Wrote this last year. Let's see a year later what's accurate:
On the first day of Christmas,
The Messiah gave to me:
The Fairness Doctrine so I cannot see.
On the second day of Christmas,
The Messiah gave to me:
Twice the babies murdered,
And the Fairness Doctrine so I cannot see.
On the third day of Christmas,
The Messiah gave to me:
Three state-run networks.
Twice the babies murdered,
And the Fairness Doctrine so I cannot see.
On the fourth day of Christmas,
The Messiah gave to me:
Four years of failure.
Three state-run networks.
Twice the babies murdered,
And the Fairness Doctrine so I cannot see.
On the fifth day of Christmas,
The Messiah gave to me:
Five dollar gas.
Four years of failure.
Three state-run networks.
Twice the babies murdered,
And the Fairness Doctrine so I cannot see.
On the sixth day of Christmas,
The Messiah gave to me:
Six forms of gun bans
Five dollar gas.
Four years of failure.
Three state-run networks.
Twice the babies murdered,
And the Fairness Doctrine so I cannot see.
On the seventh day of Christmas,
The Messiah gave to me:
Seven Kyoto mandates
Six forms of gun bans
Five dollar gas.
Four years of failure.
Three state-run networks.
Twice the babies murdered,
And the Fairness Doctrine so I cannot see.
On the eighth day of Christmas,
The Messiah gave to me:
Eight U.N. sellouts
Seven Kyoto mandates
Six forms of gun bans
Five dollar gas.
Four years of failure.
Three state-run networks.
Twice the babies murdered,
And the Fairness Doctrine so I cannot see.
On the ninth day of Christmas,
The Messiah gave to me:
Nine new welfare programs
Eight U.N. sellouts
Seven Kyoto mandates
Six forms of gun bans
Five dollar gas.
Four years of failure.
Three state-run networks.
Twice the babies murdered,
And the Fairness Doctrine so I cannot see.
On the tenth day of Christmas,
The Messiah gave to me:
Ten percent unemployment
Nine new welfare programs
Eight U.N. sellouts
Seven Kyoto mandates
Six forms of gun bans
Five dollar gas.
Four years of failure.
Three state-run networks.
Twice the babies murdered,
And the Fairness Doctrine so I cannot see.
On the eleventh day of Christmas,
The Messiah gave to me:
Eleven brand new taxes
Ten percent unemployment
Nine new welfare programs
Eight U.N. sellouts
Seven Kyoto mandates
Six forms of gun bans
Five dollar gas.
Four years of failure.
Three state-run networks.
Twice the babies murdered,
And the Fairness Doctrine so I cannot see.
On the twelfth day of Christmas,
The Messiah gave to me:
Twelve million new citizens
Eleven brand new taxes
Ten percent unemployment
Nine new welfare programs
Eight U.N. sellouts
Seven Kyoto mandates
Six forms of gun bans
Five dollar gas.
Four years of failure.
Three state-run networks.
Twice the babies murdered,
And the Fairness Doctrine so I cannot see.
Monday, December 21, 2009
Monday, November 16, 2009
Jobs and the economy (Part 1)
Barack Obama announced before his Asia trip that he would convene a jobs summit at the White House next month.
The media treated this in its customary, dutiful fashion, largely cooing about "how presidential he is!"
Serious question, though, people. Actually, two serious questions.
First, why are we almost a year into this administration, with unemployment worsening throughout, and only now the president's focus is on jobs?
And second, how seriously can we take this? I mean, Obama and the Democrat-controlled Congress have spent the last 10 months in rabid pursuit of anti-jobs legislation such as Card Check, Health Care and Cap & Trade.
Perhaps the better question is whether anyone honestly believes that liberals know how to create jobs.
And save it on the stimulus nonsense, OK? For one thing, if the stimulus was about job creation, as Democrats have claimed for nine months, why has only 14 percent of the $787 billion been spent? I mean, libs are all about looking good politically, and double-digit unemployment is about seven shades of ugly.
Those jobs saved/created that Obama keeps talking about?
Besides serving as a multi-billion-dollar goody bag for liberal causes, the stimulus bill only provided struggling states with cash for extended unemployment benefits and to save teaching and other government jobs.
Temporarily. At least a dozen of those states that slurped up that stimulus already have figured out they're in deep financial trouble as they begin attempting to craft their 2010 budgets.
And by deep financial trouble, we're talking 10- and 11-figure shortfalls.
One of two things will have to happen. There will be massive layoffs among teachers and state workers. Or the fed will have to provide another injection of billions of dollars.
Tax dollars, of course.
I suspect a good amount will come from the unspent 86 percent of the stimulus money, because several Democrats floated the "Second Stimulus" idea a couple of weeks ago, and the tremors of immediate anger from the population at large registered on the Richter Scale.
That $787 billion won't last forever, though. And that, boys and girls, is precisely what's wrong when the government's idea of job creation equates to more government.
Somebody's got to pay for it.
And in this case and in this environment, with more people out of work week after week after week and the government's source of revenue steadily diminishing, it's simply an unsustainable course.
What's ahead, in the likely event this administration continues to ignore pro-growth policies, is even worse unemployment, much higher debt and a monstrous tax burden on every American who's lucky enough to still have a job.
The media treated this in its customary, dutiful fashion, largely cooing about "how presidential he is!"
Serious question, though, people. Actually, two serious questions.
First, why are we almost a year into this administration, with unemployment worsening throughout, and only now the president's focus is on jobs?
And second, how seriously can we take this? I mean, Obama and the Democrat-controlled Congress have spent the last 10 months in rabid pursuit of anti-jobs legislation such as Card Check, Health Care and Cap & Trade.
Perhaps the better question is whether anyone honestly believes that liberals know how to create jobs.
And save it on the stimulus nonsense, OK? For one thing, if the stimulus was about job creation, as Democrats have claimed for nine months, why has only 14 percent of the $787 billion been spent? I mean, libs are all about looking good politically, and double-digit unemployment is about seven shades of ugly.
Those jobs saved/created that Obama keeps talking about?
Besides serving as a multi-billion-dollar goody bag for liberal causes, the stimulus bill only provided struggling states with cash for extended unemployment benefits and to save teaching and other government jobs.
Temporarily. At least a dozen of those states that slurped up that stimulus already have figured out they're in deep financial trouble as they begin attempting to craft their 2010 budgets.
And by deep financial trouble, we're talking 10- and 11-figure shortfalls.
One of two things will have to happen. There will be massive layoffs among teachers and state workers. Or the fed will have to provide another injection of billions of dollars.
Tax dollars, of course.
I suspect a good amount will come from the unspent 86 percent of the stimulus money, because several Democrats floated the "Second Stimulus" idea a couple of weeks ago, and the tremors of immediate anger from the population at large registered on the Richter Scale.
That $787 billion won't last forever, though. And that, boys and girls, is precisely what's wrong when the government's idea of job creation equates to more government.
Somebody's got to pay for it.
And in this case and in this environment, with more people out of work week after week after week and the government's source of revenue steadily diminishing, it's simply an unsustainable course.
What's ahead, in the likely event this administration continues to ignore pro-growth policies, is even worse unemployment, much higher debt and a monstrous tax burden on every American who's lucky enough to still have a job.
Friday, November 6, 2009
Election returns
"Spin" can be a funny thing. What people say and what they do often are misaligned. The mouth may say "I'm not afraid" of that large, ferocious dog chained in a neighbor's front yard, but the feet nevertheless tend to use a path at least one foot beyond that chain's length.
Good sense, after all, often outweighs good spin.
We'll see if that applies to the post-election weeks and months ahead. On a number of fronts.
That liberals dismiss the ideological swings of 20-plus points from last fall's presidential election in Tuesday's Virginia and New Jersey governor races isn't all that surprising.
And I hold out little hope (OK, none at all) that Democrat Party leaders will reverse course on the reprehensible direction they're taking this country.
But there are a lot of Democrats in both houses of Congress who face elections next year and know they aren't as "bullet-proof" as Nancy Pelosi is in her ultra-liberal San Francisco district.
I assume a good number of those "blue-dog" Democrats would like to keep their jobs and, at the very least, are calculating the length of that large, ferocious dog's chain.
Good sense would dictate doing so.
Similar calculations should be going on across the aisle, though. At least at the highest levels of the GOP.
Just as Ronald Reagan "took back" the Republican Party for conservatives almost 30 years ago, those who hold his tenants, as well as The Constitution, sacred are moving in that direction again.
Yes, liberals spin this as right-wing extremism and charge that there's no room for moderate thought in the Republican Party.
Well, first of all, look at the pictures and video of this summer's tea parties and then the 9/12 march on Washington.
Extremists? More like a mix of veterans, retirees, young parents, everyday middle class folks who had never been part of any kind of political activism but were simply fed up with Washington's unprecedented power grab and gross mismanagement.
And moderate thought? Since when is supporting and voting for liberal idealism "moderate"?
It strikes me that in this decade, particularly, we hear all about how conservatives need to "move more to the center" and be more "big-tent" inclusive and so forth, yet I haven't heard once how Democrats should do anything similar.
My position is that Republicans have, and that precisely has been their problem.
Tuesday's other election that brought national attention, the House race in New York's very moderate 23rd District, bears that out.
The GOP saw fit to push a liberal "Republican" in Dede Scozzafava. The backlash from conservatives, already fed up with RINOs such Arlen Specter (before he jumped parties), Olympia Snowe, et al, resulted in the rapid ascent of a little-known conservative, Doug Hoffman, as a third-party candidate.
While Hoffman's support skyrocketed in the weeks leading up to the election, Scozzafava's dropped lower than whale dung, and she dropped out of the race (and endorsed Democrat Bill Owens, by the way).
Regardless of Owens' four-point win, a message was sent to the GOP hierarchy.
Question is, are they also now measuring chains?
Their future, like that of those "blue-dog" Democrats, almost certainly depends on it.
Good sense, after all, often outweighs good spin.
We'll see if that applies to the post-election weeks and months ahead. On a number of fronts.
That liberals dismiss the ideological swings of 20-plus points from last fall's presidential election in Tuesday's Virginia and New Jersey governor races isn't all that surprising.
And I hold out little hope (OK, none at all) that Democrat Party leaders will reverse course on the reprehensible direction they're taking this country.
But there are a lot of Democrats in both houses of Congress who face elections next year and know they aren't as "bullet-proof" as Nancy Pelosi is in her ultra-liberal San Francisco district.
I assume a good number of those "blue-dog" Democrats would like to keep their jobs and, at the very least, are calculating the length of that large, ferocious dog's chain.
Good sense would dictate doing so.
Similar calculations should be going on across the aisle, though. At least at the highest levels of the GOP.
Just as Ronald Reagan "took back" the Republican Party for conservatives almost 30 years ago, those who hold his tenants, as well as The Constitution, sacred are moving in that direction again.
Yes, liberals spin this as right-wing extremism and charge that there's no room for moderate thought in the Republican Party.
Well, first of all, look at the pictures and video of this summer's tea parties and then the 9/12 march on Washington.
Extremists? More like a mix of veterans, retirees, young parents, everyday middle class folks who had never been part of any kind of political activism but were simply fed up with Washington's unprecedented power grab and gross mismanagement.
And moderate thought? Since when is supporting and voting for liberal idealism "moderate"?
It strikes me that in this decade, particularly, we hear all about how conservatives need to "move more to the center" and be more "big-tent" inclusive and so forth, yet I haven't heard once how Democrats should do anything similar.
My position is that Republicans have, and that precisely has been their problem.
Tuesday's other election that brought national attention, the House race in New York's very moderate 23rd District, bears that out.
The GOP saw fit to push a liberal "Republican" in Dede Scozzafava. The backlash from conservatives, already fed up with RINOs such Arlen Specter (before he jumped parties), Olympia Snowe, et al, resulted in the rapid ascent of a little-known conservative, Doug Hoffman, as a third-party candidate.
While Hoffman's support skyrocketed in the weeks leading up to the election, Scozzafava's dropped lower than whale dung, and she dropped out of the race (and endorsed Democrat Bill Owens, by the way).
Regardless of Owens' four-point win, a message was sent to the GOP hierarchy.
Question is, are they also now measuring chains?
Their future, like that of those "blue-dog" Democrats, almost certainly depends on it.
Wednesday, October 7, 2009
Just wondering
From the Just Wondering File:
Seems that with each bit of bad economic news we've seen the past six months, our media throws the word "unexpected" into its headlines or, at least, fairly high in the story.
On what planet do these editors/writers reside?
Here's an idea. Try reporting the news every day as it is, as opposed to what will make Barack Obama look best, and you'll be less surprised that we're circling the drain faster every day.
Oh, and please stop quoting Joe Biden. The man is a certifiable loon and makes you look worse than usual when you take him seriously.
*****
Along those same lines, it seems just about every story recently that has to do with unemployment, we're cheering the fact that we've lost 10,000 or 19,000 fewer jobs than we did in the last reporting period.
See? We're coming out of the recession!
Wonder if it will ever dawn on people that with millions already out of a job, there are fewer and fewer workers to lose theirs.
Follow me here. You have 100 employees. You have to cut 20 percent of them to stay in business, which leaves you with 80. A little while later, you have to lay off 20 percent more to remain viable. This time, though, you only have to send 16 employees packing. Yay! Right? Next time, it's only 12 or 13. Nirvana! Right?
Or are you figuring out yet that you're still running out of employees and your business is headed quickly for the shitter?
*****
As expected, a number of Libs blamed the International Olympic Committee's decision last week on George Bush.
Not surprising, since few liberals can string five words together without blaming Bush for something.
A question, though: If Bush, who hasn't been president for nine months, prevented Chicago from getting the bid, how was it Chicago became a finalist while he was in the White House?
*****
If the definition of insanity truly is doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result, when are we going to slap white jackets on voters in the most destitute cities in America for repeatedly putting Liberals in charge?
Are you listening, Detroit?
*****
Wonder why Congress types don't have time to read the health care reform bill?
*****
Help, help, my liberal friends! I keep hearing from you that "media bias" doesn't exist. Please 'splain to me then why an alleged news organization like CNN would feel the need to "fact check" a comedy skit about Barack Obama on Saturday Night Live.
Try as I might, I just can't seem to remember similar attempts to get to the "truth" after the show's lampoons of George Bush, Sarah Palin, etc.
*****
All those states that readily slurped up all those millions of federal stimulus dollars earlier this year for things like education and extended umemployment benefits are now facing the hard reality that with those stimulus dollars came a mandate to replace them with their own in next year's budget.
Many, if not most, of those states already were facing multi-million dollar deficits.
Guess what? More mandates will be coming down the pike with health care reform and Cap & Trade, just to name two.
Just wondering. Whatcha gonna do?
Seems that with each bit of bad economic news we've seen the past six months, our media throws the word "unexpected" into its headlines or, at least, fairly high in the story.
On what planet do these editors/writers reside?
Here's an idea. Try reporting the news every day as it is, as opposed to what will make Barack Obama look best, and you'll be less surprised that we're circling the drain faster every day.
Oh, and please stop quoting Joe Biden. The man is a certifiable loon and makes you look worse than usual when you take him seriously.
*****
Along those same lines, it seems just about every story recently that has to do with unemployment, we're cheering the fact that we've lost 10,000 or 19,000 fewer jobs than we did in the last reporting period.
See? We're coming out of the recession!
Wonder if it will ever dawn on people that with millions already out of a job, there are fewer and fewer workers to lose theirs.
Follow me here. You have 100 employees. You have to cut 20 percent of them to stay in business, which leaves you with 80. A little while later, you have to lay off 20 percent more to remain viable. This time, though, you only have to send 16 employees packing. Yay! Right? Next time, it's only 12 or 13. Nirvana! Right?
Or are you figuring out yet that you're still running out of employees and your business is headed quickly for the shitter?
*****
As expected, a number of Libs blamed the International Olympic Committee's decision last week on George Bush.
Not surprising, since few liberals can string five words together without blaming Bush for something.
A question, though: If Bush, who hasn't been president for nine months, prevented Chicago from getting the bid, how was it Chicago became a finalist while he was in the White House?
*****
If the definition of insanity truly is doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result, when are we going to slap white jackets on voters in the most destitute cities in America for repeatedly putting Liberals in charge?
Are you listening, Detroit?
*****
Wonder why Congress types don't have time to read the health care reform bill?
*****
Help, help, my liberal friends! I keep hearing from you that "media bias" doesn't exist. Please 'splain to me then why an alleged news organization like CNN would feel the need to "fact check" a comedy skit about Barack Obama on Saturday Night Live.
Try as I might, I just can't seem to remember similar attempts to get to the "truth" after the show's lampoons of George Bush, Sarah Palin, etc.
*****
All those states that readily slurped up all those millions of federal stimulus dollars earlier this year for things like education and extended umemployment benefits are now facing the hard reality that with those stimulus dollars came a mandate to replace them with their own in next year's budget.
Many, if not most, of those states already were facing multi-million dollar deficits.
Guess what? More mandates will be coming down the pike with health care reform and Cap & Trade, just to name two.
Just wondering. Whatcha gonna do?
Friday, September 25, 2009
What will it take?
I don't know anyone who works at the Fountain Place tower in downtown Dallas. Least I don't think I do. Thankfully, I'm not sitting here today sifting through a long list of names of those killed by a terrorist's bomb this week, looking for ones I know.
But I will be soon. So will you.
The 9/11 Commission came to the correct conclusion years ago that terrorists, namely Al Qaeda, had been at war with us for some time but that we simply had not been at war with them.
They still are. But are we?
Oh, we're aware. To be sure, the FBI and CIA are.
I've lost count of the number of plots uncovered and squelched over the last eight years. But there have been six disrupted very recently. One in Philadelphia. Another in New York. One in Springfield, Ill. One in Denver. One in Quantico, Va.
And one right here in Dallas.
I just don't think we, as in you and me, are all that concerned. Why this doesn't scare the living crap out of everybody is mind-boggling.
This would-be Dallas bomber wasn't just a talker. He wasn't trying to hatch a plan.
He actually parked a truck loaded full of explosives in the Fountain Place building's underground parking garage, then moved to a secure location and attempted to detonate the bomb.
Fortunately, his bomb was a fake, provided to him by undercover FBI agents posing as an Al Qaeda cell.
"Scary" and "unnerving" are terms I've seen and heard used by people today.
Sorry, but I have to imagine that if that had happened several blocks away, in my building, I'd be a bit more than "unnerved."
No, the bomb didn't go off. No, there aren't several hundred funerals in the planning stages this weekend. So why the fuss, right?
How many more Hosam Maher Husein Smadis are there?
This guy was an illegal alien living down in tiny Italy, Texas. He was arrested 13 days before his attempt at "jihad" (aka mass murder) for having no driver's license and no insurance, yet was released the same day.
Did anyone ask if he was here legally? Did anyone check?
Probably not, because we certainly don't want to infringe on anyone's imagined "rights" by enforcing our laws.
Will the question be asked how he arrived in the U.S. two years ago? It wouldn't surprise me if he crossed the Mexican border.
Next to stories Friday about Smadi was one detailing our government's plan to cut border control agents along the Mexican border despite the fact that in the last year, agents have intercepted 530 aliens from "special interest" countries (those identified as countries that pose a terrorist threat), including three persons linked directly to terrorism.
You see, despite what far too many people want to think and say, illegals are not solely a bunch of harmless little fuzzy creatures simply seeking a better life.
And given the percentage of our border that remains unsecured, for reasons I cannot begin to fathom, I'd say the probability that many, many more Smadis have snuck through is rather high.
And if that's so?
An IRA terrorist once told a British official, "I only have to be lucky once. You have to be lucky every day."
We got lucky here this week, as did folks in five other cities. But what about tomorrow? Next week?
A friend asked me the other day, "What do you suggest we do? Live in paranoid fear? Never leave our houses?"
Not at all.
But a large number of people need to wake up to reality. This world is teeming with fanatics who want nothing more than to kill us. All of us. Conservatives and liberals. Black and white. Rich and poor.
And we seem hell-bent on making the job far easier than it should be, whether by supporting policies that make no sense or simply refusing to give a damn.
But I will be soon. So will you.
The 9/11 Commission came to the correct conclusion years ago that terrorists, namely Al Qaeda, had been at war with us for some time but that we simply had not been at war with them.
They still are. But are we?
Oh, we're aware. To be sure, the FBI and CIA are.
I've lost count of the number of plots uncovered and squelched over the last eight years. But there have been six disrupted very recently. One in Philadelphia. Another in New York. One in Springfield, Ill. One in Denver. One in Quantico, Va.
And one right here in Dallas.
I just don't think we, as in you and me, are all that concerned. Why this doesn't scare the living crap out of everybody is mind-boggling.
This would-be Dallas bomber wasn't just a talker. He wasn't trying to hatch a plan.
He actually parked a truck loaded full of explosives in the Fountain Place building's underground parking garage, then moved to a secure location and attempted to detonate the bomb.
Fortunately, his bomb was a fake, provided to him by undercover FBI agents posing as an Al Qaeda cell.
"Scary" and "unnerving" are terms I've seen and heard used by people today.
Sorry, but I have to imagine that if that had happened several blocks away, in my building, I'd be a bit more than "unnerved."
No, the bomb didn't go off. No, there aren't several hundred funerals in the planning stages this weekend. So why the fuss, right?
How many more Hosam Maher Husein Smadis are there?
This guy was an illegal alien living down in tiny Italy, Texas. He was arrested 13 days before his attempt at "jihad" (aka mass murder) for having no driver's license and no insurance, yet was released the same day.
Did anyone ask if he was here legally? Did anyone check?
Probably not, because we certainly don't want to infringe on anyone's imagined "rights" by enforcing our laws.
Will the question be asked how he arrived in the U.S. two years ago? It wouldn't surprise me if he crossed the Mexican border.
Next to stories Friday about Smadi was one detailing our government's plan to cut border control agents along the Mexican border despite the fact that in the last year, agents have intercepted 530 aliens from "special interest" countries (those identified as countries that pose a terrorist threat), including three persons linked directly to terrorism.
You see, despite what far too many people want to think and say, illegals are not solely a bunch of harmless little fuzzy creatures simply seeking a better life.
And given the percentage of our border that remains unsecured, for reasons I cannot begin to fathom, I'd say the probability that many, many more Smadis have snuck through is rather high.
And if that's so?
An IRA terrorist once told a British official, "I only have to be lucky once. You have to be lucky every day."
We got lucky here this week, as did folks in five other cities. But what about tomorrow? Next week?
A friend asked me the other day, "What do you suggest we do? Live in paranoid fear? Never leave our houses?"
Not at all.
But a large number of people need to wake up to reality. This world is teeming with fanatics who want nothing more than to kill us. All of us. Conservatives and liberals. Black and white. Rich and poor.
And we seem hell-bent on making the job far easier than it should be, whether by supporting policies that make no sense or simply refusing to give a damn.
Saturday, September 5, 2009
Six months of Obama
I stumbled upon this middle of last week and have read it several times. Much of the stuff cited has become fairly common knowledge (at least to those who "listen" outside the mainstream media, which rarely, if ever, talks about any of it); some of the other facts, figures, etc., I've checked.
Like I said, much of this has been said and/or reported over the last six months. Strung all together like this, though, provokes a fair amount of amazement at what's transpired since January.
Bob Oster is on the Board of Overseers at the Hoover Institution and was CFO of Oracle when it went public, then served as CFO of Syntex. He holds a PhD in economics from Berkeley. One of his CEO friends wrote this:
My 6-Month Evaluation of the Obama Presidency
In November 2008, I wrote out my evaluation of the Obama candidacy and what it might mean to America. I filed this away, but sent it to family members and a few close friends and associates just so I’d be accountable for my real time observations. It’s now been 6 months since Obama’s inauguration. (In the business world, this is typically when a first job review would occur; so, I made a note to myself to revisit his performance on the 6-month anniversary.) Thus, I now commit to filing my mid-year evaluation of our new President. As well, I’ve put in the file (but not forwarded to anyone) a separate "background check" — the one the press should’ve done on the Obama candidacy prior to presenting him to the American public — in case this is ever of relevance as things unfold.
As concerned as I was by Obama’s candidacy when I wrote out my November pre-election reservations, truth be known, I didn’t much like McCain/Palin either. At the time, I still had hopes that Obama might “govern from the center.” Six months into it, however, I can say that he’s been considerably worse than my worst fears. Thus, I’m updating my evaluation — this time with the fervent hope that by year-end I can be genuinely more optimistic.
I’ve concluded that not only was Barack Obama too inexperienced to be President, but he also appears to be incompetent as an executive, more-than-just-politician-level-dishonest and a bit of a narcissist (if not a fascist). He seems to have little understanding of American history, her dreams, or her tremendous potential for risk-taking, self-correction and innovation. He and Michelle have turned out to be quintessential Ivy League “Oppression Studies majors” with (carefully concealed) “attitudes.” Obama seems, above all, to be a Community Organizer with shakedown credentials and extraordinary speaking ability. All of this should have been clear, had we simply done serious background checks.
The following 4 items, at least, should have been clear to voters:
1. His surrogate father figure was Frank Marshall Davis, an avowed Communist.
2. Barack served as a committed trainer for Community Activist and Marxist Saul Alinsky.
3. He sat for nearly two decades at the feet of Jeremiah Wright, an angry, anti-American “Black Liberation Theologist”.
4. His first autobiography, Dreams From My Father, was almost certainly ghost-written by William Ayers, a Vietnam-era domestic terrorist. [This last assertion has now been supported by careful analysis of syntax, spelling and common errors.)
If these unusual threads (standing alone) are discounted to the point of not being disqualifiers, those evaluating Barack Obama might have considered that he’d never A) held a job in the private sector, B) managed a payroll, C) led a turnaround or D) held any sort of executive position. But, none of this mattered in the fall of 2008.
After six months, I’m left wondering if power brokers on the Far Left of American politics aren’t pinching themselves at their success in creating a fictitious character the press ushered to market in a Bush-weary and "politically correct" America. In his second (!) autobiography, The Audacity of Hope, Obama recognizes the advantage of his tabula rasa “creation” when he writes, “I serve as a blank screen on which people of vastly different political stripes project their own views.”
And, project we did! Thus, the former Barry Soetoro of Honolulu, Jakarta, Mombasa, Occidental, Columbia, Harvard and the mean streets of Chicago moved at light speed from being the first-term senator nobody had ever heard of to President of the United States. In the process, despite numerous efforts, no one has yet seen his birth certificate, his college transcripts, his application to Occidental (likely as a “foreign student”?), or the passport he used to travel in 1981 to Pakistan with buddy Wahid Hamid (likely an Indonesian one?). For some reason, the Obama campaign has, so far, has spent $750,000 keeping these records out of public view. So, it’s easy to wonder (if they supported Obama’s putative CV), why not make them available and put to rest all suspicions about provenance, training and politics?
My growing hunch is that there’s virtually no paper trail because the Obama biography has been created largely out of whole cloth. There, I’ve said what increasing numbers of people must be thinking, but are afraid to voice. But, whether or not Obama is more than a cleverly-marketed fiction, and whatever one thinks of his history, one thing is clear. He finally does have a record to evaluate. And, it’s not a confidence-inspiring one from my standpoint.
At best, Obama is an attractive symbol for America and a compelling communicator; but he’s
1. Not an executive. He’s shown an utter inability to focus, to set priorities and to consider second- and third-order or long-term consequences to his actions. Lack of focus on priorities is fatal as a CEO; (but, maybe less so for a political leader?)
2. Not a steward or fiduciary for America. Obama clearly does not see his primary job as one of overseeing the security and well-being of America during his tenure as its chief executive. He’s not only unwilling to stand up for America, but he also regularly seems to go out of his way to apologize for her history. This makes it apparent that he believes his most important job is to change America into what he and Michelle think it should have been had we not suffered the Founders’ flawed vision.
At worst, Obama’s aims seem truly radical (if stealth); his methods pure Alinsky; and his success derivative of obfuscating the truth, creating crises, and rushing changes into law that no one can possibly absorb under artificial deadlines — all aimed at limiting private property rights, changing the Constitution and forever altering our free market system?
For those who consider Obama’s training and background irrelevant, they can now evaluate him as a Commander-in-Chief and CEO from what he’s done over his first six months.
Among many other things, these evidences have come in the form of:
1. A $787 billion “stimulus” package (sold as preventing a “crisis from becoming catastrophe”).
2. The failure to focus on addressing the banking crisis as “Job One”.
3. The migration of TARP funds to non-banking concerns, viz., auto industry.
4. Announcing tax increases in the middle of a recession.
5. Failure to identify projects to fund job creation (Thus, <10% of stimulus yet spent).
6. Announcing that there would be “no pork” or “earmarks” in the “stimulus” package in order to get it passed without review when there were nearly 10,000 buried in the unread bill (including a $9 billion high-speed rail line to Las Vegas for Harry Reid).
7. Bailouts of the banking and auto industries.
8. The appointment of a 31-year-old to manage the recreation of the auto companies.
9. The exalting of union claims above those of bondholders (violating a 200+ year history of contract law/property rights).
10. The appointment of 34 unvetted “czars”, creating more than in the House of Romanov between 1762 and 1917!
11. The failure to appoint a Cabinet of tax-paying, competent Americans (reason for the move to the Czar system of administration?).
12. The appointment of Sonia Sotomayor to the Supreme Court despite an apparent lack of qualifications and judicial temperament.
13. The dark-of-night passage of “Cap and Trade” legislation (300-page-long addendum inserted at 3 a.m. the morning of the vote in the House).
14. The high-pressure tactics to rush through a budget-busting $1.6 trillion takeover of health care.
15. Phony “townhall” meetings with a fake cross-section of Americans selling Obamacare on ABC.
16. “Lying” about budget deficits — projecting 4% GDP growth by year-end.
17. “Lying” about job losses — projecting that if Congress would just ram through the “stimulus” that job losses could be halted at 8% (currently on their way to 10% and rising).
18. “Lying” about the costs of nationalized health care (just as when politicians projected Medicare’s cost in 1990 to be $3 billion, its actual cost turned out in 1990 to $98 billion — 30 times as much).
19. Pretending that new entitlement programs will provide lower costs, better care, no significant tax increases, more competition (as government joins the fray!?) and keeping current private options. Claiming “free” health care will make America more competitive is baffling. Everyone knows the above are lies; but no one seems ready to call them out.
20. Forcing the “stimulus” package on states to impinge on “States Rights”.
21. Failing to support the freedom-loving citizens in Honduras and Iran (and instead, giving comfort to their dictators) to say nothing of his ineffectiveness with North Korea and anti-Israeli pronouncements.
22. Allocating $4 billion of “stimulus” funds to ACORN, the voter fraud thugs.
23. Seeking to push through Union Card Check, the so-called “Fairness Doctrine,” and threats to take away Second Amendment rights (see Eric Holder), etc.
24. Moving the heretofore non-partisan census into the White House under the direction of Rahm Emanuel.
Whatever one thinks of the results, the process of getting to them should bother all Americans. In the Obama (Mayor Daley?) style of governing, it’s not clear that Congress — which can’t possibly process thoughtfully the blizzard of legislation — really serves any useful purpose other than to provide Politburo-style cover. Not only does Congress no longer debate legislation, but Obama has effectively circumvented its oversight of the executive branch by his appointment of czars.
In contrast to the direction Obama is taking us all, the Economist recently pointed out that 53% of all of the jobs created in the U.S. were created in one state last year: Texas (the most free market of all State economies and the “last best hope” [ha!] for secession?). Meanwhile, in California, as a perfect preview to “Obama’s America”, job losses are already well into double digits, the state faces a $25 billion budget deficit and is closing down services and considering bankruptcy. I cannot predict what will happen to Obama’s popularity, as people wake up to the size and intractability of the deficits he’s promoting, the unavailability of credit for small businesses, or the increased tax rates on energy and payrolls provoking a continuing loss of jobs as small businesses shed employees due to skyrocketing costs.
But, is bad economic news bad for Obama? Sadly, the answer, if one studies the Alinsky formula for bloodless revolution, is “Heck no!” Indeed, high unemployment is necessary for the Obama Redistribution Plan. According to Alinsky, only with high unemployment will people look to the government for help (and then become dependent), allowing government to gain control over the factors of productions. If one considers that the Alinsky manual might be Obama’s “playbook,” one can’t help but want to evaluate how closely it’s being followed.
Thus, in evaluating Obama’s performance, it’s probably worth noting (for the six-month record) the key elements of the Alinsky formula. Written in 1971 by Chicago Organizer, Saul Alinsky, under the title of Rules for Radicals, this manual for effective change became Young Barack Obama’s “bible.” David Alinsky, son the author, said of our new President: “Barack Obama patterned himself after the Saul Alinsky model in everything he has done since arriving in South Chicago.”
Alinsky clearly stated its purpose: “Any revolutionary change must be preceded by a passive, affirmative, non-challenging attitude toward change among the mass of our people. They must feel so frustrated, so defeated, so lost, so futureless in the prevailing system that they are willing to let go of the past and change the future. This acceptance is the reformation essential to any revolution.”
Note how closely Obama is following the rules for internal revolution, based on Alinsky’s specific instructions:
1. Pursue an “Ideology of Change” (Alinsky’s phrase for the most effective way to market revolution).
2. Target the banks that serve the steel, auto, and other industries.
3. Start class warfare. Fuel the anger of what Alinsky calls the “Have-Nots,” and the “Have-some-but-want-mores” against the “Haves.”
4. Use crises to create fear.
5. Use pollution as a foil to grab power.
6. Set up “jobs programs” to make workers dependent on government.
7. Show supreme self-confidence.
8. Make communication skills your key weapon.
9. Use simple catch phrases and vague slogans ("Of the Common Welfare" [Nazi takeover of Germany], "Bread and Peace" [Bolshevik Revolution]). In this context, it’s not hard to imagine that "Change" and "The Audacity of Hope" will one day be seen as the battle cry for the Obama revolution.
10. Use deception. "In war, the end justifies almost any means."
11. Remain calm, appealing, likeable while inciting fear, conflict, defeat.
As these steps are being pursued, the press continues to refer to "the Republican recession," so Obama’s popularity remains high. Any who saw tapes of President Bush warning Congress (on two separate occasions) that the market was headed for disaster unless it instituted the very reforms Barney Frank and Chris Dodd pooh-poohed, may be surprised to see the level of “cover” the press is providing this revolution.
As bleak as things look for free markets, I have hope. Why? Just as Bernie Madoff learned that ponzi schemes eventually come to light — Barack Obama may soon learn that you “can’t fool all of the people all of the time.” It’s unclear to me how much and how long America will have to pay for its experiment with Obamunism — his fantasy “green jobs,” his new taxes, his junk science, his czars, his meddling in the auto and banking industries, his sure-to-be-disastrous Obamacare and the encouragement he’s giving to union bosses, dictators and tyrants the globe over, to say nothing of his "Peace-through-Weakness” foreign policy. But, at some point, reality will take over, as it always does. I just hope America will have its Winston Churchill or Ronald Reagan ready to step into the breach when the time comes.
So far, the nervousness of Blue Dog Democrats and their ability to resist some of the wackier directives has been the only thing that has kept Obama from an outright failing grade, in my view. Perhaps, just as the Gingrich Congress rescued Bill Clinton, it may be these so-called Blue Dogs that rescue Obama. If not, it may be important for the survival of the union for government to be forever split between the parties.
Like I said, much of this has been said and/or reported over the last six months. Strung all together like this, though, provokes a fair amount of amazement at what's transpired since January.
Bob Oster is on the Board of Overseers at the Hoover Institution and was CFO of Oracle when it went public, then served as CFO of Syntex. He holds a PhD in economics from Berkeley. One of his CEO friends wrote this:
My 6-Month Evaluation of the Obama Presidency
In November 2008, I wrote out my evaluation of the Obama candidacy and what it might mean to America. I filed this away, but sent it to family members and a few close friends and associates just so I’d be accountable for my real time observations. It’s now been 6 months since Obama’s inauguration. (In the business world, this is typically when a first job review would occur; so, I made a note to myself to revisit his performance on the 6-month anniversary.) Thus, I now commit to filing my mid-year evaluation of our new President. As well, I’ve put in the file (but not forwarded to anyone) a separate "background check" — the one the press should’ve done on the Obama candidacy prior to presenting him to the American public — in case this is ever of relevance as things unfold.
As concerned as I was by Obama’s candidacy when I wrote out my November pre-election reservations, truth be known, I didn’t much like McCain/Palin either. At the time, I still had hopes that Obama might “govern from the center.” Six months into it, however, I can say that he’s been considerably worse than my worst fears. Thus, I’m updating my evaluation — this time with the fervent hope that by year-end I can be genuinely more optimistic.
I’ve concluded that not only was Barack Obama too inexperienced to be President, but he also appears to be incompetent as an executive, more-than-just-politician-level-dishonest and a bit of a narcissist (if not a fascist). He seems to have little understanding of American history, her dreams, or her tremendous potential for risk-taking, self-correction and innovation. He and Michelle have turned out to be quintessential Ivy League “Oppression Studies majors” with (carefully concealed) “attitudes.” Obama seems, above all, to be a Community Organizer with shakedown credentials and extraordinary speaking ability. All of this should have been clear, had we simply done serious background checks.
The following 4 items, at least, should have been clear to voters:
1. His surrogate father figure was Frank Marshall Davis, an avowed Communist.
2. Barack served as a committed trainer for Community Activist and Marxist Saul Alinsky.
3. He sat for nearly two decades at the feet of Jeremiah Wright, an angry, anti-American “Black Liberation Theologist”.
4. His first autobiography, Dreams From My Father, was almost certainly ghost-written by William Ayers, a Vietnam-era domestic terrorist. [This last assertion has now been supported by careful analysis of syntax, spelling and common errors.)
If these unusual threads (standing alone) are discounted to the point of not being disqualifiers, those evaluating Barack Obama might have considered that he’d never A) held a job in the private sector, B) managed a payroll, C) led a turnaround or D) held any sort of executive position. But, none of this mattered in the fall of 2008.
After six months, I’m left wondering if power brokers on the Far Left of American politics aren’t pinching themselves at their success in creating a fictitious character the press ushered to market in a Bush-weary and "politically correct" America. In his second (!) autobiography, The Audacity of Hope, Obama recognizes the advantage of his tabula rasa “creation” when he writes, “I serve as a blank screen on which people of vastly different political stripes project their own views.”
And, project we did! Thus, the former Barry Soetoro of Honolulu, Jakarta, Mombasa, Occidental, Columbia, Harvard and the mean streets of Chicago moved at light speed from being the first-term senator nobody had ever heard of to President of the United States. In the process, despite numerous efforts, no one has yet seen his birth certificate, his college transcripts, his application to Occidental (likely as a “foreign student”?), or the passport he used to travel in 1981 to Pakistan with buddy Wahid Hamid (likely an Indonesian one?). For some reason, the Obama campaign has, so far, has spent $750,000 keeping these records out of public view. So, it’s easy to wonder (if they supported Obama’s putative CV), why not make them available and put to rest all suspicions about provenance, training and politics?
My growing hunch is that there’s virtually no paper trail because the Obama biography has been created largely out of whole cloth. There, I’ve said what increasing numbers of people must be thinking, but are afraid to voice. But, whether or not Obama is more than a cleverly-marketed fiction, and whatever one thinks of his history, one thing is clear. He finally does have a record to evaluate. And, it’s not a confidence-inspiring one from my standpoint.
At best, Obama is an attractive symbol for America and a compelling communicator; but he’s
1. Not an executive. He’s shown an utter inability to focus, to set priorities and to consider second- and third-order or long-term consequences to his actions. Lack of focus on priorities is fatal as a CEO; (but, maybe less so for a political leader?)
2. Not a steward or fiduciary for America. Obama clearly does not see his primary job as one of overseeing the security and well-being of America during his tenure as its chief executive. He’s not only unwilling to stand up for America, but he also regularly seems to go out of his way to apologize for her history. This makes it apparent that he believes his most important job is to change America into what he and Michelle think it should have been had we not suffered the Founders’ flawed vision.
At worst, Obama’s aims seem truly radical (if stealth); his methods pure Alinsky; and his success derivative of obfuscating the truth, creating crises, and rushing changes into law that no one can possibly absorb under artificial deadlines — all aimed at limiting private property rights, changing the Constitution and forever altering our free market system?
For those who consider Obama’s training and background irrelevant, they can now evaluate him as a Commander-in-Chief and CEO from what he’s done over his first six months.
Among many other things, these evidences have come in the form of:
1. A $787 billion “stimulus” package (sold as preventing a “crisis from becoming catastrophe”).
2. The failure to focus on addressing the banking crisis as “Job One”.
3. The migration of TARP funds to non-banking concerns, viz., auto industry.
4. Announcing tax increases in the middle of a recession.
5. Failure to identify projects to fund job creation (Thus, <10% of stimulus yet spent).
6. Announcing that there would be “no pork” or “earmarks” in the “stimulus” package in order to get it passed without review when there were nearly 10,000 buried in the unread bill (including a $9 billion high-speed rail line to Las Vegas for Harry Reid).
7. Bailouts of the banking and auto industries.
8. The appointment of a 31-year-old to manage the recreation of the auto companies.
9. The exalting of union claims above those of bondholders (violating a 200+ year history of contract law/property rights).
10. The appointment of 34 unvetted “czars”, creating more than in the House of Romanov between 1762 and 1917!
11. The failure to appoint a Cabinet of tax-paying, competent Americans (reason for the move to the Czar system of administration?).
12. The appointment of Sonia Sotomayor to the Supreme Court despite an apparent lack of qualifications and judicial temperament.
13. The dark-of-night passage of “Cap and Trade” legislation (300-page-long addendum inserted at 3 a.m. the morning of the vote in the House).
14. The high-pressure tactics to rush through a budget-busting $1.6 trillion takeover of health care.
15. Phony “townhall” meetings with a fake cross-section of Americans selling Obamacare on ABC.
16. “Lying” about budget deficits — projecting 4% GDP growth by year-end.
17. “Lying” about job losses — projecting that if Congress would just ram through the “stimulus” that job losses could be halted at 8% (currently on their way to 10% and rising).
18. “Lying” about the costs of nationalized health care (just as when politicians projected Medicare’s cost in 1990 to be $3 billion, its actual cost turned out in 1990 to $98 billion — 30 times as much).
19. Pretending that new entitlement programs will provide lower costs, better care, no significant tax increases, more competition (as government joins the fray!?) and keeping current private options. Claiming “free” health care will make America more competitive is baffling. Everyone knows the above are lies; but no one seems ready to call them out.
20. Forcing the “stimulus” package on states to impinge on “States Rights”.
21. Failing to support the freedom-loving citizens in Honduras and Iran (and instead, giving comfort to their dictators) to say nothing of his ineffectiveness with North Korea and anti-Israeli pronouncements.
22. Allocating $4 billion of “stimulus” funds to ACORN, the voter fraud thugs.
23. Seeking to push through Union Card Check, the so-called “Fairness Doctrine,” and threats to take away Second Amendment rights (see Eric Holder), etc.
24. Moving the heretofore non-partisan census into the White House under the direction of Rahm Emanuel.
Whatever one thinks of the results, the process of getting to them should bother all Americans. In the Obama (Mayor Daley?) style of governing, it’s not clear that Congress — which can’t possibly process thoughtfully the blizzard of legislation — really serves any useful purpose other than to provide Politburo-style cover. Not only does Congress no longer debate legislation, but Obama has effectively circumvented its oversight of the executive branch by his appointment of czars.
In contrast to the direction Obama is taking us all, the Economist recently pointed out that 53% of all of the jobs created in the U.S. were created in one state last year: Texas (the most free market of all State economies and the “last best hope” [ha!] for secession?). Meanwhile, in California, as a perfect preview to “Obama’s America”, job losses are already well into double digits, the state faces a $25 billion budget deficit and is closing down services and considering bankruptcy. I cannot predict what will happen to Obama’s popularity, as people wake up to the size and intractability of the deficits he’s promoting, the unavailability of credit for small businesses, or the increased tax rates on energy and payrolls provoking a continuing loss of jobs as small businesses shed employees due to skyrocketing costs.
But, is bad economic news bad for Obama? Sadly, the answer, if one studies the Alinsky formula for bloodless revolution, is “Heck no!” Indeed, high unemployment is necessary for the Obama Redistribution Plan. According to Alinsky, only with high unemployment will people look to the government for help (and then become dependent), allowing government to gain control over the factors of productions. If one considers that the Alinsky manual might be Obama’s “playbook,” one can’t help but want to evaluate how closely it’s being followed.
Thus, in evaluating Obama’s performance, it’s probably worth noting (for the six-month record) the key elements of the Alinsky formula. Written in 1971 by Chicago Organizer, Saul Alinsky, under the title of Rules for Radicals, this manual for effective change became Young Barack Obama’s “bible.” David Alinsky, son the author, said of our new President: “Barack Obama patterned himself after the Saul Alinsky model in everything he has done since arriving in South Chicago.”
Alinsky clearly stated its purpose: “Any revolutionary change must be preceded by a passive, affirmative, non-challenging attitude toward change among the mass of our people. They must feel so frustrated, so defeated, so lost, so futureless in the prevailing system that they are willing to let go of the past and change the future. This acceptance is the reformation essential to any revolution.”
Note how closely Obama is following the rules for internal revolution, based on Alinsky’s specific instructions:
1. Pursue an “Ideology of Change” (Alinsky’s phrase for the most effective way to market revolution).
2. Target the banks that serve the steel, auto, and other industries.
3. Start class warfare. Fuel the anger of what Alinsky calls the “Have-Nots,” and the “Have-some-but-want-mores” against the “Haves.”
4. Use crises to create fear.
5. Use pollution as a foil to grab power.
6. Set up “jobs programs” to make workers dependent on government.
7. Show supreme self-confidence.
8. Make communication skills your key weapon.
9. Use simple catch phrases and vague slogans ("Of the Common Welfare" [Nazi takeover of Germany], "Bread and Peace" [Bolshevik Revolution]). In this context, it’s not hard to imagine that "Change" and "The Audacity of Hope" will one day be seen as the battle cry for the Obama revolution.
10. Use deception. "In war, the end justifies almost any means."
11. Remain calm, appealing, likeable while inciting fear, conflict, defeat.
As these steps are being pursued, the press continues to refer to "the Republican recession," so Obama’s popularity remains high. Any who saw tapes of President Bush warning Congress (on two separate occasions) that the market was headed for disaster unless it instituted the very reforms Barney Frank and Chris Dodd pooh-poohed, may be surprised to see the level of “cover” the press is providing this revolution.
As bleak as things look for free markets, I have hope. Why? Just as Bernie Madoff learned that ponzi schemes eventually come to light — Barack Obama may soon learn that you “can’t fool all of the people all of the time.” It’s unclear to me how much and how long America will have to pay for its experiment with Obamunism — his fantasy “green jobs,” his new taxes, his junk science, his czars, his meddling in the auto and banking industries, his sure-to-be-disastrous Obamacare and the encouragement he’s giving to union bosses, dictators and tyrants the globe over, to say nothing of his "Peace-through-Weakness” foreign policy. But, at some point, reality will take over, as it always does. I just hope America will have its Winston Churchill or Ronald Reagan ready to step into the breach when the time comes.
So far, the nervousness of Blue Dog Democrats and their ability to resist some of the wackier directives has been the only thing that has kept Obama from an outright failing grade, in my view. Perhaps, just as the Gingrich Congress rescued Bill Clinton, it may be these so-called Blue Dogs that rescue Obama. If not, it may be important for the survival of the union for government to be forever split between the parties.
Tuesday, September 1, 2009
A goodbye
"Don't assume."
Isn't that what we were always told, be it by teachers, parents, bosses ... even friends? I know I heard it a bajillion times. Even on a number of occasions from a science teacher in high school, who spelled out the "ASS-U-ME" reasoning on the blackboard, which was cutting-edge, grab-their-attention stuff back then.
Well, I assumed. Quite a few in my group of friends did. No one was technically made an ass of in this case. No, this time, our assumptions ... MY assumption, anyway ... simply left a hole that will never be filled.
I'm not sure of our numbers. I've described our group over the years from a half-dozen to 20 or so. For me, it started with a couple of the guys I met back in the early 1990s, then grew to encompass several people they were close to and so on. A number of others joined over the years, although that's hardly a good description. I guess we "absorbed" them more than anything. Friendship came as natural as breathing to this bunch.
There was an inner circle of sorts, a number who had known one another since childhood, who shared a closeness on a little bit higher level. But make no mistake, we were all close. Several of us shared a roof at one time or another. We went on vacations together. We celebrated (boy, did we) birthdays, holidays, triumphs and even a falling or two.
More than anything, we celebrated friendship on a level I've known no other time in life.
There were fairly frequent parties when just about all of us were present. There were events, such as the Margarita Ball. And in between, we always knew that on just about any given night, we could walk into our little neighborhood bar and find one, two or 10 of the others.
I guess that made it easy to assume.
As time is wont to do, our gatherings slowly decreased in frequency. There was marriage or serious relationships, kids even. Some moved to the other side of town, one out of the country. Some just got busy with life, you could say.
We'd still see each other, bump into one or two at our bar or talk once in a while. There were a handful of get-togethers, when our hair again came down, we laughed tears at the memories, then shook hands or embraced, bidding farewell til the next time.
And we went on assuming there'd always be a next time.
Of course, there was. For all but one of us.
Most of the group just spent the better part of a week together. But this gathering culminated yesterday in our saying a final goodbye to one of the group, one of the inner-circle.
One of us.
A few had seen her the week before. For some, it had been much longer, and I know in my case, that made everything seem a little more difficult.
We laughed a lot in those seven days. Cried a lot, too. Kicked ourselves a little or a lot for our assumption that there'd always be a next time.
Some of us made a pact. Our next time needs to be sooner than later. The next time we all see each other again, we said a number of times in a number of different ways, can't again be for this reason.
I want to believe that's going to be the case, that we'll follow through and make the relatively little time and effort it will take.
Cause I assumed the last time we all gathered, several months ago, that when I said goodbye to Dina early that evening (and gave her grief for cutting out early), it wouldn't be the last time. I assumed I wouldn't find myself questioning why, in an entire summer, I hadn't taken the time or we hadn't taken the time ... or something.
I don't want to make that mistake again. I don't want any of us to.
Isn't that what we were always told, be it by teachers, parents, bosses ... even friends? I know I heard it a bajillion times. Even on a number of occasions from a science teacher in high school, who spelled out the "ASS-U-ME" reasoning on the blackboard, which was cutting-edge, grab-their-attention stuff back then.
Well, I assumed. Quite a few in my group of friends did. No one was technically made an ass of in this case. No, this time, our assumptions ... MY assumption, anyway ... simply left a hole that will never be filled.
I'm not sure of our numbers. I've described our group over the years from a half-dozen to 20 or so. For me, it started with a couple of the guys I met back in the early 1990s, then grew to encompass several people they were close to and so on. A number of others joined over the years, although that's hardly a good description. I guess we "absorbed" them more than anything. Friendship came as natural as breathing to this bunch.
There was an inner circle of sorts, a number who had known one another since childhood, who shared a closeness on a little bit higher level. But make no mistake, we were all close. Several of us shared a roof at one time or another. We went on vacations together. We celebrated (boy, did we) birthdays, holidays, triumphs and even a falling or two.
More than anything, we celebrated friendship on a level I've known no other time in life.
There were fairly frequent parties when just about all of us were present. There were events, such as the Margarita Ball. And in between, we always knew that on just about any given night, we could walk into our little neighborhood bar and find one, two or 10 of the others.
I guess that made it easy to assume.
As time is wont to do, our gatherings slowly decreased in frequency. There was marriage or serious relationships, kids even. Some moved to the other side of town, one out of the country. Some just got busy with life, you could say.
We'd still see each other, bump into one or two at our bar or talk once in a while. There were a handful of get-togethers, when our hair again came down, we laughed tears at the memories, then shook hands or embraced, bidding farewell til the next time.
And we went on assuming there'd always be a next time.
Of course, there was. For all but one of us.
Most of the group just spent the better part of a week together. But this gathering culminated yesterday in our saying a final goodbye to one of the group, one of the inner-circle.
One of us.
A few had seen her the week before. For some, it had been much longer, and I know in my case, that made everything seem a little more difficult.
We laughed a lot in those seven days. Cried a lot, too. Kicked ourselves a little or a lot for our assumption that there'd always be a next time.
Some of us made a pact. Our next time needs to be sooner than later. The next time we all see each other again, we said a number of times in a number of different ways, can't again be for this reason.
I want to believe that's going to be the case, that we'll follow through and make the relatively little time and effort it will take.
Cause I assumed the last time we all gathered, several months ago, that when I said goodbye to Dina early that evening (and gave her grief for cutting out early), it wouldn't be the last time. I assumed I wouldn't find myself questioning why, in an entire summer, I hadn't taken the time or we hadn't taken the time ... or something.
I don't want to make that mistake again. I don't want any of us to.
Friday, August 21, 2009
Auto vs. health insurance
One of the many problems conservatives have with the health care bill being debated is the government mandate that everyone have insurance.
Conservatives argue, rightly so, that is beyond government's intended reach.
So liberals came up with a "gotcha" question on this point. I've heard it a number of times, including last night at Joe Barton's town hall meeting.
I'm frankly surprised the answer apparently hasn't occurred to anyone who I've heard argue the point.
The question: "Since conservatives are so in favor of government-mandates for auto insurance, why do they have a problem with mandated health coverage?"
It's apples and oranges, people.
I understand 48 states have mandated auto insurance of some type. I'm not sure who requires what. But here in Texas, you must carry liability insurance, which covers damage to other people's property if you're at fault in an accident.
And no, I don't have a problem with that. You drive your car into the back of mine, you better have a way to pay for the damage.
Insuring your own personal health is a different matter entirely.
Conservatives argue, rightly so, that is beyond government's intended reach.
So liberals came up with a "gotcha" question on this point. I've heard it a number of times, including last night at Joe Barton's town hall meeting.
I'm frankly surprised the answer apparently hasn't occurred to anyone who I've heard argue the point.
The question: "Since conservatives are so in favor of government-mandates for auto insurance, why do they have a problem with mandated health coverage?"
It's apples and oranges, people.
I understand 48 states have mandated auto insurance of some type. I'm not sure who requires what. But here in Texas, you must carry liability insurance, which covers damage to other people's property if you're at fault in an accident.
And no, I don't have a problem with that. You drive your car into the back of mine, you better have a way to pay for the damage.
Insuring your own personal health is a different matter entirely.
Monday, August 17, 2009
Yes to Michael Vick
Let's get this right up front. I'm no fan of Michael Vick. Never was, in fact.
While I don't know the man personally, an awful lot I've seen and read about him and his brother over the years places the two fairly high on my Shitty Human Being Scale.
His involvement with a dog-fighting ring and what he did to those animals is nothing short of despicable and certainly only solidified my opinion of him.
But should he be allowed to play in the NFL again?
Yes he should.
I understand the level of disgust and disdain expressed by dog-lovers and, more specifically, lovers of Pit Bulls. I just think their venom should not be directed at the NFL as much as it should be at those responsible for the length of Vick's prison sentence.
Point is, he served the time prescribed by the justice system. He wasn't merely suspended from football for two years. He was suspended from life as an incarcerated prisoner.
He also lost a contract worth more than $100 million. His endorsements, worth tens of millions more, vanished ... more than likely for good. His earning power will never be the same.
He also faces extremely restrictive terms in his reinstatement to the NFL. He will be, for as long as he's remotely associated with the league, under its microscope, and he will face immediate and painful repercussions for sidesteps at which the league would barely scoff if it were most any other player.
I have not heard, for example, of any other player in any other league whose personal finances are an open book to league officials. But the NFL is going to know when Vick buys much more than a pack of gum.
To those who still say that's not enough, that he should never be allowed to play football again, I ask this: Should all people who are found guilty of a crime and pay their "debt to society" by serving a prison sentence also be told they can no longer work in their chosen field?
In very extreme cases, such as convicted pedophiles working as camp counselors for 6-year-olds, yeah, I'll go with you there.
But the most common argument I hear in Vick's case is that he shouldn't be allowed to play football because he's so prominently in the public eye as a role model for kids.
I say bullcrap. For one thing, society needs to get its act together on this subject and stop putting athletes on such a pedestal.
Yes, there are some very good role models in the NFL, in the NBA, in major league baseball. There also is a number equal to that, if not more, of some very bad actors. Trust me on that. I've worked with and among them for much of my adult life.
So at what point on the Shitty Human Being Scale do we say, "you can't be part of this league, because kids watch you"?
Society will cheer on Sundays this fall for guys who have been "punished" for their involvement with drugs. Should our kids be watching them? Others seem to be prone to beating up their wives or girlfriends. How about them? We spend an awful lot of time now demonizing drinking and driving. Any idea how many pro athletes have gotten popped for doing that? Certainly, we should kick them out, too.
And don't even get me started on the bad characters a lot of these players surround themselves with.
My bottom line? You get rid of the bad role models in most any sports league, you're going to wind up with an awfully small league, if one at all.
Is what Vick did detestable? Sure. Should he have been punished more severely? I won't argue that point.
But he paid his debt as ruled in a court of law. And he'll continue to pay.
But now he'll also again play. Rightfully so.
While I don't know the man personally, an awful lot I've seen and read about him and his brother over the years places the two fairly high on my Shitty Human Being Scale.
His involvement with a dog-fighting ring and what he did to those animals is nothing short of despicable and certainly only solidified my opinion of him.
But should he be allowed to play in the NFL again?
Yes he should.
I understand the level of disgust and disdain expressed by dog-lovers and, more specifically, lovers of Pit Bulls. I just think their venom should not be directed at the NFL as much as it should be at those responsible for the length of Vick's prison sentence.
Point is, he served the time prescribed by the justice system. He wasn't merely suspended from football for two years. He was suspended from life as an incarcerated prisoner.
He also lost a contract worth more than $100 million. His endorsements, worth tens of millions more, vanished ... more than likely for good. His earning power will never be the same.
He also faces extremely restrictive terms in his reinstatement to the NFL. He will be, for as long as he's remotely associated with the league, under its microscope, and he will face immediate and painful repercussions for sidesteps at which the league would barely scoff if it were most any other player.
I have not heard, for example, of any other player in any other league whose personal finances are an open book to league officials. But the NFL is going to know when Vick buys much more than a pack of gum.
To those who still say that's not enough, that he should never be allowed to play football again, I ask this: Should all people who are found guilty of a crime and pay their "debt to society" by serving a prison sentence also be told they can no longer work in their chosen field?
In very extreme cases, such as convicted pedophiles working as camp counselors for 6-year-olds, yeah, I'll go with you there.
But the most common argument I hear in Vick's case is that he shouldn't be allowed to play football because he's so prominently in the public eye as a role model for kids.
I say bullcrap. For one thing, society needs to get its act together on this subject and stop putting athletes on such a pedestal.
Yes, there are some very good role models in the NFL, in the NBA, in major league baseball. There also is a number equal to that, if not more, of some very bad actors. Trust me on that. I've worked with and among them for much of my adult life.
So at what point on the Shitty Human Being Scale do we say, "you can't be part of this league, because kids watch you"?
Society will cheer on Sundays this fall for guys who have been "punished" for their involvement with drugs. Should our kids be watching them? Others seem to be prone to beating up their wives or girlfriends. How about them? We spend an awful lot of time now demonizing drinking and driving. Any idea how many pro athletes have gotten popped for doing that? Certainly, we should kick them out, too.
And don't even get me started on the bad characters a lot of these players surround themselves with.
My bottom line? You get rid of the bad role models in most any sports league, you're going to wind up with an awfully small league, if one at all.
Is what Vick did detestable? Sure. Should he have been punished more severely? I won't argue that point.
But he paid his debt as ruled in a court of law. And he'll continue to pay.
But now he'll also again play. Rightfully so.
Thursday, July 9, 2009
They "get it" up north
Very telling commentary from the Canadian Free Press:
Obama’s White House is Falling Down
By Daniel Greenfield Thursday, June 11, 2009
In the sixth month of his presidency, Obama has turned an economic downturn into an economic disaster, taking over and trashing entire companies, and driving the nation deep into deficit spending expected to pass 10 trillion dollars.
Abroad, Obama seems to have no other mode except to continue on with his endless campaign, confusing speechmaking with diplomacy. It is natural enough that Obama, who built his entire campaign on high profile public speeches reported on by an adoring press, understands how to do nothing else but that.
While the press is still chewing over Obama’s Cairo speech, this celebrity style coverage ignores the fact that Obama’s endless world tour is not actually accomplishing anything. Instead his combination of ego driven photo op appearances and clueless treatment of foreign dignitaries have alienated many of America’s traditional allies. Those who aren’t being quietly angry at Obama, like Brown, Merkel or Netanyahu, instead think of him as as absurdly lightweight, as Sarkozy, King Abdullah or Putin do.
While his officials carry out their dirty economic deeds, Obama responds to any and every crisis as if it were a Mickey Rooney and Judy Garland musical, with a cry of, “Let’s put on a show.” Thus far Obama has put on “shows” across America, Europe and the Middle East. And what the adoring media coverage neglects to cover, is that Obama’s shows have solved absolutely nothing. They have served only as high profile entertainment.
Neither alienating America’s traditional allies, through a combination of arrogant bullying and ignorance, nor appeasing America’s enemies, has yielded any actual results. Nor does it seem likely to. Islamic terrorism is not going anywhere, neither are the nuclear threats fromNorth Korea and Iran. While Obama keeps smiling, the global situation keeps growing more grim.
At home, if Obama was elected as depression era entertainment, the charm of his smiles and his constant appearances on magazine covers appear to be wearing thin on the American public. Despite the shrill attacks on Rush Limbaugh or the Republican Enemy of the Weak -- the Democratic party of 2009, is polling a lot like the Republican party of 2008. The Democrats have suddenly become the incumbents, and the only accomplishment they can point to is lavish deficit spending, often on behalf of the very same corporations and causes they once postured against.
The European Union Parliament’s swing to the right cannot be credited to Obama, though doubtlessly some European voters seeing socialist economic crisis management on display in the world’s richest country decided they wanted none of it, but it is part of a general turning against federalism. And Obama’s entire program is dependent on heavily entrenching federalism at the expense of individual and state’s rights. Yet that is precisely his achilles heel with independent voters who are polling against more taxes and expanded government. And no amount of speeches by Obama can wish away his 18 czars or the national debt he has foisted on generation after generation of the American people.
That leaves Obama with a choice between socialism and the independent voter. And thus far he has chosen socialism.
Obama’s tactic of hijacking Bush Administration era policies on the economy and the War on Terror, and exploiting them as trojan horses to promote his own agenda, have left him coping with a backlash from his own party, as well as general Republican opposition.
His Czars are meant to function as the bones in an executive infrastructure accountable to no one, but a lack of accountability isn’t just another word for tyranny, but for incompetence. A functional chain of command is accountable at multiple levels if it is to function effectively. Obama’s White House by contrast is in a state of over-organized chaos, the sort of organized disorganization that undisciplined egotistical leftists naturally create for themselves, complete with multiple overlapping levels of authority and no one in charge but the man at the top, who’s too busy doing other things to actually be in charge.
Dennis Blair as National Intelligence, who collaborated with the Muslim genocide of Christians in East Timor, trying to muscle out the CIA to create his own intelligence network, is typical of the kind of chaos being spawned by every chief in an expanding government bureaucracy working to make sure that all the Indians to him. Similarly the National Security Council wrestling with the State Department, highlighted by Samantha Power getting her own specially created NSC position to butt heads with Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, illustrates the state of conflict and chaos in American foreign affairs. A state of chaos so pervasive that incompetence has now become commonplace, and no one can even be found to double check the spelling of a Russian word that is meant to be the theme of American’s diplomatic reconstruction with Russia, or to pick out a gift for the visiting British Prime Minister.
Meanwhile on the economy, Obama exploited the ongoing bailouts, transforming them from bailouts into takeovers meant to shift the balance of power in what had been a democracy and socially engineer not only corporations, but the lives of ordinary Americans. But the public’s patience with corporate bailouts is at an end, most Americans were never happy with them to begin with, and want them to end. The death of Chrysler at the hands of Fiat and the UAW might look like a victory in the union ranks, but it doesn’t play too well outside Detroit. And tacking on CAFE standards that will kill the pickup truck and the SUV will badly erode Obama in the swing states, if exploited properly in 2010 and 2012. Despite the constant media barrage, orchestrated out of the White House, the public is growing disenchanted with the performance of Obama and the Democrats.
With unemployment booming and the economy dropping, the jobs aren’t there and the spending is out of control. Republicans today are polling better on ethics and the economy, than the Democrats are. That shows a trend which is likely to register in the mid-term elections in 2010, in the same way that the EU parliamentary elections served as a shock to the system.
In the opposition, Republicans are free to embrace the rhetoric of change, to champion reform and push libertarian ideas about the size and scope of government. In turn all Obama has is his celebrity fueled media spectacle world tour. A charade now serving as a parallel to the depression era entertainment that functioned as escapism in a dour time. But before long, it may be Obama that the American public will want to escape from.
Obama has tried to play Lincoln, Reagan, JFK and FDR -- but in the end he can only play himself, a shallow, manipulative and egotistical amateur who is in over his head, and trying to drag the country down with him. Obama’s White House is falling down and while the flashbulbs are still glittering and the parties are going on in D.C. and around the world, Obama and the Democratic Congress may be headed for a recession of their own.
Obama’s White House is Falling Down
By Daniel Greenfield Thursday, June 11, 2009
In the sixth month of his presidency, Obama has turned an economic downturn into an economic disaster, taking over and trashing entire companies, and driving the nation deep into deficit spending expected to pass 10 trillion dollars.
Abroad, Obama seems to have no other mode except to continue on with his endless campaign, confusing speechmaking with diplomacy. It is natural enough that Obama, who built his entire campaign on high profile public speeches reported on by an adoring press, understands how to do nothing else but that.
While the press is still chewing over Obama’s Cairo speech, this celebrity style coverage ignores the fact that Obama’s endless world tour is not actually accomplishing anything. Instead his combination of ego driven photo op appearances and clueless treatment of foreign dignitaries have alienated many of America’s traditional allies. Those who aren’t being quietly angry at Obama, like Brown, Merkel or Netanyahu, instead think of him as as absurdly lightweight, as Sarkozy, King Abdullah or Putin do.
While his officials carry out their dirty economic deeds, Obama responds to any and every crisis as if it were a Mickey Rooney and Judy Garland musical, with a cry of, “Let’s put on a show.” Thus far Obama has put on “shows” across America, Europe and the Middle East. And what the adoring media coverage neglects to cover, is that Obama’s shows have solved absolutely nothing. They have served only as high profile entertainment.
Neither alienating America’s traditional allies, through a combination of arrogant bullying and ignorance, nor appeasing America’s enemies, has yielded any actual results. Nor does it seem likely to. Islamic terrorism is not going anywhere, neither are the nuclear threats fromNorth Korea and Iran. While Obama keeps smiling, the global situation keeps growing more grim.
At home, if Obama was elected as depression era entertainment, the charm of his smiles and his constant appearances on magazine covers appear to be wearing thin on the American public. Despite the shrill attacks on Rush Limbaugh or the Republican Enemy of the Weak -- the Democratic party of 2009, is polling a lot like the Republican party of 2008. The Democrats have suddenly become the incumbents, and the only accomplishment they can point to is lavish deficit spending, often on behalf of the very same corporations and causes they once postured against.
The European Union Parliament’s swing to the right cannot be credited to Obama, though doubtlessly some European voters seeing socialist economic crisis management on display in the world’s richest country decided they wanted none of it, but it is part of a general turning against federalism. And Obama’s entire program is dependent on heavily entrenching federalism at the expense of individual and state’s rights. Yet that is precisely his achilles heel with independent voters who are polling against more taxes and expanded government. And no amount of speeches by Obama can wish away his 18 czars or the national debt he has foisted on generation after generation of the American people.
That leaves Obama with a choice between socialism and the independent voter. And thus far he has chosen socialism.
Obama’s tactic of hijacking Bush Administration era policies on the economy and the War on Terror, and exploiting them as trojan horses to promote his own agenda, have left him coping with a backlash from his own party, as well as general Republican opposition.
His Czars are meant to function as the bones in an executive infrastructure accountable to no one, but a lack of accountability isn’t just another word for tyranny, but for incompetence. A functional chain of command is accountable at multiple levels if it is to function effectively. Obama’s White House by contrast is in a state of over-organized chaos, the sort of organized disorganization that undisciplined egotistical leftists naturally create for themselves, complete with multiple overlapping levels of authority and no one in charge but the man at the top, who’s too busy doing other things to actually be in charge.
Dennis Blair as National Intelligence, who collaborated with the Muslim genocide of Christians in East Timor, trying to muscle out the CIA to create his own intelligence network, is typical of the kind of chaos being spawned by every chief in an expanding government bureaucracy working to make sure that all the Indians to him. Similarly the National Security Council wrestling with the State Department, highlighted by Samantha Power getting her own specially created NSC position to butt heads with Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, illustrates the state of conflict and chaos in American foreign affairs. A state of chaos so pervasive that incompetence has now become commonplace, and no one can even be found to double check the spelling of a Russian word that is meant to be the theme of American’s diplomatic reconstruction with Russia, or to pick out a gift for the visiting British Prime Minister.
Meanwhile on the economy, Obama exploited the ongoing bailouts, transforming them from bailouts into takeovers meant to shift the balance of power in what had been a democracy and socially engineer not only corporations, but the lives of ordinary Americans. But the public’s patience with corporate bailouts is at an end, most Americans were never happy with them to begin with, and want them to end. The death of Chrysler at the hands of Fiat and the UAW might look like a victory in the union ranks, but it doesn’t play too well outside Detroit. And tacking on CAFE standards that will kill the pickup truck and the SUV will badly erode Obama in the swing states, if exploited properly in 2010 and 2012. Despite the constant media barrage, orchestrated out of the White House, the public is growing disenchanted with the performance of Obama and the Democrats.
With unemployment booming and the economy dropping, the jobs aren’t there and the spending is out of control. Republicans today are polling better on ethics and the economy, than the Democrats are. That shows a trend which is likely to register in the mid-term elections in 2010, in the same way that the EU parliamentary elections served as a shock to the system.
In the opposition, Republicans are free to embrace the rhetoric of change, to champion reform and push libertarian ideas about the size and scope of government. In turn all Obama has is his celebrity fueled media spectacle world tour. A charade now serving as a parallel to the depression era entertainment that functioned as escapism in a dour time. But before long, it may be Obama that the American public will want to escape from.
Obama has tried to play Lincoln, Reagan, JFK and FDR -- but in the end he can only play himself, a shallow, manipulative and egotistical amateur who is in over his head, and trying to drag the country down with him. Obama’s White House is falling down and while the flashbulbs are still glittering and the parties are going on in D.C. and around the world, Obama and the Democratic Congress may be headed for a recession of their own.
Tuesday, July 7, 2009
More bad news on the job front
Of course, this is nothing new. It's been long reported (although not by the state-run media, of course) that all these "stimulus" jobs not only weren't going to be permanent, but that the many "green" jobs among them were going to come at a higher cost in terms of job losses.
So let's see ... Cap & Trade policies = higher energy costs for EVERYONE and fewer jobs for ANYONE. Oh yeah, and let's hurry and open those borders while we're at it, shall we? Maybe we can break The Great Depression's unemployment record in Obama's first term!
Now, that's change you can believe in.
From CNSNews.com:
Every “green job” created with government money in Spain over the last eight years came at the cost of 2.2 regular jobs, and only one in 10 of the newly created green jobs became a permanent job, says a new study released this month. The study draws parallels with the green jobs programs of the Obama administration.
President Obama, in fact, has used Spain’s green initiative as a blueprint for how the United States should use federal funds to stimulate the economy. Obama's economic stimulus package, which Congress passed in February, allocates billions of dollars to the green jobs industry.
But the author of the study, Dr. Gabriel Calzada, an economics professor at Juan Carlos University in Madrid, said the United States should expect results similar to those in Spain:
"Spain’s experience (cited by President Obama as a model) reveals with high confidence, by two different methods, that the U.S. should expect a loss of at least 2.2 jobs on average, or about 9 jobs lost for every 4 created, to which we have to add those jobs that non-subsidized investments with the same resources would have created,” wrote Calzada in his report: Study of the Effects on Employment of Public Aid to Renewable Energy Sources.
Obama repeatedly has said that the United States should look to Spain as an example of a country that has successfully applied federal money to green initiatives in order to stimulate its economy.
“Think of what’s happening in countries like Spain, Germany and Japan, where they’re making real investments in renewable energy,” said Obama while lobbying Congress, in January to pass the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act. “They’re surging ahead of us, poised to take the lead in these new industries.”
“Their governments have harnessed their people’s hard work and ingenuity with bold investments — investments that are paying off in good, high-wage jobs — jobs they won’t lose to other countries,” said Obama. “There is no reason we can’t do the same thing right here in America. … In the process, we’ll put nearly half a million people to work building wind turbines and solar panels; constructing fuel-efficient cars and buildings; and developing the new energy technologies that will lead to new jobs, more savings, and a cleaner, safer planet in the bargain.”
Included in the stimulus package, for example, was $4.5 billion to convert government buildings into high-performance green buildings.
According to the Calzada’s study, Spain is a strong example of the government spending money on green ideas to stimulate its economy.
“No other country has given such broad support to the construction and production of electricity through renewable sources,” says the report. “The arguments for Spain’s and Europe’s ‘green jobs’ schemes are the same arguments now made in the U.S., principally that massive public support would produce large numbers of green jobs.”
But in the study’s introduction Calzada argues that the renewable jobs program hindered, rather than helped, Spain’s attempts to emerge from its recession.
“The study’s results show how such ‘green jobs’ policy clearly hinders Spain’s way out of the current economic crisis, even while U.S. politicians insist that rushing into such a scheme will ease their own emergence from the turmoil,” says Calzada. “This study marks the very first time a critical analysis of the actual performance and impact has been made."
Pat Michaels, professor of environmental sciences at the University of Virginia and senior fellow in environmental studies at the Cato Institute, a free market group, told CNSNews.com that the study’s conclusions do not surprise him. He added that the United States should expect similar results with the stimulus money it spends on green initiatives.
“There is no reason to think things will be any different here,” Michaels said. “In the short run you have to ask who is doing the hiring, and in the long run how efficient is it to have people serving technology such as windmills. We are creating inefficiencies.”
Michaels also said he was not surprised by the study’s finding that only one out of 10 jobs were permanent.
“That doesn’t surprise me,” said Michaels. “When we see how imperfect wind energy is and how expensive it is to maintain -- I think many of those jobs will become impermanent here in the U.S. as well.”
Inquiries for comment to the Natural Resources Defense Council and the Center for American Progress were not answered before this story went to press.
(Imported from April 14, 2009)
So let's see ... Cap & Trade policies = higher energy costs for EVERYONE and fewer jobs for ANYONE. Oh yeah, and let's hurry and open those borders while we're at it, shall we? Maybe we can break The Great Depression's unemployment record in Obama's first term!
Now, that's change you can believe in.
From CNSNews.com:
Every “green job” created with government money in Spain over the last eight years came at the cost of 2.2 regular jobs, and only one in 10 of the newly created green jobs became a permanent job, says a new study released this month. The study draws parallels with the green jobs programs of the Obama administration.
President Obama, in fact, has used Spain’s green initiative as a blueprint for how the United States should use federal funds to stimulate the economy. Obama's economic stimulus package, which Congress passed in February, allocates billions of dollars to the green jobs industry.
But the author of the study, Dr. Gabriel Calzada, an economics professor at Juan Carlos University in Madrid, said the United States should expect results similar to those in Spain:
"Spain’s experience (cited by President Obama as a model) reveals with high confidence, by two different methods, that the U.S. should expect a loss of at least 2.2 jobs on average, or about 9 jobs lost for every 4 created, to which we have to add those jobs that non-subsidized investments with the same resources would have created,” wrote Calzada in his report: Study of the Effects on Employment of Public Aid to Renewable Energy Sources.
Obama repeatedly has said that the United States should look to Spain as an example of a country that has successfully applied federal money to green initiatives in order to stimulate its economy.
“Think of what’s happening in countries like Spain, Germany and Japan, where they’re making real investments in renewable energy,” said Obama while lobbying Congress, in January to pass the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act. “They’re surging ahead of us, poised to take the lead in these new industries.”
“Their governments have harnessed their people’s hard work and ingenuity with bold investments — investments that are paying off in good, high-wage jobs — jobs they won’t lose to other countries,” said Obama. “There is no reason we can’t do the same thing right here in America. … In the process, we’ll put nearly half a million people to work building wind turbines and solar panels; constructing fuel-efficient cars and buildings; and developing the new energy technologies that will lead to new jobs, more savings, and a cleaner, safer planet in the bargain.”
Included in the stimulus package, for example, was $4.5 billion to convert government buildings into high-performance green buildings.
According to the Calzada’s study, Spain is a strong example of the government spending money on green ideas to stimulate its economy.
“No other country has given such broad support to the construction and production of electricity through renewable sources,” says the report. “The arguments for Spain’s and Europe’s ‘green jobs’ schemes are the same arguments now made in the U.S., principally that massive public support would produce large numbers of green jobs.”
But in the study’s introduction Calzada argues that the renewable jobs program hindered, rather than helped, Spain’s attempts to emerge from its recession.
“The study’s results show how such ‘green jobs’ policy clearly hinders Spain’s way out of the current economic crisis, even while U.S. politicians insist that rushing into such a scheme will ease their own emergence from the turmoil,” says Calzada. “This study marks the very first time a critical analysis of the actual performance and impact has been made."
Pat Michaels, professor of environmental sciences at the University of Virginia and senior fellow in environmental studies at the Cato Institute, a free market group, told CNSNews.com that the study’s conclusions do not surprise him. He added that the United States should expect similar results with the stimulus money it spends on green initiatives.
“There is no reason to think things will be any different here,” Michaels said. “In the short run you have to ask who is doing the hiring, and in the long run how efficient is it to have people serving technology such as windmills. We are creating inefficiencies.”
Michaels also said he was not surprised by the study’s finding that only one out of 10 jobs were permanent.
“That doesn’t surprise me,” said Michaels. “When we see how imperfect wind energy is and how expensive it is to maintain -- I think many of those jobs will become impermanent here in the U.S. as well.”
Inquiries for comment to the Natural Resources Defense Council and the Center for American Progress were not answered before this story went to press.
(Imported from April 14, 2009)
Will the "great listener" actually listen?
My money is overwhelmingly on "no, he won't." There is simply no amount of evidence or no level of opposition that will sway Obama or the liberals running this country. They've completely sold out to the Al Gore Church of Global Warming nutcases and cannot reverse course.
Even though evidence has and will continue to mount daily to refute their silly notions.
From Newsmax:
Over 100 prominent scientists from more than a dozen countries — including a Nobel Prize winner — have signed a letter to President Barack Obama charging that his views on climate change are “simply incorrect.”
The letter — sponsored by the Cato Institute — cites a statement Obama made in November: “Few challenges facing America and the world are more urgent than combating climate change. The science is beyond dispute and the facts are clear.”
Under the headline, “With all due respect, Mr. President, that is not true,” the scientists state:
“We, the undersigned scientists, maintain that the case for alarm regarding climate change is grossly overstated. Surface temperature changes over the past century have been episodic and modest and there has been no net global warming for over a decade now…
“The computer models forecasting rapid temperature change abjectly fail to explain recent climate behavior. Mr. President, your characterization of the scientific facts regarding climate change and the degree of certainty informing the scientific debate is simply incorrect.”
The 115 signatories include Ivar Giaever, Ph.D., who shared the Nobel Prize for Physics in 1973 for his work with superconductors at General Electric; John Blaylock, formerly with the Los Alamos National Laboratory; Richard Lindzen, Ph.D., at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology; and William Gray, Ph.D., the respected hurricane expert at Colorado State University.
The signers include scientists at Princeton University , U.S. Naval Academy, University of Kansas , University of Oklahoma , University of Colorado , and University of Missouri .
Among the countries represented by the signers are Britain, Canada, Italy, Norway, Germany, Australia, New Zealand, Japan, Argentina and South Africa.
A number of the scientists are current or former reviewers with the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change — which shared the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize with climate change crusader Al Gore — and have since reversed their views on man-made global warming.
(Imported from April 6, 2009)
Even though evidence has and will continue to mount daily to refute their silly notions.
From Newsmax:
Over 100 prominent scientists from more than a dozen countries — including a Nobel Prize winner — have signed a letter to President Barack Obama charging that his views on climate change are “simply incorrect.”
The letter — sponsored by the Cato Institute — cites a statement Obama made in November: “Few challenges facing America and the world are more urgent than combating climate change. The science is beyond dispute and the facts are clear.”
Under the headline, “With all due respect, Mr. President, that is not true,” the scientists state:
“We, the undersigned scientists, maintain that the case for alarm regarding climate change is grossly overstated. Surface temperature changes over the past century have been episodic and modest and there has been no net global warming for over a decade now…
“The computer models forecasting rapid temperature change abjectly fail to explain recent climate behavior. Mr. President, your characterization of the scientific facts regarding climate change and the degree of certainty informing the scientific debate is simply incorrect.”
The 115 signatories include Ivar Giaever, Ph.D., who shared the Nobel Prize for Physics in 1973 for his work with superconductors at General Electric; John Blaylock, formerly with the Los Alamos National Laboratory; Richard Lindzen, Ph.D., at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology; and William Gray, Ph.D., the respected hurricane expert at Colorado State University.
The signers include scientists at Princeton University , U.S. Naval Academy, University of Kansas , University of Oklahoma , University of Colorado , and University of Missouri .
Among the countries represented by the signers are Britain, Canada, Italy, Norway, Germany, Australia, New Zealand, Japan, Argentina and South Africa.
A number of the scientists are current or former reviewers with the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change — which shared the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize with climate change crusader Al Gore — and have since reversed their views on man-made global warming.
(Imported from April 6, 2009)
Social Security goes POOF
Chalk up another hit to the country's financial health courtesy of the mind-numbing liberals. The Social Security surplus, expected by most estimates to only last until 2017, has suddenly disappeared (STORY HERE) thanks to Wall Street's plunge.
While blame for the current state of the stock market can certainly be debated (although what continues to happen to it in the coming months and years unequivocally rests at Barack Obama's, Nancy Pelosi's and Harry Reid's feet), the fact that so many of us have been forced to continue to rely on Social Security for a big part of our future retirement income is 100 percent the Democrats' doing.
Just as George Bush sounded warning sirens about Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac during his first term, only to be rebuffed by Democrats who lied to protect their own, he also made a major bid to reform our dependence on a Social Security system that was headed for the cliff's edge.
He and others saw the coming flood of Boomers retiring and the drain that would put on the system ... hence the estimates that Social Security would go belly-up before many of us reach retirement.
But "noooooooooo" cried the Democrats. They used scare tactics on retirees, telling them that Bush was stealing their money, when his measures specifically excluded them and applied ONLY to younger people. They blocked any kind of legislation from ever having a chance.
Well, now Social Security will only survive month to month. And when that flood of Boomers hits the magic age?
Hope they have a lot of money stuffed in their mattresses.
And a little further down the line are many of us, who nevertheless will have to continue paying into a system that we have NO hope of ever drawing a dime from.
Our money. Flushed away. Our future. Tenuous at best.
Seems to be a pattern with liberals nowadays, doesn't it?
(Imported from April 1, 2009)
While blame for the current state of the stock market can certainly be debated (although what continues to happen to it in the coming months and years unequivocally rests at Barack Obama's, Nancy Pelosi's and Harry Reid's feet), the fact that so many of us have been forced to continue to rely on Social Security for a big part of our future retirement income is 100 percent the Democrats' doing.
Just as George Bush sounded warning sirens about Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac during his first term, only to be rebuffed by Democrats who lied to protect their own, he also made a major bid to reform our dependence on a Social Security system that was headed for the cliff's edge.
He and others saw the coming flood of Boomers retiring and the drain that would put on the system ... hence the estimates that Social Security would go belly-up before many of us reach retirement.
But "noooooooooo" cried the Democrats. They used scare tactics on retirees, telling them that Bush was stealing their money, when his measures specifically excluded them and applied ONLY to younger people. They blocked any kind of legislation from ever having a chance.
Well, now Social Security will only survive month to month. And when that flood of Boomers hits the magic age?
Hope they have a lot of money stuffed in their mattresses.
And a little further down the line are many of us, who nevertheless will have to continue paying into a system that we have NO hope of ever drawing a dime from.
Our money. Flushed away. Our future. Tenuous at best.
Seems to be a pattern with liberals nowadays, doesn't it?
(Imported from April 1, 2009)
This and that
Ford Motor Company wants another bailout. Only they don't want the government to give them money. They want YOU to give the government money.
Ford CEO Alan Mulally is asking Washington to raise the federal gas tax to make the price per gallon $4 AT THE LOWEST, according to the Wall Street Journal. Ford, you see, has a boatload of these crappy little green cars that it can't unload at any price, largely because the price of gas has fallen about 150 percent since last summer and people are back to buying SUVs and mid-size cars.
This tax increase idea already has been floated on Capitol Hill by a number of libs looking for all the ways they can to pay for their pork. So don't be surprised if by June, we're not well on our way to being right back where we were last summer.
So air up those tires and get a tuneup, eh.
(If you don't recognize the tire/tuneup line, you're probably not alone. That's what Obama said we should all do last summer when gas eclipsed $4. The media, naturally, didn't hold him in anything resembling contempt for saying, essentially, tough sh*t America.)
*****
From Politico:
The eye-popping national debt surpassed $11 trillion Monday, the largest in U.S. history.
The new Treasury Department figures on the national debt were released as the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office is expected to project that the annual budget deficit will be higher than previously estimated by the White House's Office of Management and Budget. The debt, which refers to the cumulative amount of money the government owes, hit $10.9 trillion on Friday.
The whopping number has major ramifications for President Barack Obama, who is trying to push through a raft of big-ticket bills on health care, energy, education and climate change — while also attempting to stabilize the swooning economy.
Sen. Kent Conrad (D-N.D.), chairman of the Budget Committee, said Tuesday that the numbers could force Congress to make "adjustments" to Obama's $3.6 trillion budget plan.
Count on making some adjustments yourself. When all this hits the fan down the road, you, Jack & Jill taxpayer, will bend over to a degree you've never ever imagined.
*****
While everyone's roasting AIG execs, wonder if anyone will ask whether Barack Obama plans to return the $101,332 bonus last year from AIG in the form of political contributions? (according to Opensecrets.org. and reported Tuesday by CNN)
Just like the Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac political contribution list, the biggest recipients from AIG were Senate banking chairman Chris Dodd (a Democrat, if you're wondering) and Barack Obama.
*****
Say what you will about George W. Bush's politics, but unlike his opponents, Bush puts the country first. He showed that during his eight years in office, and he's showing that now:
CALGARY, Alberta (AP) - Former President George W. Bush says he won't criticize President Barack Obama because Obama "deserves my silence," and says he plans to write a book about the 12 toughest decisions he made in office. Bush's speech Tuesday at a luncheon in Calgary, Alberta was his first since leaving office.
He declined to comment about the Obama administration like former Vice President Dick Cheney. Cheney said Sunday that Obama's decisions are threatening the nation's safety.
Bush says he doesn't know what he'll do in the long term but says he'll write a book that will let people determine what they would have done if their most important job was to protect the country.
If this were Bill Clinton or Jimmy Carter, concerned first and foremost with their living legacies, they'd be in front of microphones every day getting in their digs on the current administration ... as the Clintons and Gore and Carter did to Bush every chance they got starting in January of 2001.
Not only has Bush NOT been visible, he refrains from taking shots when given the chance. Lord knows he easily could when what has happened in Washington the last two months is the antithesis of everything he believes in.
(Imported from March 18, 2009)
Ford CEO Alan Mulally is asking Washington to raise the federal gas tax to make the price per gallon $4 AT THE LOWEST, according to the Wall Street Journal. Ford, you see, has a boatload of these crappy little green cars that it can't unload at any price, largely because the price of gas has fallen about 150 percent since last summer and people are back to buying SUVs and mid-size cars.
This tax increase idea already has been floated on Capitol Hill by a number of libs looking for all the ways they can to pay for their pork. So don't be surprised if by June, we're not well on our way to being right back where we were last summer.
So air up those tires and get a tuneup, eh.
(If you don't recognize the tire/tuneup line, you're probably not alone. That's what Obama said we should all do last summer when gas eclipsed $4. The media, naturally, didn't hold him in anything resembling contempt for saying, essentially, tough sh*t America.)
*****
From Politico:
The eye-popping national debt surpassed $11 trillion Monday, the largest in U.S. history.
The new Treasury Department figures on the national debt were released as the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office is expected to project that the annual budget deficit will be higher than previously estimated by the White House's Office of Management and Budget. The debt, which refers to the cumulative amount of money the government owes, hit $10.9 trillion on Friday.
The whopping number has major ramifications for President Barack Obama, who is trying to push through a raft of big-ticket bills on health care, energy, education and climate change — while also attempting to stabilize the swooning economy.
Sen. Kent Conrad (D-N.D.), chairman of the Budget Committee, said Tuesday that the numbers could force Congress to make "adjustments" to Obama's $3.6 trillion budget plan.
Count on making some adjustments yourself. When all this hits the fan down the road, you, Jack & Jill taxpayer, will bend over to a degree you've never ever imagined.
*****
While everyone's roasting AIG execs, wonder if anyone will ask whether Barack Obama plans to return the $101,332 bonus last year from AIG in the form of political contributions? (according to Opensecrets.org. and reported Tuesday by CNN)
Just like the Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac political contribution list, the biggest recipients from AIG were Senate banking chairman Chris Dodd (a Democrat, if you're wondering) and Barack Obama.
*****
Say what you will about George W. Bush's politics, but unlike his opponents, Bush puts the country first. He showed that during his eight years in office, and he's showing that now:
CALGARY, Alberta (AP) - Former President George W. Bush says he won't criticize President Barack Obama because Obama "deserves my silence," and says he plans to write a book about the 12 toughest decisions he made in office. Bush's speech Tuesday at a luncheon in Calgary, Alberta was his first since leaving office.
He declined to comment about the Obama administration like former Vice President Dick Cheney. Cheney said Sunday that Obama's decisions are threatening the nation's safety.
Bush says he doesn't know what he'll do in the long term but says he'll write a book that will let people determine what they would have done if their most important job was to protect the country.
If this were Bill Clinton or Jimmy Carter, concerned first and foremost with their living legacies, they'd be in front of microphones every day getting in their digs on the current administration ... as the Clintons and Gore and Carter did to Bush every chance they got starting in January of 2001.
Not only has Bush NOT been visible, he refrains from taking shots when given the chance. Lord knows he easily could when what has happened in Washington the last two months is the antithesis of everything he believes in.
(Imported from March 18, 2009)
Her true intentions
It's said that liberals have never met a tax they didn't like. Well, folks, they're running out of ways to tax us.
Now, Nancy Pelosi wants a windfall tax on retirement income. And wait til you see why.
First of all, adding a tax to your retirement is simply another way of saying to the American people, "you're so darn stupid that we're going to keep doing this until we drain every cent from you." Because this isn't "taxing the rich" or whatever their misleading line is this week.
Pelosi wants to put a windfall tax on all stock market profits from your 401k ... or what's left of it ... not only to again help people who won't get off their butts and work for the life they want but ALSO THE MILLIONS OF ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS.
This is her DIRECT QUOTE:
"We need to raise the standard of living of our poor, unemployed and minorities. For example, we have an estimated 12 million illegal immigrants in our country who need our help along with millions of unemployed minorities. Stock market windfall profits taxes could go a long way to guarantee these people the standard of living they would like to have as Americans.
Ummm, first of all, these people ARE NOT AMERICANS. They are in violation of the law being here in the first place! The drain they impose on social services is a HUGE reason cities and states across this country are facing budget crisis after budget crisis and continue to have to raise taxes and fees.
And now Pelosi and the Democrats want to give them EVEN MORE of what we earn?
All I can do is shake my head at what's going on in this country. Not in Washington, mind you, because these people's agenda has long been apparent. It's in black and white for anyone who's paying attention to see.
What amazes me is the number of people out there who refuse to open their eyes and see it ... AND continue to put these people in power.
And yes, I realize that 300 million or so didn't vote for Pelosi herself. But the liberals they DID vote for gave her -- and her party -- the ability to destroy this country.
And they're well on their way.
(Imported from March 4, 2009)
Now, Nancy Pelosi wants a windfall tax on retirement income. And wait til you see why.
First of all, adding a tax to your retirement is simply another way of saying to the American people, "you're so darn stupid that we're going to keep doing this until we drain every cent from you." Because this isn't "taxing the rich" or whatever their misleading line is this week.
Pelosi wants to put a windfall tax on all stock market profits from your 401k ... or what's left of it ... not only to again help people who won't get off their butts and work for the life they want but ALSO THE MILLIONS OF ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS.
This is her DIRECT QUOTE:
"We need to raise the standard of living of our poor, unemployed and minorities. For example, we have an estimated 12 million illegal immigrants in our country who need our help along with millions of unemployed minorities. Stock market windfall profits taxes could go a long way to guarantee these people the standard of living they would like to have as Americans.
Ummm, first of all, these people ARE NOT AMERICANS. They are in violation of the law being here in the first place! The drain they impose on social services is a HUGE reason cities and states across this country are facing budget crisis after budget crisis and continue to have to raise taxes and fees.
And now Pelosi and the Democrats want to give them EVEN MORE of what we earn?
All I can do is shake my head at what's going on in this country. Not in Washington, mind you, because these people's agenda has long been apparent. It's in black and white for anyone who's paying attention to see.
What amazes me is the number of people out there who refuse to open their eyes and see it ... AND continue to put these people in power.
And yes, I realize that 300 million or so didn't vote for Pelosi herself. But the liberals they DID vote for gave her -- and her party -- the ability to destroy this country.
And they're well on their way.
(Imported from March 4, 2009)
They just don't get it
Remember last summer, when gas hit $4 a gallon, and Barack Obama actually had the gaul to suggest we could save all the extra money we were paying for gas by getting tune-ups and inflating our tires?
Now, his Treasury secretary, Timothy "Tax Cheat" Geithner, steps in it while talking about Obama's Cap & Trade plan.
From the AP story today on the new law:
But the Treasury secretary acknowledged that consumers could face higher electric bills because Obama would impose fees on greenhouse gas producers, including power plants that burn fossil fuels, by auctioning off carbon pollution permits. The goal is to reduce the emissions blamed for global warming while raising a projected $646 billion over 10 years.
"Now, if people don't change how they use energy, then they will face higher costs for energy," Geithner said.
Change how we use energy? What? Like stop using electricity?
Now, his Treasury secretary, Timothy "Tax Cheat" Geithner, steps in it while talking about Obama's Cap & Trade plan.
From the AP story today on the new law:
But the Treasury secretary acknowledged that consumers could face higher electric bills because Obama would impose fees on greenhouse gas producers, including power plants that burn fossil fuels, by auctioning off carbon pollution permits. The goal is to reduce the emissions blamed for global warming while raising a projected $646 billion over 10 years.
"Now, if people don't change how they use energy, then they will face higher costs for energy," Geithner said.
Change how we use energy? What? Like stop using electricity?
It's raining taxes
The increased gas tax talk is back. AND the per-mile-you-drive tax. Yes, Barack Obama said he's against raising/instituting taxes in a recession.
Prediction: He'll next say he's still against it, but he has no choice. Here's the story on that.
That's just the tip of the iceberg this week, though.
The president's budget proposal yesterday includes something I've been writing about for more than a year and what we all knew was coming.
Cap & Trade. Think your utility bills are high now?
Under this system, the government's going to set "pollution levels" (the CAP) for, among other people, producers of electricity on whatever amount they go over that level. Since coal comprises 49 percent of electricity generation in this country, they'll go over by A LOT.
The electric providers then have to buy "carbon off-sets" (the TRADE) from shell companies people like Al Gore set up to reap the benefits.
We know who benefits: The Al Gores who are running this scam.
More pertinent to most people, though, is the question of who loses. If you said the electric companies, guess again. That cost, my friends, will be passed on to Joe Consumer. Just like any other cost to businesses.
In other parts of the world where this was done a year and two years ago, like Australia, utility bills doubled and tripled, depending on the cap levels.
This, of course, came up during a press briefing at the White House yesterday. Know how they defended it?
Our increased cost will be off-set by the payroll tax cut we're getting. Wait and see if $13 covers it. And that tax cut is temporary. Cap & Trade isn't.
Besides, I thought that was supposed to be part of the "stimulus" bill that would pull our economy out of the toilet? Appears from where I'm sitting that the only thing being stimulated are the bank accounts of people like Al Gore who are perpetrating this whole Global Warming scam upon this planet.
Now, I know a lot of you who toe the Democrat Party line will say, "Oh, but Dan, a lot of this money is going toward development of wind and solar power, which will replace coal and all the bad, nasty carbon dioxide-producing ways we do it now!"
I seriously want anyone who EVEN THINKS that to spend some time doing some honest research into how long even the most rosey estimates say that will take. I'm not talking about what you're spoon-fed by the Al Gores, his liberal enablers and other environazis, that's it's right around the corner.
I think you'll find that you'll be paying MUCH higher utility bills for some time to come.
Enjoy your change, America.
(Imported from Feb. 27, 2009)
Prediction: He'll next say he's still against it, but he has no choice. Here's the story on that.
That's just the tip of the iceberg this week, though.
The president's budget proposal yesterday includes something I've been writing about for more than a year and what we all knew was coming.
Cap & Trade. Think your utility bills are high now?
Under this system, the government's going to set "pollution levels" (the CAP) for, among other people, producers of electricity on whatever amount they go over that level. Since coal comprises 49 percent of electricity generation in this country, they'll go over by A LOT.
The electric providers then have to buy "carbon off-sets" (the TRADE) from shell companies people like Al Gore set up to reap the benefits.
We know who benefits: The Al Gores who are running this scam.
More pertinent to most people, though, is the question of who loses. If you said the electric companies, guess again. That cost, my friends, will be passed on to Joe Consumer. Just like any other cost to businesses.
In other parts of the world where this was done a year and two years ago, like Australia, utility bills doubled and tripled, depending on the cap levels.
This, of course, came up during a press briefing at the White House yesterday. Know how they defended it?
Our increased cost will be off-set by the payroll tax cut we're getting. Wait and see if $13 covers it. And that tax cut is temporary. Cap & Trade isn't.
Besides, I thought that was supposed to be part of the "stimulus" bill that would pull our economy out of the toilet? Appears from where I'm sitting that the only thing being stimulated are the bank accounts of people like Al Gore who are perpetrating this whole Global Warming scam upon this planet.
Now, I know a lot of you who toe the Democrat Party line will say, "Oh, but Dan, a lot of this money is going toward development of wind and solar power, which will replace coal and all the bad, nasty carbon dioxide-producing ways we do it now!"
I seriously want anyone who EVEN THINKS that to spend some time doing some honest research into how long even the most rosey estimates say that will take. I'm not talking about what you're spoon-fed by the Al Gores, his liberal enablers and other environazis, that's it's right around the corner.
I think you'll find that you'll be paying MUCH higher utility bills for some time to come.
Enjoy your change, America.
(Imported from Feb. 27, 2009)
The lie continues
WASHINGTON (Reuters) – President Barack Obama ordered the U.S. Treasury on Saturday to implement tax cuts for 95 percent of Americans, fulfilling a campaign pledge he hopes will help jolt the economy out of recession.
The tax cuts are part of a $787 billion economic recovery plan passed by the Democratic-controlled Congress over Republican opposition. The aim is to put more money in the pockets of Americans and stimulate the economy by increasing consumer spending.
"I'm pleased to announce that this morning the Treasury Department began directing employers to reduce the amount of taxes withheld from paychecks, meaning that by April 1st, a typical family will begin taking home at least $65 more every month," Obama said in his weekly radio address.
"Never before in our history has a tax cut taken effect faster or gone to so many hard-working Americans," he said.
I guess someone needs to explain basic math to Barack Obama. He clearly doesn't get it.
This is taking something that already was going to be yours and giving it to you under the pretense of doing you a favor. It's a con, pure and simple.
It's NOT a tax cut.
When President Bush instituted tax rebates, the government simply gave back, in the form of one-time payments, money that middle- and lower-class people had already paid. This isn't even that.
When Bush gave tax CUTS, he eliminated, for example, the marriage penalty tax. Whereas married couples previously had only been able to claim one $2,100 exemption, Bush changed that rule and allowed two. That meant an additional $2,100 reduction in the amount you were taxed. He also raised the exemption amount.
What Obama is doing is reducing by $13 per week (or whatever amount it ends up being) your withholding. That's great. That's an extra $13 per week you can spend now. But at the end of the year when you do your taxes, that will be $13 per week LESS that you'll get as a refund. And for those on the bubble or those paying the IRS, you'll pay $13 per week more. Or $676.
We've heard now for several years Democrats demonizing "predatory lenders" for sucking supposedly unwitting people into adjustable rate mortgages, giving them what seemed like a great deal now but something that after a certain amount of time would bite them in the butt.
This is no different. They're not telling anyone that by doing this, they're going to owe more later.
If Democrats truly were interested in helping the middle class and upper lower class (those who actually pay taxes), they'd reduce the rate at which our earnings are taxed from 25 percent to 15 percent, as a number of Republicans have suggested. That, coupled with a withholdings decrease, would put more money (that's already OURS, by the way) back in our pockets now AND later. And that would truly be stimulative.
But Democrats have never been about tax cuts. And they're lying through their teeth telling you that's what this is.
(Imported from Feb. 21, 2009)
The tax cuts are part of a $787 billion economic recovery plan passed by the Democratic-controlled Congress over Republican opposition. The aim is to put more money in the pockets of Americans and stimulate the economy by increasing consumer spending.
"I'm pleased to announce that this morning the Treasury Department began directing employers to reduce the amount of taxes withheld from paychecks, meaning that by April 1st, a typical family will begin taking home at least $65 more every month," Obama said in his weekly radio address.
"Never before in our history has a tax cut taken effect faster or gone to so many hard-working Americans," he said.
I guess someone needs to explain basic math to Barack Obama. He clearly doesn't get it.
This is taking something that already was going to be yours and giving it to you under the pretense of doing you a favor. It's a con, pure and simple.
It's NOT a tax cut.
When President Bush instituted tax rebates, the government simply gave back, in the form of one-time payments, money that middle- and lower-class people had already paid. This isn't even that.
When Bush gave tax CUTS, he eliminated, for example, the marriage penalty tax. Whereas married couples previously had only been able to claim one $2,100 exemption, Bush changed that rule and allowed two. That meant an additional $2,100 reduction in the amount you were taxed. He also raised the exemption amount.
What Obama is doing is reducing by $13 per week (or whatever amount it ends up being) your withholding. That's great. That's an extra $13 per week you can spend now. But at the end of the year when you do your taxes, that will be $13 per week LESS that you'll get as a refund. And for those on the bubble or those paying the IRS, you'll pay $13 per week more. Or $676.
We've heard now for several years Democrats demonizing "predatory lenders" for sucking supposedly unwitting people into adjustable rate mortgages, giving them what seemed like a great deal now but something that after a certain amount of time would bite them in the butt.
This is no different. They're not telling anyone that by doing this, they're going to owe more later.
If Democrats truly were interested in helping the middle class and upper lower class (those who actually pay taxes), they'd reduce the rate at which our earnings are taxed from 25 percent to 15 percent, as a number of Republicans have suggested. That, coupled with a withholdings decrease, would put more money (that's already OURS, by the way) back in our pockets now AND later. And that would truly be stimulative.
But Democrats have never been about tax cuts. And they're lying through their teeth telling you that's what this is.
(Imported from Feb. 21, 2009)
Want to talk solutions?
So as not to simply criticize, call people horrible names and predict the end of the world (as Democrats did from 2000 to 2008), allow me to offer, in simple terms, alternatives to the massive spending that's being attempted in Washington.
This is from American Solutions. See if it doesn't make sense. And if not, at least consider the fact that these measures in one form or another are tested and have worked whenever they've been tried. The opposite is true for what our government is doing now.
This is how Reagan put it in his first inaugural address:
“Government can and must provide opportunity, not smother it; foster productivity, not stifle it.”
In the spirit of Ronald Reagan, 12 American Solutions for Jobs and Prosperity puts its faith in the people, not the government.
Our plan isn’t more money for more government, more power for politicians and more make-work for bureaucrats.
It’s a clear and decisive alternative that creates jobs, rewards work and encourages savings and investment.
12 American Solutions for Jobs and Prosperity
1. Payroll Tax Stimulus. With a temporary new tax credit to offset 50% of the payroll tax, every small business would have more money, and all Americans would take home more of what they earn.
2. Real Middle-Income Tax Relief. Reduce the marginal tax rate of 25% down to 15%, in effect establishing a flat-rate tax of 15% for close to 9 out of 10 American workers.
3. Reduce the Business Tax Rate. Match Ireland’s rate of 12.5% to keep more jobs in America.
4. Homeowner’s Assistance. Provide tax credit incentives to responsible home buyers so they can keep their homes.
5. Control Spending So We Can Move to a Balanced Budget. This begins with eliminating congressional earmarks and wasteful pork-barrel spending.
6. No State Aid Without Protection From Fraud. Require state governments to adopt anti-fraud and anti-theft policies before giving them more money.
7. More American Energy Now. Explore for more American oil and gas and invest in affordable energy for the future, including clean coal, ethanol, nuclear power and renewable fuels.
8. Abolish Taxes on Capital Gains. Match China, Singapore and many other competitors. More investment in America means more jobs in America.
9. Protect the Rights of American Workers. We must protect a worker’s right to decide by secret ballot whether to join a union, and the worker’s right to freely negotiate. Forced unionism will kill jobs in America at a time when we can’t afford to lose them.
10. Replace Sarbanes-Oxley. This failed law is crippling entrepreneurial startups. Replace it with affordable rules that help create jobs, not destroy them.
11. Abolish the Death Tax. Americans should work for their families, not for Washington.
12. Invest in Energy and Transportation Infrastructure. This includes a new, expanded electric power grid and a 21st Century air traffic control system that will reduce delays in air travel and save passengers, employees and airlines billions of dollars per year.
(Imported from Feb. 17, 2009)
This is from American Solutions. See if it doesn't make sense. And if not, at least consider the fact that these measures in one form or another are tested and have worked whenever they've been tried. The opposite is true for what our government is doing now.
This is how Reagan put it in his first inaugural address:
“Government can and must provide opportunity, not smother it; foster productivity, not stifle it.”
In the spirit of Ronald Reagan, 12 American Solutions for Jobs and Prosperity puts its faith in the people, not the government.
Our plan isn’t more money for more government, more power for politicians and more make-work for bureaucrats.
It’s a clear and decisive alternative that creates jobs, rewards work and encourages savings and investment.
12 American Solutions for Jobs and Prosperity
1. Payroll Tax Stimulus. With a temporary new tax credit to offset 50% of the payroll tax, every small business would have more money, and all Americans would take home more of what they earn.
2. Real Middle-Income Tax Relief. Reduce the marginal tax rate of 25% down to 15%, in effect establishing a flat-rate tax of 15% for close to 9 out of 10 American workers.
3. Reduce the Business Tax Rate. Match Ireland’s rate of 12.5% to keep more jobs in America.
4. Homeowner’s Assistance. Provide tax credit incentives to responsible home buyers so they can keep their homes.
5. Control Spending So We Can Move to a Balanced Budget. This begins with eliminating congressional earmarks and wasteful pork-barrel spending.
6. No State Aid Without Protection From Fraud. Require state governments to adopt anti-fraud and anti-theft policies before giving them more money.
7. More American Energy Now. Explore for more American oil and gas and invest in affordable energy for the future, including clean coal, ethanol, nuclear power and renewable fuels.
8. Abolish Taxes on Capital Gains. Match China, Singapore and many other competitors. More investment in America means more jobs in America.
9. Protect the Rights of American Workers. We must protect a worker’s right to decide by secret ballot whether to join a union, and the worker’s right to freely negotiate. Forced unionism will kill jobs in America at a time when we can’t afford to lose them.
10. Replace Sarbanes-Oxley. This failed law is crippling entrepreneurial startups. Replace it with affordable rules that help create jobs, not destroy them.
11. Abolish the Death Tax. Americans should work for their families, not for Washington.
12. Invest in Energy and Transportation Infrastructure. This includes a new, expanded electric power grid and a 21st Century air traffic control system that will reduce delays in air travel and save passengers, employees and airlines billions of dollars per year.
(Imported from Feb. 17, 2009)
Hey big spender
Read it and weep folks.
God Help America and future Generations that will pay this "STICKITTOTHEM" Bill.
A partial list of things, as Obama said, "our economy desperately needs."
-- $50 million for the National Endowment for the Arts
-- $380 million for the Women, Infants & Children welfare program
-- $300 million in grants to combat violence against women
-- $1.2 billion to provide "youth" with summer jobs
-- $2.4 billion for "neighborhood stabilization" activities (a.k.a. ACORN)
-- $650 million for digital TV coupons
-- $150 million for the Smithsonian
-- $34 million to renovate the Dept. of Commerce headquarters
-- $500 million for improvements to the National Institute of Health facility
-- $44 million for repairs to the Dept. of Agriculture's headquarters
-- $350 million for agriculture department computers
-- $88 million to move (that's right, move) the Public Health Service into a new building.
-- $1 billion for the Census Bureau
-- $300 million for wetlands preservation in San Francisco (Piggy Pelosi's frogs)
-- $89 billion for Medicaid
-- $30 billion for COBRA extensions
-- $36 billion for expanded unemployment
-- $20 billion for food stamps
-- $850 million for Amtrak
-- $87 million for a "polar ice breaking ship" (What about ice caps melting due to global warming?)
-- $1.7 million for the National Park Service
-- $55 million for the Historic Preservation Fund
-- $7.6 million for the Rural Advancement Program
-- $150 million for "agricultural commodity purchases"
-- $150 million for producers of livestock, farm-raised fish and honey bees
-- $160 million for paid volunteers (what is a "paid volunteer"?) at the Corporation for National and Community Service
Mind you, this is only a partial list of what I've been able to find. But the above totals $184.4 BILLION that has ZIP, ZERO, NADA to do with the economy. And that's not even one-quarter of the bill!
Are we really to believe Obama that we would not have been able to reverse our country's slide if he and Congress were prevented from ramming all this pork down our throats?
And, by the way, what happened to Obama's pledge to end pork barrel spending? In fact, at his "press conference" he bristled when asked about pork, saying there's none in this bill.
Also, what happened to his promise for "more transparent government" and the pledge that NO bill would be voted on in Congress until the public had FIVE DAYS to view it in its entirety? This bill did not even have FIVE HOURS in the public eye.
Another interesting fact: Obama said that one of the reasons Congress must pass the stimulus bill and must pass it NOW, is to end our dependence on foreign oil. What is astonishing is that he made this proclamation about energy independence less than 24 hours after his new interior secretary canceled the oil & gas leases on 77 parcels of federal land.
We are only three weeks into this guy's term and already he and his party are out of control.
(Imported from Feb. 16, 2009)
God Help America and future Generations that will pay this "STICKITTOTHEM" Bill.
A partial list of things, as Obama said, "our economy desperately needs."
-- $50 million for the National Endowment for the Arts
-- $380 million for the Women, Infants & Children welfare program
-- $300 million in grants to combat violence against women
-- $1.2 billion to provide "youth" with summer jobs
-- $2.4 billion for "neighborhood stabilization" activities (a.k.a. ACORN)
-- $650 million for digital TV coupons
-- $150 million for the Smithsonian
-- $34 million to renovate the Dept. of Commerce headquarters
-- $500 million for improvements to the National Institute of Health facility
-- $44 million for repairs to the Dept. of Agriculture's headquarters
-- $350 million for agriculture department computers
-- $88 million to move (that's right, move) the Public Health Service into a new building.
-- $1 billion for the Census Bureau
-- $300 million for wetlands preservation in San Francisco (Piggy Pelosi's frogs)
-- $89 billion for Medicaid
-- $30 billion for COBRA extensions
-- $36 billion for expanded unemployment
-- $20 billion for food stamps
-- $850 million for Amtrak
-- $87 million for a "polar ice breaking ship" (What about ice caps melting due to global warming?)
-- $1.7 million for the National Park Service
-- $55 million for the Historic Preservation Fund
-- $7.6 million for the Rural Advancement Program
-- $150 million for "agricultural commodity purchases"
-- $150 million for producers of livestock, farm-raised fish and honey bees
-- $160 million for paid volunteers (what is a "paid volunteer"?) at the Corporation for National and Community Service
Mind you, this is only a partial list of what I've been able to find. But the above totals $184.4 BILLION that has ZIP, ZERO, NADA to do with the economy. And that's not even one-quarter of the bill!
Are we really to believe Obama that we would not have been able to reverse our country's slide if he and Congress were prevented from ramming all this pork down our throats?
And, by the way, what happened to Obama's pledge to end pork barrel spending? In fact, at his "press conference" he bristled when asked about pork, saying there's none in this bill.
Also, what happened to his promise for "more transparent government" and the pledge that NO bill would be voted on in Congress until the public had FIVE DAYS to view it in its entirety? This bill did not even have FIVE HOURS in the public eye.
Another interesting fact: Obama said that one of the reasons Congress must pass the stimulus bill and must pass it NOW, is to end our dependence on foreign oil. What is astonishing is that he made this proclamation about energy independence less than 24 hours after his new interior secretary canceled the oil & gas leases on 77 parcels of federal land.
We are only three weeks into this guy's term and already he and his party are out of control.
(Imported from Feb. 16, 2009)
Strength in numbers
I know a lot of you are familiar with NumbersUSA and its tireless work on immigration issues. For those of you who are not, I urge you to become familiar with them.
This is especially important now on two fronts. We've witnessed the Democrats' state of oblivion to public sentiment on a number of fronts in the last few weeks, and this is just the beginning. That they stripped E-verify from the "stimulus" bill wasn't surprising ... but it clearly signals what they intend to do with regard to immigration reform.
It should be infuriating to each and every one of you that Liberals refuse to protect jobs when American citizens are losing theirs at ever-increasing rates. At the very least, there should be widespread concern about the already horrendous drain on our tax base because of our continued failure to enforce immigration laws that already exist. That's only the tip of the iceberg, because when they start shoving amnesty legislation down our throats and opening our borders completely, that drain will become overwhelming and permanent.
NumbersUSA and its members played a tremendous role in stopping amnesty legislation twice in 2006, because it gave millions of citizens the ability to quickly send faxes to and provided direct phone numbers to our elected representatives, who "got the message" that the American people would not stand for the stealth legislation Congress was attempting to pass in the dead of night.
NumbersUSA stays on top of everything Washington does. And very soon, it's going to add individual state legislatures and the ability for us to quickly contact those people, which will help greatly in convincing states to enforce and/or adopt measures in the fight against open borders.
It costs nothing to join NumbersUSA. They supply very timely alerts to Washington's antics. And it takes less than five minutes to send urgent faxes to every one of your elected representatives.
The media certainly is not going to tell the people of this country what politicians are doing under cover in Washington. And you can bet your last dime that those politicians aren't forthcoming about their actions.
But you can rest assured they listen when voters speak, especially when they do so in great numbers.
I urge any and all who have not signed on with NumbersUSA to do so and to recruit friends elsewhere to do so. It's one of the few remaining avenues available to us to have a say in what our government is doing.
http://www.numbersusa.com/content/
(Imported from Feb. 13, 2009)
This is especially important now on two fronts. We've witnessed the Democrats' state of oblivion to public sentiment on a number of fronts in the last few weeks, and this is just the beginning. That they stripped E-verify from the "stimulus" bill wasn't surprising ... but it clearly signals what they intend to do with regard to immigration reform.
It should be infuriating to each and every one of you that Liberals refuse to protect jobs when American citizens are losing theirs at ever-increasing rates. At the very least, there should be widespread concern about the already horrendous drain on our tax base because of our continued failure to enforce immigration laws that already exist. That's only the tip of the iceberg, because when they start shoving amnesty legislation down our throats and opening our borders completely, that drain will become overwhelming and permanent.
NumbersUSA and its members played a tremendous role in stopping amnesty legislation twice in 2006, because it gave millions of citizens the ability to quickly send faxes to and provided direct phone numbers to our elected representatives, who "got the message" that the American people would not stand for the stealth legislation Congress was attempting to pass in the dead of night.
NumbersUSA stays on top of everything Washington does. And very soon, it's going to add individual state legislatures and the ability for us to quickly contact those people, which will help greatly in convincing states to enforce and/or adopt measures in the fight against open borders.
It costs nothing to join NumbersUSA. They supply very timely alerts to Washington's antics. And it takes less than five minutes to send urgent faxes to every one of your elected representatives.
The media certainly is not going to tell the people of this country what politicians are doing under cover in Washington. And you can bet your last dime that those politicians aren't forthcoming about their actions.
But you can rest assured they listen when voters speak, especially when they do so in great numbers.
I urge any and all who have not signed on with NumbersUSA to do so and to recruit friends elsewhere to do so. It's one of the few remaining avenues available to us to have a say in what our government is doing.
http://www.numbersusa.com/content/
(Imported from Feb. 13, 2009)
Just who have we elected?
Shoved under the carpet of stimulus package debate is the fact that two weeks ago, President Barack Obama signed an executive order allowing hundreds of thousands of Palestinians to resettle in the United States.
We're talking hundreds of thousands of people who have been, as Mark Steyn described, "marinated" in a "sick death cult," who voted for Hamas, and 55% of whom support suicide bombings who now are being invited to live here at the taxpayers' expense.
Obama ordered the expenditure of $20.3 million in migration assistance to the Palestinian refugees and conflict victims in Gaza.
The "presidential determination" which allows hundreds of thousands of Palestinians with ties to Hamas to resettle in the United States was signed on Jan. 27 and appeared in the Federal Register on Feb. 4.
President Obama's decision, according to the Register, was necessitated by "the urgent refugee and migration needs" of the "victims."
Few on Capitol Hill took note that the order provides a free ticket here and then housing and food allowances to individuals who have displayed their overwhelming support of the Islamic Resistance Movement (Hamas) in the parliamentary election there in January 2006.
There's a pretty disturbing pattern evolving with Obama's actions since he was inaugurated:
* His first call to any head of state as president was to Mahmoud Abbas, leader of Fatah party in the Palestinian territory.
* His first one-on-one interview with any news organization was with Al Arabia television.
* He ordered Guantanamo Bay closed and all military trials of detainees halted.
* He ordered all overseas CIA interrogation centers closed.
* He withdrew all charges against the masterminds behind the USS Cole bombing and 9/11.
* And he is allowing hundreds of thousands of Palestinian refuges to move to and live in the U.S .at American taxpayer expense.
"Disturbing" might actually be an understatement.
(Imported from Feb. 12, 2009)
We're talking hundreds of thousands of people who have been, as Mark Steyn described, "marinated" in a "sick death cult," who voted for Hamas, and 55% of whom support suicide bombings who now are being invited to live here at the taxpayers' expense.
Obama ordered the expenditure of $20.3 million in migration assistance to the Palestinian refugees and conflict victims in Gaza.
The "presidential determination" which allows hundreds of thousands of Palestinians with ties to Hamas to resettle in the United States was signed on Jan. 27 and appeared in the Federal Register on Feb. 4.
President Obama's decision, according to the Register, was necessitated by "the urgent refugee and migration needs" of the "victims."
Few on Capitol Hill took note that the order provides a free ticket here and then housing and food allowances to individuals who have displayed their overwhelming support of the Islamic Resistance Movement (Hamas) in the parliamentary election there in January 2006.
There's a pretty disturbing pattern evolving with Obama's actions since he was inaugurated:
* His first call to any head of state as president was to Mahmoud Abbas, leader of Fatah party in the Palestinian territory.
* His first one-on-one interview with any news organization was with Al Arabia television.
* He ordered Guantanamo Bay closed and all military trials of detainees halted.
* He ordered all overseas CIA interrogation centers closed.
* He withdrew all charges against the masterminds behind the USS Cole bombing and 9/11.
* And he is allowing hundreds of thousands of Palestinian refuges to move to and live in the U.S .at American taxpayer expense.
"Disturbing" might actually be an understatement.
(Imported from Feb. 12, 2009)
Now you see it, now you don't
A lot of people in this country were looking forward to even the miniscule tax "cut" they originally were going to receive out of this $800 billion "stimulus" bill. Remember the $500 (single) and $1,000 (married) tax rebate checks the government was going to mail out as soon as this bill was signed into law?
Well, not only did those figures drop to $400 and $800 in the final bill, but guess what? There aren't going to be any checks.
What the Libs decided to do (yes, the Libs, because Republicans were not involved in crafting the final bill that will be sent to the White House) is spread out that money over the course of a year in the form of a reduction in the taxes that are taken out of your paycheck.
The figure I've seen everywhere refers to this equaling $13 more per week in your paycheck ... although that math doesn't exactly add up. But let's just go with that, shall we?
Now, I'm sure a lot of folks will say, "well, that's better than nothing."
Except that it is nothing.
Here's the scam the Democrats are perpetrating:
Your withholding tax rate is going to be altered so that you have $13 less taken out of your pay each week. Over the course of a year, that equals $676. Follow me? Sounds good, right?
But at the end of the year, when you do your tax return (unlike certain members of Obama's administration), you get to the end and have to go to the Tax Table to figure out what you owe on what you made the previous year.
Let's say in 2008, after all your deductions, you made $50,000. If you're single, your tax on that amount would be $8,850. You balance that against all the withholding tax that had been taken out all year. Let's say that is $9,676. Your refund for the year then would be $826.
But what the government now is going to do is give you a tax "break" in the form of lower withholding. We're back to the $13 per week. So at the end of the year, after deductions, you still have made $50,000. Your tax is still $8,850. Only now, your withholding for the year is $9,000.
And your refund drops to $150.
So class, let's review:
Before this "stimulus" bill that we so desperately need with its "tax cut for hard-working lower- and middle-class Americans", we received an $826 refund on our taxes at the end of the year.
Now, with the "stimulus" bill that we so desperately need with its "tax cut for hard-working lower- and middle-class Americans", we're going to get to keep $13 per week more in our paychecks, which at the end of the year equals $676.
BUT, our refund from the IRS when we do our taxes (unlike certain members of Obama's administration) is going to be $150 instead of $826 ... or $676 less.
They giveth. And then they taketh away.
Your net gain in this $800 billion "stimulus" bill that we so desperately need?
ZERO.
(Imported from Feb. 12, 2009)
Well, not only did those figures drop to $400 and $800 in the final bill, but guess what? There aren't going to be any checks.
What the Libs decided to do (yes, the Libs, because Republicans were not involved in crafting the final bill that will be sent to the White House) is spread out that money over the course of a year in the form of a reduction in the taxes that are taken out of your paycheck.
The figure I've seen everywhere refers to this equaling $13 more per week in your paycheck ... although that math doesn't exactly add up. But let's just go with that, shall we?
Now, I'm sure a lot of folks will say, "well, that's better than nothing."
Except that it is nothing.
Here's the scam the Democrats are perpetrating:
Your withholding tax rate is going to be altered so that you have $13 less taken out of your pay each week. Over the course of a year, that equals $676. Follow me? Sounds good, right?
But at the end of the year, when you do your tax return (unlike certain members of Obama's administration), you get to the end and have to go to the Tax Table to figure out what you owe on what you made the previous year.
Let's say in 2008, after all your deductions, you made $50,000. If you're single, your tax on that amount would be $8,850. You balance that against all the withholding tax that had been taken out all year. Let's say that is $9,676. Your refund for the year then would be $826.
But what the government now is going to do is give you a tax "break" in the form of lower withholding. We're back to the $13 per week. So at the end of the year, after deductions, you still have made $50,000. Your tax is still $8,850. Only now, your withholding for the year is $9,000.
And your refund drops to $150.
So class, let's review:
Before this "stimulus" bill that we so desperately need with its "tax cut for hard-working lower- and middle-class Americans", we received an $826 refund on our taxes at the end of the year.
Now, with the "stimulus" bill that we so desperately need with its "tax cut for hard-working lower- and middle-class Americans", we're going to get to keep $13 per week more in our paychecks, which at the end of the year equals $676.
BUT, our refund from the IRS when we do our taxes (unlike certain members of Obama's administration) is going to be $150 instead of $826 ... or $676 less.
They giveth. And then they taketh away.
Your net gain in this $800 billion "stimulus" bill that we so desperately need?
ZERO.
(Imported from Feb. 12, 2009)
As expected
The final version of the House/Senate Porkulus Bill that will be sent for Barack Obama's signature was stripped, by Democrats in their Republican-less overnight meeting to craft a "compromise" package, of any language that would prevent the few jobs this bill will create from going to illegal aliens.
I guess we should have asked whose economy we were stimulating, huh?
So to all those out-of-work AMERICANS, and the hundreds of thousands who will follow in the coming months, here's a big, $800 billion "F YOU" from Obama, Pelosi, Reid and all the other Democrats this country's sheep continue to vote for.
(Imported from Feb. 12, 2009)
I guess we should have asked whose economy we were stimulating, huh?
So to all those out-of-work AMERICANS, and the hundreds of thousands who will follow in the coming months, here's a big, $800 billion "F YOU" from Obama, Pelosi, Reid and all the other Democrats this country's sheep continue to vote for.
(Imported from Feb. 12, 2009)
PORK: Not just for Americans anymore
The Senate just conducted a cloture vote, the result of which was 61-36. And all the wrangling done by "bipartisan" Republicans "acting in the country's best interests" last week? For naught, of course. The final Senate bill, after being pared down to under $800 billion, now will go to a floor vote at $19 billion MORE than the House version, which I believe was in the $850 billion range. That means the Libs tossed close to $70 billion more pork into the package ... for God knows what.
What's even more infuriating ... and what needs to be told to EVERY SINGLE AMERICAN is that in the House version, at least, an amendment was added to ensure e-verify would be required for any entity receiving this stimulus ... er, pork, I mean ... so that AMERICANS and ONLY AMERICANS would benefit. It passed the House, 407-2.
But in the Senate? Senate Majority Leader DEMOCRAT Harry Reid blocked the amendment, even though it had wide support from both sides of the aisle. So the Senate version of this pork-laden piece of cow manure won't even ensure that only American citizens benefit, even though only American citizens are paying for it.
At a time when the country is hemorrhaging jobs and unemployment is jumping at least a full point every month, when members of Congress and Barry The Great himself is bemoaning how bailout money is being spent in the private sector, this DEMOCRAT refuses to even allow a vote to ensure that OUR MONEY won't turn into state benefits and jobs for illegal aliens.
And I'll take any and all bets that the legislation signed into law by our joke of a president won't have that provision, either.
(Imported from Feb. 9, 2009)
What's even more infuriating ... and what needs to be told to EVERY SINGLE AMERICAN is that in the House version, at least, an amendment was added to ensure e-verify would be required for any entity receiving this stimulus ... er, pork, I mean ... so that AMERICANS and ONLY AMERICANS would benefit. It passed the House, 407-2.
But in the Senate? Senate Majority Leader DEMOCRAT Harry Reid blocked the amendment, even though it had wide support from both sides of the aisle. So the Senate version of this pork-laden piece of cow manure won't even ensure that only American citizens benefit, even though only American citizens are paying for it.
At a time when the country is hemorrhaging jobs and unemployment is jumping at least a full point every month, when members of Congress and Barry The Great himself is bemoaning how bailout money is being spent in the private sector, this DEMOCRAT refuses to even allow a vote to ensure that OUR MONEY won't turn into state benefits and jobs for illegal aliens.
And I'll take any and all bets that the legislation signed into law by our joke of a president won't have that provision, either.
(Imported from Feb. 9, 2009)
The politics of fear
A doctor was eating at a fancy restaurant one night when, during his meal, a wealthy man sitting at the table next to him began to choke. The doctor sprang into action and dislodged a shard of bone from the dying man's throat. Relieved, the man gasped, "You saved my life! How can I ever repay you? I'll tell you what, let me buy your dinner!" The doctor thought for a second and replied, "Better yet, give me half of what you'd be willing to pay if that shard of bone were still lodged in your throat."
Barack Obama campaigned on a series of promises. Remember? He was bringing CHANGE to Washington.
And HOPE.
And what he's giving us, barely one month into office, is fear.
Yesterday, Obama played on the nation's sense of fear by telling us that "the time for talk is over; the time for action is now" on this record-shattering, pork-laden bill erroneously dubbed a "stimulus" package.
If we don't get this thing passed, NOW, he warned, we'll be plunged into an irreversible recession.
He's got Nancy Pelosi out there repeatedly saying that we're "losing 500 million jobs every month" that this doesn't get done.
I'm happy to note that at least one mainstream media reporter cited the fact that there are only about 300 million people living in the United States.
My point is, the willingness and extent to which one will agree to something lies in direct proportion to one's need. Obama knows this. He also knows there is a great deal of fear in this country about the economy. This, subsequently, is the optimal time to strike.
The only "hope" that can be attached to any of this was the Democrats' hope that they'd be able to shove this gargantuan turd through without anyone seeing it for what it was.
Doubt me? There's a reason why the House passed this bill so quickly. As the Democrats have done since taking control in 2006, the bill was written in committee ... a committee comprised entirely of Democrats ... then rushed to a floor vote without giving anyone time to read it or debate it.
As this 600-plus page piece of legislation moved to the Senate, more and more people began looking beyond Page 2. And they began seeing page after page after page after page of spending, spending, spending and more spending on every Democrat special interest that ever was.
Short of several hundred thousand construction and engineering jobs for "green" initiatives and roads and bridges, there isn't anything that will stimulate jobs. In fact, when one looks at the jobs that ARE being lost every week, the new jobs that will be created (years down the road, by the way) will be outnumbered in mere weeks because of what this bill WON'T stimulate.
The billions in tax cuts and incentives that could actually stimulate anything? Instead of real tax incentives that would breathe life into the economy and grow business and create jobs, we have tax rebates for people who don't pay taxes in the first place, including illegal aliens, and incentives for people who buy cars and houses.
While that might "stimulate" the housing market and help automakers in less volatile times, I'm not sure that while we're hemorrhaging jobs in the tens of thousands per week, people are rushing out to make major purchases.
That's like telling a man with no legs, "Buy this suit, and we'll give you a pair of shoes for half price!"
So the more scrutiny this bill got, the less anyone liked it. In the span on one week, public sentiment plunged to approval numbers in the 30s. The San Francisco Examiner... IN LIBERAL MECCA, FOR CRYING OUT LOUD! ... ran an editorial denouncing the bill for what it was.
Which is why Obama and the Democrats want this thing passed NOW.
We were told back in late summer/early fall that we desperately needed a $750 billion bailout bill for banks and financial institutions. So that got shoved through without anyone explaining exactly HOW it would work. And voila! It hasn't.
Now they want $900 billion MORE?
The funny thing is, Democrats have control of both houses of Congress and the White House. They could pass this thing entirely on their own, as they did in the House, where not one Republican voted for it.
Why in the Senate, where Democrats have the clear majority, won't they just put the thing to a vote? So what if a handful of moderate Democrats say no? They still have numbers.
It's because they want ONE Republican signature. That way, they can absolve themselves of future blame by saying it was a "bipartisan" bill when, a year or two from now, we see that it did nothing but plunge the country into deeper debt, which in turn will drag up inflation and make money ... and jobs ... even more scarce.
There's an undercurrent of moderate Republican ... the RINO faction ... trimming going on. They're attempting to cut a hundred billion or two. So what? A 700-pound bag of cow manure being dumped on your head is better than having it be 900 pounds?
The real change to this bill that would make it more effective won't happen. Why? Because, as Obama says, he won the election. He gets to do what he wants, when he wants.
So much for the Great Uniter and A New Tone In Washington crapola that he also campaigned on, huh?
Well, I say let him have it his way. But let it be completely, 100 percent a Democrat undertaking. I urge everyone and anyone who has five minutes to email or call Republican senators, especially the Olympia Snow and Susan Collins types, and say NO to this massive slab of pork in ANY form.
It's easy and not very time-consuming. And it's critical. Here's a link that will provide everything you need:
If the Democrats want this so much, let it be on their heads and their heads alone.
(Imported from Feb. 6, 2009)
Barack Obama campaigned on a series of promises. Remember? He was bringing CHANGE to Washington.
And HOPE.
And what he's giving us, barely one month into office, is fear.
Yesterday, Obama played on the nation's sense of fear by telling us that "the time for talk is over; the time for action is now" on this record-shattering, pork-laden bill erroneously dubbed a "stimulus" package.
If we don't get this thing passed, NOW, he warned, we'll be plunged into an irreversible recession.
He's got Nancy Pelosi out there repeatedly saying that we're "losing 500 million jobs every month" that this doesn't get done.
I'm happy to note that at least one mainstream media reporter cited the fact that there are only about 300 million people living in the United States.
My point is, the willingness and extent to which one will agree to something lies in direct proportion to one's need. Obama knows this. He also knows there is a great deal of fear in this country about the economy. This, subsequently, is the optimal time to strike.
The only "hope" that can be attached to any of this was the Democrats' hope that they'd be able to shove this gargantuan turd through without anyone seeing it for what it was.
Doubt me? There's a reason why the House passed this bill so quickly. As the Democrats have done since taking control in 2006, the bill was written in committee ... a committee comprised entirely of Democrats ... then rushed to a floor vote without giving anyone time to read it or debate it.
As this 600-plus page piece of legislation moved to the Senate, more and more people began looking beyond Page 2. And they began seeing page after page after page after page of spending, spending, spending and more spending on every Democrat special interest that ever was.
Short of several hundred thousand construction and engineering jobs for "green" initiatives and roads and bridges, there isn't anything that will stimulate jobs. In fact, when one looks at the jobs that ARE being lost every week, the new jobs that will be created (years down the road, by the way) will be outnumbered in mere weeks because of what this bill WON'T stimulate.
The billions in tax cuts and incentives that could actually stimulate anything? Instead of real tax incentives that would breathe life into the economy and grow business and create jobs, we have tax rebates for people who don't pay taxes in the first place, including illegal aliens, and incentives for people who buy cars and houses.
While that might "stimulate" the housing market and help automakers in less volatile times, I'm not sure that while we're hemorrhaging jobs in the tens of thousands per week, people are rushing out to make major purchases.
That's like telling a man with no legs, "Buy this suit, and we'll give you a pair of shoes for half price!"
So the more scrutiny this bill got, the less anyone liked it. In the span on one week, public sentiment plunged to approval numbers in the 30s. The San Francisco Examiner... IN LIBERAL MECCA, FOR CRYING OUT LOUD! ... ran an editorial denouncing the bill for what it was.
Which is why Obama and the Democrats want this thing passed NOW.
We were told back in late summer/early fall that we desperately needed a $750 billion bailout bill for banks and financial institutions. So that got shoved through without anyone explaining exactly HOW it would work. And voila! It hasn't.
Now they want $900 billion MORE?
The funny thing is, Democrats have control of both houses of Congress and the White House. They could pass this thing entirely on their own, as they did in the House, where not one Republican voted for it.
Why in the Senate, where Democrats have the clear majority, won't they just put the thing to a vote? So what if a handful of moderate Democrats say no? They still have numbers.
It's because they want ONE Republican signature. That way, they can absolve themselves of future blame by saying it was a "bipartisan" bill when, a year or two from now, we see that it did nothing but plunge the country into deeper debt, which in turn will drag up inflation and make money ... and jobs ... even more scarce.
There's an undercurrent of moderate Republican ... the RINO faction ... trimming going on. They're attempting to cut a hundred billion or two. So what? A 700-pound bag of cow manure being dumped on your head is better than having it be 900 pounds?
The real change to this bill that would make it more effective won't happen. Why? Because, as Obama says, he won the election. He gets to do what he wants, when he wants.
So much for the Great Uniter and A New Tone In Washington crapola that he also campaigned on, huh?
Well, I say let him have it his way. But let it be completely, 100 percent a Democrat undertaking. I urge everyone and anyone who has five minutes to email or call Republican senators, especially the Olympia Snow and Susan Collins types, and say NO to this massive slab of pork in ANY form.
It's easy and not very time-consuming. And it's critical. Here's a link that will provide everything you need:
If the Democrats want this so much, let it be on their heads and their heads alone.
(Imported from Feb. 6, 2009)
It's even darker underneath
While much attention has been focused on Barack Obama's cabinet nominees, there's been relatively little said about the second and third layers of people filling important posts in Washington.
Case in point: It's been fairly well documented (outside the mainstream media, of course) that Eric Holder, the attorney general nominee, played a major role in the Clinton Era pardons of federal fugitive Marc Rich, as well certain FALN terrorists responsible for multiple murders (in which they beheaded victims, al-Qaeda style) and seven-figure bank robberies.
Not much has been said anywhere, though, about Obama's choice of David Ogden as deputy attorney general.
A simple scratch of the surface reveals some really disturbing stuff about a guy who will essentially run the day-to-day operation in our Department of Justice.
Put mildly, Ogden has been a great friend to the porn and abortion industries.
That he has represented Playboy and Penthouse in a number of cases is the least of what should raise quite a few eyebrows.
In one case, though, he argued against a child pornography law that required publishers of all kinds to verify and document the age of their "models" to ensure they were at least 18 years of age. He referred to the law as "mind-boggling" and "terrifying."
That Ogden thinks it overly restrictive to stop adult-entertainment publishers and movie-makers from exploiting 15- and 16-year olds might be disturbing in itself, but it's part of a pattern.
He also fought against the Children's Internet Protection Act, which ordered libraries and schools that receive funding for the Internet to restrict access to obscene Web sites. His argument was that it would be unconstitutional to force librarians to do so.
Ogden also has been a champion of abortion groups, fighting against the "right" for parents of girls under the age of 15 to be notified before an abortion is performed.
Thanks to his efforts there, when my daughters are in junior high, a school counselor can, without my or their mother's knowledge, take them to a clinic and have an abortion performed. (And in a twist of hideous irony, the same school will suspend her for a week if she's caught with one Tylenol capsule without a litany of paperwork and signatures.)
I realize there are a ton of attorney-types at various levels of government. And not all of them have championed, 100 percent, causes or people that everyone deems worthy.
But there are choices in life even for attorneys. And someone who champions child pornography, the right to have porn in our public schools and libraries and then abortion on demand for 14-year-olds shouldn't be running the DOJ, no matter how "qualified" he is.
(Imported from Feb. 5, 2009)
Case in point: It's been fairly well documented (outside the mainstream media, of course) that Eric Holder, the attorney general nominee, played a major role in the Clinton Era pardons of federal fugitive Marc Rich, as well certain FALN terrorists responsible for multiple murders (in which they beheaded victims, al-Qaeda style) and seven-figure bank robberies.
Not much has been said anywhere, though, about Obama's choice of David Ogden as deputy attorney general.
A simple scratch of the surface reveals some really disturbing stuff about a guy who will essentially run the day-to-day operation in our Department of Justice.
Put mildly, Ogden has been a great friend to the porn and abortion industries.
That he has represented Playboy and Penthouse in a number of cases is the least of what should raise quite a few eyebrows.
In one case, though, he argued against a child pornography law that required publishers of all kinds to verify and document the age of their "models" to ensure they were at least 18 years of age. He referred to the law as "mind-boggling" and "terrifying."
That Ogden thinks it overly restrictive to stop adult-entertainment publishers and movie-makers from exploiting 15- and 16-year olds might be disturbing in itself, but it's part of a pattern.
He also fought against the Children's Internet Protection Act, which ordered libraries and schools that receive funding for the Internet to restrict access to obscene Web sites. His argument was that it would be unconstitutional to force librarians to do so.
Ogden also has been a champion of abortion groups, fighting against the "right" for parents of girls under the age of 15 to be notified before an abortion is performed.
Thanks to his efforts there, when my daughters are in junior high, a school counselor can, without my or their mother's knowledge, take them to a clinic and have an abortion performed. (And in a twist of hideous irony, the same school will suspend her for a week if she's caught with one Tylenol capsule without a litany of paperwork and signatures.)
I realize there are a ton of attorney-types at various levels of government. And not all of them have championed, 100 percent, causes or people that everyone deems worthy.
But there are choices in life even for attorneys. And someone who champions child pornography, the right to have porn in our public schools and libraries and then abortion on demand for 14-year-olds shouldn't be running the DOJ, no matter how "qualified" he is.
(Imported from Feb. 5, 2009)
Turn them off!
If you didn't already have enough reasons to turn off network "news" and leave it off ...
News Tuesday that Tom Daschle withdrew as Health and Human Services Secretary nominee genuinely crushed the network anchors. Obama PR agents Katie Couric and Brian Williams, along with MSNBC's Liberal mouthpiece Andrea Mitchell, were beside themselves over Daschle's tax evasion problems serving as an obstacle to his joining Obama's cabinet.
Couric (in a question to Obama): "You campaigned to change the culture in Washington, to change the politics as usual culture here. Are you frustrated? Do you think it is much, much harder to do that than you ever anticipated?"
Williams: "You lost two nominees, two appointments today. Did that make you angry, I imagine? How do you prevent the lesson from being that, no matter how lofty the goals of the new guy coming in, Washington wins, in the end?"
Mitchell, in an interview with Republican Senator Jim DeMint, chided him by saying "I
just got off the phone with Tom Daschle. And it was an emotional conversation. He was clearly, it sounded as though he were tearful, overwrought. This reads to the public as though the Republicans went after this man, someone that the President very much wanted, and brought him down."
So here's the message the media is delivering to the public: Those mean, nasty, vindictive Republicans are resorting to the lowest of lows to stop our beloved president from doing what this country needs!
Instead of: Don't do the crime if you can't do the time.
C'mon people! I realize many consider Couric a bad joke and wouldn't trust Williams to give them the time of day, but do you realize how many people in this country have their opinions shaped by what they see and hear on the networks every evening?
Daschle was just one in a stream of Obama nominees and appointees who has been cheating on their taxes. In a number of ways. To the tune of hundreds of thousands of dollars. One of them, Timothy Geithner, managed to become confirmed and now heads the IRS as Secretary of the Treasury.
Could there be a more twisted irony?
The tingly-leg media that drools at the mere thought of Obama doesn't see it that way, though. Their message is and always has been that Democrats can do no wrong. Everybody cheats on their taxes, right? Daschle and Obama are victims, casualties of dirty tactics perpetrated by mean 0l' Republicans.
This, of course, is nothing new. The mainstream media's fawning over everything Obama for the last 18 months has been deafening in its bias.
The sad thing is, an awful lot of Americans either can't or won't see it for what it is.
(Imported from Feb. 4, 2009)
News Tuesday that Tom Daschle withdrew as Health and Human Services Secretary nominee genuinely crushed the network anchors. Obama PR agents Katie Couric and Brian Williams, along with MSNBC's Liberal mouthpiece Andrea Mitchell, were beside themselves over Daschle's tax evasion problems serving as an obstacle to his joining Obama's cabinet.
Couric (in a question to Obama): "You campaigned to change the culture in Washington, to change the politics as usual culture here. Are you frustrated? Do you think it is much, much harder to do that than you ever anticipated?"
Williams: "You lost two nominees, two appointments today. Did that make you angry, I imagine? How do you prevent the lesson from being that, no matter how lofty the goals of the new guy coming in, Washington wins, in the end?"
Mitchell, in an interview with Republican Senator Jim DeMint, chided him by saying "I
just got off the phone with Tom Daschle. And it was an emotional conversation. He was clearly, it sounded as though he were tearful, overwrought. This reads to the public as though the Republicans went after this man, someone that the President very much wanted, and brought him down."
So here's the message the media is delivering to the public: Those mean, nasty, vindictive Republicans are resorting to the lowest of lows to stop our beloved president from doing what this country needs!
Instead of: Don't do the crime if you can't do the time.
C'mon people! I realize many consider Couric a bad joke and wouldn't trust Williams to give them the time of day, but do you realize how many people in this country have their opinions shaped by what they see and hear on the networks every evening?
Daschle was just one in a stream of Obama nominees and appointees who has been cheating on their taxes. In a number of ways. To the tune of hundreds of thousands of dollars. One of them, Timothy Geithner, managed to become confirmed and now heads the IRS as Secretary of the Treasury.
Could there be a more twisted irony?
The tingly-leg media that drools at the mere thought of Obama doesn't see it that way, though. Their message is and always has been that Democrats can do no wrong. Everybody cheats on their taxes, right? Daschle and Obama are victims, casualties of dirty tactics perpetrated by mean 0l' Republicans.
This, of course, is nothing new. The mainstream media's fawning over everything Obama for the last 18 months has been deafening in its bias.
The sad thing is, an awful lot of Americans either can't or won't see it for what it is.
(Imported from Feb. 4, 2009)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)