Posted by Richard on September 20, 2010
The City of Los Angeles used its $111 million in ARRA "stimulus" money to "create or retain" 55 jobs. That's $2 million per job. They'd better get those printing presses cranked up in Washington, because at that rate they're going to need another several trillion dollars to "put America back to work."
I wonder how many jobs are created for every $111 million in private sector investment.
Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: big government, california, jobs, pork, waste | 1 Comment »
Posted by Richard on September 19, 2010
Paul Shanklin has been creating great musical parodies for almost two decades, many of them featured on the Rush Limbaugh Show. His latest is his best in years. Ladies and gentlemen, for your listening pleasure and amusement, here's George W. Bush (or someone like him) singing "Obamaville":
Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: bush, humor, music, obama, satire | Leave a Comment »
Posted by Richard on September 17, 2010
When Christine O'Donnell stunned the pundits of both parties by winning the Republican primary for Senate in Delaware on Tuesday, she had $50,000 in the bank and trailed Democrat Chris Coons by 16-25 percentage points, depending on the poll. A day later, she had received over $1 million in donations, and Coons' lead was 11 points.
As Ed Morrissey pointed out, the "internals" of that poll were interesting. O'Donnell leads among independents. Her biggest problems right now are liberal Republicans and conservative Democrats — both groups would have been much more supportive of primary loser Mike Castle. Delaware is clearly more liberal than the nation — 54% approve of Obama's job performance, significantly higher than the national number of 45%.
But even Delaware voters favor repeal of Obamacare (53-43%), and 62% say the way to create jobs is to cut taxes, not increase government spending. So there's certainly room for a well-run, well-financed O'Donnell campaign to gain support on the issues. Especially if it can move the focus from her "extreme" views to Coons'. After all, this is a hard-core leftist who, some years ago, described himself (with tongue perhaps slightly in cheek) as a "bearded Marxist."
Yeah, O'Donnell has at least one truly flaky view: She urged young people not to masturbate because it necessarily involves "lusting in your heart" and thus violates the 10th Commandment. Oh, my … Well, that's patently incorrect, for one thing. But is this really an important issue?
I went into work late today after a dental appointment, so I got to hear part of the Dennis Miller Show. Dennis is pretty libertarian — or what P.J. O'Rourke called a "Republican Party reptile." He's pro-choice and strongly supports gays in the military — as he puts it, anyone who's willing to put their life on the line defending us and killing jihadis deserves our thanks and support. He acknowledged that O'Donnell's anti-masturbation view is "pretty kooky." But he made a good point: What are the people who fret about this worried about — that she'll try to outlaw masturbation? Come on!
O'Donnell's other "baggage" appears to be entirely financial — she apparently went through a rough patch during which she failed to pay some taxes and mortgage payments, and she fell way behind in paying her student loans. Well, that sounds not all that different from about half of Obama's cabinet and countless members of Congress. If anything, her financial issues sound more innocent and less calculated.
No, she's not an ideal, perfect candidate. But her opponent's extreme leftist/quasi-Marxist views make him less than perfect, too, even to the average centrist. It's not at all obvious that she's unelectable — or should be. She's articulate, personable, and intelligent (judging from an interview I saw), and she is clearly and unequivocally focusing her campaign on fiscal/economic issues, and from my perspective she's 100% on those.
I think I'll help her get to the $2 million mark. I suspect she'll get there pretty quickly, with Rush Limbaugh encouraging contributions to her campaign.
Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: elections, gop, republicans, tea party | 5 Comments »
Posted by Richard on September 17, 2010
I saw a Nancy Pelosi soundbite tonight in which she claimed that Republicans were blocking a "tax cut for the middle class" unless Congress also enacts a "tax cut for the wealthiest Americans." I believe it was Orwell who said that if you let your opponent control the language and define the terms, you'll lose the debate. We're not arguing about cutting anyone's taxes.
The phrase "Bush tax cuts" gets over 10 million hits on Google. I use it myself all the time. But it has distorted the debate, and it's time to reclaim the language. What's on the table is whether tax rates go up or not — not whether they go down.
The Tax Foundation has a nice explanation of why the Bush tax cuts (there I go again) are expiring:
During the legislative fight over tax cuts in 2001, Senate Republicans could not predict with certainty that they would reach the 60-vote threshold of support that would have enabled them to make the tax cuts permanent. As a result, when Congress passed the first of many tax cuts during the last decade in May 2001, it passed it as a reconciliation bill which needs only 51 votes. That was the so-called Bush tax cut, formally known as the Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act (EGTRRA, pronounced egg-tray).
Reconciliation was devised in 1974 as a way to for the Senate to deal more effectively with budget bills, but it soon became a technique to limit amendments and debate. In 1985, the Senate added the so-called Byrd rule to reconciliation. Named after Senator Robert Byrd, the rule forbids a bill passed under reconciliation from, among other things, altering federal revenue for more than 10 years. Any senator may object that a provision violates that stricture, and if the presiding officer agrees, a vote of 60 senators is required to overturn the ruling.
…
Overall, 62 senators supported H.R. 1836 as amended by the Senate, thereby sending it to conference. In the end, 58 senators voted in favor of the conference report. Nevertheless, because the bill was passed under reconciliation, revenues further than 10 years in the future could not be changed. And so, on December 31, 2010, all of EGTRRA will expire and revert to 2001 law.
The 2003 tax cuts mostly accelerated the original tax cuts, but also put in place new tax cuts for dividends and capital gains. The 2003 tax cut, known as the Jobs and Growth Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2003 (JGTRRA) was also passed under reconciliation.
So, in a nutshell, here's what happened: In 2001 (and again in 2003), Congress voted to cut tax rates through 2010 and to raise them again in 2011. Republicans, Libertarians, Tea Party members, most economists, and the majority of likely voters are calling on Congress to rescind the 2011 tax increase and leave tax rates as they are today. That's not a tax cut. That's simply maintaining the status quo.
Believe me, I'm all for really cutting taxes. What the President keeps bragging about doesn't count — those aren't tax rate cuts, they're targeted tax credits with two purposes: behavior modification and rewarding his allies.
But for right now, the subject being debated is whether to allow the largest tax increase in history to take effect on January 1, at a time when unemployment is at near-historic levels and most businesses large and small are already afraid to invest in the future and hire new employees. The subject being debated is whether to administer a potent poison to an economy that's already extremely ill.
So let's quit talking about "extending the Bush tax cuts" and use more accurate language: we want to stop the tax increases.
Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: congress, politics, taxes | Leave a Comment »
Posted by Richard on September 15, 2010
It's not just shaping up to be a bad year for Democrats. It's also a bad year for Republicans who are indistinguishable from Democrats. In a stunning upset in Delaware, an unknown and somewhat flawed Tea Party candidate, Christine O'Donnell, came out of nowhere to defeat establishment-backed Rep. Mike Castle 53-47% for the Republican Senate nomination.
Castle is arguably the most liberal Republican in the House. He backed "cap-and-tax," supports gun control, flip-flopped about four times on Obamacare, and in 2008, voted for Dennis Kucinich's H.R. 1258 to impeach George W. Bush. Nevertheless, he had the full support of the GOP establishment because "he can win." They didn't care how he'd vote on taxes, spending, regulation, gun control, and energy, as long as he helped them regain their committee chairmanships. Asshats.
In New York, Tea Party candidate Carl Paladino crushed establishment-backed former Rep. Rick Lazio 63-37% in the GOP gubernatorial primary. And in New Hampshire, Tea Party candidate Ovide Lamontagne has a slim lead over the establishment-backed favorite, Kelly Ayotte, for the GOP senate nomination.
So, after the victories of Marco Rubio, Rand Paul, Pat Toomey, Sharon Angle, Mike Lee, Joe Miller, and others, is the GOP leadership feeling chastened and getting the message? Not exactly. The Republican Senatorial Campaign Committee has already decided not to support Christine O'Donnell in the general election. Because "she can't win." Mind you, these are the same people who poured vast resources into the Castle campaign and claimed that O'Donnell had no chance in the primary. The grass roots have changed, but at the top, it's still the Stupid Party.
Never mind what the NRSC does. As a Libertarian, I've never donated to the GOP or its campaign committees, but I've supported plenty of specific Republican candidates via the Club for Growth and groups like the Tea Party Express. From what I've read, lots of former GOP donors must be doing likewise, because donations to the GOP campaign committees are lagging even as support for GOP candidates is surging.
One of the most significant stats coming out of this year's primaries is this (emphasis added):
Of the 30 million ballots cast in 2010 for statewide offices before Sept. 1, more than 17 million were in Republican races, while fewer than 13 million were for Democrats—the first time since 1930 that GOP voters outnumbered Democrats in midterm, statewide primaries, according to an analysis from American University's Center for the Study of the American Electorate.
The Republican base is energized, as many pundits have noted. But it's not because of the Republican leadership, that's for sure. If that energy level translates into a transformational election this November, hopefully there will be some major changes in that leadership.
UPDATE: It didn't take long for the pragmatists in the Republican leadership to read the tea leaves, check their email, and realize they'd better "adjust" their positions. NRSC chair John Cornyn has pledged that they'll fully support Christine O'Donnell and backed it up with a check. RNC chair Michael Steele has weighed in even more forcefully in support of O'Donnell. (I still like Steele. I think his heart is in the right place, even if his head isn't always screwed on tight and his management skills are somewhat suspect.)
Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: elections, gop, republicans, tea party | 4 Comments »
Posted by Richard on September 14, 2010
Here's a factoid I almost missed, and maybe you did too: In the first 19 months of the Obama presidency, the US government's publicly-held debt increased by more than it did under all presidents from George Washington through Ronald Reagan (emphasis added):
The U.S. Treasury Department divides the federal debt into two categories. One is “debt held by the public,” which includes U.S. government securities owned by individuals, corporations, state or local governments, foreign governments and other entities outside the federal government itself. The other is “intragovernmental” debt, which includes I.O.U.s the federal government gives to itself when, for example, the Treasury borrows money out of the Social Security “trust fund” to pay for expenses other than Social Security.
At the end of fiscal year 1989, which ended eight months after President Reagan left office, the total federal debt held by the public was $2.1907 trillion, according to the Congressional Budget Office. That means all U.S. presidents from George Washington through Ronald Reagan had accumulated only that much publicly held debt on behalf of American taxpayers. That is $335.3 billion less than the $2.5260 trillion that was added to the federal debt held by the public just between Jan. 20, 2009, when President Obama was inaugurated, and Aug. 20, 2010, the 19-month anniversary of Obama's inauguration.
Lots of change. Not much hope.
Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: big government, debt, fiscal policy, obama, spending | 2 Comments »
Posted by Richard on September 14, 2010
On ABC's "Face the Nation" this past Sunday, House minority leader John Boehner (SR-OH) totally screwed up on the issue of the impending tax increases, which was shaping up as a big winner for the Republicans. This kind of unforced error is why some of us call his party the Stupid Party, and it reminded me of why I wanted the Republicans to choose Pence over Boehner as minority leader back in 2006.
Here's what Boehner should have said:
"The President doesn't need any Republican votes for his plan to increase taxes on the job creators and small businesses of America. The Democrats have a commanding majority in the House, and there is no filibuster or other procedural mechanism by which we Republicans can prevent the Democrats from passing whatever bill they want.
"The President wants Republicans to abandon their opposition to a tax increase in order to pressure the more responsible members of his own party. Growing numbers of them are disturbed by his class-warfare rhetoric and rightly fear that a tax increase in the midst of a deep recession, while appealing to his far-left base, would do serious harm to this country. Neither I nor any other Republican will help him with his ill-considered, dangerous plan."
That wasn't so hard, was it? If a humble blogger out in flyover country can come up with that answer, why can't the big-shot politico who's supposed to be providing leadership for the party that purports to be for lower taxes, limited government, and fiscal responsibility?
I'm not a big fan of Sen. Mitch McConnell, but he gets a big shout-out from me this time for attempting to counter the harm done by the bone-headed Boehner:
Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (Ky.) said on the Senate floor today that he is introducing legislation "that ensures that no one in this country will pay higher income taxes next year than they are right now."
On the Senate floor today, McConnell said, "Only in Washington could someone propose a tax hike as an antidote to a recession."
If the anti-Democrat tsunami that many are predicting actually takes place (which probably depends on idiot Republicans like Boehner not snatching defeat from the jaws of victory — not a safe bet by any means) and the GOP takes control of the House, I sure hope there's a clean sweep of the leadership. Mike Pence for Speaker of the House!
Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: boehner, congress, politics, taxes | Leave a Comment »
Posted by Richard on September 11, 2010
Nine years ago this morning, we watched in horror as people jumped a thousand feet to their deaths because it was better than the alternative. Later that day, we learned that the heroic passengers of United Flight 93, knowing the fate that awaited them, had fought and died to prevent their plane from crashing into the White House or Capitol. In the ensuing days, we learned the details of that brave struggle, and "Let's roll!" became a phrase that brought goosebumps to me whenever I heard it.
Last night, I watched a compelling one-hour retrospective by Fox News that refreshed my memories of that day. It will be shown again later today (see my previous post), and I'll watch it again, and this time record it. It refreshed my memory in disturbing, but valuable, ways. No, those weren't bodies falling from the towers — they were living human beings with their arms and legs flailing as they fell. It's important, I think, that these details remain clear.
We must not let ourselves forget the events of September 11, 2001. We must keep the images fresh in our memories. It's necessary, I believe, if we're to retain the resolve we need to understand, oppose, and defeat the ongoing Islamofascist effort to destroy our way of life, of which the attacks of 9/11 were a part.
I have nothing more to add to last year's 9/11 post, so with one minor edit, it appears again below.
Never forget that there is a large, powerful, well-financed international movement dedicated to destroying Western Civilization.
On September 11, 2001, barbarians with box cutters — primitive 7th-century savages who could never build a World Trade Center or a 747, but whose insane ideology is dedicated to making the building of such things impossible — murdered 2,996 innocent people and changed Lower Manhattan from this:
to this:
Some people have forgotten now
It was many years ago
And peaceful here at home since then
So just let the memory go
But I close my eyes and see it still
Like it was yesterday — Oh no!
People jumping from a hundred-story building!
I can still see those Americans
Jumping from a hundred-story building …
© 2009 Richard G. Combs. All rights reserved.
As I have on previous September 11ths, I offer you passage from Gerard Van der Leun's Of a Fire in a Field — a passage that moves me beyond words every time I read it — in which he recalled 9/11 and its aftermath, when he lived in New York:
Inside the wire under the hole in the sky was, in time, a growing hole in the ground as the rubble was cleared away and, after many months, the last fire was put out. Often at first, but with slowly diminishing frequency, all the work to clear out the rubble and the wreckage would come to a halt.
The machinery would be shut down and it would become quiet. Across the site, tools would be laid down and the workers would straighten up and stand still. Then, from somewhere in the pile or the pit, a group of men would emerge carrying a stretcher covered with an American flag and holding, if they were fortunate, a body. If they were not so fortunate the flag covering over the stretcher would be lumpy, holding only portions of a body from which, across the river on the Jersey shore, a forensic lab would try to make an identification and then pass on to the victim's survivors something that they could bury.
I'm not sure anymore about the final count, but I am pretty sure that most families, in the end, got nothing. Their loved ones had all gone into the smoke and the dust that covered the end of the island and blew, mostly, across the river into Brooklyn where I lived. What happened to most of the three thousand killed by the animals on that day? It is simple and ghastly. We breathed them until the rains came and washed clean what would never be clean again.
. . .
Read the whole thing — and think about the question he asks you at the end.
And never forget.
Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: 911, al qaeda, barbarism, heroism, islamofascism, new york, terrorism, war, world trade center, wtc | Leave a Comment »
Posted by Richard on September 9, 2010
Thirty minutes of kick-ass rock 'n roll: Saving Abel entertaining the troops in Kuwait, courtesy of the new RightNetwork. Which, at a young age, already seems to have quite a bit of interesting content, including a video and column by Kelsey Grammer. And which may be available on demand on your TV (for instance, if you have Verizon FiOS, you lucky dog) — if not now, maybe soon.
Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: entertainment, music, rock, television | Leave a Comment »
Posted by Richard on August 28, 2010
The Independence Institute has succeeded in placing the Right to Health Care Choice Initiative on the ballot as Amendment 63. It's similar to Missouri's Healthcare Freedom Act, which passed earlier this month with over 71% of the vote:
If passed by Colorado voters in November, the “Right to Health Care Choice” citizens amendment would accomplish two hugely important steps to protect Coloradans from the ongoing takeover of health care by government, and to make Colorado a “sanctuary state” for quality health care. The “Right to Health Care Choice” amendment would:
Write into the Colorado Constitution that the State of Colorado cannot force its citizens to purchase a public or private health insurance product, either on its own, or on behalf of the federal government. In other words, Colorado would not be able to implement a Massachusetts-style insurance mandate (otherwise know as Romney Care).
The amendment would also constitutionally protect fee-for-service health care by ensuring the right to pay out of pocket for health care services and products if you so choose. This means even if Colorado were to implement a single payer heath care system, you would be free to engage in voluntary exchange with a health care provider outside the system.
I predict Colorado voters will approve this by a big margin. And I'll certainly do what I can to help make that happen. You can help, too.
Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: colorado, freedom, health care | Leave a Comment »
Posted by Richard on August 26, 2010
Ever since 9/12/01, the Islamists at CAIR and their "useful idiots" in the MSM and among the intelligentsia have been peddling dire warnings that rampant Islamophobia was about to unleash a wave of violence against peaceful Muslims in America. So they no doubt were gearing up the PR machine about Islamophobia again after a Muslim cab driver in New York was stabbed in what police called a "hate crime."
Well, it's certainly possible that this was a hate crime committed by some violent whacko who hates Muslims. There are such people (although far, far fewer than CAIR and its enablers would have you believe).
But based on Ben Smith's report, it's also quite possible that this was a false flag attack intended to discredit the opponents of the Ground Zero mosque and engender sympathy and a backlash in support of Muslims. The allegedly Islamophobic perpetrator of the attack, Michael Enright, appears to be a young lefty who works for a "left-leaning media organization" called Intersections International, which is described as a "global initiative dedicated to promoting justice, reconciliation and peace across lines of faith, culture, ideology, race, class, national borders and other boundaries that divide humanity." And which supports the Ground Zero mosque.
That doesn't prove he's not the Muslim-hating drunken whack-job that he appears to be. But it does make you wonder…
Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: false flag, hate crime, islamophobia, new york, violence | 1 Comment »
Posted by Richard on August 26, 2010
I awake from my recent hibernation to shout "whoohoo!" at the stupendous Alaska Senate primary result. It's not official yet, due to absentee ballots, but it looks like unknown challenger Joe Miller has defeated incumbent Republican (in name only) Lisa Murkowski. Murkowski, of course, had the entire GOP establishment firmly behind her, despite her atrocious record (she supported cap-and-tax and all the bailout and porkulus packages, for starters).
In June, Murkowski had an "insurmountable" 35-point lead in the polls. Then Sarah Palin endorsed Joe Miller and the Tea Party Express began running ads for him (I helped fund those ads). Murkowski's lead began shrinking precipitously, but it was still 10 points a week or so before the election. Final tally (minus absentee ballots): Miller 50.9%, Murkowski 49.1%. I repeat, "whoohoo!"
Jim Treacher took delight in pointing out that Slate's Alexandra Gutierrez (among others) ended up embarrassing herself with her election eve story predicting an "embarrassing defeat" for Palin and the Tea Party Express when Murkowski "trounced" Miller. That turned out not to be reporting or analysis, but wishful thinking.
Whoohoo!
UPDATE (8/27): Another RINO who doesn't want to accept a "No" from the voters. Check out the latest in the comments.
Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: alaska, palin, republicans, rinos, tea party | 3 Comments »
Posted by Richard on August 17, 2010
I missed this J.E. Dyer column at Hot Air last week, and I wasn't aware that New York authorities have blocked a Greek Orthodox church near Ground Zero. It doesn't seem to have been widely reported or commented on.
Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a Comment »
