tough politically. The Democrats will screw up big time, as they did during the Carter years, and the damage they cause will be generational. But the clean-up is worth looking forward to, even if the mess is not.

UPDATE: The Politico reports on the details of Specter's poll-driven decision. It is not pretty, and leaves Specter with a legacy of being one of the most straight-faced liars politics has ever seen -- and that is saying a lot. While Specter preached about principles and how the Republican party had left him, in fact Specter consulted pollsters to the last minute in a calculated effort to determine whether he could win re-election as a Democrat.

Even Specter's position on card-check (the legislation to deprive employees of a secret ballot) was driven by his hope of re-nomination by the Republican Party. Only when that effort failed did Specter decide:
Specter came to McConnell’s office in the Capitol on Monday afternoon and told him he was considering becoming a Democrat and that he had a very good reason to make the move: His internal polls made it clear he was unlikely to win a GOP primary next year. Further, Specter told McConnell on Monday, and again when he shared his decision with the leader in private Tuesday, there were not enough moderate voters in Pennsylvania to survive as an independent.

So, to win, he had to jump....

Specter thought coming out against the Employee Free Choice Act — organized labor’s signature legislation — may appease his home-state Republicans. He dealt what was thought at the time to be a deathblow to the measure on March 24. But after going home for spring recess earlier this month, he found out that it had won him little goodwill with Republicans and only aggravated relations with some of the union-friendly Democrats whose support he had been counting on to win in November.
A legacy of going back on your word and lying to the public; nice work.
I partially agree with his bottom line: the long-term future is theoretically more positive, but it's going to be extremely painful getting there. Where I would potentially disagree is on the question of whether or not we're at a fulcrum point that pushes the United States off the edge of a cliff from which we cannot come back. I think we might be.

Obama and the Democrats are trying to institutionalize things like nationalized health care, disastrous cap-and-trade, judicial activism, anti-Americanism, socialism, and a general dependence mentality, and those are things which you don't just roll back once the other party is back in charge. Those are permanent cultural changes that will drag down any economic recovery and global leadership like an over-sized anchor. To go back to our foundational roots and capitalism will take a tremendous effort and it will be extremely painful. It can be done, but it'll be like breaking a bone that healed wrong in order to set it properly.

We'll just have to wait and see what happens, and do the best we can with the hand we're dealt. And pray...a whole lot.


There's my two cents.

Specter The Defector

Senator Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania recently switched parties, giving the Democrats 59 votes (which will become 60 if Al Franken -- yes, that Al Franken -- wins in Minnesota). There's been a lot of hyperventilation about it, but I've been a bit reluctant to cover it for reasons I'll share in a moment. Bottom line: the hypocrisy is too good of an example not to cover it, so here we go.

This is an interview from just a couple weeks ago:



Obviously, those high-minded ideals only lasted until he realized he couldn't win as a Republican. He admitted it himself:



'I'm not prepared to have my 29 year record decided by the Pennsylvania Republican primary electorate'?! He apparently thinks that he's above being judged by the voters who put him into office and have kept him there for almost three decades! It doesn't get more arrogant or transparent than that.

The reality is that his recent actions have so outraged the voters of Pennsylvania that his polling has shown there is no possible way he'll stay in office as a Republican. But,
he's so greedy to hold onto his seat in the Senate that he's willing to chuck all of his self-professed principles (that he enumerated just weeks ago) in order to do it.

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell explains why Specter's defection presents a 'threat to the country':




He's right, which is why a generic Congressional poll now shows that more Americans would vote for an unnamed Republican than an unnamed Democrat. It's the second time in over five years this has been the case.

So, what does all this mean? It depends on who you ask. Many on the Right are having some major heartburn about this. Specter is rightly being called a self-serving hack by almost everyone. But, I don't think this is cause for too much concern...in reality, not much changes, and those things that have changed are probably for the better.

For one thing, not all Dems are happy about this. Majority Leader Harry had to cut a deal with Specter, leaving him his seniority, which means Specter will jump over almost all Dems and right into key leadership positions. Specter has a long history of independence, which has given the Right fits over the years. We've all come to assume he'll vote with the Dems as often as not, and he has. That scenario could very well play out on the other side of the aisle now (wouldn't that irony be delicious?). In fact, not even Reid is counting on him as a consistent 60th vote.

Also, there's no guarantee that Specter will win re-election as a Democrat.
For every vote where he's sided with the Dems, he's got a bunch where he's sided with the Right, like on the Alito and Roberts nominations, card check, and others. Those votes were not popular with Democrats, and will likely come back to bite him in the primary. I would guess that Reid is looking at this as a win-win, though - he steals a Republican, and if Specter doesn't toe the line for the next 18 months, he'll get beaten by a true-blue Democrat, and Reid will keep the seat anyway. The GOP loses all around, and the Dems win all around. It's a pretty good deal for Reid.

There is much gnashing of teeth on the Right about how this is a big loss. It really isn't. Like I said, Specter usually voted with the Left anyway, so that's not going to change. The only change is that he may occasionally break with the Left to vote with us, and that's a net benefit, especially as it gives the Left fits and angst. And, when you boil it all down, this is exactly the kind of house-cleaning the GOP needs to do right now - get rid of the turncoats who profess to be members in good standing, and get back to the real GOPers who are willing to stand for something. Like Sam Brownback, Arlen Specter represents only egregious self-interest, exactly what we don't need in Washington right now. To really illustrate what I believe is the correct perspective on this, listen to KCMO 710 talk show host Chris Stigall and Chris Kobach:


Good riddance, and take McCain with you! It's a good plan.

There's my two cents.

Related Reading

What we can learn from Specter the Defecter

How Many Jobs?

I'll have more on Obama's press conference last night later, but I first wanted to point out one of the most bald-faced, stupid lies he said:
"I especially want to thank Leader Reid, Speaker Pelosi, all of the members of Congress who worked so quickly and effectively to make this blueprint a reality.

This budget builds on the steps we've taken over the last 100 days to move this economy from recession to recovery and ultimately to prosperity.

We began by passing a Recovery Act that has already saved or created over 150,000 jobs and provided a tax cut to 95 percent of all working families."
Reality begs to differ:
The US economy lost 598,000 jobs in January.
The US economy lost 706,000 jobs in February.
The US economy lost 742,000 jobs in March.

So, in other words Team Obama has lost 2,046,000 jobs and only created or saved 150,000 jobs.
Woo-Hoo!
It looks like Team Obama has some work to do.
Mostly, they need to work on telling the truth.

But, this is as predicted: there's really no way to quantify 'saved' jobs, so Obama can make up whatever number he wants. The number of lost jobs is a bit harder to spin, as those are concrete and reported on a regular basis. Just don't ask the media to do so, or to question The Obamessiah's word on any of it. Problem solved!

There's my two cents.

Wednesday, April 29, 2009

A Rose By Any Other Name...

I caught a brief press conference this morning where President Obama officially welcomed Arlen Specter into the Democrat party.  He also took a moment to speak about the swine flu epidemic going around.  Something that stuck out to me was the fact that he carefully and consistently called it the "N1H1 flu" rather than the "swine flu".  I thought that was a bit odd, but Michelle Malkin's website provides the reasoning behind that apparently significant change:

The Obama administration—in keeping true with their penchant for changing the names of things — is trying to stop using the word "swine" in swine flu

The official line is that this is hurting the pork industry.  Okay, I can get on board with helping out the pig farming industry, but I can't help but admit that I didn't think twice about eating ham for breakfast this morning, nor will I think twice about it tomorrow or any other day in the future.  The stupid part of all this is that they apparently think that simply renaming a problem will make it go away.  It's typical liberalism - redefining words to be convenient for their current and temporary purposes.

The problem is, of course, that just renaming a thing doesn't change the thing one bit.  An overseas contingency operation will be just as deadly to America as a terrorist attack, and the swine flu will make people just as sick (i.e. not very) as the N1H1 flu.  Just ignore the substance of the issue.

The other thing that jumped out of the press conference was the utter silliness of the precautions Obama delivered with complete sincerity:

"Keep your hands washed. Cover your mouth when you cough," said Mr. Obama. "Stay home from work if you are sick. Keep your children home from school if they are sick."

Is anyone else seeing that these are some of the most brain-dead obvious common sense things that everyone should do every day anyway?  We all know what it means when health experts say we should wash our hands...that means after you go to the bathroom.  If you're so filthy and disgusting that you don't do that, you deserve to catch whatever you catch.  But, the people around you do not, so get a clue and stop being nasty.  Same goes with coughing, and with staying home when you're sick.  DUH!!!

Here's the point: Obama is substituting his own leadership for plain old common sense.  He's telling us that we're too stupid to figure these things out for ourselves, so we need to listen to him instead.  He's continuing to make as many people as dependent upon the federal government (i.e. him) as possible.  And remember the saying: a government big enough to give you everything you need is a government big enough to take away everything you have.  Even your common sense.

There's my two cents.

How 'Bout Those Rosy Projections Now?

Back when Obama first presented his budget, it was easily shown that it was based on the rosiest of rosy projections, but even then his historically unprecedented spending will trigger mammoth deficits as far as the eye can see.  Unfortunately, reality will slap Rosy around hard when the rubber meets the road (go here to review, if you don't recall the details).  Well, guess what?

Things just got worse:

Thanks Barack. Thanks Dems.
The economy shrunk at a worse than expected pace in the first quarter.
Yahoo Finance reported, via Drudge:

The economy shrank at a worse-than-expected 6.1 percent pace at the start of this year as sharp cutbacks by businesses and the biggest drop in U.S. exports in 40 years overwhelmed a rebound in consumer spending.

The Commerce Department's report, released Wednesday, dashed hopes that the recession's grip on the country loosened in the first quarter. Economists surveyed by Thomson Reuters expected a 5 percent annualized decline.

Instead, the economy ended up performing nearly as bad as it had in the final three months of last year when it logged the worst slide in a quarter-century, contracting at a 6.3 percent pace. Nervous consumers played a prominent role in that dismal showing as they ratcheted back spending in the face of rising unemployment, falling home values and shrinking nest eggs.
Maybe we can't spend our way to prosperity after all?

So, if Rosy is already way, way off, the overall long-term picture is going to get exponentially worse as time goes on.  How's that for hope-n-change?

There's my two cents.

Brownback Flushed His Signature Issue

All you Kansans out there: do you know where your Senators stand?

Yesterday the radical pro-abortion Kathleen Sebelius was confirmed as the radical pro-abortion Barack Obama's Secretary of Health and Human Services, and both Kansas Senators supported her.  While it's no surprise, it is interesting to discuss the ramifications of Sam Brownback's vote in a larger context.

Earlier this week I had mentioned this:

In an interview with Christianity Today in October of 2007, Brownback had this exchange:

Do you see abortion as a significant part of this [Presidential] campaign?

I see it as the lead moral issue of our day, just like slavery was the lead moral issue 150 years ago.

In that same interview, he expressed frustration that he wasn't given more of a podium to put forward his views on the subject.

Now let's examine Brownback's actions on Obama's nomination of Kansas Governor Kathleen Sebelius for Secretary of Health and Human Services.  First, we know that Obama is the most pro-death President in recent memory, if not ever ( see here, here, here).  Thus, he would naturally surround himself with people of generally the same viewpoint, would he not?  Sebelius fits right in, aggressively advancing abortion as Governor of Kansas, in part by protecting mass abortion provider George (the 'baby-killer') Tiller.  This duo have paired up to allow Kansas to become the 'late term abortion capital of the world'.

Now Obama has nominated Sebelius to a higher post, and Brownback has an opportunity to take a vocal and visible stance against someone who is the very antithesis of what he calls 'the lead moral issue of the day'.

Will he?  Don't bet on it.  He's been silent so far.

After voting in favor of Sebelius, here's his justification (emphasis mine):

From the beginning, I have said that I would support the nomination of my fellow Kansan to be Secretary of Health and Human Services. There is a long tradition of bipartisanship in the Senate of supporting nominations from the same state regardless of party; in the last 20 years, only twice have home state senators not supported someone from their home state.

So, the conclusion from this is that Sam Brownback is more concerned with bipartisanship than his own self-professed 'lead moral issue of our day'.  How's that for principled leadership?

Don't get hung up too much on the abortion angle here - everyone knows where Sebelius, Obama, and Brownback stand on the issue, and there were no surprises here.  I only mention it to illustrate how Brownback's 'principle' is in direct opposition to Sebelius' record, which tells us how vacant and non-existent Brownback's principles really are.  This could have played out on any number of issues, it just happens to be abortion in this case.  The greater point is that if Brownback cannot be trusted to uphold what he considers and professes to be his signature issue, and instead caves for the sake of bipartisanship, then he cannot be trusted on any other issue of lesser importance, either.

And that, my friends, is precisely the point of the Tea Parties earlier this month.  Americans are sick and tired of elected representatives who no longer represent us.  We are sick and tired of political calculation trumping the right thing to do.  We are tired of politicians saying one thing at home and doing another in Washington.  We are sick and tired of collective back-scratching at the expense of...well, of us.  It's almost as if Washington has sealed itself off in a little bubble, barely aware that anyone exists outside their little party except when they deign to acknowledge us peons out here.  Unfortunately, most of the control of the wealth, law, and power in this country is held within that bubble.

That's what absolutely must change as quickly as possible if we are to bring America back from the brink of disaster.  Rule of thumb to live by for the foreseeable future:

VOTE. THEM. HOME.

There's my two cents.

Budget Update

The House just passed Obama's budget (the final version that just came out of the House/Senate conference committee).  Two notes:
1. not a single Republican voted for it (again)
2. it contains the reconciliation for health care reform that we've warned about before (here and here)

Call your Senators NOW, if you feel so inclined.  If this thing is to be defeated, that's the last chance.

There's my two cents.

Signs Of Hope

Despite all the legitimately bad news about what's going on in this country, there are already some serious signs of a conservative resurgence in the making. First, there are positive strides on how Americans view the engine of prosperity, capitalism:

Seventy-seven percent (77%) of U.S. voters say that they prefer a free market economy over a government-managed economy. That’s up seven points since December.

The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey also found that just 11% now prefer a government-run economy, down from 15% four months ago.

Free markets are preferred by 94% of Republicans, 64% of Democrats and 78% of those not affiliated with either major party. Adults under 30 favor free markets by a 79% to eight percent (8%) margin.

This is great, though not without problems. Another poll showed only 53% preferred capitalism over socialism. Looks like a little education is in order! And, the GOP needs to get serious about clarifying their message, both that they are in favor of free market capitalism (and actually follow through on it) and that Obama is the anti-capitalist.

Second is another poll that has shown steady improvements for our side in the recent past:

The Democrats are riding high these days, and understandably so. Yet there are persistent signs that a great many Americans are not on board with their agenda. It's too soon to diagnose a case of buyer's remorse, but none of the major initiatives of the Obama administration and the Democratic Congress--TARP II, the bailouts, the "stimulus" pork bill, the budget, cap and trade, card check--poll very well, and some poll miserably.

So it's not entirely surprising that today, for only the second time in five years, Rasmussen finds Republicans leading Democrats on the generic Congressional ballot, 41 percent to 38 percent.

It's a long way to November 2010, and much will happen between now and then that will shape the next election cycle. But already, large sectors of the public are showing doubts about the Democrats' agenda and reservations about the Democrats' sole control in Washington. (The tea parties, of course, are just one manifestation of what appears to be a widespread concern.) So far, the Democrats seem unaware of, or unconcerned about, the public's lack of enthusiasm for their agenda. Time will tell whether they will pay a price for their current hubris.

I'm pretty confident that 2010 will see a major shift in the voting public, as these polls seem to indicate already (though it is still very, very early). But, as Obama and the radical Leftist Democrats in charge continue pushing their agenda onto the country, more and more people will realize exactly who they are and what they are doing, and rebel against it. In my mind, the key question is: will the blowback happen before Obama & Co. do so much damage that America is irreparably harmed?

I'm not sure yet. I'd rather be safe than sorry, so the sooner the blowback begins to become obvious, the better for all of us.

There's my two cents.

Israel Increasingly Isolated

I recently came across this video of what happened during the last war between Israel and Hamas in Gaza. Very informative:



As you can see, Israel was facing an enemy that has absolutely no regard for innocent human life, and they acquitted themselves admirably, especially given the circumstances. Now, Israel is facing international pressure once again to enter into a peace deal with Hamas. When will the rest of the world figure out that Hamas and its ideological sibling organizations will never honor any peace deal with Israel?

Unfortunately, they haven't yet. SecState Hillary Clinton certainly doesn't, since she recently issued an ultimatum to Israel: peace or else.

This is not going to end well.


There's my two cents.

How It All Began...

I thought it might be instructive to have a little reminder on exactly how all this financial meltdown began: housing. Hot Air provides a couple of very interesting videos to contrast how Barney Frank, the Chairman of the House Banking Committee (which oversees housing) has changed his tune over the years. First, in 2005:



Now, here's the revisionism in 2008, after things fell apart:



So, let's review. In 2005, Frank openly pushed housing for all. In 2008, Frank claimed housing should only have been for those who could afford it. Hmmm...

Another reminder: President Bush called for reform on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac 17 times in 2008 alone! That doesn't include the dozen or more times he mentioned it from 2001-2007, either. Oh, and it also doesn't include the calls from other Republicans (like McCain) in 2005, either. Too bad the Democrats stonewalled, especially right there at the end:



Like I said, just a brief refresher on what started all of this. You know, in case there's any confusion.

There's my two cents.

100 Days (Of Disaster)

Today marks Barack Obama's 100th day as the President of the United States. Isn't it amazing how much carnage one radical socialist can do in such a short time? A reminder of how the market has reacted to his leadership:


...and what the national deficit looks like under his leadership:


Now that we have those fresh in our minds, I thought I should post some commentary on Obama's first 100 days. There is a wealth of opinion out there, but I landed on Patterico's synopsis as a terrific roundup of all things Obama. It includes the 7 pre-released talking points that Obama wanted the media to say about him, and addresses each one:

Last week, the Politico offered a handy list of seven things the White House wants reporters to write about Pres. Obama’s first 100 days in office. The piece makes a nice enough frame for evaluating whether the Obama’s hoped-for spin matches reality.

Obama is a promise-keeper?

Obama undoubtedly would like this storyline, but the Politico did not come up with any examples of it. Obama has kept a few promises; he has given things to the abortion lobby, usually late on Friday evenings when he hopes no one will notice.

However, it is fairly easy to compile a larger list of promises Obama has broken or is breaking. Many of those broken promises are just fine with the Right — Obama has adopted the Bush adminsitration’s positions on lawsuits over “torture,” warrantless wiretapping, state secrets and policies the powers that allow the president to indefinitely detain suspected terror supporters. The administration is negotiating possible exceptions to the June 30 deadline for withdrawing American combat troops from Iraqi cities (as he should, given that his retreatist rhetoric worked against his own stated goals). Obama has flip-flopped on the free-trade pact with Colombia and NAFTA. Even before he was elected, he broke his promises to immediately repeal tax cuts for the wealthy and take on Big Oil (though one suspects they are still on his “to do” list).

Other broken promises will tend to bother only the Right, like the abandonment of his inaugural pledge to end ineffective government programs.

Still other promises Obama has broken are more troubling — and not just to the Right. The adminsitration that promised transparency has shrouded some of its signature inititives in secrecy. The Obama Administration is not policing its stimulus spending for waste, fraud and abuse, not doing the legally-required oversight of TARP funds and not providing information to the Congressional Oversight Panel on TARP. Attorney General Eric Holder promised looser standards for Freedom of Information Act requests, but the lawsuits seeking information about the administration’s bailout programs are piling up. Neil Barofsky, the special inspector general overseeing the TARP, has already opened 20 criminal investigations and six audits into whether tax dollars are being pilfered or wasted.

Obama is a game-changer?

This is actually two of the Politico’s entries. In discussing Obama as promise-keeper and game-changer, VandeHei and Harris write:

The White House is pushing back against what it realizes is a dangerous perception that Obama may be trying to do too much, too fast — and cynically exploiting the economic crisis to push through unrelated agenda items…

***

The White House is worried that the public does not sufficiently grasp Obama’s view that his ideas fit together in a coherent strategy to force massive change in government, the financial sector and, ultimately, people’s lives.

It is small wonder Obama is having a tough time pushing this line. His own supporters do not buy it. The establishment media does not buy it (as the Politico itself notes). Democrats in Congress do not buy it, either. Obama’s own party has rolled him on any number of issues, supposedly in return for healthcare reform. The Democrats now threaten to railroad it through the budget reconciliation process, but the lack of money and the Byrd Rule provide plenty of leverage against it. Meanwhile, Lefties are already worried about what else Obama gave up to get healthcare in budget reconciliation.

Has Obama been a game-changer on the world stage? Obama’s diplomatic overtures have been rejected by the European Union, NATO, Russia, North Korea, Israel, the Palestinian Authority, Iran and much of Latin America. Obama’s unprecedented disclosure of CIA operational methods is already degrading US intelligence collection around the world. That might be game-changing, but not of the sort Obama wants the press to publicize.

Obama is the decider?

Not too long ago, a president pushing the idea that he was “the decider” would have been mocked by the media, but whatever. The Los Angeles Times and The Politico point to Obama’s White House confrontation with bank executives as an example of his bold style. However, the result of Obama’s bullying — as well as his handling of the AIG bonuses issue — is that banks are now trying to leave the TARP. The administration has also had problems getting lenders to participate in the Term Asset-Backed Securities Loan Facility and the Public-Private Investment Program because lenders have lost any trust that Obama and the Democratic Congress will not change the rules in midstream for reasons of political expediency.

Obama’s not in the bubble?

The Politico notes that ABC, The Washington Post and The New York Times have already done stories about how the president reads 10 letters from ordinary Americans every day. (Presumably, none of them are from Joe the Plumber, who was villified and investigated by local authorities for the crime of asking then-candidate Obama a question about his proposals.) There is considerably less media coverage when his “town hall” meetings are packed with pre-selected Obama supporters (much like his predecessor), or when he spends more time schmoozing celebrities than either Bush or Clinton (and seeking policy advice from them). Elkhart, Indiana, which has the country’s highest unemployment rate, would be crushed by Obama’s policies on energy and the environment. In South Carolina, ordinary Obama supporters are exhausted and losing patience with his agenda. When hundreds of thousands of ordinary Americans organize protests of his policies, the White House would prefer not to acknowledge it.

Obama is not FDR and Obama is FDR!

The Politico reports that the Obama administration knows “there is a danger in investing too much in an essentially bogus journalistic convention that supposes Obama can reshape Washington and the world in 100 days,” but “White House aides make clear they love the New Deal analogies.” That conflict reflects a certain level of narcissism — one that seems to flow from the very top.

Obama is one cool cucumber?

Really? In reality, Pres. Obama gets testy whenever the press starts asking uncomfortable questions. He cut off a joint presser in Britain, just like he walked out on one during the campaign.

Obama certainly tries to project the image of cool, but this could turn into a liability. People may have laughed when Obama could not muster convincing fauxtrage over the AIG bonuses, but the White House later found itself in a scramble to stay ahead of the genuine — if misplaced — anger on the issue. Obama’s reputation may also cast doubt on the claim that he was “furious” after an Air Force One lookalike and two F-16s buzzed the Statue of Liberty in New York harbor Monday morning. If the economy does not recover in a reasonable timeframe, more people will start seeing him as aloof, not cool.

What’s Missing?

The press narratives selected by the Politico are… selective. Other storylines abound. For example, the media will likely not address Obama’s failure at basic executive tasks, like staffing his administration. Obama is heading into its first medical outbreak without a secretary of Health and Human Services or appointees in any of the department’s 19 key posts. There were difficulties planning the G20 summit because every senior post in the US Treasury Department was vacant, with the exception of Secretary Timmy Geithner. Speaking of whom, Geithner reminds us of the large number of scandal-plagued nominees that emerged from Obama’s apparently flawed vetting operation. Again, these are stories that get glossed over during a president’s honeymoon, but will be remembered if future events are not to Obama’s favor.

After 100 days of unprecedented, saturation media coverage, Pres. Obama finds himself with an average level of public approval that masks how deeply polarized that public opinion is. Rest assured, that is not on any list of what the White House wants reporters to write about Pres. Obama’s first 100 days in office.

Day 100 down, only 1,360 or so to go!

There's my two cents.


Related Reading
100 Days With a Hole in Your Pocket
Best and Worst Moments
Fox News: not participating in media Obamagasm, will appropriately show "Lie to Me" instead
100 Days of the Poser Presidency
Holding Democrats Accountable
100 Days, 100 Mistakes
100 Days, 7 Spins
Boehner: hardly worthy of a victory lap
100 Days of Good, Bad, and Ugly

Link Roundup

Tons of red meat!

Here in the almost-socialist USofA:
Economic news:
Obamessiah news:
Around the world:
Environmental idiocy:
Janet Napolitano sucks and should be fired because...:
Have a happy Wednesday!