Not-so-painful cuts

Daniel J. Mitchel wrote a column ("Earth to New York Times: Please Show Us These "Deep Spending Cuts" You Keep Writing About") that points out the absurdity of calling the budget adjustments resulting from sequestration "cuts."

I have to read the same nonsense day after day about “deep spending cuts” even though I keep explaining to journalists that a sequester merely means that spending climbs by $2.4 trillion over the next 10 years rather than $2.5 trillion.

For those more visually oriented, here's Mitchell's chart illustrating the budget "cuts."

Who's the bully?

Associated Press writer Connie Cass, in her story "Why can't Washington compromise? They're too human," chides House Republicans for "bullying" Obama and Democrats over the cuts scheduled if and when sequestration takes effect. She even quotes Barbara Coloroso, an expert on bullying. 

"Bullying is about contempt for the other person," Coloroso said. "Do you see how that fits with some of the people in Congress? Utter contempt, bullying, wanting to bring somebody down. You cannot resolve a major issue like a budget with name-calling, with disdain for the person you're supposed to be working with."

Some thoughts: 

• Barack Obama to Republicans questioning his stimulus plan, 2009: "I won." 
• Barack Obama to Republicans, 2009: "Shut up and get out of the way." 
• Republican input into the Obama stimulus plan and Obamacare, orchestrated behind closed doors and rammed through by Democrats when they controlled both houses of Congress: Zero.

Obama's and other Democrats' contempt and disdain -- bullying -- of Republicans was on fine display the last four years. Like "bipartisanship," such terms only get tossed around in the media when Democrats don't automatically get everything they want.

A Political Solution

Here's a thought: 

Why don't we take all the proposed solutions such as thorough background checks, mental health screening, severe penalties for providing false information, etc., and apply them equally to both gun ownership and voting? 

1. More harm has been done with votes than with guns. 
2. Law-abiding, honest citizens would have nothing to fear.
3. What's good enough for one constitutional right ought to be good enough for another.

Today's the day

I don't like political polls. Pollsters ask uninformed people that don't vote who they think will be elected, and the results dominate the national discussion.  Ask them about soap or soda, and the results will be remarkably accurate. The only poll that matters is the one on Election Day.

Nonetheless, polls are everywhere, both in their findings and in the media.  Nobody ever seems to remember which polls were accurate last time, so for posterity's sake I created a table with the most up-to-date poll results I could find.  For kicks I also created one showing various pundits' predictions of the final electoral vote.

Oh, and go vote Republican, early and often.

Obama: Republicans will make weather forecasts less accurate

...And voting for Obama lowers the sea level and heals the planet.  I'm not sure why we even have elections any more, if what Obama says is true.

Oh.

Santorum and the Left's attack on America

The most convincing argument so far made for Rick Santorum was expressed in a recent column by Star Parker.  Titled “The Left Fuels Santorum Surge,” Parker's column touts Santorum’s consistency.  “Santorum stands out in the current Republican field in the clarity of his image and identity. There is little doubt about who the man is and there are no glaring inconsistencies between who he says he is today and his past behavior and positions…. So the issue with Santorum is whether you buy what he is selling.”

Parker goes on to commend Santorum for his refusal to shy away from social issues.  The Left, she argues, engages in battle every chance it gets to mold our culture into what it wants. The courts found California’s Proposition 8, defining marriage as between a man and a woman, unconstitutional; the uproar that caused the Susan G. Komen foundation to reinstate its funding of Planned Parenthood; the Obama administration’s insistence that the Catholic church provide contraceptives to its employees.  

“The three high profile left wing victories of recent weeks all touch these key areas.

• End the traditional institution of marriage as a bulwark of our society.
• Continue to promote sex as recreation and relegate the life this activity creates as a trivial byproduct which we allow to be destroyed with ease.
• Destroy the sanctity of private property so government can finance irresponsibility with other people’s money.”

Rick Santorum, Parker says, is the only Republican candidate who has consistently fought against the Left’s deforming of America.

Satisfying in so many ways

Recent headline from the Huffington Post: "Obama Wall Street Fundraising Evaporates as Donors Flee to Romney."  Apparently the financial world which gave so much money to Obama in 2008 is now investing in Romney. One passage from the story which is particularly satisfying:


"Why the world of finance is leaving Obama is a subject of some irritation among Democratic fundraisers. Wall Street executives, after all, have thrived under the Obama administration. The Justice Department has been notoriously slow in pursuing investigations of fraud. Ditto for the Securities Exchange Commission."


Why is this satisfying? It contradicts what so many Democrats have claimed, and confirms so much of what the rest of the world knew.

• Obama received huge amounts of cash from Wall Street, even as he demonized them.
• The Obama administration has paid back that fundraising with its quid pro quo practices.
• The Obama administration uses the Justice Department and other federal agencies as political tools.

We can only hope that the Wall Street money is effectively used to oust Obama & Co.

The Fantastic Republican Field

The narrative being put forth by the media and Democrats (technically separate groups, but the same) is that the Republican field of presidential candidates is weak. Here's what I had to say in another forum:

Republican candidates include a governor, two US Representatives, three former governors, a former Speaker of the House, and a former US Senator. This field is at least the equal of the '08 Democrats.

Having made that declaration, I took a look back at the Democrat field of 2008:
- Barack Obama - US Senator for only two years before starting his campaign for President. Survived being a member of Jeremiah Wright's church for 20 years without hearing any of the sermons; associate of terrorist William Ayres and convicted felon Tony Rezko. The claims of "lack of experience" by his opponents subsequently being proved true.
- Hillary Clinton – Elected US Senator of a state where she didn’t live because she was the wife of a popular ex-President.  No prior elected office, but author of universal healthcare debacle and Travelgate scandal of 1993, while serving as wife of a popular President.
- John Edwards – Indicted on six felony charges related to his extramarital affair, facing 30 years in prison and a $1.5 million fine.
- Bill Richardson – Currently the subject of a grand jury investigation around his allegedly paying $250,000 to quiet a woman who had threatened to file sexual harassment complaint. The money came from donations raised for his presidential campaign, a federal no-no. (What? You hadn't heard about this?)
- Dennis Kucinich – Greatest claim to fame is being considered the most extreme Liberal in Congress.
- Joe Biden – Dropped his candidacy in 1988 after being busted for plagiarizing a speech. Most well known for his verbal gaffes. (Example: Urged a wheelchair-bound veteran to “stand up and take a bow.”) Chosen as Obama’s VP.
- Mike Gravel – Unknown Senator from Alaska. He’s most famous for this “artistic” campaign video:

- Christopher Dodd – Beneficiary of a sweetheart loan from disgraced mortgage lender Countrywide; defended Fannie Mae as “fundamentally sound;” authored a provision that allowed AIG executives to take government-provided “bailout” money as bonuses. The government gave AIG $170 million; executives took $165 million as their bonus. Most famous for a notorious sexual attack of a waitress (along with Ted Kennedy.)

- Tom Vilsack – Best known for tying for the title of the least scandalous of 2008 Democrat presidential candidates.

- Evan Bayh – According to the Washington Post, “wasn’t a particularly distinguished senator…an ordinary politician.” Outstanding in not taking a stand. Tied with Vilsack.

In comparison, today's offering of Republican presidential candidates don't look so bad. Not bad at all.

Rats, sinking ships, etc.

Democrat congressman Barney Frank has announced his plans not to seek reelection in 2012.  That handwriting on the wall for Democrats must be depressingly clear.


Frank is best remembered for his spirited (and videoed) defense of Franklin Raines and Fannie Mae in 2004.  Or maybe it's the corrupt Dodd-Frank legislation.  Regardless, it's another rat deserting the sinking Democrat ship.

What's this "compromise" thing?

Recently the news stories covering the debt ceiling situation in Washington have zeroed in on Republican freshmen in the House of Representatives.  Many of them were elected with Tea Party support, with a mandate to reduce the size of government and its role in our lives.  Taxation being a major part of that philosophy, the Tea Party has influenced negotiations.  To wit – no new taxes.

This “ideological rigidity” (as Obama characterized it) has been accused of being the major reason no deal can be reached.  Words such as compromise, bipartisanship, and a “balanced approach” (definition: more taxes) are seen as necessary so that the U.S. government, its reputation, and the world economy don’t come crashing down.  Republicans must agree to increased revenue (definition: more taxes.)  

The current debt is (supposedly) capped at $14.2 trillion. 

In January of 2009, two days after Obama had been sworn into office, in response to a Republican Senator’s objection to increased taxes in the upcoming stimulus plan, Obama killed all dissenting voices by responding, “I won.”

In February of 2009, Obama signed the Democrat stimulus bill into law. The bill was written by Democrat leaders and their staffs, behind closed doors, with no Republican input at all.  The actual legislation was posted on the Congressional website late the night before the vote was scheduled.  The vote was taken before the wording was finalized – additional points were handwritten on the pages – meaning that no one knew what was actually in the legislation when they voted on it, because no one could have read it.  Contribution of the Democrat stimulus bill to the federal debt:  $1.2 trillion.

In December of 2009, the Democrat Congress passed Obamacare, again without any Republican input.  Again, the legislation was crafted by Democrat leaders behind closed doors.  Contribution of Obamacare to the federal debt:  Over $2 trillion.

Transition to today.  Everyone is up in arms because America’s credit rating is about to be downgraded, Social Security checks are threatened, and the nation’s financial status is about to be destroyed – all because (if you read the papers) Tea Party-influenced Republicans refuse to be “fiscally responsible” and compromise on a bipartisan balanced approach.

"Leading on reporters at press conferences is not leadership"

Republican Paul Ryan doing it again.

Now I'm reassured about Social Security

Jack Coffee, professor of law and securities law expert at Columbia University, quoted in a story in USA Today:  "Social Security is not a Ponzi scheme because it wasn't an intentional fraud."

"A Ponzi scheme is a fraudulent investment operation that pays returns to separate investors, not from any actual profit earned by the organization, but from their own money or money paid by subsequent investors. The Ponzi scheme usually entices new investors by offering returns other investments cannot guarantee, in the form of short-term returns that are either abnormally high or unusually consistent. The perpetuation of the returns that a Ponzi scheme advertises and pays requires an ever-increasing flow of money from investors to keep the scheme going." -- Wikipedia

"Good intentions" seems to be a common excuse for disastrous Liberal Democrat policies.

Obama vs Obama

The results of Barack Obama's actions are the worst enemy of Barack Obama's words. In the latest incarnation, last week Obama cited a Columbus, Ohio restaurant near an auto plant as a beneficiary of the auto bailout.  The restaurant, New Chet's, will close its doors for good on Sunday.   Here's the story.

As if that weren't good enough, the story cites a voter-imposed smoking ban imposed in 2006 as a major reason for the 31-year-old restaurant's decline in business. 

Remember this:
February 11, 2009: Barack Obama, trying to win support for the Democrat trillion dollar stimulus legislation, claims that heavy machinery manufacturer Caterpillar will rehire thousands of workers it laid off.
February 12, 2009: Caterpillar CEO Owens, asked if the stimulus would cause them to rehire workers, said, "Realistically, no. The truth is we're going to have more layoffs before we start rehiring again."

or this:
February 9, 2009: Obama, once again stumping for his stimulus plan, touts thousands of "shovel ready" jobs that will benefit from the legislation.
October 13, 2010:  In a magazine interview, Obama admits that "there's no such thing as a shovel ready project."

Obama's caught-with-his-hand-in-the-cookie-jar moments would be funny if the consequences weren't so serious.

Obama in trouble in '12?

The UK Telegraph published an article by foreign affairs analyst and political commentator Nile Gardiner with the title "Why Barack Obama may be heading for electoral disaster in 2012."  Gardiner reflects on the problems caused by Obama's policies, and how in our current economy -- growth sluggish, if not non-existent; house prices down 33% since 2006; the stock market just took a huge tumble; people feel terrible about the economy and about Obama's performance -- the "hope and change" promises of Obama now taste bitter.


The biggest electoral problem for Obama, however, is the political makeup of Americans.  A Gallup poll showed that most Americans are Conservative. As Gardiner puts it:   "America is unquestionably a conservative country ideologically, but one that is ironically led by the most left-wing president in the nation’s history."

Term Limits redefined

A commenter to a recent column by John Ransom made a pithy observation:  "Politicians should be limited to two terms -- the first in office, the second in prison."

Other People Say Smart Stuff, Too - Part XXVI

From a recent Thomas Sowell column entitled "Promises and Riots" -

"Economists are the real "party of No." They keep saying that there is no such thing as a free lunch -- and politicians keep on getting elected by promising free lunches."

"This is why the American people have thrown you out"

Wow. Political theatrics, yes, but wow.  (And he's right.)

Tax "cuts" for the rich?

An interesting situation has developed in Congress. The tax rates initiated during the Bush administration are due to expire on December 31 unless Congress votes to extend them. Republicans currently want the rates for everyone to remain the same, while Democrats want the rates for "the rich" to go up, and everyone else’s to stay where they are. Democrats argue that with the federal government's financial precariousness, we can’t “afford” not to squeeze more out of the rich.


Notice how I have carefully avoided the term “tax cut.” That phrase implies something that just ain’t so. A tax rate cut (a decrease in the percentage of your income that is taxed) differs from a tax cut (a decrease in how much you pay in taxes.) Thomas Sowell has a recent column in which he explains more elegantly than I can the importance of the difference:


“These are not new arguments on either side. They go back more than 80 years. Over that long span of time, there have been many sharp cuts in tax rates under Presidents Calvin Coolidge, John F. Kennedy, Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush. So we don't need to argue in a vacuum. There is a track record.


“What does that record say? It says, loud and clear, that cuts in tax rates do not mean cuts in tax revenues. In all four of these administrations, of both parties, so-called "tax cuts for the rich" led to increased tax revenues-- with people earning high incomes paying not only a larger sum total of tax revenues, but even a higher proportion of all tax revenues.


“Most important of all, these tax rate reductions spurred economic activity, which we definitely need today.”


[Edit: Re-reading this later, I realized I missed my own point. The whole debate about so-called "tax cuts" is ridiculous, the opposite of what's happening, because no one's taxes are to be cut. The discussion is over whose taxes to raise!  Any claims Obama (who incredibly is arguing for keeping the current rates) makes about the economic stimulus from tax "cuts," are deceptive, because there will be none.  Rather, there will be economic damage if the taxes are raised. It's like Orwell's 1984 listening to the Democrats talk newspeak.  Tax raises are now called tax cuts.]


It would be nice if that historical track record were part of the discussion, and that the general populace knew the facts.

THIS is what politics is all about

Yahoo Financial news headline: "Members of US Congress get richer despite sour economy"

Not to mention the reports that show public sector (government) employment has risen during the recession of the last two years, while private sector employment has gone down. And that federal employees receive 54% more in pay and benefits than private sector workers doing the same job. Coincidentally, government employees now represent more than half of all union memberships.

Whose for bigger government? The ones who get to keep taxpayer money, that's who.

Why to vote Democrat

Dennis Prager wrote an interesting column recently on why he now votes based on party affiliation rather than on the attributes of a specific candidate.  (Well worth reading, by the way.)  In passing he mentioned three reasons why anyone would vote for today's Democrat candidate:

1. The voter believes in Leftist ideology.  (Essentially as much socialism as you can get.)
2. The voter believes the Left's demonization of its opponents as SIXHIRB (Sexist, Intolerant, Xenophobic, Homophobic, Islamophobic, Racist, Bigots)
3. The voter is either employed by, or receives significant material benefit from, the government.  He votes for a Democrat bigger government because that's where his livelihood comes from.

All you have to do is look at the Democrat leadership and the direction Obama has taken the country to see their real agenda.  And they realize that most Americans disagree with their vision of America.  That's why Democrats hide their true intentions -- "we have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it."  Using that example, in the six months since it was passed, we have discovered that Democrats misrepresented large parts of the Obamacare bill.  In other words, they lied to Americans because they knew the public would oppose it -- and we still do, six months later.  (Fifty-one percent of Americans want it repealed.)  The Democrat healthcare legislation, its effects, and the lies Democrats used to sell it, are some of the major reasons Democrats are projected to lose big today.

Today's election day.  If you fit one of the three categories listed above, then vote Democrat, and don't bother thinking.  That's a burden the rest of us are carrying for you.